An Argument for an Armed Citizenry

[sgser]

This topic might have been posted already but the reference below addresses the issue of citizen carry.

Go To http://powerlineblog.com/print.html and scroll down to: An Argument for an Armed Citizenry.

This is a commentary by one of the three lawyers who write the Powerline blog. It points out, in no uncertain terms, the importance of being able to carry a gun and why businesses that ban guns should not do so.

[schr8er2000]

How true.. even ONE person with a firearm could have prevented injury to the poor man trying to defend his daughter against this SCUM.....

[US Militiaman]

It's stories like this that p_ss me off...some father just trying to defend his daughter. Everyone is against guns and for gun control (even businesses), and people that open carry are stared at, until the sh_t hits the fan, and then they are the most sought out person because they were prepared.

Many people consider a firearm something that should only be carried IF and WHEN there is going to be a problem...one should only have it in situations like this (but not at the fair...tell me how that works)...if only it was that easy to tell...

[headcase]

The government wants it's citizens unarmed, it is that simple. Armed citizens present a danger to the government and they also don't need to depend on the government to protect them, both situations can not be tolerated......

[dc dalton]

Well just another example of what I have ranted about more than once here! I guess its time to turn on the rant flags again:

<rant>

We have a group of scumbags that feel they have the power to do anything and anything they want, even in an open crowd that includes 'security officers', a gang of lowlifes that think it is fun to assault a young woman in front of her family and then when challenged decide it would be more fun to stomp the father that tries to protect his young daughter and in my opinion a gang of dirtballs that don't need prison, they need to be very VERY dead!

I was thinking about something yesterday, don't know why it popped into my head but it did. We all (US citizens) talk about 'rights' and how our entire country is built on rights but we (they) ignore what is more than likely the most 'primal' right on this planet, the right to protect your young from assault, attack or death. Who would argue that a mother bear doesn't have the right to protect her cubs from an attack by a pack of wolves? Would ANY human deny that right? NOPE! Hell even the people from PETA would say that was a 'natural' right of nature but you ask those same people if a mother or father had the right to protect their children by using a firearm the response would be the exact opposite! So how is this 'natural' right of protecting your family any different than the mother bear protecting her cubs? Plain and simple it isn't but those that would say it is say it is because we (humans) are intelligent and civilized, a VERY debatable fact in this case!

So how civilized are these roving gangs of scum? Haven't they returned to the laws of the wolf pack, hunting defenseless and hurt animals? THEY have reverted back to the 'law of the jungle' (no racial pun intended), THEY have adopted the methods of the wolf pack except for these lowlifes the method of the wolf pack is not for survival, it is to instill terror in their victims and gain control over peoples lives, even if only for a moment. It is a reversal in evolution in many many ways and the only way to stop it is to once again hunt down the packs and eliminate them from existence.

Now before anyone throws a hissy fit about the line 'hunt them down' I do not mean go out looking for them! What I mean is that if the 'wolf pack' mentality exists then those who would be targets of the wolf pack should be able to defend themselves and truly be able to 'even up the odds'. Just one concerned citizen with a weapon could have stopped this tragedy from happening, if nothing else they could have been able to stop it from elevating to the horrible point it got to.

And several things about the story REALLY bother me:

1st how many people witnessed this and why the HELL didn't every decent citizen go after these 9 scumbags and beat them half to death? How in the HELL have people become so complacent that they could sit and watch someone being stomped like that? Where in the hell has common decency and helping out someone in need gone? Had I been in the crowd, armed or not, I would have been there in a flash attempting to help this family.

2nd: WTF is this shit?

Initially, the local media downplayed the story, presumably because of the race of the criminals.

What we can't report on a crime now because the attackers were black? A lowlife criminal is a lowlife criminal and I don't give two shits what god damned color their skin is! Has political correctness gone this far that now the newspapers don't report a crime this horrible because they see it as potentially racial? Give me a fucking break .... these scum are the dregs of the earth and as far as I'm concerned a plague on the human species that needs to be wiped off the planet.

And the part that REALLY pisses me of are these two lines:

The father is still hospitalized, but the criminals are out on bail

and

The family's name is being kept secret, lest the criminals find them and kill them to avoid prosecution

.

Once again, an innocent person is fighting for his life while these lowlifes are turned lose to walk the streets all while the family has to live in fear they will be targeted by the gang so they can't testify .. how many other lives will they destroy before these vermin are removed from society?

Tell you what, had I been there armed there would have been a lot less lowlifes on the street today and the law could have screwed with me all they wanted for pulling my weapon and firing at least 8 times ... they could have put me in jail and I wouldn't have given two shits because at least I could sleep at night knowing there are other lives out there that wouldn't have been destroyed by these scumbags.

</rant>

[jcabin]

Tell you what, had I been there armed there would have been a lot less lowlifes on the street today and the law could have screwed with me all they wanted for pulling my weapon and firing at least 8 times ... they could have put me in jail and I wouldn't have given two shits because at least I could sleep at night knowing there are other lives out there that wouldn't have been destroyed by these scumbags.

+1, I'm confident under these circumstances, 1 man vs 8 or 9 thugs stomping him on the ground, when he was trying to protect his young daughter from being gang raped and possibly murdered, the use of a handgun would be justified.

[knighthawk06699]

Would have been very well a justified draw and shoot. 8 on 1 is for sure a life threatening situation!! What would have been great is if Mom would have been carrying, nothing like a mother's wrath when defending her children. What makes me truly sick is these assholes molest a 12 year old girl damn near kill a man and they are fucking out on bail, even before the man they damn near killed is out of the hospital. They say there is no reason to carry a gun, I say this is the very reason I carry a gun!!

[sgser]

I agree that these psychopaths should be rounded up and something done to them. Lobotomies,at the very least.

But, I brought this to your attention because of the position taken by the writer of this commentary. That being:

The story is an infuriating one in several ways, but what strikes me most forcibly is that it would have been a good thing if a few armed citizens had happened by while the assault was in progress. It's no surprise that the victim's wife and daughters couldn't protect him from eight "men," and apparently Valleyfair's security force is unarmed. So the optimal outcome here would have been for one or more normal citizens to pull a firearm, shoot a couple of the criminals, and hold the rest until the police arrived. Criminals who carry out outrageous assaults in public do so on the assumption that passersby will not be able to stop them. Absent firearms, that assumption is reasonable. So let's hear it for concealed carry.

Under Minnesota law, any business can ban guns on its premises, and, while a few minutes of research yielded nothing, I assume that Valleyfair bans guns, as most businesses that are open to the public do. This strikes me as a mistake. Against a gang such as the one that is now on the loose in the Twin Cities, only armed citizens can be effective.

Powerline blog is written by three nationally know lawyers whose blog gained prominence when the Swift Boat issue was made public by them. Generally they provide thoughtful commentary and the one above gives you an idea of where they stand on issues that matter to many of us. And, like our own lawyers in this forum, they cut through stupidity like a hot knife through butter.

An ongoing issue in this forum is businesses banning guns. This article points out how we all are in danger without the ability to protect ourselves.

I agree with Headcase but can't understand why that would be so.

[gf45acp]

I do not believe that I could stand by and watch something like this. There are times that one must act.
Say it with your money, if a business doesn't want your gun don't give them your money.

[headcase]

I agree that these psychopaths should be rounded up and something done to them. Lobotomies,at the very least.

But, I brought this to your attention because of the position taken by the writer of this commentary. That being:

The story is an infuriating one in several ways, but what strikes me most forcibly is that it would have been a good thing if a few armed citizens had happened by while the assault was in progress. It's no surprise that the victim's wife and daughters couldn't protect him from eight "men," and apparently Valleyfair's security force is unarmed. So the optimal outcome here would have been for one or more normal citizens to pull a firearm, shoot a couple of the criminals, and hold the rest until the police arrived. Criminals who carry out outrageous assaults in public do so on the assumption that passersby will not be able to stop them. Absent firearms, that assumption is reasonable. So let's hear it for concealed carry.

Under Minnesota law, any business can ban guns on its premises, and, while a few minutes of research yielded nothing, I assume that Valleyfair bans guns, as most businesses that are open to the public do. This strikes me as a mistake. Against a gang such as the one that is now on the loose in the Twin Cities, only armed citizens can be effective.

Powerline blog is written by three nationally know lawyers whose blog gained prominence when the Swift Boat issue was made public by them. Generally they provide thoughtful commentary and the one above gives you an idea of where they stand on issues that matter to many of us. And, like our own lawyers in this forum, they cut through stupidity like a hot knife through butter.

An ongoing issue in this forum is businesses banning guns. This article points out how we all are in danger without the ability to protect ourselves.

I agree with Headcase but can't understand why that would be so.

I will tell you the reason. The government is composed of people who suddenly find themselves part of an elite class, overnight. There are some who still go about their business all doe eyed and full of piss and vinegar, but they are a small minority. The longer you are in a position of power, the longer you want to stay in a position of power. There is money to be made from controlling a population, and whether or not people are currently in a position of governmental power, they can buy what they need to ensure the people are only as free as they want them to be. Citizens have allowed this to reach an almost unassailable position, by buying into every restriction they placed willingly upon their own necks, under the auspices of "public safety". The correct term is "public control". Armed citizens generally don't buy into this spiel. They also do not need to look to the government for protection. This removes the yoke from their neck, and that, my friend, is bad for business if you are accustomed to having people do as your commercials suggest they should......