Comments on: Truths about the police and gun control

By: Carlos

Carlos — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 17:25:30 +0000

Yeah, she probably lives in one of the white ghettos of Boston, right? Where she can “keep in touch with the people” and know exactly how “the people” feel about all the issues.

(Hint, Zach: She spends her entire life in an echo chamber.)

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:27:27 +0000

Drew the Infidel: She lives in MA Sorry, you are correct.

By: Drew the Infidel

Drew the Infidel — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 01:36:14 +0000

@Zachariel–Wrong, keyboard commando. She lives in MA with another lap licker.

By: Polly

Polly — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:11:07 +0000

As Ronald Reagan said; “There you go again.”

Liberals response to mass shootings is always the same. “Take away the guns from those who didn’t shoot.”

By: Carlos

Carlos — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:18:01 +0000

Yep, Kaiser, and what happens after the first two or three times a whack job indiscriminately kills a dozen or more kids on the playground outside? Or opens fire on the kids as they leave the school? Or any of a dozen other scenarios?

BTW, I agree that such measures could and should be installed, but to think the shootings will disappear is to feed the unicorns out in the fields. Such whackos as the Sandy Hook shooter will always find their targets if they are determined to. The only surefire response HAS to be an armed citizenry.

By: CaMom

CaMom — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:14:21 +0000

My husband has been around guns his entire life. Was taught to respect guns, how to safely store and operate guns. His family were avid hunters… When he was able, he taught gun safety classes… Each and every one of our 5 children can safely handle a gun, and have been able to do that since they were about 10 years old.

We live in a fairly rural area – it would take law enforcement quite some time to come out if called. I feel very safe, knowing that we have a means of protecting ourselves and our family in case of an intruder – No, we might not ‘shoot to kill’ if someone came in our front door, but we’d most definitely be able to hold him until law enforcement showed up -

By: Kaiser Norton

Kaiser Norton — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:40:08 +0000

If you want to stop school shootings, security is the answer. Every courtroom, law enforcement center, etc., has a security checkpoint you have to cross in order to enter, along with a metal detector (at minimum). And think of our airports. Are our judges, cops, and politicians more important than our kids?

One entrance (all others locked,allowing only emergency egress). Metal detectors. Armed guards. EVERY school. Doesn’t matter if you are a soccer mom or President, you go through the routine. School shootings will drop off the radar…..

By: Zachriel

Zachriel — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:30:37 +0000

Dana: Does she live in Harlem, or maybe some of the not-so-nice sections of the Bronx or Brooklyn, or is she safely ensconced in a Manhattan high-rise, with an armed guard to keep her safe?

Maddow lives in a small, middle-class, ethnically mixed town in the Bay Area of California.

By: Kate

Kate — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:00:05 +0000

Delusion and denial. That’s Rachel Maddow’s address! Most liberals want to just forget that there is evil in the world and that no law known to mankind has been able to infringe on the pouring out of such evil on innocent bystanders.

They also want to forget how the sanctity of human life has been demeaned, making life an option for some and rationalizing away its devastating effects on our culture overall.

They also want to deny that as a civil society we are culpable for what we purvey as pleasure and entertainment..i.e. violence in movies, TV shows and video games. The outcomes of such consumption have taken route and we are seeing more and more senseless violence.

What seems to be missing is the fact that Liberal Media Types have decided that selfish desires are what get honored over moral convictions, and when we see this taken to the extreme, they don’t know how to handle it. They seem to think manipulating laws is the answer…which is not treating the disease just treating the symptoms.

By: Dana

Dana — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:56:06 +0000

Of course, not all of our friends on the left have quite the same hypocricy as did gun control advocate Carl Rowan, the late Washington Post columnist who advocated “A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel),” but had a handgun of his own (which was completely against the law in Washington DC at the time), with which he shot a teenaged boy swimming in his pool.

No, indeed they don’t. Instead some of our wealthier liberal friends don’t own firearms at all, but instead live in gated communities or secured high-rises, hiring working-class people like George Zimmerman to keep out riff-raff like Trayvon Martin, and then becoming just aghast when he does the job for which he was hired, but it doesn’t all go neatly.

When someone like Rachel Maddow goes off on a wild tirade against the right to keep and bear arms, my question is: where does she live? Does she live in Harlem, or maybe some of the not-so-nice sections of the Bronx or Brooklyn, or is she safely ensconced in a Manhattan high-rise, with an armed guard to keep her safe?

By: Dana

Dana — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:51:37 +0000

In the movie 1776, John Callum, playing the role of South Carolina’s delegate to the Continental Congress, Edward Rutledge, accused what he called “our northern brethren" of “hy-poc-cracy,” in a long, drawn out pronunciation, and I wish that I could replicate it here, because hypocracy is exactly what I see from the advocates of gun control. They want to attack the rights of law-abiding Americans because they don’t want to deal with the real problem, the problem of rampant crime, because to deal with that, honestly, is to admit the culpability of liberal social policies of the trashing of marriage, the removal of responsibility for sex, rampant illegitimacy and single parenthood, a welfare system which allows generational dependence, ignoring drug use, an entitlement culture, and the complete abdication of anything referring to personal responsibility. Instead, they have to blame the guns . . . because, in our no-fault society, they are unwilling to do anything really radical like blame rotten parents for having rotten children. Instead, they have to blame an inanimate object, because they are unwilling as to do something as impolitic as telling the truth about the effects of their social policies on our society.

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:54:06 +0000

The argument for an armed citizenry is fairly simple: An open society faces threats of a diffuse and unpredictable nature. A diffuse threat can only be met with a diffuse defense: an armed and ready people. This argument is so straightforward that the only way to counter it is to drown it out with hysteria…which, of course, is why the Left, hysteria’s best friend, purely loves mass homicides such as Aurora, Columbine, and Newtown.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:50:44 +0000

OK, so all guns are banned, then what?

Maybe the enterprising criminal starts buying guns from criminal alien thugs that bring F&F guns back over the border? Or maybe the criminal steals guns from those who have been allowed to keep their guns “for protection” (are you listening, Dianne?)?

But if a whack job is really determined to use a firearm, it only takes a modicum of intelligence to make one’s own firearm. Sure, it may be crude, but it will still be lethal.

Ya see, Mr President, sir, and Mr. Brady, sir, as noted in the above article there really is no way to keep guns out of the hands of people who wish others harm. Heck, my guess is that at least 25% of the National Guard armories are missing firearms over the past 25 years, and untold military armories, the same.

Therefore, the only answer, as long as there are criminals determined to use firearms (which will be forever), is to keep those self-same criminals guessing about which of the innocent bystanders is going to pull a gun and end their visions of infamous notoriety.

By: Drew the Infidel

Drew the Infidel — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 02:24:21 +0000

There has been much talk of having a “national conversation” and a “discussion” about gun control in recent days due to unrestrained emotionalism over the tragedy in CT. A conversation is defined as “an informal spoken exchange of thoughts and feelings” while a discussion is an “earnest conversation”. To the left this means they will do all the talking and everybody else just STFU and acquiesce.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:49:48 +0000

But you need to understand: They are very much aware of this. And they do not care. These people want to make themselves up as being smarter than everyone else, but they are in fact dumber than everyone else.