Gun Nuts on Parade 6
I will preface this by saying I have a gun and, when I’m in practice, I’m a pretty damned good shot. Guns don’t scare me, but gun nuts do, because they don’t just like guns, they idolize them. And that’s just plain spooky.
From U. S. Newswire, from a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation (okay, they haven’t fallen as completely off the map as the National Rifle Association, I will grant them that).
More lies. The facts are here:
But it’s typical of what I spoke about here: the Big Lie. And folks who chose not to think critically will, no doubt, buy it.
Consider what the inventer of the Kalashnikov has to say about his invention. This is the stuff the conference is about, not whether some old American guy can go target shooting with his Glock.
“I didn’t put it in the hands of bandits and terrorists and it’s not my fault that it has mushroomed uncontrollably across the globe. Can I be blamed that they consider it the most reliable weapon?” he said.
June 19, 2006 at 8:20 pm
A few months ago a friend invited me on a hunting trip. I told him I am both the second amendment’s biggest supporter and the biggest argument against it.
June 21, 2006 at 10:01 am
Thanks for the comment re Britney.
The real threat against 2nd Amendment rights is the supreme court and judges like Alito and Scalia.
This weeks ruling that the cops don’t have to knock when serving a warrant is very dangerous FOR COPS. Florida and another 10 states have passed “castle” laws, which state that if you someone is trying to enteer your dwelling, and you don’t know who they are or think they may be there to harm you, you have the right to shoot first and ask questions later.
Whether this defense will hold up in the courts is another question, but it certainly WILL lead to dead cops and complications in trials.
June 22, 2006 at 10:38 am
To Opie: Note I was not taking a position on interpretations of the Second Amendment. Rather I was pointing out yet another example of persons who should know better lying about what’s going on in the world to foment hysteria and misunderstanding.
To Brendan: You make a good point about the danger to cops of unannounced entry. I’ve worked with a lot of cops over the years and know that the adrenalin rushes before an entry–anything that makes the entry more dangerous is a bad thing.
Regarding Britney et al, I am somewhat nonplussed by the fact that all it takes to be a celebrity these days (think Paris Hilton) is to be rich,
stupidless than a genius, and–er–indescrete.June 22, 2006 at 7:00 pm
I really dont get either one of you on this point. I’m pretty sure the ruling doesn’t restrict police from knocking – it just gives them discretion to. They know all the local gun ordinances, plus they know that criminals are not always good at following those ordinances. I can’t see where it adds any more danger at all to the job.
June 22, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Well, here’s my take: Most officers do and will continue to conduct themselves with caution and with safety–theirs and the citizenry’s–as their first concern. But there are always cowboys in every profession–in yours, mine, and Brendan’s (whatever it might happen to be).
And the cowboy cops might be willing to take advantage of this ruling to burst in without announcement, most, if not all, the time.
And in those jurisdictions that have “castle” laws, the householder who shoots first may well become a cop-killer because he didn’t stinking know and was not informed that there were cops at the door, so he believed he was within his rights to protect himself from a home invasion.
And then all legal hell breaks loose.
Not to mention moral hell.
At least, that’s how I interpret Brendan’s comments, and to that extent, I find the implications of this ruling disturbing.
June 22, 2006 at 9:15 pm
OK, well if you’re right about the “cowboy cops,” then I suppose after a few unwise no-knock entries the laws of natural selection will kick in.