Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The left's hate for self defense.

Everywhere we go in the body politics, we see the left undermining everything American. We're an evil nation, we torture like what the enemy does is warm and fuzzy and not members of the Geneva Conventions, we're imperialistic, we promote death, hate and depots, we're racist, just fill in the blank. When was the last time a liberal said anything positive about America? They didn't even say anything positives when BO got elected. They stated he got elected in spite of America. Seems libs have no regards for Americans except themselves. The rest of us can be damned.

What got me on this rant? It's an article that's assaulting the 2nd Amendment. It was about how "Justifiable Homicide" was skewing how evil guns are because they're not included with the murder stats. The left wants to be the only people with guns. They think they're the only ones good enough and discipline enough to use them righteously. They want those murder stats to be as high and horrific as possible to make their case that people are just too evil and violent (never mind they're the one's often arguing that the nature of man is good except Conservatives). The article gave 4 example of how a cold blooded murder happened but the evil police sided with the killer and called it "Justifiable Homicide" and didn't count on the tally of the out of control gun violence that these machines cause people to hate life and take it.

What I noticed is three of the four case were of direct self defense. I'm still confused what the point was unless that self defense is murder of the attempted murder. Two of the cases has to do with what I thought feminists, or feminazi's as I call them, would be all up in arms in support of: domestic violence. In Florida, where conceal permits are legal for all citizens that have no criminal record or record of mental issues, the claim of domestic violence is higher than most as far as the use of a gun is involved. I often wonder why this argument isn't used by the left to promote their anti-gun propaganda. Then I found out way, most of them are women defending against their abusive men. So, no outrage. So when this leftist newspaper here made this their claim, I found it to be hyprocitical of them. I guess anything to promote the cause.

The third had been shot at by some gang members trying to murder a family, so they fired back killing one of the gang members. So some thugs break in a house, start shooting, and the person doing the shooting back is considered wrong by these people? Like killing a murderous thug bent on your death is immoral. The article did state this that it's immoral to kill even if someone is trying to kill you so the shooter should had been booked for murder. I know in the Bible you are allow the right to self defense, but in the liberal minds, the murder has just as much right, if not more, to life as the person he's trying to murder. How this this writer get so fuzzy on this issue? We have the right under the law to self defense if we're attacked. I guess when the 2nd Amendment is at stake, the rules change.

The last one is the only one where I thought the writer had a point. A gang did a drive by shooting up a house that fortunately missed everyone inside. However the police wasn't able to do anything since nobody cooperate about who did the shooting and word got out they were going to come back and do it right this time. The victim went to the gang member's house and shot him first putting an end to the threat. This man went down and hunted down the perpetrator and saw to it that he killed him first. The police, knowing that his man was threatening the victim and knew that he would go through with it but lacking the necessary evidence to arrest him, found the shooter in this case to have justifiable reasons. Some thought it was a cold blooded killing. The community with their code of silence made this no win situation for both side. So long as communities are going to let gangs run things, then they are going to be responsible for the consequences. This situation can only escalate because the victim's homeys are going to seek retaliation and nobody is going to do anything to stop it. However, to use this against guns and not the hip hoppers that these thugs worship with their motto of snitches end up with stitches in the ditches that promote this code of silence, we're going to be fighting the wrong battles.

In the end, the left, other than themselves, don't want the word out how guns are effective for self defense and often are used to for defense. We don't know if we're throwing the baby out with the bath water because the numbers either aren't kept on those shootings of self defense, or is lumped up with all gun deaths. If one is going to make an argument for their case, one needs to have data to back it up. However, with the stat methods we're using today, those facts are going to be difficult at best, specious at worse. However, as this article has made clear, the left doesn't want us to have the right to self defense. One needs to ask the question as to why? The argument of protecting life from a needless death is incomplete at best because of the lack of consideration for those done in self defense which they don't seem to believe in. On that basis alone, the left should concern anyone that is fighting to preserve life.


Left Coast Rebel said...

Great points here. I think back to many stories of the 'limousine liberal' types and the fact that they support strict gun control and don't want citizens to own firearms, yet they have personal, armed bodyguards. Diane Feinstein comes to mind on this.......

madmath1 said...

Yes, and I remember her response when we had a media that asked her why does she need a gun while the rest of SF doesn't. Her response: for self defense. They don't want us to have a means to fight back at criminals. No surprise since they don't want us to have a defense against North Korea or Iran who have even BIGGER guns.