« First « Previous Comments 1,024 - 1,063 of 1,403 Next » Last » Search these comments
Regardless of how it happens, the fact is before the pharma industry, mass shootings were non-existent.
... The first perpetrator died of the wounds he forced Shockey to inflict. The second is alive at this writing at the hospital, facing a Felony Murder charge since he participated in a felony that led to the death of a human being, in this case his partner-in-crime.
Most cops have seen so much grief inflicted on decent people by violent scum that they are in the forefront of the cheering section when the victim turns the tables on the perpetrator. The sheriff of the county in which the shooting took place, Ben Johnson, offered his support to Robert Shockey according to the Orlando Sentinel.
A spokesman for the Sheriff’s Department, Gary Davidson, said of Shockey, “He is going to get the good citizenship award.”
Yes, brothers and sisters, sometimes there are happy endings on the criminal justice side of things.
The anti-gun crowd weighed in immediately. “Arthur Hayhoe, the executive director of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said this case is ‘a tough call’ for a group that favors strict gun laws,” the Sentinel reported. “He said he won’t ‘second-guess’ a parent defending his son, but Hayhoe is troubled by the second shooting.”
Okay, folks, take a deep breath.
“It’s still a shooting of an unarmed person, and that is always troubling,” Hayhoe then told reporters.
What?
Unsportsmanlike Self Defense?
Darius Bennett, who was damn lucky to survive the cyclone of lethality that he and his accomplice James Franklin Wince brought to the Blockbuster Video store that day, was reaching for a rifle after threatening to commit murder at the time he was shot.
Would Hayhoe and his sister under-the-skin Sarah Brady have had the innocent victim wait until the gun was in the criminal’s hand? Or is waiting until the criminal’s finger is on the trigger the “bright line” test for the anti-gunners? Or should the innocent victim just let himself be shot once or twice to make sure the lawless armed criminal really meant to harm him?
Sorry, America, but it’s clear Arthur Hayhoe and the group he speaks for, Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, just don’t have the first clue.
If any of our people get into a battle of wits with Arthur Hayhoe, they’ll obviously be accused of, “shooting of an unarmed person.”
From that angle how do we know for sure it's not pointing past him? and what is in the room, which direction can it point safely?
So two incidents, and sounds like one was technically not a "shooting spree". How many this past year? How many in the past 10 years? Now compare with the previous 200 years, or back to whenever a gun capable of firing more than one round without reload was invented.
Moving the goaloposts, are we? No, not "just two shooting", rather just two examples. Which is 2x as much as needed to
disprove a point.
Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture is a discredited 2000 book by historian Michael A. Bellesiles about American gun culture, an expansion of a 1996 article he published in the Journal of American History. Bellesiles, then a professor at Emory University, used fabricated research to argue that during the early period of US history, guns were uncommon during peacetime and that a culture of gun ownership did not arise until the mid-nineteenth century.
Although the book was awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize in 2001, it later became the first work for which the prize was rescinded, following a decision of Columbia University's Board of Trustees that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[1]
« First « Previous Comments 1,024 - 1,063 of 1,403 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.