06-20-2006, 10:40 PM
[font "Palatino"][size 5]A .357 Smith & Wesson goes berserk
[/size][/font]Posted: June 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
[font "Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times"]
[font "Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif"]© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com [/font]
This just in: ''An Ohio gun went berserk in a crowded shopping mall, shooting six people before reloading and firing three more shots at fleeing shoppers. The shooting spree ended when the gun's owner tackled and subdued it. The gun's owner had no explanation for his gun's actions. Police have taken the gun, a .357 Smith & Wesson Model 13, into custody and it is locked up in Pete's Pawn Shop awaiting disposition of the case.''
Essentially, that is the liberal case in favor of banning all handguns as a matter of public safety.
''You just can't trust guns.'' ''They can go berserk and start shooting innocent people at any time.'' ''Their owners are innocent bystanders who get seduced by the ‘killer spirit of the gun.'''
It makes as much common sense as banning cars as a measure against drunk driving, but as is often observed, ''sense'' is anything but ''common.''
What does make sense is that armed law-abiding citizens are less vulnerable than the unarmed variety. That is why the Founding Fathers amended the Constitution to include the right to bear arms.
Wrote James Madison in the Federalist Papers, No. 46, the Constitution preserves, ''The advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.''
The right to bear arms was reserved unto the people in order to keep the government honest. An honest government has nothing to fear from an armed law-abiding population.
Wrote Noah Webster in 1787: ''Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.''
The United Nations is meeting in July for what is styled as the ''2006 Small Arms Review.'' The purpose of the conference is to develop an internationally supervised gun-control regime.
[url "http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/"]According to its website[/url], the conference is ''committed to collecting and destroying illegal weapons, adopting and/or improving national legislations that would help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms, regulating the activities of brokers, setting strict import and export controls, taking action against violators of such laws, and better coordinating international efforts to that end.''
What are ''illegal'' weapons? The answer is obvious and troubling. Illegal weapons are whatever the U.N. says they are. Even more troubling, the conference features as its spokesman, under the exalted title of ''United Nations Messenger of Peace'' . . . actor Michael Douglas.
Yeah, that Michael Douglas, whose profundity of thought was captured for posterity and prominently featured on the main page, ''Wherever arms flow, violence follows.''
The message is unmistakable – eliminate arms and you eliminate violence. It's as noble sounding as it is idiotic.
After Hitler disarmed the population after passing the Nuremberg Laws, pre-war Germany was a picture of domestic tranquility – ''unless you were a Jew.''
The need for the right to bear arms is even more important than ever before in our increasingly violent society. The number of violent criminals has greatly increased today.
In Canada, where handguns are banned, its largest city is plagued by gun violence. Toronto's streets have become virtual shooting galleries. Why? Because gun laws don't disarm criminals, they only disarm law-abiding citizens. Banning guns effectively disarms victims, not the perpetrators. This is proven daily in every place where gun-ban laws exist.
In today's violent world, how often do police arrive in time to prevent a murder? I have asked many police officers and all the odds overwhelmingly favor the murderer. Their job almost always involves investigating the crime scene after a murder has taken place. Trained and armed citizens have a far better chance of surviving the exponential increase in violent crimes. A law-abiding citizen ought to at least be able to defend himself against criminal home invaders.
When law and order breaks down, violent people resort to the law of the jungle. The only thing that deters them is the threat of deadly force. This was graphically illustrated in the pandemonium that broke out in the makeshift shelters set up for victims of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Let's face it. The problem with gun violence isn't guns. The problem is violent people. A person predisposed to violence can just as easily use a baseball bat or a kitchen knife to harm or kill his victim. But a violent person's predisposition to such acts is immediately tempered by the possibility of his intended victim having a gun.
After all, nobody in his or her right mind brings a baseball bat to a gunfight.[/font]
[signature]
[/size][/font]Posted: June 19, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
[font "Palatino, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times"]
[font "Palatino, Times New Roman, Georgia, Times, serif"]© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com [/font]
This just in: ''An Ohio gun went berserk in a crowded shopping mall, shooting six people before reloading and firing three more shots at fleeing shoppers. The shooting spree ended when the gun's owner tackled and subdued it. The gun's owner had no explanation for his gun's actions. Police have taken the gun, a .357 Smith & Wesson Model 13, into custody and it is locked up in Pete's Pawn Shop awaiting disposition of the case.''
Essentially, that is the liberal case in favor of banning all handguns as a matter of public safety.
''You just can't trust guns.'' ''They can go berserk and start shooting innocent people at any time.'' ''Their owners are innocent bystanders who get seduced by the ‘killer spirit of the gun.'''
It makes as much common sense as banning cars as a measure against drunk driving, but as is often observed, ''sense'' is anything but ''common.''
What does make sense is that armed law-abiding citizens are less vulnerable than the unarmed variety. That is why the Founding Fathers amended the Constitution to include the right to bear arms.
Wrote James Madison in the Federalist Papers, No. 46, the Constitution preserves, ''The advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation ... (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.''
The right to bear arms was reserved unto the people in order to keep the government honest. An honest government has nothing to fear from an armed law-abiding population.
Wrote Noah Webster in 1787: ''Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.''
The United Nations is meeting in July for what is styled as the ''2006 Small Arms Review.'' The purpose of the conference is to develop an internationally supervised gun-control regime.
[url "http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/"]According to its website[/url], the conference is ''committed to collecting and destroying illegal weapons, adopting and/or improving national legislations that would help criminalize the illicit trade in small arms, regulating the activities of brokers, setting strict import and export controls, taking action against violators of such laws, and better coordinating international efforts to that end.''
What are ''illegal'' weapons? The answer is obvious and troubling. Illegal weapons are whatever the U.N. says they are. Even more troubling, the conference features as its spokesman, under the exalted title of ''United Nations Messenger of Peace'' . . . actor Michael Douglas.
Yeah, that Michael Douglas, whose profundity of thought was captured for posterity and prominently featured on the main page, ''Wherever arms flow, violence follows.''
The message is unmistakable – eliminate arms and you eliminate violence. It's as noble sounding as it is idiotic.
After Hitler disarmed the population after passing the Nuremberg Laws, pre-war Germany was a picture of domestic tranquility – ''unless you were a Jew.''
The need for the right to bear arms is even more important than ever before in our increasingly violent society. The number of violent criminals has greatly increased today.
In Canada, where handguns are banned, its largest city is plagued by gun violence. Toronto's streets have become virtual shooting galleries. Why? Because gun laws don't disarm criminals, they only disarm law-abiding citizens. Banning guns effectively disarms victims, not the perpetrators. This is proven daily in every place where gun-ban laws exist.
In today's violent world, how often do police arrive in time to prevent a murder? I have asked many police officers and all the odds overwhelmingly favor the murderer. Their job almost always involves investigating the crime scene after a murder has taken place. Trained and armed citizens have a far better chance of surviving the exponential increase in violent crimes. A law-abiding citizen ought to at least be able to defend himself against criminal home invaders.
When law and order breaks down, violent people resort to the law of the jungle. The only thing that deters them is the threat of deadly force. This was graphically illustrated in the pandemonium that broke out in the makeshift shelters set up for victims of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
Let's face it. The problem with gun violence isn't guns. The problem is violent people. A person predisposed to violence can just as easily use a baseball bat or a kitchen knife to harm or kill his victim. But a violent person's predisposition to such acts is immediately tempered by the possibility of his intended victim having a gun.
After all, nobody in his or her right mind brings a baseball bat to a gunfight.[/font]
[signature]
