There is in the news today a call for the Marines at the recruiting station in Chattanooga to have been armed, since "we are at war" with radical Islam. A different take on the subject can be found (via WRSA) from Mason Dixon Tactical. Here are some excerpts. The question is somewhat easy to answer. “Should they have been armed?” The short answer is “No.”, at least not from an “On Duty” perspective. I find it interesting that some who have been crying to high Heaven about the [read more]
Addressing President Obama’s planned announcement on measures to reduce gun violence tomorrow, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made a comment that raised some eyebrows both inside the briefing room and on Twitter.
Carney pushed the president’s plan for action over the status quo, paraphrasing a comment Obama made at his press conference yesterday as “if even one child’s life can be saved by actions taken in Washington, we must take these actions.”
Veteran CBS News Washington Correspondent Mark Knoller was the first to quote Carney’s statement on Twitter and it quickly garnered a barrage of outrage from conservatives who took exception.
Then came the demands to ban football, cars, and so on. The twitter posts briefly point out what a hypocritical fake that whole argument is (along with the people who make it).
If a child’s life (or an adult’s life) is worth regulation and disarmament, then disarm the police. After all, poor Mr. Eurie Stamps was killed by a SWAT officer who stumbled over his prone body while (the officer’s) finger was on the trigger of his weapon, causing sympathetic muscle reflex to shoot his weapon, thus killing innocent Mr. Stamps. Mr. Stamps isn’t the only innocent human victim who has been killed by police. Dogs also die by the score in SWAT raids across America as a routine practice by police. They simply couldn’t care less.
Oh, you say, but it has to be different for law enforcement officers?
Those kinds of guns are made to kill people, and no one should be killing people, except in the line of duty.
But why should anyone kill anyone else in the line of duty? Has this author read the Supreme Court decision in Tennessee versus Garner? Law enforcement officers can only shoot in self defense, i.e., to save their lives. Use of weapons to enforce the law isn’t allowed.
So the author is only allowing shooting in the line of duty, and duty only includes self defense. Does that mean that it applies to me too? I see self defense as my religious duty. God requires it of me.
In reality, following their arguments to their logical conclusions isn’t in the game plan. They aren’t interest in your safety. That argument is fake, and they quickly give it up when challenged. They’re only interested in allowing government-sanctioned violence. They don’t want to admit it, but they’re Fascists. So the next time you read another advocacy commentary for gun control in the name of your safety, make a mental note of that person as a complete fraud and dismiss it as another Fascist attempt to fake his way through the issue.