Common Folk Using Common Sense

Trackbacked at basil’s blog, Don Surber:

I read this over at mAss Backwards and I had to read it a couple of times before I believed what I was reading.

You see, mAss Backwards lives in Massachusetts, a state known for its Liberalism. One manifestation of this Liberalism is their desire to make it as difficult as possible for a law-abiding person to own or carry a handgun. Maybe you can carry a baseball bat, or a sword, or a crossbow – but not a handgun.

I have owned handguns ranging from a black powder .50-caliber to a government-issued Colt Model 1911A. I’ve also owned longguns ranging from a Winchester .22 rifle to (my favorite) a Remington 870 shotgun. If my home or my family is ever threatened then I will do, and will use, anything and everything available to me to stop the threat, up to and including deadly force with a firearm. And I don’t fire warning shots.

So it comes as a complete surprise to me when I read his link to a Clayton Cramer article entitled “Defending Self-Defense“, as appeared in Shotgun News, October 1, 2005, pp. 20-21:

A fair number of gun control advocates with whom I have corresponded over the years deny that there is a right to self-defense. It is not simply that they object to the use of a gun in self-defense; they object to all killing, regardless of the circumstances. I remember one conversation I had some years ago with a journalist at a San Francisco Bay Area newspaper who explained that it didn’t matter if making concealed weapon permits more available reduced robbery rates, because it would mean that robbers would be killed by their victims–and that was just as bad as robbers killing their victims.

I’ve had several similar conversations over the years with other gun control activists who similarly argue that there is no moral justification for deadly force–ever. They see aggressor and victim as identical–equally having a right to life. The rapist has a right to live, and this takes precedence over the right of his victim to not be raped; the robber has a right to live, and this takes precedence over the right of his victim to not be threatened with death.

Is this true? Yes, I fully understand Jesus’ instruction to “turn the other cheek”. But if you or your family is being threatened at either knife-point or gun-point, do you not have the guaranteed right, by both man’s laws as well as moral laws, to defend life?

If a rapist holds a knife to your daughter while raping her are you to stop and watch and allow the rapist to finish, even if it includes slitting your daughter’s throat?

If a burglar breaks into your home and holds your wife/husband at gun-point are you not entitled by the laws of civilization to preempt the attack using your lawfully purchased firearm?

If a crack-head comes up to you on the street and demands your wallet while holding a gun at your forehead, is your only recourse to meekly exclaim, “If you kill me I’m going to call the police on you”?

I thought that the time when criminals are free to roam and ravage is defined as “chaos” or “bedlam”, not civilization.

I’ll make a deal with you moonbats:
- you let me defend my home, my family, and myself
- I’ll let you be killed without my interferring

—

P.S. – mAss Backwards, know ye therefore that if ye visiteth my humble abode in Georgia that thou, and thou family, shall be protected from the vile and the villainous by my dogs, my baseball bat, and my gunpowder-powered weaponry. Sir Kennedy’s rules applyeth not down here.

Liberal, handgun, deadly force, firearm, Defend

Spread The Word: