Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: What one has to believe, to believe in gun control.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559

    Post imported post

    Borrowed from http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/believe.htmMichael Z. Williamson but first just a taste...

    According to the anti-gun crowd we're supposed to believe:

    That a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, “Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don’t I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonald’s?”

    That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

    That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn’t really want to shoot you and he’ll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he’ll shoot you if you don’t.

    That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis’ high murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000 is attributable to the utter lack of gun control.

    That despite all the outrage about Corporate America’s cavalier treatment of employees, Domino’s Pizza’s demand that employees be unarmed is an altruistic effort to stop them from hurting themselves, and not a calculated financial bid to avoid having a lawsuit filed by a dead robber’s family.

    That one can sue a store for having a slick floor, falling ceilings, and sharp corners, but if they refuse to let you bring a gun in and you get shot by a criminal, they aren’t liable for enforcing that rule with others.

    That there is no right of self defense, but the police are not legally obligated to respond to my cries for help when disarmed, but you can sue them if they take too long to get to a traffic accident.
    If that whetted your appetite he has a heap more on his site!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214

    Post imported post

    Interesting read I must say. One thing I found interesting was the Haynes v US decision. I hadn't heard of it and decided to look it up. Wow, is all I can saw. I was especially surprised to see the sanitized versions still requiring criminals to register, but also granting protection from prosecution for possession of weapons.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Battle Creek, ,
    Posts
    559

    Post imported post

    trailblazer2003 wrote:
    Interesting read I must say. One thing I found interesting was the Haynes v US decision. I hadn't heard of it and decided to look it up. Wow, is all I can saw. I was especially surprised to see the sanitized versions still requiring criminals to register, but also granting protection from prosecution for possession of weapons.
    Yeah that is a old one that is fairly well known in legal circles, criminals by their intent do not have to follow the law when it involves self incrimination, and by their nature will not obey the law. Therefore laws only apply to the law abiding citizen. N that is one huge Catch 22!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •