Repost: Why are Democrats against the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?, from The Ten Ring on Blogspot

Solid points are made and it might give us some insight into the minds of modern Democrats.  By no means do I think it a definitive essay on the subject but, it makes a lot of sense and I thought it was worth passing along.
– Gary

THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005

Why are Democrats against the Right to Bear Arms

It probably is not widely known among the general public that two icons of the Democratic Party, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy were members of the NRA. Many don’t know that Eleanor Roosevelt often carried a gun for personal protection. But today, when a politician proposes the latest liberty infringing law in a State House, or U.S. Congress, it seems one doesn’t even have to look to know the party affiliation of that politician. Almost invariably it is the party that begins with the letter D.. But, why is that? What turned a party that was pretty much for the right of the citizens to bear arms to one that vociferously opposes it?

As with much of the modern Democratic Party, I think much of this goes back to 1972. That was the year that the radical Left took over the party. Before, the party styled itself as the party of the working man and its members felt that the party’s purpose was to help to give the working man an even break.

Before ’72, the so-called Red States were solidly Democratic. Texas had a Democratic governor and was a solid Democratic state and the Democratic Party had a lock on the South. The fathers of today’s NASCAR watching, Bush voting, Southern boys were most likely Democrats.

After ’72, that all changed and in election after election, the Democratic Party has been pushed out of the South and the Mountain West and is faced with extinction in these areas. After ‘72, the Democrats became the party of the urban elite who looks at the working man as a means to an end in public and with scorn in private.

The Democrats went from leaders like Harry Truman and Zell Miller to ones like Al Gore, John Kerry and Tom Daschle. Real men who worked their way from humble beginnings were replaced by effete Alan Alda types who showed their feelings and grew up with silver spoons in the lap of luxury.

This new elite really had no use for guns, except for the John Kerry type ultra elite who sported $10,000 shotguns and who learned to hunt in the British style by trained staff on their private islands. But in the hands of the working man, no. How could they really like or trust the common man, when he works with his hands and drinks non imported beer and is just so gauche. The idea of guns available and in the hands of common men offends the elite’s well-honed sensibilities.

They are seeking to create the perfect society. They are working so hard for it, a society of peace and love. If there are people who believe they need to carry guns for personal protection, then that puts the lie to everything they think they have accomplished or want to accomplish.

Part of their attitude is that they no longer believe in good and evil. Remember how they criticized President Bush because he has framed the War on Terror as good verses evil. They really don’t believe there are bad people out there who would kill you for the change in your pocket. For the liberal elites, people who do evil acts are just misunderstood or have been treated badly by the system. Instead of punishing the people who do bad, what needs to be done is they want to change the system that causes evildoers to act bad in the first place. Notice that there is no room for personal responsibility in this philosophy. If you do something wrong, there must be some external reason for your actions.

Many people take this to heart. There was a recent case from New York City where a young woman, who was being held at gunpoint, told the gunman: “What are you going to do, Shoot me?” He did. Those of us who know there is evil in the world would have never have challenged a robber like this. We know that he has no value for human life, and would probably have no problem with cold-blooded murder. Why force the issue by challenging him? But this poor women was gulled into the Utopian fantasy that there is no such thing as good and evil. She might have thought, Why would he shoot me when I am not a threat to him? All he probably needs is some counseling to stop this kind of anti-social behavior.

Notice also how, after having dispensed with good and evil, they then project those attributes onto inanimate object like guns. They seem to believe that guns actually cause people, who as we have seen no longer have any responsibility for their actions, to act violently. To them, it is the availability of guns that cause crime, not the actual criminals. So we get repeated calls for more gun control and outright bans and when these fail, they will come up with some other external factor, because no one is responsible for their actions.

This is a child’s philosophy. Writ large, it is the child’s plea of “the Devil Made Me Do It,” except in this case it is society, the gun, (Insert Other External Factor) that made me do it. This is what you get when you no longer believe that there are bad people in the world. This philosophy rules the roost in the Democratic Party and in our big cities and in most other Western countries.

The belief stems from a desire to hide ones head in the sand and to see things as one would wish them to be not as they are. It is also very, very appealing. Many people wish they could absolve themselves of responsibilities and blame someone else for their problems. For this reason, it will be hard, but not impossible, to combat this way of thinking.

POSTED BY YOSEMITE SAM AT 3/24/2005 12:52:00 PM

 

Thoughts on the Empire State Shooting

I finally saw the video of the shooting so I’m going to post the following in the interest of fairness to the officers.  There’s a lot of Monday morning quarter backing from people with no clue of the realities of this situation.  The fact is, as a whole, cops are not shooters and never have been.  There are shooters who are cops but, chances are, the guy who comes to your 911 call is NOT one of them.  SWAT and other door kickers are rarely among the first to arrive in an emergency.  All that said, when they are called upon to act, cops do the best they can with the tools and training given to them by their agency.  On their own dime; few will cough up the coin it takes to train to a level of technical proficiency that is even remotely close to that of the average competitive shooter.  But, gunfights are not shooting competitions.  People aren’t shooting back at you in a shooting competition and the thought of dying isn’t running through your brain the whole time. In the end, I think the two cops involved in this and the department at large are rightfully going to take some flak from the public and face a civil suit.  After all, innocent people were shot and/or injured by bullets and other debris resulting from the officers’ actions.  But those actions were dictated by the suspect and few people outside the law enforcement community will understand the concept that there was not going to be a “good” outcome in this specific situation.

 

Put yourself on that street.  The guy is turning toward you, gun in hand, level and ready to fire.  Too far to close the distance or use any non-lethal means to stop him from shooting, nowhere to run for cover and the reality is, you’re already out of time for all other options other than shooting him, right now!.  You’re liable for every shot and anything that bullet hits but, how do you pick a “safe” direction in which to shoot someone at 9am, Friday morning, on a crowded NYC sidewalk in this situation?  Shoot toward the street and at that moment, you’re lighting up a city bus (seen in the video) and probably a couple dozen other vehicles full of innocent bystanders.  You can’t run into the street to get an angle toward a wall.  Even if you could, you’re shooting into a store front and either of those options requires time you don’t have to get into position.  Oh by the way, this guy has already drawn a gun on you and is ready to fire…Did we cover that already? Wait just a split second longer for the situation to develop, and the bad guy could shoot one or more innocent bystanders anyway or shoot you, take your gun and now has at least two more guns with which to kill other people people.  I’ll say again, there’s not going to be a good outcome…Just bad and worse.  As one of our favorite listners, Kip said on the show today, “it’s a real life Kobayashi Maru” scenario.

 

I am not being an apologist for the cops here but, I’m not going to continue piling on them either.  These guys were dealt a bad hand and did what they could in a situation that many would be heroes and keyboard commandoes wouldn’t have survived. Why?  Because most of us have never considered situation in which there are no “right” answers.  Those in which no matter what we do, there’s not likely to be a good outcome. We all have a natural drive toward self-preservation but, few of us are willing to knowingly risk or take the lives of innocent bystanders to ensure our own survival in anything but the worst of panic states (i.e. drowning victims drowning would be rescuers).  From here, the only real question is, what’s going to happen with these officers.  Will their careers and lives be destroyed by a department that cuts them loose to distance itself from civil liability?  Or will the department and city step up, and extend qualified immunity to the officers and take the civil hit?  I’m not a lawyer and I don’t claim to be a tactical or police expert but, from what I’ve been taught and all the training I’ve had up to this point in my life, I think the video shows two officers reacting reasonably to a worst case scenario in which the least hazardous/dangerous of all possible actions was to immediately shoot the armed suspect to the ground. That’s what the officers did and I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask anything more of them given the circumstances.  That doesn’t mean I don’t think the department can’t be held civil liable and the innocent bystanders compensated for their injuries but, I for one will not be among those holding pitch forks, demanding the officers’ heads.

– Gary

What The Left Won’t Tell You About The Boom In U.S. Gun Sales – Forbes

What The Left Won’t Tell You About The Boom In U.S. Gun Sales – Forbes.

Worthy article for your perusal.  The left would like to think that the rise in gun ownership is all about Obama…It’s not.  More people have been buying guns for more than a decade, long before Obama was elected or even running for office.  This is partly a result in the rise in shooting sports and greater acceptance among women.  And in no small part, we have the NRA, GOA, NSSF and other firearms organizations to thank for their tireless efforts to fight tooth and nail in the court rooms, and legislative bodies across the country.

-Gary