Quote of the day—The Washington Times

The arguments of the gun-control crowd are like an annoying barfly that needs to be sent home. Expanding the rights of lawful gun owners makes everyone safer.

The Washington Times
August 22, 2011
EDITORIAL: No gunfights at the saloon–Crime rate drops as concealed-carry restrictions are relaxed
[While an appropriate metaphor in the given context I think the Brady Campaign is more accurately viewed as a geriatric sports team. Former President Paul Helmke was never a strong player and there was evidence of Alzheimer’s and/or profound stupidity. And this was the best and brightest the Brady Campaign was ever able to field on their team! With a “star” player that feeble it shouldn’t be too surprising that up and comer Colin Goddard hid under a desk at Virginia Tech waiting to be shot rather than attempting to fight back, and second stringer Dennis Henigan is an invalid who soils his own bed.—Joe]


3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—The Washington Times

  1. Oregon, for all it’s idiocy in failing to recognize any other states’ permits, did the right thing from the start when they left out the alcohol prohibition on concealed carry. IIRC, there have been zero shootings by CHL-holders in bars, and only a few outside of bars, and only one anywhere where the CHL-holder was adjudged to be wrong in his use of his weapon. With hundreds of thousands of licenses out there, and almost 30 years of licensing now, that’s a pretty good record, and easily gives the lie to the idea that CCW and alcohol should be mutually exclusive.

  2. “Expanding the rights of lawful gun owners makes everyone safer.”

    Really? Anyone see the disconnect in the logic there? Class?

    No, Little Grasshopper– rights are rights. They can be neither expanded nor contracted. They can be either violated on one hand, or respected and protected on the other, however. We’ll fix the sentence then;

    “Acknowledging and protecting the rights of lawful gun owners makes everyone safer.”

    But wait; why acknowledge and protect the rights of only this group?

    “Acknowledging and protecting the rights of all people makes everyone safer.”

    Better now, and look how simple it is— If your rights are acknowledged, respected and protected, you are safer. If your rights are not acknowledged, they cannot be respected. If they’re not respected they cannot be protected, and if your rights are not protected, you are not safe.

    Anyone who calls for violations of or encroachments upon your rights cannot claim to be an advocate of safety.

  3. “Acknowledging and protecting the rights of all people makes everyone safer.”

    Well, everyone but the criminals, which is why they get very angry at the prospect of universal rights protection.

Comments are closed.