Quote of the day—Jerry Patterson

If a shooting starts and the marshal’s gun is in a locked box on the other side of school, it might as well not even be on campus. A firearm that is not employable has no value. You have no school marshal program if the gun is locked up in a safe.

Jerry Patterson
May 7, 2019
Texas seeks more armed school personnel after mass shooting
[Anti-gun people are demanding that if gun is at a school that it be in a safe instead being carry in a holster. It’s easy to draw the conclusion that they do not want guns used to save lives. That would provide evidence their narrative is false and they are willing, perhaps even eager, to pay the price in children’s lives to further their narrative.

These people are evil and should be prosecuted.—Joe]

3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jerry Patterson

  1. I haven’t been able to find it recently, but many years ago I read a statement by Jeff Cooper to the effect of: “The purpose of a handgun is to stop a fight, either by the use of deadly force or the immediate threat thereof.”

    I agree wholeheartedly and I also realize that the gun doesn’t have to be brandished in order to be effective. It simply has to be known that it is highly possible that aggression will be met with an immediate and forceful response. That means the handgun has to be handy.

  2. Yes; the left fears and hates armed citizens because the left loves coercion. They can never get enough coercion. Coercion, being a crime (no matter how you dress it up), is at some stage subject to be met with righteous opposition.

    There’s really nothing more to the “gun debate” than that, which means there’s really nothing to debate, unless we’re extremely bored or unless our society is overrun with criminals who think themselves legitimate and thus deserving of a “fair hearing” (a “fair hearing” for a criminal meaning that he gets his say and you don’t).

    The world would be a vastly better place if;
    A. No one could be tricked into conflating government with coercion (as though they were somehow inseparable)
    B. No one could be tricked into conflating liberty with predatory capitalism or cronyism (as though they were somehow indivisible)
    C. No one could be tricked into conflating Christianity with Romanism (as though one necessarily came with the other).

    In each case these pairs are opposites, like north and south, acid and base, and in every case most people conflate them.

    It is possible to have government absent of wholesale coercion.

    It is possible to have liberty without people devouring one another.

    It is possible to be a Christian absent of paganism or other corruptions.

    The various and sundry pundits and representatives, who claim to speak for us, either don’t understand any of these things, or are pretending they don’t understand (take your pick; the result is the same).

    • The above conflations of course entirely preclude any meaningful conversation. If you or the person you’re speaking with has been infected with the conflation disease, the two of you can never come to a salient point. It’s only a contest. If hot equals cold, and upward is a component of downward (and I bet some of you want to argue that it is, right now too), then what’s the point?

      Usually it’s both people doing the conflation, and so the conversation is doomed before it starts– It could go on forever and never arrive at anything but a series of impasses, deadly compromises, and war. Thus is the world.

Comments are closed.