Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Guns For Me, But Not For Thee

Or so say the elite. If you think about it, none of the pronouncements from our betters about the dangers of weapons in the hands of us, the great unwashed, include any inclination to actually eliminate guns. No, our rulers and their minions, from the local police to the IRS to God knows what alphabet agency, are all armed to the teeth and crying for more. Interestingly, the egregious Feinstein opines that even our military troops, once they've left the military and are no longer under the command of Feinstein and her friends, are even more unreliable and should be rendered defenseless.

There are also no plans to take weapons from actual criminals, of course — Even the equally egregious Bloomberg's feeble "stop and frisk" system has been ended, evidently, by his successor, so all efforts are aimed at disarming that class of American which are neither criminals nor part of the Government. That is the class that our rulers fear, and, if history is any judge, rightly so.

I emphasized this phenomenon the other day in THIS POST, and, which is so often the case, Vulture of Critique caught the ball, and ran with it to a goal I hadn't even thought about. I've been stressing the right of self-defense, while Vulture reminds us that we also have a duty of self-defense, as in the quibcag. And if a band of swimsuited Japanese high school girls can understand that, why can't liberals?

Vulture of Critique considers this duty, and its ramification, here:

Why don’t the rich want the poor to be armed? It’s tribal.


No comments:

Post a Comment