Thursday, June 11, 2009
Kotz / Law and Order / Legislature / Politics Fear Not, Valued Chili's Customer, Second Amendment Man Will Save You
Posted by Pete Kotz on Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:59 AM
Playing the role of wife will be Margie. I met her at the shooting range. It's strictly platonic, though in her eyes I detect the glint of unfettered desire. This is understandable. I am a hero. Or at least I'm about to be.
I have been waiting for this moment, for the legislature to allow me to bring my gun to Chili's. You may not know this, but Chili's is dangerous. Think of Fallujah, only with Southwestern Eggrolls. At any moment a gang of swarthy men -- and they will be swarthy -- will burst through the door bent on robbery, rape or misdemeanor public nuisance. It happens all the time. So I have positioned myself with keen sightlines to door and cash register.
You will be startled when they arrive. Perhaps they'll be a rogue band of Crips. Perhaps they'll be Kurdish separatists aiming to destabilize the mid-priced chain restaurant industry. You will quake and quiver. Weeping cannot be ruled out. For you have chosen to forsake your Second Amendment rights. You're a moron. Thankfully for you, I am not.
I will leap from the booth at the speed of sound or light, whichever's faster. I will assume a spread-eagle shooter's position. I will look very cool. But in the flash of a moment when it all goes down, you will not have time to admire me. I will dispatch the intruders with a marksman's precision, a bullet between each of their eyes.
Only when it's all over, after I've strode gallantly from the premises -- and Chili's has naturally comped my meal -- will you ask yourself, "Who was that brave, brave man? And is he currently dating anyone?" But by that time I will already be back in my mom's basement, cleaning my weapons and basking in the satisfaction of a job well done.
I am Second Amendment Man. I will save you.
Comments (42)
Showing 1-42 of 42
like
dislike
You know the diner robbery in Pulp Fiction? Bad Mother Fucker Samuel L. Jackson totally diffused that situation without firing a shot. But Tim Roth is pretty hot so I wouldn't want to shoot him, either. Wait, what are we talking about?
Hilarious!!
After, yet another killing by a reich-wing lunatic yesterday, this is incredibly insane to override Bredesens veto of that horrible gun bill.
What is it with these gun nuts? You can't have dinner in a restaurant without being armed? What happens when another Reich-winger comes in and the waitress pisses him/her off? Is he gonna wave his big macho gun around? Or just shoot him/her?
This is one reason the rethugs LOST so badly in November. What a bunch of sorry a$$ losers. And this is just the beginning!!
Here's how we can tell this is fiction. You gotta aim for the widest part. Between the eyes may sound good, but you really should go for the chest. Easier to hit what you're aiming for and less chance of a stray shot taking out an innocent bystander.
But then, all us permit holders who were required by law to take a handgun safety class know that.
"Here's how we can tell this is fiction..."
There's an easier way to tell than that.
All you have to do is look at who wrote it.
Kotz has never written anything that WASN'T fiction.
Wow, Gilbert and Scott! You guys are GOOD. You actually can spot fiction. Of course, can't spot irony or humor for shit. But whatever.
WOW! The REAL writer was Libtard Man (The name was changed to protect the Liberal agenda).
I wonder why he ued Chili's for “dangerous”, in his little fugue, instead of using maybe Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, TX? (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre) Or Wendy’s in Queens, NY? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy%27s_massacre)
Or maybe San Ysidro, CA McDonald’s? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald%27s_massacre)
That would have made Libtard Man’s fantasy sounded so much more realistic!
I wonder why Libtard Man “forgot” to use a REAL Second Amendment Man AKA Thomas Glee Terry and Shoney’s Family Restaurant? (www.uexpress.com/printable/print.html?uc_full_date=19990730&uc_comic=ac)
History and facts seems to disagree with Libtard Man’s fantasy scenario of “armed resistance will only make it worse”:
Unarmed Columbine (with 5 SWAT Teams on scene and many other cops): 13 murdered/ 24 injured.
Protected by Second Amendment Man: Pearl High School (ARMED vice-principal held the killer until the police FINALLY arrived): 3 murdered/7 injured
Unarmed Virginia Tech (Most victims were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”): 32 murdered/23 injured
Protected by Second Amendment Man: VA Appalachian School of Law (2 ARMED students held the killer until the police FINALLY arrived): 3 murdered/ 3 injured.
Unarmed Luby’s Cafeteria: 23 murdered/20 injured.
Protected by Second Amendment Man: Shoney’s Family Restaurant (ARMED diner stopped the killers and waited until the police FINALLY arrived): even with multiple armed assailants and 21 hostages no innocent was harmed and assailants were stopped by Concealed carry ARMED CITIZEN Thomas Glenn Terry.
Final Tally:
Unarmed resistance -68 murdered/ 67 injured
Protected by Second Amendment Man: 6 murdered/ 10 injured
All of us can name 5 U.S. “Gun-Free Zone” massacres; can you name 5 “Gun-RICH Zone” (Gun shows, shooting ranges, police stations, etc.) massacres?
Annoy a Libtard: Use Facts and Logic, Work, succeed, be armed, protect your family, cherish your Freedoms, don’t rely on the god of Government.
Remember: Mexico is “Gun-Free”
It WAS hilarious, and depicts you gun nuts the way the REST of the world views you. (Brian Kelsey said on the House floor as he argued against th 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. curfew on guns that "pemit holders want to be able to go to Chili's without being fearful.") Who, other than HCPs, fear going to Chili's?
Remember, Kelsey is your ally in this, and what he essentially said is that you guys walk around like scaredy-cats. Most of us don't live our lives like that.
Wildfire: Nobody's gonna reading anything that long. I sure as hell didn't.
That's some funny shit, Pete. Wish I'd wrote it myself. As a fellow libtard, I say, Libtards unite!
The San Ysidro McDonalds spree? Really?
Wow, I wasn't aware that they served liquor by the drink.
Fuckin' California, dude.
Those of you who insist on being at the bottom of the food chain, walking around unarmed in the 2d and 9th most dangerous cities in the country, may continue to pretend you and your families are safe.
I find street gangs and meth junkies to be a threat to my safety.
Some of you apparently do not.
When something bad happens to nice people (as is frequently the case in Memphis and Nashvile (and even in Knoxville)), you may continue to light candles, sing Kumbayah, conduct group hugs, wear ribbons and ask local law enforcement for a greater presence.
That does not interest me.
I prefer a more realistic approach to personal safety.
Brian Kelsey stood firm on the arbitrary 11:00 p.m. curfew on Second Amendment rights, but he had around 66 other Reps voting with him on this common sense gun law.
I live in Washington state where it is perfectly legal to carry a gun into a restaurant that serves alcohol. In fact, I just got back from Chevy's where I consumed a margarita while armed. My gun must be defective, it didn't jump out of its holster and start spraying bullets everywhere!
Thanks for the feebleminded view on this subject. Now, here's the reality: Chili's is no more dangerous than anyplace else (and no less dangerous, either). The Crips won't be busting into Chili's, they'll just be busting into your car, where you had to leave your gun because the stupid law said you had to. As a result, you have just armed a Crip, which would not have happened if the gun had stayed on your belt where it belonged. Go ahead, and pooh-pooh this, it happened to me, and it's directly the fault of thoughtless jerks like you.
Guess what, you liberal nutjobs? As of July 14th, I WILL have my gun on me when I go out to eat. Don't like it? Tough shit. I will not be a helpless victim for criminals.
Wildfire - you kicked the libtards asses and they don't even know it.
Why don't they know it?
Appears their attention span is too short to bother reading facts.
As I recall, the Luby's massacre and the Shoney's NON-massacre occurred within a few months of each other. The contrast was quite stark. In one case, 46 people killed or wounded. In the other, one killed and one wounded - both of them bad guys.
Given a choice, I'd MUCH rather my fellow diners be armed.
As for the libtards...
Hey GeoOrwell... you taking drugs for that severe ADD?
Oh wait... you didn't make it this far, did you?
Lets see, 31 states already allow this, now there are 32. There werent 31 continuous massacres or shootings by law abiding CPL carriers prior to the 32nd state so explain with logic and facts how such mayhem will occur in the 32nd state. Oh thats right, it never happens so you have no evidence. Your indignation at the results of the political process and the majority overiding the minority position is just the wailing of a few petulant children not getting their way, again, and again!
Oh thats right, its just the fanatsized, delusional fear mongering diatribe that the anti gun crowd is so famous for being attempted here. (the doctors do have some prozac that will help reduce these delusional fantasies ya know)
As for walking around afraid, well guess none of you libtards have life, home or auto insurance. I guess none of you libtards who live in areas prone to earth quakes, hurricanes or tornado's have any emergency plans, much less how to exit your home if a fire were to occur. I guess you libtards are so self assured that you can go through life planning on nothing bad happening and see no logical reason to prepare in any way. Yet here you are ridiculing those that choose not to depend on big brother to plan for and protect them.
We are not afraid, but we are prepared! But then again, you libtards believe no one should prepare for anything as da all knowing guberment will take care of that for you poor widdle sheeple, right?
We see from the US Supreme court and the daily evidence of violent attacks (1.4 mill reported to FBI UCR Database, 5.2 mill USDOJ Victimization Report or 75% violent crimes not reported) that the 175,000 police are not liable nor capable of protecting each and every individual from attack (301 mill population today). By the way, that is approx 5,142 people each police officer is supposed to protect daily, (301 mill pop / (175k divided by 3 shifts) as we cant expect petulant children to understand real math or data, lol, much less all the other things that police do. Oh lest we forget the USDOJ 2008 Gang Activity report of those 1 million gang members who are identified by the government as being responsible for 80% of all violent crime in ALL comunities in the US!
Wow, based on the I am not afraid attitude, we expect to see you libtards walking down Cass corridor (Detroit) between 9:30pm to dawn then (or some other lovely places in Memphis are just ducky as well right), completely unafraid. Maybe going to that lovely strip of establishments along those same wonderful streets, those examples of brotherly love. Of course that is accepting that all those homeless derilicts, drug dealers and users only stick to their side of the tracks right? After all we have fenced all those bad guys in one area so they cant get out and hurt anyone else right?
The I am so unafraid attitude you libtards have, yet you libtards are afraid of the people who have by all data and facts, are less likely to harm law abiding citizens (unless of course you libtards are involved in a criminal activity, then you would be right to be afraid of your intended victim being armed) than all the people and criminals who carry illegaly into those same reatraunts on a daily basis, what hypocrits!
So at the end of the day, you libtards have no evidence to support your position and delusional fears, and no plan to change the rules of the political process.
Your only reaction is to post fantasies that sound like WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA in the hopes your temper tantrums get some attention. Ok, do you need your pacifier, a bottle, your prozac or ridlin prescription or your diapers changed. Or is the suggestion that you grow up and get over it really too much for your limited sheeple psyche? Yeah, probably too much for you sheeple to absorb. So we will continue to expect that everytime a gun right is legislatively and lawfully enacted, all we will hear is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. As the house of cards that is gun control and all the lies gun control is built upon topples down at the slightest puff of the wind of truth!
What is with you simpletons? You attack gun owners using stereotypes and bigotry, then cry when we view you as sheep.
I am able to control my primitive urges, unlike you. I can go in to a resturant that serves alcohol without drinking. I can carry a gun without having to wave it around. I actually have talked to real gang bangers without a confrontation. I train with firearms, seek further levels of proficency and certification, study the legal and legislative aspects of firearms.
You spout drivil and hate.
Just because YOU cannot control yourself does not mean the laws should cater to your lack of impulse control.
Word has obviously spread on the gn blogs overnight. They're crawling out of the woodwork.
Jarhead: Nobody is gonna read that.
You write this story as impossible fiction and make fun of circumstances that in fact, actually did happen. Ask Dr. Suzanne Huff in Texas how she feels about this story !! Chili's certainly could be a Luby's Cafeteria someday!!! Are you knowledgeable of the facts of history, before a story like this is written?? I tend to think you are not!
It's a shame some didn't wish to take advantage of wildfire's FREE EDUCATION and FACTS links above !! :)
A few of inanimate objects sure is an interesting thing to observe. If anti-gun nuts are so afraid of guns, why do you want our cops armed with AR-15's and semiautomatic handguns? Are cops any more reliable than regular honest citizens? Not that I have seen. Besides, when New Orleans got hit by Katrina, most of the cops split the scene, leaving behind a lot of honest citizens with NO way to call for help. A gun on the hip is like car insurance. There JUST IN CASE you might need it, but normally left where it is.
Wildfire - Great posts! Funny how the libtards cannot refute anything you stated. The best they could do is say no one is going to read a long post.
GeoOrwell - Well maybe if you read it, you could educate your ignorant self.
Statistically, you are safer around CCW license holders than you are the police. The percentage of CCW license holders that commit crimes is quite a bit lower than it is for LEOs
Jarhead, you're right on. (And everyone reads you, even GeoOrwell) They claim we are scared and paranoid. Nothing is farther from the truth. We are prepared, and we are ready. Quite a difference.
They claim that Police will be there to help you. The government will take care of you, you just need to agree to whatever they tell you to do, they tell you to be, and whatever they tell you to give up. And never complain, NEVER.
America is the country of "We, the people", not of the government. Them, at all levels, including law enforcement, are public servants, being "servants" the key word. But they really believe the opposite. Just look at Police Officers "tasing" 70-year-old women for not complying with an order (yes, an order!), or congressmen deciding to increase our taxes for the slightest reason (or lack thereof).
For your enlightenment:
"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 19, 1787
It's ironic that people who think that firearms are too dangerous for good people to own and carry (regardless of the bad people that will do bodily harm) are the same people that think people that say there is no reason to carry, and actually make fun of people that accept responsilibity for their own physical security.
absolutely insane. why would anyone expect others {not of a like foolishness} to take them seriously. go figure.
Sorry guys. I don't live in fear so I feel no need to carry. That's the real difference between us.
This is probably something you all should seek therapy for. Phallic fixations and insecurity? Thinking people think so.
Hargrove states: “Sorry guys. I don't live in fear so I feel no need to carry.”
You must be one of the fortunate few that criminals will send an engraved notice before they commit evil against you . . . or you’re just like the thousands every year who state: “I never DREAMED this could happen to ME!”
But you know your level of irresponsibility far better than I.
Please tell us, if you are criminally assaulted; whom will you call for help and why? A person WITH a gun?
Why should a cop, risk his life, to save you or your loved ones, when your life is of such little value that you are unwilling to protect it?
Hargrove states: “That's the real difference between us.”
The difference? You are too cowardly to accept the heavy mantel of personal responsibility and we are not.
We don’t expect another to risk their life to protect something we are unwilling to protect.
These court rulings make clear that the police have NO DUTY to protect you as an individual:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Hargrove states: “This is probably something you all should seek therapy for. Phallic fixations and insecurity?”
Hmmm, or maybe it’s your cowardice and “penis fixation” or “Penis envy” that’s the real problem.
“Better to be a ‘gun nut’, than a Libtard with no nuts.”
Mr. Kotz, you wrote, "*blither, blather, blather, blither*"
We presume this was an attempt at ironic comedy.
What it actually is reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Natural Law and unalienable rights, and in a most arrogant and ignorant manner.
Here's a hint, my clueless countryman: Regardless of your (or anyone's) awareness of the of armed law-abiding citizens who surround you, or of your 'feelings' of insecurity because of it, we have the pre-existent right to do it, and there's NOTHING you can do about it.
Except, evidently, show your ass in parodies like this one.
You do realize, of course, that the amendment that immediately precedes the 2nd is what guarantees your ability to do this, regardless of the fact that it is inane, sophistic and just a plain waste of bandwidth?
Of course, you do. You just refuse to admit that the 2nd is equal in importance to, if not preemptory in importance of, the one that protects the expression of a) the deficit of your political philosophy, and b) your wobbly-kneed feelings of inadequacy. And, you cloak those feelings of inadequacy in arrogance.
Therefore, you attack your fellows who are philosophically astute and have a set of big ones, both to your benefit, despite your personal lack of backbone, which benefits noone except those who would rule you.
*clap-clap-clap* WELL DONE!
In the annals of the clueless, you obviously have a PhD.
JUST REMEMBER:
When seconds matter, the Cops are ONLY minutes away!
To those of you who feel no need to protect yourselves and your loved ones, fine. I don't have a problem with that. You have the right to be negligent in your responsibilities.
I have a right to defend myself and my loved ones and believe that it is my DUTY to do so. As long as you and yours don't attack me and mine, you've nothing to fear.
Well, it wasn't Chili's, but Suzanna Hupp was enjoying a meal with her parents in a small Texas diner one fine afternoon in 1991. A gun man drove his truck into the diner and opened fire on the patrons. Suzanna reached for her purse to retrieve her firearm, but then realized she had left it in her vehicle in order to comply with state law. She watched as the gunman shot and killed both of her parents, as well as killing 21 others and wounding 20 more.
Dr. Hupp went on to become a State Representative who advocated for Second Amendment rights. She believes no one should have to witness the brutal murders of their friends and loved ones when in public places. It has happened in restaurants before and it will happen again.
As for "Second Amendment Man", carriers of firearms behave no differently than a parent who mindfully watches their children. We could easily call them paranoid or people who are aggressively looking for trouble, but in reality they are just trying to protect their child from harm and danger. Since when is that not a virtue?
GeoOrwell: Well that explains your ignorance. Anything more than a couple of simple paragraphs espousing liberal rhetoric which includes facts with references based on logic, is too difficult for your to read.
As a holder of a concealed carry permit, I would like to reassure all of you anti-gun hoplophobes that I will not be ready to spray bullets at anyone who threatens mass murder in your favorite restaurant. I usually sit in the back, near a window or fire exit. If anyone comes in to the restaurant and starts shooting, or announces a holdup and starts herding the unarmed sheep into a killing ground, I will be leaving as fast as possible through the back door or out the window. I see no reason to risk MY life, health, and financial well-being to defend people who are too cowardly to take steps to defend themselves. So go ahead and call 911 on your cell phone and wait for the authorities to save you - like the dead sheep at Va Tech or Luby's Cafeteria. The only time I will use my concealed handgun will be to defend myself or my family - my first move will be to leave the area, unless I have no choice but to shoot back. You happy little anti-gun sheep can all serve as unarmed victims. screaming and milling around in panic - you will provide good cover for my exit. So relax - you won't have to worry about me trying to be a hero and saving any of your worthless lives. I see the whole process as an example of Darwinian selection - anyone who does not believe in self-defense SHOULD be removed from the gene pool.
Wildfire, have you ever taken a step back from yourself and looked at how crazy your arguments sound? So, because I don't walk around with a pistol on my hip, I'm a recklessly irresponsible individual? But you, the pistol-carrying individual, represent the strong, willing to stand against the "evils" you assert are coming to get us all in paranoid fashion? You're totally fitting into this 2nd Amendment character Pete has created.
How many hours a day do you gun nuts spend trolling the internet for opposing opinions and working yourselves into frenzied states of righteous indignation?
Hargrove:
Your fantasy about "gun nuts" is typical. The plain fact is that law-abiding people are law-abiding people. The exceptions of law-abiding people going over the edge are minute in scope. The odds of a permit holder saving your sorry ass are much greater than those of a permit holder capping you in a fit of pique.
Grow up.
You guys are WRONG, historically, statistically, and philosophically.
You better put some ice on that...
Hargrove asks:“Wildfire, have you ever taken a step back from yourself and looked at how crazy your arguments sound?”
Hmm, I give court rulings, ACTUAL events and researchable data to support my position, while you give unsupported statements and unsubstantiated innuendos based almost exclusively on . . . nothing. So I’m having trouble seeing what you’re calling my “crazy argument”.
Why don’t you simply point out specific “crazy argument” points, and I’ll address it as if your blather had some merit?
Hargrove asks:“So, because I don't walk around with a pistol on my hip, I'm a recklessly irresponsible individual?”
Tell us; if you were criminally attacked, would you call someone ELSE who DOES “walk around with a pistol” on their hip to save you?
Why?
Are you physically unable to hold a gun?
Are you mentally incompetent to judge the correctness of your action with a gun?
Or are you simply unwilling to take personal responsibility for your own protection.
Hargrove asks: “But you, the pistol-carrying individual, represent the strong, willing to stand against the "evils" you assert are coming to get us all in paranoid fashion?”
Are we to understand that you feel there’s no real threat of “evils”? So there should be no need for the police to be armed, right?
As for being paranoid: Have you, or anyone you personally know, ever been shot by a law-abiding “pistol-carrying individual”?
So what is at the root of your irrational fear of law-abiding citizens? (Shot at while trying to commit a crime maybe?)
Hargrove asks: “How many hours a day do you gun nuts spend trolling the internet for opposing opinions and working yourselves into frenzied states of righteous indignation?”
Oh, probably about 1% of the time you nutless Libtards spend changing your panties at the thought of a citizen who isn’t afraid of taking personal responsibility for the safety of themselves and their loved ones.
Wow. That was very creative. I guess when you can't argue logic or facts you......have to resort to comedy and snarky sarcasm?
Whatever works for you antis.
Me? I'm "packing heat". Yes. Why? Because I can. Because I want to. Do I need any other reason? No. My personal rights do not require that I have a reason. I do not need a reason to speak, practice Muslim faith, carry a firearm or own private property.
So to you "intellects" who are obviously much cooler than I am and much more funny and enlightened....don't carry. The people who get shot up in these "no gun zones" also previously thought having guns to protect themselves was silly and Rambo-ish. If only they were alive now to be able to reanalyze the situation. I bet they would have wished they were allowed to defend their lives.
But what do you care? What do you care about their lives? To you, this is funny. This is about Rambo. This is why you UN intellectual nutjobs are losing the battle. You can only rely on snarky sarcasm to get your half baked point across. And its not holding very much water.
Good luck antis!!!
"A citizen who shirks his duty to contribute to the security of his community is little better than the criminal who threatens it."
I hope that I will never find myself in a situation where I have to confront evil in order to protect myself, my family or my community.
BUT, if evil comes knocking, I want to be prepared to the best of my ability to respond. I refuse to be a defenseless victim, armed with nothing more than “hope” that someone else will come to my rescue… or that an LEO will be close enough to respond in time to save me, my family or my community.
I greatly appreciate and respect the men and women of law enforcement who dedicate and give their lives to serving and protecting the community. BUT, the person best suited for protecting me… IS ME! I’m with ME all day long; unfortunately, I cannot have an LEO with me at all times.
Therefore, I take seriously my responsibility to contribute to the security of my community. I’m not spoiling for a fight. I simply want to be prepared to the best of my ability to protect life and liberty.
If the bad guys were carrying pen and paper and attacking people with their witty rhetoric, I would study up and be as prepared to combat them with words as I was able. However, sadly… they’re carrying guns these days.
"Blessed be my God, my mountain, who trains me to fight fair and well." Psalm 144:1-2 (msg)
I truly believe that there is a missing enzyme in the brains of liberals, that doesn't allow neurons to fire across the synapses that control logical thought. We can bombard them with facts, and they always come back with "gun nut, Rambo" rhetoric, I guess as a way to disguise their self-loathing, at their inability to assume responsibility for themselves and their families.
I on the other hand haven't gone unarmed in the last 9 years, and have interceded, once, in what would have been the gang initiation armed robbery of two of my friends at the pawn shop across the street from my business. Unfortunately you libs. will never know the feeling of security that the comforting heft of a gun on your side delivers. The knowing that whatever evil befalls you you stand a much better chance of survival, because you took the responsibility of your personal safety in your own hands. No, you can't make the world safer by trying to make the world as weak as you, you must make yourselves as strong as the rest of the world. Until then there are enough of us "Rambo, gun-nuts" out there to at least even the odds out a little. So go back to your "fairy-tale,princess, unicorn, butterfly" world and let those of us willing to take a stand alone. Just remember the meek shall inherit the earth, but then again, earth isn't the goal, is it?
An officer responding to a car break-in in the parking lot next to the Lane Bryant murder scene (Tinley Park, IL) was within 200 yards when the killings took place. A lone gunman grabbed the unarmed women one-by-one as they arrived at the store, and tied them up. Rhoda McFarland was shot in the front of the head when she dialed 911. Sarah Szafranski, Carrie Hudek Chiuso, Jennifer Bishop and Connie Woolfolk were shot at close range in the back of their heads moments later. IL citizens are told to call police when becoming victims of crime. Police mere yards away, and 911 on the phone could not and cannot protect unarmed citizens. Concealed carry can.
Let's see how many of your points are valid..
"You will not notice me, the unassuming man presumably having a nice dinner with his wife in a booth." - True statement. (You probably walk by and shop with numerous CCW holders every day and you would never notice them or their weapons)
"You will be startled when they arrive." - True
"For you have chosen to forsake your Second Amendment rights. You're a moron. Thankfully for you, I am not." -Semi-truth (You have chosen not to defend yourself. I will, however, support your right to make that decision and I would probably attempt to help preserve your life if possible. I do not think you are a moron for doing so.)
"I will dispatch the intruders with a marksman's precision, a bullet between each of their eyes." - Semi-truth (While I am proficient, I don't think I would risk that shot. Nice thought though. Most shooters are trained to shoot center of mass. Less likely to miss and hit a bystander.
"by that time I will already be back in my mom's basement, cleaning my weapons and basking in the satisfaction of a job well done." - False (I will probably have my firearm taken for a short while for evidence. After I get home to my wife and children, there will probably be a group hug as I try not to remember that I was almost murdered and that I had to kill someone in order to defend myself. There was nobody else who would do it for me....)
Wow. When you actually look at how much truth was in your story, it's not really credible is it? But it was, after all, written as entertainment and not meant to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, you wrote it to make fun of a segment of society you really know nothing about. Why use facts and evidence when you can base your opinions on personal suppositions and undocumented assumptions. It's easy to ignore another person regardless of how reasonable their argument is when you can make them out to be somehow inferior or "un-enlightened". Why listen to facts contrary to your opinion when I am just a supposed "gun nut" right?
