Pretty Wanton Right here.
On a recent Sunday morning just before dawn, two carloads of white teenagers drove to Jackson, Mississippi, on what the county district attorney says was a mission of hate: to find and hurt a black person…James Craig Anderson, a 49-year-old auto plant worker, was standing in a parking lot, near his car. The teens allegedly beat Anderson repeatedly, yelled racial epithets, including “White Power!” according to witnesses.
Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith says a group of the teens then climbed into their large Ford F250 green pickup truck, floored the gas, and drove the truck right over Anderson, killing him instantly.
There’s surveillance video of the beating and murder at the link.
It upsets me when I see black groups oppose gun control and gun ownership, as a gun might have been the ONLY thing that could have saved Mr. Anderson, being outnumbered by a large group of youths interested in doing him grave harm simply because of the color of his skin. Of course groups like the Black Panthers do the exact same sort of crimes, just black-on-white. Most street gangs are racist in their membership, and who they target for their crimes. Then there’s countless other races, nation of origin, religion, sexual orientation, social status, and political views that can also be targeted for violent crime.
These London Rioters are pointing out they are pillaging and burning buildings to target the “Rich” and “Conservatives”.
There are lots of reasons that the most crude and crass among us might use to justify causing harm to another. Carry your guns. Such rudeness loses its luster if the thugs realize they can and will be killed by their victims in fear for their lives.
h/t Wallphone
I left this on japete’s latest rant about Ted Nugent, I doubt she will approve it, but thought that you might appreciate it.
“The odds of this mythical assailant with all of the descripters you have chosen attacking me with his bare hands are pretty slim.”
So, because you don’t anticipate ever having a gun, then it’s ok to make it inconvenient for everybody else to own them as well?
I don’t have much use for archery, should I advocate background checks on all private sales of bows? A ban on crossbows because they sort of look like guns?
Or, I like to write with fountain pens, should I try to ban all ballpoint pens, citing the space they take in landfills?
The attitude that rubs us gun guys the wrong way is that because you personally don’t like guns, you are working to make it harder for EVERYONE to have guns. You say that you are trying to prevent gun deaths, we argue that we carry guns to prevent our own deaths. You don’t like the idea of someone carrying a gun in a public place, like their kid’s school or Applebee’s, does that mean my life is worthless if I want to attend a University or take my family out to eat?
Well, if anything bad happens, you can just call the police, right? When Suleman Talovic began shooting people at Trolley Square, it took a couple of minutes for someone to call the police. After they got word of it, the police were there in 3 minutes. That is an incredible response time. Credit goes to SLPD for getting there so quickly.
But 5 to 6 minutes had passed from the time the attack started to when the police showed up. In that short time 6 people were killed, 4 more were shot. And the police weren’t the ones that stopped the attack, a man who was already there stopped it. Ken Hammond was having dinner with his wife, at a restaurant that serves alcohol, by the way, and he drew his own gun and confronted Talovic. Talovic stopped shooting people and retreated into a store. Then the police arrived.
Yes Ken Hammond was an off-duty police officer, but in this capacity he was only a citizen with training.
I tell this story not to say that all concealed carriers are just waiting to swoop in and save the day, but just to show that it is possible to use a gun to stop an attack, and that it’s possible to do so even before the police arrive.
But you probably won’t approve this comment because it doesn’t portray gun owners as lunatics screaming about the U.N. or insulting you personally, which seems to be the pattern you’ve got going on your blog. Portray your view as the only reasonable one, then only allow the comments that are unreasonable or extreme, thereby enforcing your narrative of the lone reasonable person valiantly battling the crazy, scary gun owners.
Great comment let me know if it gets approved or not (I’m on vacation I won’t bother with them this week)
The bottom line is “Progressives” only care about the rights they use. They’re selfish and sel-centered like that.
It did get published, she must think I have an extremist viewpoint.
http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/08/nra-board-member-rants.html
Of course she didn’t address the points I made, except one point I made about equating vigilantes with normal people defending themselves.
I’m not someone that gets super worked up about her blog, I just use it as logic and argument practice. I don’t even read it much, her articles are so long.
Ok, one more big reply that I’m not sure if she will approve.
Sorry Joan, when I posted, I hadn’t seen your links. I have to say that I’m not impressed by a british professor who wants to redefine the term vigilante. Dictionary.com lists multiple definitions of vigilanteism, one is a group of citizens taking the protection of their community upon themselves, but others include “done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: vigilante justice.” and “any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.”
The paper that was published in the oxford journal wants to expand the definition of vigilante. “This approach is distinct from attempts to define vigilantism as mere ‘establishment violence’ and neither assumes vigilante engagement to be extra-legal nor to involve the necessary imposition of punishment on victims.”
So he says that vigilante should cover actions that are legal, and that aren’t meant to punish criminals. Legal self defense, such as shooting someone who is threatening your life, or using force to discourage a violent mob from destroying your business or harming your community, would likely fall into Johnston’s attempt to redefine vigilantism.
I of course don’t have access to the full text, and I don’t really want to subscribe to the journal just to read one paper. On the website for the journal, there is a listing of articles that have cited Johnston’s. I don’t know if it is a comprehensive list, but if it is, then I’m even less impressed. In 15 years since the essay was written, it has been cited 8 times. That’s once every other year. There are articles and essays in the communication field that have been cited hundreds of times.
So I wouldn’t say that this article is considered an authoritative definition of vigilantism. But apparently you believe it, so I guess it makes sense for you to call concealed carriers vigilantes. After all, we are threatening violence against criminals, we’ve prepared beforehand, and enough people do it, that you could call it a social movement. Plus we are prepared to act within the legal system, and we aren’t out to punish anybody either, which falls under Johnston’s expanded definition of vigilantism. This actually explains a lot about the way you think and view concealed carriers or the group of Sikhs in Britain that stand ready to fight off a mindless mob.
But it still doesn’t mean that your views are consistent with reality, or with the views of most people in America.
Then she replies with this.
“Dave- Please find somewhere where I have called permit carriers vigilantes. You won’t. I don’t have access to that entire article either. I was using it as an example of definitions of vigilante groups. There is no point in furthering this thread. It is going nowhere.”
So I guess she hasn’t read the article, either. Even though she used it to prove her point.
Whatever.
Two points: A) In 21st. Century America, I consider Roaming Packs of Teen Age Males to be a much higher threat to me and mine than Al-Queda. Lots of “Sociological” reasons behind this, but too long to go into. B) As we get closer and closer to next year’s Election, I foresee a much higher uptake of Racial Violence by these same Wolf Packs. Combined with a Shitty Economy, and a President who won’t enforce Hate Crimes that African-Americans pull off, and next Summer should be a Doozy.
IMHO, I am advocating that everyone be Armed at ALL times, and to be Armed with as large a Capacity Firearm as one can carry, with Spare Ammo. Why? Because these Punks are so dumb, that they’ll keep coming at you. Plus, they seem to be carrying Hi-Caps also. Hate to see someone overwhelmed while attempting to Reload a J-Frame. YMMV, of Course, but one needs to change one’s Tactics when the Situation arises.
Here’s a promise:
I would have run out of ammo with a spare mag on my hip if I’d encountered that.
@ Les, regarding point A:
Dooood, that’s cold! Equating bored, disillusioned teenagers with remorseless predators who live and breathe for any opportunity to destroy everything that has made America great? Why, that’s like comparing apples to…um…well, uh……oh.
Elephant? I don’t see an elephant, do you?
Carry, period… You NEVER know when you will need to defend yourself.