This one always makes me angry:
Meleanie Hain was a Rosa Parks of sorts. She wanted to protect her family, and the media and anti-gun lobbyists HATED that. She never wanted to be an activist, but that’s what she became.
She wasn’t some Lobbyist getting a six-figure salary, she wasn’t a celebrity, she wasn’t an right-wing zealot. She was just a Mom with a gun. They HATED that, and they HATED her.
When she was murdered they had a VERY hard time hiding their glee, and because she was SHOT it was a “Gun Death” so there they could continue with their narrative that NOBODY should own guns, and if you own a gun for personal protection you’re just going to get shot yourself.
Sometimes poorly understood use of the bible quote “Those who use the sword will die by the sword.”, of course in this verse Jesus was being arrested by the Romans, and knowing it was a lawful arrest (I can let the true theologists here go more into Jesus fulfilling his destiny to die for the sins of man), Jesus welcomed them.
Matthew Simon Peter of course didn’t like what was happening so he drew his sword to defend Jesus. In modern equivalence this is drawing your gun against the police who are arresting a friend for a crime he knowingly committed. How just you feel the law may or may-not be, this is a crime, and generally a good way to get yourself arrested or killed, so Jesus asked Matthew to sheath his sword and let the arrest happen.
Sorry antis who don’t have any respect for the bible, but there are lots of career soldiers who have lived by the rifle who died peacefully in their beds, as well a police officers, firearms instructors, and just the run-of-the mill gun collector.
Of course what ISN’T spoken about is that her husband was a parole officer. As in those people who get exemptions under every law.
Of course what is more heartbreaking was that what had lead up to this. As for hard information, I have no idea what her home life was like, but I highly doubt that he just killed his wife and himself on a whim. All we know is they were having “Martial problems”, and that’s information from friends who probably never got the full story.
The message is NOT “Never Own a Gun”, because a gun didn’t kill Meleanie, an abusive husband did. He could have easily beat her to death or slit her throat or poisoned her morning coffee, and the end results would have been the same.
The moral is if you are in an abusive relationship GET OUT NOW! If you are staying in a bad relationship because of your kids, think of the kids in this story who are now orphans in the worst possible way.
And if you are one of the anti-gunners who wants to slap a trite slogan on this so you can push your bullshit agenda, go to hell.
And who are also, in most jurisdictions, given their own handgun by the state/local government.
The stories I’ve read say he shot her with his gun, not her own (which is what the anti’s always try to imply will happen). I wonder, did he kill her with a personally owned gun, or with an issued sidearm?
According to the stories I read it was “His” gun. Now does that mean it was his duty gun that he happened to hold the title for, or was is a different gun? Moot given that it was hubby’s suggestion his wife carry for the protection of her and her kids from all accounts, and he had several guns in the home, I can’t imagine they were ALL duty weapons.
I suspect her husband was a bit of a gunnie.
I met Meleanie. She seemed nice enough. Pretty quiet. She was within a couple of days of moving out of her house. She had an apartment lined up and had a couple of friends standing by to make a fast pack and move. I was not close to her, nor to her closest friends, so I don’t have details, but I got from one of her close friends that she was almost out of the house when he decided to murder her.
He shot her with a handgun. I have never heard definitively, but it was believed that the gun he used was personally owned, not his issue handgun. He went upstairs and shot himself with a shotgun. Her handgun was in her purse, hanging from a doorknob or a peg near the door. I don’t remember exactly.
Before he murdered her while she on Skype with a friend, he mowed the lawn. Who does that? The sick control freak wanted to make sure his lawn looked nice before he murdered his wife and killed himself while their children were in the house.
And I’m supposed to believe that taking her gun away from her would have saved her life? No. Her real “crime” was to go against the received wisdom of the Anti-gun Left. She left the Progressive Plantation, so they attacked her. And they do glory in her murder. They believe that she deserved it.
Nice people, aren’t they?
The other narrative about her was “what are you afraid of- you’re being paranoid.” So they cover their bases if nothing bad happens to her. The third scenario is if something bad happens to her but she stops it with a gun. Then they fall back on saying the shooting wasn’t necessary, and even trot out pictures of faces that weren’t beat up enough to their liking (Wilson, Zimmerman)- ironically because they stopped it before it got worse.
Matthew of course didn’t like what was happening so he drew his sword to defend Jesus.
Sorry bud but you need to edit your post slightly.
Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)
As in Peter believed to be the first Pope; the rock Jesus founded His Church on. Sounds like he didn’t have a problem with armed believers, eh.
I also believe the antis are trying to create a straw man argument; that we claim if a person is armed or even own firearms, then nothing bad will ever happen to them.
Of course, it inane and a completely fabricated idea. No one claims that. It would be like claiming that mechanics never get an in accident or doctors never get a disease.
It is also part of their attempt to portray every gun owner as dangerous….”She wanted to be armed at the play ground” !! As if crime takes a break there.
Fixed the error, thanks for pointing that out.
Bob S, I think you’re right. I think the anti-rights people are saying: “Look, the Second Amendment and gun culture ‘failed’ in the Hain case. Gun culture does not deliver a ‘security utopia’. Therefore, let’s somehow abolish the Second Amendment.”
Ignoring the experience of Prohibition and today’s anti-drug laws, they propose their own bogus utopia of entangling regulation, costly and corruption-prone bureaucracy, public demonization of gun owners through inflammatory propaganda, etc.—the “soft jackboot”.
Pingback: Episode 16 | Gun Blog Variety Cast
I, for one, have come to the conclusion that “those who live by the sword, will die by the sword” meant that anyone who is actively seeking a living by killing other people, will generally be subject to being killed at some point as well; hence, joining a gang, being a soldier (those who retire aren’t living by the sword anymore), or being a jerk in general, will likely lead to a short life. That isn’t to say that being a soldier is a bad thing–and if you’re a soldier during a time of peace, you’re not necessarily “living by the sword” (you’re merely prepared to die by the sword, so others won’t have to)…
This reminds me of a comment Jeff Cooper made when someone asked “Don’t you think that violence begets violence?” His response: “It’s my moral duty to see that violence does indeed beget violence. I fully intend to make sure that anyone who initiates violence against innocents get more violence in return, ideally more than they could handle.”