Wednesday, August 10, 2011

California Open Carry


This gem from Weerd.  The video is very to-the-point, and it is amusing to listen to Portantino.  He's so far out of touch with reality that it's hard not to feel sorry for him.  As Weerd says:

Great arguments if you’re an emotional hand-wringer. Not much if you ever….you know…think.

Do you want to reduce crime?  Do you want to see people take personal responsibility?  Do you understand that the police have neither the ability nor the obligation to protect each and every individual citizen in each and ever circumstance throughout the course of a day?  Do you have the ability to think critically and apply logic?  If your answer to any of these is 'Yes' the odds are that you are in favor of enabling the private citizen to take an active stand the protection of his person, his family, and his property.  This means repealing the legislation which prevents individuals from performing those duties.  This means drafting and enacting legislation which supports the law-abiding, and protects them from criminal and civil liability when engaged in the act of defense (see Castle Doctrine laws).  

At the end of the day, the nanny-stateism that is rampant in this country is doing nothing to better the lives of our citizens, but rather is doing more to hinder freedom, and take responsibility away from people who are more than capable of behaving like adults.  The problems which need to be addressed are with those who intend others harm, not the idea that any sort of inanimate object is to blame.

Thanks for the video, Weerd.  Fantastic.

1 comment:

  1. Yep that's why I switched sides from Anti to Pro-Gun. I was an anti I was anti-for all the good reasons. I believed the very poorly done Kellerman study, and furthermore also believed some of the anti-gun misinterpretations of said study: (Rather than Kellerman's statement that if somebody was shot in the home the victim was N-Times more likely to be known to the shooter than a stranger. I believed the spin that "Known to the shooter" as "Family Member or loved one mistaken for a threat") I also believed that reducing gun ownership would lower "Gun Death", and that would lower overall death and murder rates. Also the news never covers defensive gun use so I assumed it rarely happened. I also believed that "Assault Weapons" were overly dangerous compared to the wood-stocked rifles and shotguns I was used to.

    Of course as soon as I started getting interested in the debate my ideals crumbled beneath me, and I had no choice but to switch sides.