Ann Patchett, over at the NY Times, wrote a banal Op-Ed about why we should ban all guns but can’t.
Yes, we get it Ann, you shot a .22 when you were a kid and some family members of yours owned guns so you don’t really hate guns but you do really hate guns and now that you are part of the New York liberal elite you want to ban all guns blah blah blah oh my god won’t these people shut up about this already.
She ends her drivel with the same empty platitudes I’ve read about guns in every NY Times Op-Ed ever published about guns on any day that ends in ‘Y’.
Don’t ever believe the old saw about guns not killing people. They do and they will, again and again. Guns shoot children, parents, siblings, lovers, neighbors, co-workers, strangers and friends, in error and in fury. This will happen until we decide it should stop, which would mean getting rid of not only the AK-47s but the pretty little silver .22s as well. All of them. No one ever asks for that, maybe because it feels prudent to not enrage the many people who own guns, but the right to not get shot takes precedence over the right to bear arms.
Yes, guns are for killing. No, the right to not get shot takes precedence over the right to bear arms. There is no right to not get shot. In fact, some people, through their actions should get shot. Some people just need killing. That is a simple fact. The I’m not condoning murder or vigilantism. But at that moment, when a person is under attack, their attacker has relinquished their right to life.
Watch this video below, of a woman in New Jersey, getting beaten by a home invader in front of her child. Tell me, when she is having her head stomped on, when there is a chance that she may have been killed in front of her child, that it would not have been better for mom to get a gun out of a drawer when the man went upstairs and shot him when he came down.
Tell me that a rapist has the right not to get shot when he is raping a woman. Tell me a home invader has the right not to get shot when he is attacking a family over their property. Tell me that any criminal actively harming a person has the right not to get shot.
Your fallacious right not to get shot, only protects those who intend to do harm.
I hope to never have to kill anybody. But if I do, I hope what can be said about me is what is on the headstone of the gunfighter Robert Clay Allison.
Did they catch that guy in Jersey?
FYI, in 5th paragraph you got caught up in the double negatives and meant to say the right to not get shot does NOT negate your right to keep and bear arms.
“This will happen until we decide it should stop, which would mean getting rid of not only the AK-47s but the pretty little silver .22s as well. All of them. No one ever asks for that, maybe because it feels prudent to not enrage the many people who own guns…”
To her first point, how exactly does she plan on accomplishing getting rid of all the guns? Liberals can never answer that one. They just assume it work like this ‘Step 1. Outlaw everything. Step 2. ?. Step 3. No more guns!’ “We will order people to turn them in, like in Australia!”. Haha, good luck with that. Seriously, good luck.
To her second point, maybe she isn’t quite as dumb as she sounds.