From the NYT. He says liberal, but he's not.
I AM a New England liberal, born and bred. I have lived most of my life in the Northeast — Boston, New York and Philadelphia — and my politics are devoutly Democratic. In three decades, I have voted for a Republican exactly once, holding my nose, in a mayoral election in which the Democratic candidate seemed mentally unbalanced.
A must-read rant from The Patriot Perspective. Ruthless perfection. Enjoy!
If the anti-gun fools prefer to call 911 when they are about to be asulted and wiat 20 minutes for the police to arrive, that’s fine with me; just don’t ask the rest of us to be fools.
Reblogged this on Jericho777's Blog.
I am no fool. Assaulted and Wait
On gun I think there are two question: practical and philosophical.
On the first, can any regulation of guns be effective and enforced. My guess is no. Criminals especially will clearly flout guns laws as they do others. Guns enthusiasts will likely become criminals with respect to any guns bans.
In terms of what would be any ideal world though, I don’t buy the idea that the more guns the less violence. The suggestion of the graphic that guns are a great equalizer seems bogus. The strong, the more aggressive and the violent are going to have the most (and the biggest) guns as well.
I’d prefer fewer weapons period. I think no less than Ronald Reagan agreed with this when was pursuing large scale dis-armament toward the end of his Presidency. In the end though it just a dream that there’s no way to make happen. Violence will be with humanity to the end of time.
So, the practical consideration win out in my mind. Enforcing a gun ban would make prohibition look like a good idea in comparison.
Hey! Nice to hear from you, Bruce. Thx for commenting. You make a good point regarding the practical considerations.