And
so it begins--those who dirty their drawers at the very idea of
law-abiding citizens being armed, so they AREN'T “sitting ducks”
if somebody comes into a peaceful ball game and starts shooting at
random will have their say. And on the other side, those who think it
would be okay for everybody to be armed, just in case will also have
their say. Who is right? It only took two guns in the friendly hands
of the ONE security detail there to “neutralize the threat” by
“pinning down” the shooter who opened up on the unarmed crowd of
congresspeople assembled there to practice for a charity baseball
game. But what if every congressperson there had had ONE armed
security person there. Likely that shooter would have been dead a lot
quicker than he was, and all those unarmed people would not have to
fear for their lives.
One
of my favorite scenes in a movie was the one where a gunman walked
into a bar and tried to hold it up. The next sound was of 43 guns
being cocked, while the robber stood and was surrounded by 43 cocked
guns. Turns out it was a “cop bar,” and the WRONG place for him
to stage a holdup. Nobody was hurt, not even the would-be robber. But
the fact that everybody there was armed made a lot of difference in
his plans that day. Truth is, if more people go about armed, they
most likely won't just “go wild” and shoot up everything in
sight, like anti-gun fools think they would do. Like those cops,
their guns would stay in the holster until needed, then would come
out and put such a would-be shooter in his place. (Just common sense)
No comments:
Post a Comment