Armed Vigilantes: The New Face of the Republican Party

[FWiedner]

Armed Vigilantes: The New Face of the Republican Party

This is a news story about a Google headline, "Florida National Rifle Association Bill Would Allow People To Kill Others In Public."

This is a news story about how that headline is not, by any means, an exaggeration, and about how the story underlying that headline is brought to you not by some obscure troglodyte on the X-con frontier, but the likely Republican presidential candidate in 2008--and the brother (God help us, the "smart" one) of our current President--Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Read the rest of the piece at:

http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/04/armed-vigilantes-new-face-of.html

The story referred to in the Google headline story mentioned above can be found at:

http://www.whiotv.com/news/4355286/detail.html

*FW Note:  The reason that I posted a link to this article was so that when I posted the text of a reader's response to the article, you'd know what he's talking about.  This falls into the "Listen, you snivelling moron..." category.  Excellent.

Now, on to that reader's comment's...:


I won't even dignify this chicken-little whinefest with a line-by-line response, but I will address a few points.

Getting rid of the duty to retreat does not mean that you can shoot someone who has threatened to punch you. The person attacking you still has to have the means, the intent, and the opportunity to do you grave bodily harm or to kill you. In order for you to shoot lawfully, the attacker still has to be about to kill you! Pay attention, handwringing liberals. You just don't have to try to run away when the armed robber is pulling his gun up to shoot you.

In self-defense shootings, the good guy is always at a disadvantage. The attacker knows what he is about to do long before the victim does. The victim has to dig his way out of that hole to save himself. Any rules on what a person about to be killed must follow only add to the criminal's advantage.

A person should have the option to run away if he can... and those of us that actually know a little bit about guns and defense know that if we have the opportunity to run, this is almost always the best choice. I know a lot of people that, like me, have a concealed weapon permit and who carry a handgun everywhere we go, and not one of them wants to ever have to use that gun defensively. The ignorant stereotype people have of people like me is wrong-- like all of the other stereotypes liberals have.


That said, it is definitely true that the person who is about to be killed should have the opportunity to decide whether a tactical retreat or defensive use of force is warranted. It should not be decided by a group of legislators, years before, who have armed guards to worry about things like that so that they do not have to. One size does not fit all, and a legal duty to retreat means that innocent, law-abiding people will be killed when trying to follow that absurd law, or else they will be prosecuted for doing what was necessary to save their lives.

A lot of us live in states that do not have a "duty to retreat" law on the books, and guess what? We have not had problems with unjustified shootings by lawful citizens. Even without a legal duty to retreat, we're more law abiding than the general public by far, and we shoot the wrong guy much less often than the police do, since we're there when the crime happens, and the police aren't. The incidence of unjustified shootings is negligible. These are facts; go look them up. (I know it is not your habit to refer to facts, rather than going only on uninformed, hysterical fear of the unknown, but go ahead-- do it just this once).

The liberal hand-wringers went crazy when forward-thinking legislators in Florida decided to change the statutes such that any law-abiding citizen could get a permit to carry concealed handguns in public. Oh, they were predicting that Florida would become the Gunshine state; shootings would erupt over parking places and too many items in the express grocery lane; blood would flow in the streets!

Only problem? It never happened. Not in Florida, and not in the many other states that followed Florida's lead. Two thirds of the states in this country now recognize this fundamental right, and concealed-gun permit holders have racked up exemplary safety records in each of them.

Concealed gun permit holders are not the bloodthirsty hotheads that you liberals stereotype us to be. If you did some research, you'd find that lawful gun carriers are just like everyone else. Many are doctors, lawyers, teachers, clergy, and other educated professionals.

The way that you characterize the members of the members of the Minuteman Project in Arizona is defamatory at best. The people down there are regular people, too-- not thugs, not vagrants, but regular people that are upset that the Bush Administration is failing in its job to protect our borders.

The modern Minutemen are not vigilantes-- they are basically a neighborhood watch. They are acting as the eyes for the Border Patrol officers, nothing more... and these untrained citizens effectively shut down the most active corridor for illegal immigration in the country. The man arrested as described in your blog entry wasn't even part of the Project, and yet you try to use him to show what nasty people the Minutemen are (which you would not have had to do if there was anything real to report).

The Minutemen of the Revolution would be proud of what the Minutemen are doing down at the Arizona border, and they would be absolutely ashamed that so many people like you have lost the spirit of liberty and self-determination that they fought and died for.

By the way-- A "titanium-alloy .357" is a revolver, and revolvers do not have safeties. If you had the first clue about guns and self-defense, I bet you would know that.

By Asc, at 4:54 AM

 

[magooch]

Armed Vigilantes: The New Face of the Republican Party
 
 I'm a Republican and I represent that remark.

[lgm270]

This is much ado about nothing.

When Florida liberalized its concealed carry laws almost 20 years ago we heard the same teeth gnashing and wailing from liberals and Negro civil rights leaders about "vigilantes", "racism" and "lynching."   Now, almost 20 years later, no Florida licensee has been convicted of anything more serious than DUI or  low level drug possession (i.e marijuana). During the same time period, police officers on NYC and LA PD's have been convicted of drug dealing, money laundering, burglary, murder for hire, obstruction of justice, etc.  

In my world the cops would be disarmed and the citizens would have guns, but that's another issue.  

Several years ago there was a similar controversy about a  new law allowing motorists to shoot carjackers in Louisana. Apparently  car jacking was increasingly common and this was one idea floated as one answer.  All the liberals wailed about "vigilantes" and the Negro "civil rights" leaders wailed about "racism" and "Lynching".  [Why do Negro civil rights leaders automatically assume that all carjackers are also Negoes?]

Well, the law was passed.  That was years ago.   Has anyone heard of a single shooting of a car jacker by a Louisana motorist?  I haven't.   I have heard that car jacking became much a less popular pass time after this law was passed.  

The same thing will happen with this law. There will be the usual teeth gnashing from liberals and Negro civil rights leaders and it will die and become a dead letter.