Yachtie
Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
FR So it's the anti-gunners, perhaps better said as anti self defense, v pro-gunners, pro self defense. Easy targets v not so easy. What's interesting is that the anti's use hindsight as justification for their posturing rhetoric whereas the pro's use viewing it 'at the moment'. Those are wholly different lenses. Reality based, one is appropriate and the other is not. The man was suffering from Alzheimer. He was warned 3 times. He kept approaching. Now how anyone could 'know' his handicap is anyone guess. Perhaps the pro-gunner's crystal ball wasn't working. Yes, that's snark. The result was unfortunate, a happenstance of 'the moment.' Now, juxtapose that against a happening quite some time ago, when a man was confronted by police. He had what the officer(s) thought was a weapon. It wasn't. It was a foil wrapped sub sandwich. No matter, he paid with his life. The cop wasn't a pro-gunner, he was a cop. One of those whom the anti's believe "should" be armed; the one trusted. Heaven forbid anyone else. Anti-gun self defense adherents make me sick. Not because they oppose firearm self-defense use, but because they cannot make a cogent argument against such. It's all feeling and hindsight. Cheese-heads demanding everyone drink of their whine. But I would expect him to become informed enough about a situation to determine whether he was in danger BEFORE killing another human being. Tell that to the cop who killed the sandwich carrier. IIRC, he was told to drop it. He didn't. The Alzheimer man was warned too. He kept approaching. Feelgood leftist anti-gun self defense proponents are some of the most irrational people. Wearing fear goggles, indeed.
_____________________________
“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell
|