The Oregon Politico has produced a "mini documentary [as] part of a series on gun rights in Oregon. They tell us they "interviewed experts on both sides of the issue to get a complete understanding of the story."
Well, they interviewed two experts, anyway.
Kevin Starrett of Oregon Firearms Federation and State Rep. Kim Thatcher take on the ineducable over guns in schools.
What can you do about an ignorant bigot like State Sen. Ginny Burdick, when the first words out of her mouth to describe those who believe they have a right to self defense are "gun rights extremists"? An adult shouldn't have to do anything, and besides, it's obvious that no rational counter-argument is going to penetrate that skull . She's not interested in debate. It's obvious both she and CeaseFire Oregon's Shawn Alford would rather see us dead than armed, because both are committed to the state exacting criminal penalties if we do not bend to their will.
Just realize neither one of them would be able to do more than blubber and plead if they ever found themselves in the situation where they demand we be rendered just as pathetically helpless as they would be. That they come up with all kinds of rationalizations to excuse away their own unwillingness to even try to act as self-reliant human beings is no surprise, but note their core arguments all center on why you can't be trusted.
And remember--it's not merely in schools where they'd like to do away with guns.
Also see:
- Still crossing fingers 10 years after Columbine
- Huntsville shooting another 'gun free zone' failure
- "Safe schools"
- New York Times' Virginia tech panel
------------
Catch me if you can
I'm the first to admit to finding movies like "The Great Impostor" or "Catch Me if You Can" entertaining.
But I also think it's just plain wrong when real life impersonators claim unearned military honors. I don't know what mental or emotional inadequacy is driving the sick liar being talked about here to act out on his obsession, but he evidently needs professional help. What he's doing dishonors real sacrifices and suffering made and endured by Americans who weren't pretending.
More from Gun Rights Examiners:
Atlanta Ed Stone
Austin Howard Nemerov
Boston Ron Bokleman
Charlotte Paul Valone
Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard
Chicago Don Gwinn
Denver Dan Bidstrup
Des Moines Sean McClanahan
Detroit Rob Reed
Fort Smith Steve D. Jones
Knoxville Liston Matthews
Los Angeles John Longenecker
Minneapolis John Pierce
National David Codrea
Seattle Dave Workman
St. Louis Kurt Hofmann
Tucson Chris Woodard
Comments
Hearing Ginny Burdick claim "the statistics back me up" put me immediately in mind of the new crop of urban legend spammers, who have now taken to adding an additional lie to the load of crap they're already sending you, one saying, "I checked this out on Snopes, and it's true!"
It's becoming painfully tiresome to hear anti self-defense "experts" trot out false "statistics" about how much more danger one is in if that person is even in the presence of a gun. I grew up with the presence of loaded guns in just about every house I was in. Don't remember the accidental shootings and suicides that are borne out by these alleged, un-cited "statistics".
The fact that the interviewer failed to request a cite for the bogus "facts" advanced by the interviewed hoplophobes illustrates that the interviewer wanted to present unsupportable forgone conclusions.
The interview of the above hoplophobes has about as much merit as if they'd simply referenced "that shoulder thing that goes up."
Let them pass a law saying we have to disarm, then they will see extreme.
Want a quick example of the "dumbing down" or American political debate over the last 240 or so years? Just try to read the next paragraph without getting a headache. My sincerest appologies to Thomas Jefferson for perhaps misusing his line in such a fashion.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that 13 children are killed every day by firearms, that 90% of Mexican crime guns come from American gun shops, that having a firearm in your home triples your chances of being shot.
By now you've had enough. The absurdity is obvious. Yet the fools who would have the rest of us believe statements like that hold themselves up to be at least as smart as Jefferson and the other founders. After all, the Second Amendment is clearly obsolete and needs to be repealed, is it not? Nope, that one's not gonna fly either!
David, thank you so much for adding the piece about the imposter. I'm hoping if we get enough attention on this guy he will get caught and hopefully spend some more time in prison for the Stolen Valor Act.
Again, thank you for being so kind, I really appreciate the help.
Well, what can I say? The FBI Crime Reports do not support the lunatic claims of Burdick and her kind. In fact, I don't know of any real information/statistical database that does. Snopes is a poor source for proof of any pudding. Unfortunately, what gets lost in all the clamor is the fact that Socialism/Socialists/Communists cannot, under any circumstances, tolerate an armed, law abiding society. Allow me to quote a late, great Democrat, Mr. Hubert H. Humphrey;
"The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
We are now in the realm of "arbitrary and possible" if not down right inevitable. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Count me in.
Even if the statistics _did_ back her up -- and they do not -- I would still have the moral, natural right to my life, liberty, and property, and therefore a moral, natural right to the means to defend them.
While I disagree with some of the things that were said ... stepping back a bit, I realize that it's GREAT they are covering this issue, and talking about it. That means the issue is being taken seriously.
I work on a university campus ... I have often considered keeping a gun locked in a pistol box in my office. But I hesitate for fear of disciplinary consequences. And while I hesitate due to fear of consequences, I know for sure that someone with evil intent would not so hesitate. That encapsulates the nature of prohibition ... good people will follow the law (perhaps even to their demise), but bad people will do whatever they want.
Just remember (Doctrine of Competing Harms) I would rather be armed and alive than stupid and dead...
Legally YOU CAN defend yourself REGARDLESS of what some idiot congressperson or activist says.
No, the "extremists" are the politicans who will not let students defend themselves. These politicans MUST be removed from office by not being reelected. It's time to put all the Dems and Reps out of work and only elect Independents.
Carl from Chicago: if I were you, I'd carry well concealed. Better to lose your job than your life.
Extremist? I like the sound of that!
Sam Adams, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry were all extremists as were all the men who signed that treasonous document written by Thomas Jefferson on July 4, 1776, thereby putting their own lives in forfeit. Who's example would you follow, theirs or that of Sen. Ginny Burdick?
"Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -- Sen. Barry Goldwater quoting Thomas Paine quoting Marcus Tullius Cicero
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!