
Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right
By: Keith C. Burris
Why not a more stringent "three strikes and you're out" law in this state? Connecticut's version is so weak that it's more like "30 strikes and we'll think about it while you strike again."
Why not speed up the criminal trial process for repeat violent offenders? Get them off the streets. It's been proposed many times. Most people agree it should be done. It never happens.
Can't we better monitor the probation process?
YOU SIMPLY HAVE TO READ THIS TRIPE HERE
Keith C. Burris is editorial page editor of the Journal Inquirer.
I decided to post this because it's just sooooo typical of liberals. We have been saying for ever that there are evil people out there who want to kill you. The police can't protect you or be everywhere all the time. You need to take personal responsibility for your safety and your family's safety. Guns in the hand of law abiding citizens aren't a problem, not having a gun when you need one is.
And so it goes. Now a beautiful family is wiped out in the heartland of Liberaltopia and they suddenly think the Neanderthals may be on to something. Duh. I guess it's all part of growing up. We all experience those moments. But the key to parenting is allowing the children to experience those moments without being murdered.
I find it particularly tragic that this Keith Burris openly concedes the points that he doesn't think the second amendment really means anything and now has to re-think his position. Never mind the fact that it is the Second Amendment that secures every other right in the Constitution. Re-read:
Is It Possible, Just Like The First Amendment???
Sam Ervin said, "The Constitution should be taken like mountain whiskey -- undiluted and untaxed." Maybe that applies to all of the Constitution.
Maybe????
Is it possible that the Second Amendment is not a quaint and antiquated remnant of a world that will never return, but an idea as relevant and sound today as when it was written?
Yeah like freedom of speech, assembly, petitioning the Government for redress of grievances, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion, etc? I wonder what other rights this idiot thinks are Quaint & Antiquated?
Is it possible that we are not talking about the right of the government to form a militia when there is no standing army, but the right of the individual to defend himself, or herself, against both tyranny and lawlessness? Maybe we are talking about the right of self-defense -- the right of the individual to take up arms against a government that wants to oppress, be it foreign or domestic. And the right of the individual to defend himself against criminals, brutes, and barbarians when local police seem unable to stop them.
Ya think?
(Linked at OTB's Beltway Traffic Jam)





|