A restaurant in Durham was hit by armed robbers this weekend. I know. Put away your shocked face. After all, it’s (a) in Durham, and (b) in Durham.
So why is this news? It’s not except for one little bit of delicious irony. You see, the restaurant’s owner has posted a conspicuous “No weapons” sign on the front entrance.
Then how, you ask, could this crime possibly have been committed? It was not only illegal, but doubly illegal because the sign was right there for all to see.
Or was it? I think this was entirely the owner’s fault.
First, he posted the sign with written words in English. Given the state of education in NC, it really is discriminatory against the hardworking criminal class to expect them to be able to read a sign with words longer than three letters. And in English? The owner must be the vilest of racists. What if your prospective thief were, say, Hispanic or Asian? Picture signs only, please.
Second, the sign should have been posted at the back entrance (where the perps entered) as well. Because everyone knows that criminals who are willing to break multiple laws in order to rob a business at gunpoint will definitely think twice when they see a “No weapons” sign and discover they would compound a felony with a misdemeanor trespass. Right?
I’ll never understand the “logic” of advertising your premises as a “gun-free zone,” aka, target-rich environment.
The citizens of NYC have been rocked by a recent wave of vicious attacks by young thugs with hammers. One victim was partially blinded; another lost an ear; yet another will require reconstructive surgery. They’re fortunate to be alive.
But wait, you ask, isn’t that illegal?
Why, yes, as a matter of fact it is. But laws only constrain the law-abiding. In this case, it also turns them into victims. New York’s peaceful citizens have been disarmed by the very government which has proven yet again that it can’t protect them. They are easy prey for a young, strong assailant wielding a deadly weapon.
You can be the one to look the young pregnant victim in the eye and tell her she shouldn’t be allowed to protect herself. That her life and safety just aren’t that valuable.
Me? I want her armed and trained. As my daughter will be. As every citizen of NYC should be allowed the choice to be.
Last month PoliceOne conducted the most thorough survey of police opinion regarding gun control and armed citizens.
If you’ve known many officers the results won’t surprise you. If, on the other hand, you see Obama using cops as props and assume they’re on his side of the fence, the survey could be eye-opening.
In Bloomberg’s Nannytown, one woman was dragged to a cemetery and raped, and another beaten and robbed.
Where were the police? Close enough to take an incident report. Not close enough to be of any help to the victims.
Despite what the Left will tell you, ladies, you’re on your own out there. And they would rather have you raped, beaten, and robbed–and dependent on the state for protection it does not provide–than armed for your own defense.
How’s that concealed carry ban working, Mikey? Pretty well for you and your wealthy friends who have bodyguards. Not so well for your constituents subjects.
I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.
— Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette, defending her support of a federal ban on high capacity magazines for handguns and rifles
Her official spokeswoman, Juliet Johnson, didn’t fare any better in her defense:
she simply misspoke in referring to ‘magazines’ when she should have referred to ‘clips,’ which cannot be reused because they don’t have a feeding mechanism
There is no such thing as a high capacity clip. If there were–and it had no feeding mechanism–it couldn’t be used in a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15.
There are three basic types of clips: en bloc, stripper and moon. Each holds a handful of rounds. They are used to reload the fixed magazines of low capacity rifles or the cylinder of some revolvers, and to make reloading high capacity removable magazines easier. Even in the last case, they aren’t as common as the more convenient lever-action reloaders.
In any case, ammunition is not purchased in clips, but is loaded by hand into clips which are then, like magazines, reused many, many, many times.
Here’s a legislative proposal: in order to vote on–much less sponsor–a bill, you must have some semblance of a clue regarding its subject.
A mob of hundreds of teens attacked pedestrians in Chicago. If you’ve been paying attention, this has become a fairly regular occurrence in the Windy City.
- Why isn’t this front page headline news in every media outlet?
- Why aren’t we talking every day about the prevalence of group/mob violence in many of our major cities?
- Why isn’t there a clamor for stricter laws and sentences for participation in mob violence?
The thugs are predominantly non-white. Ignore and excuse it. Paper it over. Pretend it’s not happening. Nothing to see, folks. Move along.
Contrary to the statements of the resident and community activist quoted, this isn’t “childish” and parents don’t need to “check your child.” This is criminal and must be treated accordingly. Parents need to parent, and the criminal “justice” system needs to arrest, prosecute, and imprison.
Twenty-eight arrests out of hundreds of attackers? Disgraceful.
One area worker said,
It’s been happening a lot around here. Just keep your wallet close and your purse closer.
Better idea: keep your wallet close and your Glock (and spare high-capacity magazine) closer. Oh, right. This is the People’s Republik of Chicago. Nevermind. The police will protect you.
Uh-huh. Keep telling yourself that while you continue to vote for gun-grabbing pols who don’t care a bit about your life or safety.
While out on bail for a child pornography charge—and having removed a court ordered location tracking device—a monster in NY carjacked a woman and her 10-year-old daughter. He killed the mother and raped the girl, who somehow managed to escape afterward.
The answer from the Left? Whistles. Call boxes. Puke or pee on him. Don’t worry…the police will protect you.
The truth is that the real war on women is waged by the Left. Liberals don’t give a rat’s tail end about women’s safety.
Conservatives, on the other hand, want you armed, trained, and carrying concealed everywhere you go because we value your life and your daughter’s innocence.
The libs who run states like NY, IL, and CA? They don’t. Wise up.
An unarmed father died earlier this week trying to keep two armed men out of his 11-year-old daughter’s room. You know who could have really used an “assault rifle” with a 30-round magazine? No, tragically, the Left would rather see him dead than able to defend his family.
Across the country an elderly man was attacked by four thugs—all for the $15 he carried. You know who could have used a Glock with 20 rounds? Ah, but the gun grabbers in CA make it virtually impossible for a citizen in L.A. to carry a weapon for protection.
Self defense is a basic human right, folks. The evil among us don’t care what laws you pass—except when they benefit by the disarming of their victims.
We are constantly being reminded by the Left that we don’t need high-powered, high-capacity weapons because:
- The police will protect you, and
- You don’t need more than 7-10 rounds to defend yourself, your family, your store,…
Um, yeah, whatever.
Cases in point:
Yes the police always respond to your calls. Except when they have coffee and a donut that might get cold. Or, of course, if they’re sure the perps have left the area and you’re safe. Or when they can’t do anything to help you anyway.
Self defense is a natural right. No politician can predetermine when or where you’ll need a gun, what kind of gun you’ll need, or how many rounds will be necessary to defend yourself.
A Central Michigan University senior was abducted at gunpoint from a school parking lot, driven to a remote location, and raped. She was “lucky” because even partially bound and with a broken arm, she was able to escape when her rapist moved her again. Hint: he wasn’t taking her in to get medical treatment.
The hard truth is that the anti-gun crowd doesn’t care. This happened in a “gun-free zone” or as the rapist—an ex-con who likely couldn’t legally own the gun he was carrying—would have called it had he survived (he was later killed by police…with guns) a “victim-rich environment.” The Left wants to keep it that way even though time and again we see that “gun-free” zones aren’t, and the police can’t protect you everywhere. They would rather (and will) have more women raped and killed than let them carry handguns on campus.
Please tell me again how denying this poor young woman the ability to defend herself stopped her rapist from perpetrating his heinous act. Until then your gun “control” blather is just that.