Following up on my buddy Steve's excellent post below, i thought i'd share an email i received from an old friend and former colleague. He's a former Marine and a retired, highly-decorated, NYPD Detective. We worked together for several years in the Brooklyn South Homicide Sqd. And if there was ever a guy you would be proud to stand with, it's him...
New York's Mayor Bloomberg thinks cops should "strike" for gun control:
Mike Bloomberg is a horses ass. The police in general, (not that ass-kissing Ray Kelly who used to have balls) won't support anti-gun legislation because they know better. Guns in the hands of legitimate owners is NOT a problem in America. Judges who won't enforce existing laws and put people behind bars for illegal gun possession ARE a problem. Study after study, frequently proposed by proponents of anti-gun legislation, substantiate, over and over again, that there is no direct correlation that firearms in the hands of legal owners increases crime. In fact, the evidence is directly contradictory to that preposterous notion. Legally owned guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens significantly reduces crime, especially violent crime.
Mike Bloomberg is a horses ass. The police in general, (not that ass-kissing Ray Kelly who used to have balls) won't support anti-gun legislation because they know better. Guns in the hands of legitimate owners is NOT a problem in America. Judges who won't enforce existing laws and put people behind bars for illegal gun possession ARE a problem. Study after study, frequently proposed by proponents of anti-gun legislation, substantiate, over and over again, that there is no direct correlation that firearms in the hands of legal owners increases crime. In fact, the evidence is directly contradictory to that preposterous notion. Legally owned guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens significantly reduces crime, especially violent crime.
Mike Bloomberg is rich and powerful but his policies, attitudes and nanny-state adherence to ludicrous philosophies does him no kindness in the typical American heartland and heart. While Rudy Giuliani was "America's Mayor" Bloomberg has proven to be better suited to the "left" coast where he can be Fuhrer of Frisco. As a born and raised New Yorker I am perplexed how so vibrant and ethnically passionate a city can keep this whining, sniveling, "girly-man" as their mayor. It makes me glad I live in Florida, glad I never voted for this self-aggrandizing idiot, and glad that the likelihood of his future "higher office" political endeavors will be overshadowed by his imbecilic tendencies to think HE knows better than everyone else what is good and healthy for the masses. (please pass the salt) And while your at it, I'll have the "big gulp" in two containers because 32 ounces is not enough. My choice "Mammary Mike", not yours. Besides, what have you done about your city's drug addiction problem lately? Here's one for the people..........."Ban Bloomberg". He doesn't even warrant your consideration.
And while I'm at it why in G_d's name do the Brits think they have a monopoly on civility because of their gun laws? I don't know who the Brit commentator was because I don't watch CNN, and for good reason, but such a moral superiority complex is unhealthy. I've been an "anglophile" all my life, but I don't tell them to keep or "quit" their Monarchy. To my Anglo-friends, please stop judging us by our gun ownership. Those guns and the arms and hands that carried them once helped destroy your worst enemy in history; and also be reminded we once used those same guns to tell your King to take a hike. We tried words, that didn't work and you drew first blood in Boston, so...... we answered as Americans are want to do. Full Volley. What were we supposed to use? Stones? Pitchforks? Torches? Tarring and feathering? Perhaps we could have drowned them in our Big Gulps. Better yet how about snowballs? Oh wait we tried that in Boston.
Now maybe there is more to this Brit gun whining. Maybe they miss our former colonial subjugation. See, Mr. Commentator, we don't like to even feel remotely subjugated, or told what to do under most circumstances. It boils our blood and when our blood boils, well, suffice to say we don't make idle threats, we don't sabre rattle. We load our guns, defend our homes and families and even an occasional ally. In other words Mr. Commentator, whoever you are, mind your business. I like my beverages large, my guns large caliber and I use way too much salt, and I like it just that way.
My beverages are sugar-free now because I'm a diabetic, and by the way, that's directly attributed to some crap called "Agent Orange" that MY government dropped on my head and the heads of a few million other US Military personnel in the jungles, rivers and coastal regions of Viet Nam some 45 years ago. I also can no longer scan the horizons with my sharp-eyed peripheral former eagle-like vision because I can't turn my head to any significant degree. Why? Because while I was a Police Officer in Mike Bloomberg's city, while Mike Bloomberg was worried about making Billions, I put my proverbial and non-proverbial neck on the line once to often. So pardon me, if I feel I earned the right to own, possess, carry, and legally use a firearm, (even in your city Mike) or sprinkle my food with way too much salt, and quench the thirst that salt brings with a big or bigger gulp...
6 comments:
A man after my own heart, I'd buy the next round, just to sit and listen to his stories.
I've seen several articles and heard a few people say, "...ok, we DO have a 2nd Amendment, I'll give you that. But I don't think that what the Founders had in mind, was the average citizens owning military grade firepower...".
Hmmm, that's odd for them to say that, because we came mostly from England, decided we'd break away,the King got pissed off, so he sent British Troops and hired 13K German mercenaries, the Hessians. Both groups of fighters on the opposing side had THE best weapon of the day as their primary weapon.
The Brown Bess.
That's what the colonists had too. Many of them had been in the British Army or served as Militia during the French & Indian War. They kept their Brown Bess muskets because, as British Colonialists, they might have been called on to defend the colony from Spanish or French or Flemish invaders.
Now, for some history.
The Brown Bess musket was THE long gun firearm for the British Empire for 116 years, from 1722 to 1838. It's the weapon they used to create and hold their empire for 116 years. Wouldn't that make it THE military grade weapon of it's day?!
So on the face of it, not only did the Founding Fathers undoubtedly KNOW what the best, most powerful, most effective weapon was in 1773 for the Boston Tea Party. They knew what the World's best weapon was at Lexington and Concord in 1775. 53 years. That's how long the British Army, and the colonists had been using that 'military grade' weapon. In fact, the Shot Heard Round the World was fired down the musket barrel of the best, most popular long gun on Earth that day.
The Brown Bess musket.
So when anyone tries to tell you that, the Founders never wanted, or planned for, or considered the kinds of weapons we'd have today when they wrote the 2nd Amendment, you tell the BS. They not only knew what weapons they had then they didn't care how they would change in the future. They armed us to keep tyranny from visiting our shores.
And they armed us WITH the best military hardware, in case we had to fight our OWN tyrannical government. A AR-15, or M16, 1911 .45, M1 Carbines, BAR or battle shotgun, is PRECISELY what they had in mind when they said the following!
.
.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
.
.
Trust me, they knew what they were talking about.
What always amuses me, but captures the mindless public's attention, is how the left and the MSM have created this monster called, "the assault weapon". I'd love for them to show me a "non-assault" weapon. I've been into guns all my life and i've yet to see a firearm (or any other weapon) that was not designed for "assault" as well as defense. What about a sword or dagger, are they not "assault" weapons?
Another term they love to use is, "military-style" weapon. I assume they're talking about the weapons design? If you painted an AK pink, would it then not be a military-style weapon? And when they talk about the AK, do you ever hear them mention that it is the favorite weapon of black gang-bangers, and used by them almost exclusively? When was the last time you saw a White guy hold-up a bank with an AK?
Those of us who know weapons laugh at this bullshit. But to the general public, the intended targets of the left's propaganda, this stuff sinks in.
We know that their ultimate goal is an outright ban on "ALL" firearms, ala Britain. We also know that they'll "never" stop trying.
Or as our Presidente said "Only US soldiers should have military weapons like AK 47's" Really dude, you should get your teleprompter back, you idiocy is showing.
Yes, and maybe they should wear ChiCom uniforms to go along with those AK-47's.
Steve: I bet you didn't learn that in a public school.
It still amazes me that I am an expert shot with multiple actual assualt weapons, along with missles and rockets and have hunted and bagged the most dangerous animal on the earth....but I still have to take a hunter's safety course in order to get a hunting license because I was born a couple of months after some imaginary "qualification" date.
Personally, I think "Indivdual responsibility" should be added as an ammendment to our Constitution (notice the upper case "C").
If you are under age 65 and not responsible for feeding, clothing, and sheltering yourself or your family, you don't get a vote (of course there are always exceptions such as disabled due to injuries incurred by public service)
If you throw away your right to own a firearm by committing a felony, the next time you are seen with one, you should immediately be considered as "armed and dangerous" and the executive branch of the powers that be are responsible for removing you as a threat, whether percieved or real is mox nix.
I think we can go on for days.....bottom line...the only reason the US should outlaw citizens owning any type of fire are is:
1. the citizen has forfeited the right due to criminal act
2. the gov't has decided that serfs (citizens) with the ability to think are a domestic threat and the only means of removing that threat is genocide.
Post a Comment