« "All military orders coming from the Executive / CIC are illegitimate and illegal" | Main | The Penetrating Intelligence of Jesse Jackson Jr. »

April 16, 2011

The TV news doesn’t run the story

about the old woman who lives down the street.
She simply picks up her groceries and continues home after someone tries to rob her. She didn’t have to shoot anyone to keep herself safe. There wasn’t a body for the paramedics; not hers, not her attackers. Grandma is shaken, and over a cup of hot tea she says she’s glad she brought the small pistol her husband purchased for her long ago. -- Ten to One - Responsible Citizens of California

Posted by Vanderleun at April 16, 2011 10:16 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

Life isn't sacred to criminals nor to the gun-control advocates. If in our brainwashed liberal society we can't defend the right of an innocent fetus to be born, then we have no chance at defending innocent citizens' rights to protect their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. How dare us, desiring to be safe! Life just isn't sacred to the Left. The innocent citizen is no more or less valuable than the attacker. If you don't buy into that noble liberal sentiment, that's okay - it really isn't about sentiment, but rather about removing the citizenship's ability to fight back. I don't know if the bleeding-heart anti-gun liberals actually believe taking away guns will make the world more peaceful or if they are so self-hating that they want to level the playing field so we can all suffer equally - like social justice for anti-gun advocates... spreading the violence around. Often rich white liberals live in safe neighborhoods and have no clue what average citizens live with on a daily basis. A more sinister theory is that taking away our protection promotes fear in the citizenship and Leftists know fear is a powerful way to control people. What's the point of going after the criminal after the damage has been done? Only when the gun-controllers are held legally accountable will things change. Why shouldn't they be legally liable? Why can't a law-abiding citizen document both his desire and his attempt to legally own and/or carry a gun as self-defense, obtain documented proof that he was denied and then use that evidence in the case he is subsequently attacked to hold the denier legally accountable? Good citizens need to learn to document when their rights are denied and then take the necessary steps to hold those who impede on their rights accountable, BEFORE the damage is done in a violent crime. If we don't, we only have ourselves to blame. Afterthought: in this world of Leftist feminism, the rape issue is less and less important. We are all equal now, right? Rape is automatically a male-on-female violent crime.. if hate crimes ever get traction, they have the entire male population by the balls. For the feminist, it is never about protecting women.. it is about getting even with men. It's a win-win situation for the die-hard Leftist. For them, spreading the misery around is a useful political tool, one which they will use selectively. It's a bit of a tangent, I admit - but not a stretch.

Posted by: RedCarolina at April 17, 2011 3:32 PM

I remember reading in the Old Testament, where King David wanted to conduct a census. God warned him against doing it, as He had warned the Israelites earlier against having kings to rule them, and David didn't listen, either. I think, once people are reduced to being a number on a list, it becomes all too easy to erase them as numbers, and not see them as people.
Any man who stands up to the powerful with an equalizer proves he's no cypher, and they just can't accept that.

Posted by: Jewel at April 17, 2011 7:35 PM

When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

Posted by: Roger Drew Williams at April 17, 2011 8:12 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)