Seriously, here’s a pro-tip for
the anti-gun crowd. Do not pick a man
credibly accused of raping a woman as your spokesman for undermining individual
self-defense as your advocate. This is
Dateline’s original item on Juanita Broadderick (Via MRC):
Indeed if you find her credible—and
I do—this is the perfect argument for the Second Amendment, as applied to the
states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
What do you have here? You have
Bill Clinton who was at the time the Attorney
General of Arkansas. They often
refer to the attorney general as the top law enforcement official in a given
state. And this top law enforcement
official was committing, allegedly, a crime.
And liberals want us to depend exclusively on law enforcement to protect
our lives, our families and property?
The most absurd example of this
is Al Sharpton (who is the most absurd examples of most things), who apparently wishes to ban all guns and maybe even knives
(via Gatewaypundit):
I am not sure of the latter part. I found more ambiguity in the statement than
others did regarding knife control, although he might mean that, and he wouldn’t
be the first to make such a suggestion.
What seems less in doubt is that he is hoping to get rid of all guns for
private citizens. Of course even in this
Huffington
Post essay he does a little dance.
On one hand he writes things like this:
[The Second
Amendment] doesn't mean guns should be so readily accessible to the least
stable among us. And it doesn't mean that we don't need stricter gun laws to
keep them out of the hands of criminals and those with a complete disregard for
human life.
Which sounds like he just wants
some restrictions on gun ownership, not to ban all guns. But then he also writes this at the very end:
Get guns out of the
community and stop them from ever finding their way back in. Together, we can
save ourselves -- and the next generation.
That would be no guns at all,
even for law abiding citizens. And
indeed the premise of the man’s question in the youtube clip above was an end
to all gun possession (legal or illegal), which Al Sharpton went along
with. Here’s the text of the exchange,
if you couldn’t watch it:
REV AL SHARPTON (28
Dec 2012): In any civilized society you do not see massacres continue to
happen, from Tucson to Aurora to Columbine to Virginia Tech to where we are now
in Newtown to Chicago and you keep the same laws when clearly they’re not
working.
ROSCOE IN MARYLAND:
What happens when the criminal goes to knives Al?
REV AL SHARPTON:
Then you deal with knives.
ROSCOE IN MARYLAND:
Oh I see.
REV AL SHARPTON: The
same thing as if you have a head cold and the same thing you do if you have a
head cold and the cold is gone and you have a headache. Then you take headache
medicine. The job of society is to deal with whatever problem confronts it.
So effectively Al Sharpton
believes that we should rely on the police, and only the police, to protect our
lives, our families and our property.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: Al Sharpton thinks we should rely on the
police.
This is a man who first made a
name for himself when he accused cops of misconduct. From a summary in the NY
Daily News:
Back in 1987,
15-year-old [Tawana] Brawley claimed she had been abducted and raped for four
days by a group of white men, at least one a cop. She was found in a garbage
bag, covered in feces and charcoal-scrawled racial epithets.
Sharpton, a brash
young activist and minister, took over publicity for Brawley and made
inflammatory accusations of a massive cover up, naming an assistant district
attorney as one of the rapists.
The case fell apart
when the grand jury refused to indict, citing no physical evidence of rape and
witnesses who saw Brawley when she was supposed to have been held captive.
And in the same article they note
that Sharpton maintains that this woman
might still be telling the truth!
And here is the same Reverend Al debating with Ann Coulter over whether
a cop is racist:
The money quote: “and we are supposed
to trust a man with these feelings to protect the public?” Oh and as if that isn’t enough, here’s Al in
the same editorial in the Huffington Post accusing cops of running guns:
This week in NY,
eight NYPD officers were charged with helping to run a gun-smuggling ring in a
city already grappling with unresolved shootings.
So the cops break the laws, are
racist, and so on, according to Reverend Al, but we should trust them—and only
them—with the protection of what we value most?
Does that make any sense?
And while I won’t endorse all of
what he said (or even much of it), we can find a milder point of
agreement. Some cops are racist. Not
necessarily the ones Sharpton points his finger at, but some are. And some cops break the law. Not necessarily those eight accused of gun
running (and certainly none of the cops accused of raping Brawley), but some
do. Hell some attorneys general might
rape citizens. And some cops are
negligent. And sometimes they can do
their absolute competent best, and they still can’t protect you. As they say, when seconds count the police
are minutes away.
Which is one of the major reasons
why we need the right to bear arms.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds
fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people, particularly
Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible
conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such
as the criminal justice system. I do not
want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such
violence. This kind of conduct is
not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
Lets get this straight - Al Sharpton is an idiot. Now, back to gun control. Its all a sham. Our government must think we are all stupid. Do you agree with further, more restrictive gun laws, many of which (like the Brady Act) are unconstitutional? Come and discuss this and make your opinions known here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Screaming-Reviews/539031849447972
ReplyDelete