Home > 2nd Amendment > Four against “The Machine”

Four against “The Machine”

Youtube video: Young Shatner tells the story about a woman who protects herself in her home with a hangun.

The Supreme Court is again taking a look at the 2nd Amendment and it’s relation to individual rights. The Left’s view is “A disarmed society is a crime-free society”. Basically, they are naive.

The place in American’s heart that the firearm holds is a long one. Were it not for farmers and hunters (and their weapons) we would possibly still be a British colony today.

The battle this time is over Chicago’s long held ban on guns. If anyone thinks that such bans help anything, they should note Chicago’s crime rate: In 2009, for the first time in 5 years, murders exceeded 500. Perhaps you can call it “Change you can die for”.

I often wonder about why people voted for then Senator Barack Obama for President. Surely, if you look at where he came from, you could see the effect he had as ACORN lawyer, Community Organizer, State Senator, and then U.S. Senator. Did Chicago improve via Obama’s beliefs? He is very anti-gun ownership.

The case brought to the Supreme court is not one by the NRA, although the group supports the goal of the suit. It was brought about by 4 concerned citizens, none of whom resemble the “avid gun nut” that the media would like to depict.

Take Colleen Lawson, for example. She and her husband recounted a day in 2006 when she almost had her home broken into by 3 men. Luckily they ran then they saw her, but what if they hadn’t? Lawson says she longs for a day when she can feel unafraid again, much like when her grandmother would keep a handgun in her apron.

“I knew without any doubt my grandmother would be able protect us,” she said. “I can’t say that to my children.”

Another one of the plaintiffs, remembers coming to Chicago as a young black man. There, he worked hard all his life to provide a home for his budding family. Today, the neighborhood is not the same. There are screams at night, gunshots, and the sound of breaking bottles. His own home has been broken into 3 times, and in one case upon calling the Police, his life was threatened.

It seems obvious that the criminals no longer fear the Police or the people.

Orlov, a former police officer, knows that banning handguns only provides a crime filled city of potential victims.

“The law only prohibits the actions of those who are law-abiding,” said Orlov, 40. “The more law-abiding the more likely you are to be vulnerable to the activities of criminals.”

Of course the “Machine” run by Mayor Richard Dailley hums along lopingly, with the innocent dead simply crushed in the gears. He says he is hopeful that the handgun ban will survive.

Liberalism, you see, is not about truth. It is about feelings. It is better to “feel” that banning guns will help bring crime down, than actually having it come down.

My take is that it is pretty easy to see that a good and law abiding person is little threat in the large scale of things. Criminals will always be able to get and carry guns, and they will hurt those they feel they can easily victimize.


  1. March 3, 2010 at 12:14 am

    “Criminals will always be able to get and carry guns, and they will hurt those they feel they can easily victimize.”

    I ask: Why is this true? And, if this is true, why are we not making efforts to keep this from being true. And finally, where can I read up on statistics that convincingly demonstrate that allowing citizens to own guns prevents crime?

    • March 3, 2010 at 12:50 am

      Well Sundjata, thanks for the question. It is pretty well known that in societies like Japan, the Yakuza still have guns. Although it is harder to get them in places like Japan and Britain, they still exist. The problem is that to have violence you don’t need guns. Recently, the physical violence problem in Britain has gone through the roof. Roving bands of young “Yobs” beat people senseless if they dare confront them. If you look into this, there are videos on Youtube which show people talking about this, and saying that the Police can do nothing.

      I will look into where you can find the statistics you want for a future blog, and publish some of those statistics.

      I think the problem is truly that criminals often have an advantage over their “prey”; Consider the fact that they are usually younger, stronger, and well armed. People who are often threatened are rarely a beefy boxer coming out of the gym, but the elderly couple sleeping in their home, of the lone woman walking from her car to her door. Another difference is WILL. It takes quite a bit of aggression to fight physically at your 100%, and few in our society are used to it. Criminals do it more often, obviously.

  2. March 3, 2010 at 12:26 am

    Skimming through your blog, you have some interesting ideas, and you make some bold assertions. I look forward to reading your updated “about” page to get a little better idea of where it is you’re coming from.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: