A Boortzian Hero

Neal Boortz loves stories where a violent predator gets a taste of his own medicine, so I'm sure he would love this story (via Hans Bricks). You can safely skip the first bit about Red Dawn, unless you happen to like gratuitous references to old Patrick Swayze movies (and let's be honest - who doesn't?).

The point is an old one...

"Take away the handguns from law-abiding citizens. But wait, you have criminals, who by definition of the name, DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW! Who thinks that criminals are going to think twice about using a firearm in a crime, especially when they can run through the flock like a rabid wolf, taking what they want. Who thinks that the same rabid wolf would enter that flock of timid sheep if it thought that one of those sheep was packing a .44 magnum? Atleast that wolf would think twice."

...but it's recast in the light of more recent crimes, and worth a look, especially if you want to read more criticism of San Francisco loons and find out about today's Boortzian hero.

Another important aspect is referenced in Craig D.'s comment:

"Do you think that the liberals would stand for the enfringement on the 1st amendment. Probably not."

Here's what I can't figure out. The deep and abiding principle of the First Amendment is that we do not trust the government. We do not want the government telling us what we can read or watch, or what we can say or write, or how to worship however we believe is proper. Because I do not trust the government, I think the First Amendment is a wonderful idea.

The deep and abiding principle of the Second Amendment is the exact same thing. I don't trust the government to protect me fast enough when someone breaks into my home. It's not that I think all cops are incompetent or corrupt (no, that's just New Orleans), it's that I take a realistic view of the power of the police to respond as quickly as I would like when seconds really count. And because I do not trust the government, I think the Second Amendment is a wonderful idea.

Now ask yourselves this: since when do liberals trust cops? I'm referring here to the same cops they picket, or revile, or obstruct. And yet, by requiring by law that only cops can have guns, they are in effect placing ultimate trust in the hands of the police - the same police that they seem to hate on every other occasion. Why is that?

Because I consistently mistrust the government as to both my freedoms of speech and religion, and my freedom to keep and bear arms, I don't want the government interfering in either arena of my life. But liberals - who do not trust the government as to speech and religion - are willing to trust the government with their very lives when it comes to self-defense. Whence the inconsistency?