Ravenwood - 05/12/05 07:45 AM
Linda Wiewiorkiewicz is happy that the Arizona governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to carry firearms to protect themselves in restaurants. She says that people should leave their guns at home and let police take care of their safety. (Maybe they could post a patrolman in every restaurant.)
Ienjoy taking my family out to the fine dining establishments in Chandler without having to worry about gun-wielding National Rifle Association activists spinning their pistols on the tables.We do that because spinning them is good gun safety.
I'm also grateful that we don't have to worry about scenes from Gunsmoke when we dance in the nightclubs on Saturday nights.Yeah, because violence never breaks out in nightclubs.Thank goodness we have a governor who has the sense to veto a ridiculous bill which would allow gun-packing, wannabe Marshal Dillons into the places where we seek relaxation and good times.
They can bear arms all they want in their own homes. The rest of us enjoy the comfort of a night out without the looming threat of gunfire.So law abiding citizens with guns are a 'looming threat'. Not like those fine upstanding citizens who drink a half dozen beers at the club before getting into their 2-ton automobile and hitting the streets. Maybe we should ban cars, or beer, or nightclubs altogether. If these people want to dance, let them do it in the comfort of their own home where the rest of us don't have to see their itching and twitching.
Now for this next part, you Constitutional purists may want to sit down and take a deep breath.
The intent of our founding fathers is stated in the preamble - "to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. ..."Actually, the Preamble starts with "We the people", as in people who might also carry guns. That sentence actually reads, "... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves..." She conveniently left that part off to make it sound like something the government was granting us.
Banning guns from public places ensures our "domestic tranquility," promotes our "general welfare" and secures our "blessings of liberty."She must have stopped reading after the Preamble, because I've searched the Constitution through and through and I don't see anything in there about banning guns. But I do find a passage in there that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The "right of the people". That means citizens, you know, those same people from the Preamble.
When it comes to public protection, providing for the "common good" is the job of law enforcement.Actually, law enforcement is not responsible for your protection. And if they fail to protect you, you pay with your life. There is no recourse, and they cannot be held liable for not protecting you. In short, you are responsible for your own protection. And if you want to carry a gun for your protection, go for it. So long as you aren't denying anyone else of their right to life, liberty or property, more power to ya.
Safeguarding the freedoms that we all enjoy far outweighs pleasing the NRA.Isn't amazing how she considers violating your freedoms "safeguarding" them.
I might be the only one in Chandler who doesn't have cable TV, but I'm sure you can find old Gunsmoke reruns on one of those channels.Five bucks says she's never even seen Gunsmoke. And of course, no cliche ridden anti-gun diatribe would be complete without this:
The gunslingers belong in the wild, wild West.We need a Godwin's Law for guns. I'm proposing one: "As a discussion about guns grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Dodge City or the Wild West approaches one."
Scary thing is, people that that twit, can actually get enough bairn cells together and vote.
One of your best.
Posted by: Bob at May 12, 2005 8:25 AMMaybe we should call it Ravenwood's law.
Posted by: kyle at May 12, 2005 10:23 AMThe incredible level of idiocy demonstrated by this woman makes me want to vomit. Thankfully, Ravenwood provides the best "pepto" I've read in a while in response to her severely misguided diatribe.
Anyone else recall the "donut shop shootout" scene in Boogie Nights while treading through this dweeb's anti-NRA blabber?
Posted by: Steve Scudder at May 12, 2005 10:28 AMYes, only the police should carry guns, because they're the experts.
Posted by: Thibodeaux at May 12, 2005 10:34 AMI bet she doesn't trust the governments when her party is out of power. So why does she want only the government armed.
Oh sure, she grants us the right to bear arms and home. For how long?
By the way, twit, KEEP is for the home. BEAR is for other locations.
Posted by: Brett at May 12, 2005 11:31 AMI think I'm going to spin my 9mm on the dining room table when I get home.
Why?
Because I'm an NRA member, and I'm told that we do things like that.
Posted by: roger at May 12, 2005 3:20 PMWhat a stupid cow.
Well, with any luck, she'll learn from experience. Since she has so much faith in the police protecting her, she should come to realize that the vast majority of their work is cleaning up after you're already dead.
Also shows you something about that paper. Why would an air head like that get to make a rant that just doesn't have a line of reason or even a clear understanding of the standard model of the second ammendment.
Oh, and don't forget those knuckle dragger NRA members. They have a new Gunsmoke pin that comes with a six pack with each membership. (sarcasm off)
Great post.
Posted by: Nylarthotep at May 12, 2005 7:59 PMI'm with Kyle; it should be Ravenwood's Law. It is one of those things we are all familiar with, but that is the first time I've seen it set down clearly.
Posted by: Robert Garrard at May 13, 2005 5:14 PMWhy does she think the police will protect her? Maybe because every time someone defends themselves and gets into the local news, they'll also show some spokesman for the police department or the local Prosecutor saying people shouldn't "take the law into their own hands" and should wait for the cops to protect them.
How about a law to the effect that if the police chief or DA authorizes public statements like that, they become personally liable for the next mugging?
Posted by: markm at June 19, 2005 10:46 AM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
