Our legislators have it all backwards.
First of all, their legislation does nothing to take guns away from the bad guys.. only limits ownership of, and the ability for, good American citizens to protect themselves and their families. If you wanted to hold up a bar, would you make the attempt at a bar known to be frequented by off duty and retired police? Of course not — because if you pulled a weapon you would be looking down at least 20 gun barrels. The resulting scene would be mindful of a “Seinfeld” comedy. But it’s not really funny.
Criminals operate where there would be no resistance because they are basically cowards. There’s a story about why the Japanese never attacked the U.S. mainland. They knew that all Americans had weapons and it would end up in a blood bath if they did, so all they did was launch fire balloons, which landed harmless on the West Coast and caused just one casualty for all their effort.
Restricting weapons in areas where mass shootings have occurred in the past is just backwards. Knowledge that people could carry anywhere is the one reason that there would be a real drop in violence and gun shootings.
— Stephen Brickman in When Considering Gun Laws, Keep In Mind That Criminals Go Where There’s No Resistance
This article says it all. Seems it has something that the anti-gun radicals don’t; COMMON SENSE! All a “gun free zone” does it create a target rich environment for criminals.
People who reside in ivory towers and dictate what you can possess to defend you and yours can go pound sand. I consider such ivory tower trash who want to disarm America to be equally a threat as the most violent criminals. After all what sick Gun Control zealots want has already been tried on freed slaves in America and Jews in nazi germany, etc.
In other words fraulein shannon watts et al…gfy.
It’s Backasswards…not bassakwards.
Ttttttt….
Country Boy:
What’s the matter.? Have you lost your sense of humor? It’s always been “bassakwards” in my neck of the woods. And no, it’s not in the dictionary.
Actually, it IS in the Merriam Webster’s dictionary entered as ” bass-ackward ; adverb, meaning in a backward or inept way “
First Known Use of bass-ackward: 1884
Today I learned!
Also in the dictionary:
Country Boy ; noun, a euphemism for hilljack, hayseed, redneck – popularized in song by John Denver, the use of the word died with him and dacian.
Pb_fan59:
I stand corrected. However, I use the American Heritage College Dictionary, which doesn’t have an entry for “bass ackward.” So… they don’t all agree.
In all my 60 years I’ve never heard it your way.
“their legislation does nothing to take guns away from the bad guys” and they have recently admitted that is not the intent of any legislation that they have attempted to pass. They have admitted that the intent is to restrict access to the law-abiding. You can not cage an armed citizen.
When Democrats talk about Republicans, they are actually describing themselves.
a bar known to be frequented by off duty and retired police? Of course not — because if you pulled a weapon you would be looking down at least 20 gun barrels
Try that shit in a Biker Bar and more likely you would never see the gun barrels; you would be too busy achieving room temperature.
👍
I’ve purchased over a dozen Walther P5 and SIG P6 magazines from a few older bikers.
These guys thought nothing of carrying a half dozen spare mags.
“so all they did was launch fire balloons, which landed harmless on the West Coast and caused just one casualty for all their effort.”
Well actually Japan did invade the United States in WWII.
The Japanese invaded and occupied Kiska on June 6 and Attu on June 7 1942 – these are island territory of Alaska which is a state of the United States (also called the Aleutian islands). In other words Japan invaded and occupied (a portion of) the continental United States but never invaded the mainland of the continental United States. The invading forces initially met little resistance from the local Unangax, also known as Aleuts.
Although there was mention by one Japanese commander of it being so costly in lives to any invading Japan force thus doomed to fail because of ordinary armed American citizens (the phrase used was that armed Americans would be behind “every blade of grass”), the actual reason Japan did not seriously consider an invasion of mainland United States was because it was not seriously considered viable and there were too many military limitations.
The reason there were military limitations have to do with why Japan entered the war. Japan’s primary goal in WWII defeating Chinese resistance to Japanese control so as to establish a colonial foothold on the Asian continent. Invading and occupying the U.S. mainland would have drained and redirected resources militarily from that goal and eventually they were not able to maintain what they had already.
The attack on Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian islands Kiska and Attu chain was part of a plan to damage US military capacity in the Pacific and to weaken response to Japanese seizure of the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, and other territories in the South Pacific. Those territories were valuable to Japan for their mineral wealth, oil and rubber and exploiting those resources would allow Japan to continue fighting the war in China.
But history did not pan out for Japan because the U.S. was able to basically decimate them in the Pacific and destroy their main carrier groups at Midway and Coral Sea, which meant that Japan’s ability to project military might across the ocean was reduced greatly.
the qualifier was “mainland”
I’m aware of that.
I differentiated by specifically saying “…the mainland of the continental United States”
Also, the article’s assertion that there was only one casualty from a
fire-balloon was incorrect. Six people were killed.
Yep, I caught that too. If memory serves, it was mother and 5 children.
Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, one of Japans commanders (commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet) is attributed with saying (loosely in English here) “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”. The actual translation in correct English would have been “every blade of grass”. However, it has been debated hotly as to if this was actually ever said.
Its source is attributed to the ‘Prange files’ (the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur). But no one actually knows where it came from. However, the only place that has ever given serious independent authoritative attention to it in a fact check manner removed their original source ‘debunking’ it after an obscure partially destroyed note was found (Prange had it in a box of stuff for the ‘Prange files’) that was written by one of Yamamoto’s staff who took notes of what he said for command decisions. In that remainder of the note were the words (in Japanese) “…あ リフレ ベヒンド イーチ ブレード オブ グラス” which directly translated to English means “A Refre Behind Echi Blade of Glass” which in heavy Japanese accent speaking English but not having a firm grasp on English is (clarified in correct English) “…rifle behind every blade of grass” and this may be where it came from and its not known if Yamamoto at the time was referencing the United States or China (eventually). However, a Japanese invasion of the mainland would have most certainly been met by armed American citizens, unlike in China of the time where the military had firearms and mostly the average citizen did not.
I would suspect it’s similar to why crime-riddled areas get less police presence as well – the cops know they are outgunned (although not necessarily “cowards” – events in Uvalde notwithstanding)….
Back in the day Second City Cop talked about this, the rich neighborhoods paid taxes and got minimal (at times no) police protection while the density of POs were in the hood.
“while the density of POs were in the hood”
that was the protection.
I don’t go to the dog park with a baloney sandwich in my pocket either
For liberal Politicians:
– All guns are bad
– Guns kill people
– People carrying guns is scary, and you should be scared
– Black guns are weapons of war; you should be terrified of those
and
only the Democrats will do anything about guns, Republicans want more of those terrible things
vote Democrat if you want to do anything about those scary things
and that’s it – their approach has nothing to do with reality, crime, self-protection – it’s about building up a strawman that they can rail against and create an issue that will motivate voters. Gun rights get thrown under the bus so that they can motivate (by fear) voters.
Some, probably are interested in safety, reducing crime, self-protection – they get muzzled by their leaders.
“For liberal Politicians: – All guns are bad”
no. YOUR guns are bad (by definition) while THEIR guns are good (by definition).
For handguns: There is less than a 0.0004% probability that a person will be shot accidentally by an ordinary citizen (not law enforcement) law abiding gun carrier when the firearm is out of the holster.
For handguns: There is a little more than a 6% probability that a person will be shot accidentally by law enforcement when the firearm is out of the holster.
For handguns when the firearm is out of the holster: A person is literally in more danger (by about 15,000 times) of being shot accidentally by law enforcement than they are of being shot accidentally by an ordinary citizen (not law enforcement) law abiding gun carrier.
For rifles, when in shouldered firing position: There is a 0.0005% probability that a person will be shot accidentally by an ordinary citizen (not law enforcement) law abiding gun carrier. There is a 4.7% probability that a person will be shot accidentally by law enforcement. A person is literally in more danger (by about 9,400 times) of being shot accidentally by law enforcement than they are of being shot accidentally by an ordinary citizen (not law enforcement) law abiding gun carrier.
When near misses (those ‘others’ not actually hit) and personal injury ‘negligent discharge’ types are factored in ::::
law enforcement – handgun (out of holster): slightly over 7% probability.
ordinary citizen (not law enforcement) – handgun (out of holster): A little over 0.0004% probability.
law enforcement – rifle (shouldered firing position): 5.2% probability.
ordinary citizen (not law enforcement) – rifle (shouldered firing position): a little over 0.0003% probability.
“Politicians Get ‘Gun-Free’ Zones Bass Ackwards”
YOU have it bass ackwards. to them, YOU THE CITIZEN are the criminal to be disarmed.
(because THEY are the real citizens, and you are in their way.)
They also do not have the authority to do so either. ” Shall not be infringed, except for schools, parks, hospitals etc. ” Missed the except part in my copy of the Bill of Rights.
No argument here. Instead of calling such areas “Gun Free Zones,” it would be more accurate to call such areas “Target Rich Environments.”
Reading hastily-written and ill-informed material is painful and distressing to sensitive readers. There were several fatalities, not a mere one.
Grace Stevens should spend an hour or two reading about the Japanese – and British – balloon bombs in World War Two before writing drivel.
There is point about the balloons bombs which flew over the vast Pacific from Honshu which is easily overlooked. The US War Department knew from Chinese sources that the Japanese Kwantung army had experimented – without much success – with employing air-dropped bacteriological [“germ warfare”] bombs in China. The thought of the mass hysteria and panic that would ensue if a bacteriological bomb had landed in one of the West Coast cities made it imperative that every balloon bomb should be intercepted over the ocean and shot down.
Even so, one reached the outskirts of Detroit.
Comments are closed.