The Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ posted an ad featuringĀ the brother of a woman gunned down by her husband. Who had a restraining order against him. According to Zina Haughton’s brother and self-professed NRA member, “had there been a background check my sister Zina would still be with us.” [The caption says “a background check could have saved Zina’s life”]. I wonder why MAIG’s anti-gun agit-prop doesn’t mention the fact that Radcliffe F. Haughton murderedĀ two other women in the shooting? Or that there’d been ample warning that Haughton was crazy and violent, including a Facebook photo where he aimed a gun at the camera and previous contact with the cops. Maybe the po-po or the courts should have done something before Haughton pulled the trigger. And you know what else could have saved Zina and the other women? If she’d been armed. Or maybe someone else at the salon. You know: a good guy with a gun.
In the case cited above, the police did not identify themselves or all upon the man to drop it. The police fired too quickly. Based on that and the man’s death I would support taking their badges away. Of course the investigation cleared the police; it’s called double standards under the law. If the shooter was you or me we would be in prison.
No matter how much they cost , today’s S & Ws are nothing compared to just not too long ago. S&W revolvers ALL used to have the greatest SA pulls. They don’t now and never will again. Sometimes I wish I was one of today’s young and just did not know any better.
Looking at the photo, is that a botched photoshop, or does two tone skin run in the family?
Here’s how to change the culture of India:
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”āGeneral Sir Napier (Commander-in-Chief, India, 1849-1851)
His actions very quickly changed the culture of India.
Way to respond in a sensible and logical manner. This woman has a great head on her shoulders.
It is simple. The Second Amendment, protects the First, and the First protects the Second. You can not have one (which is not infringed upon) without the other. Just imagine the uproar from the liberals (ACLU) if congress was considering limitations to our freedom of speech. If we allow our government to edit the Bill of Rights just because it makes us feel safer, don’t be surprised when they start whittling down the other parts of it. If we loose the Second Amendment then we might as well say good bye to the rest.
The “anti folks” yell so loud it is difficult to know their point, but they can be expected to appear at the least of an issue- they just can’t resist spreading their opinions in the most uncivil civil manners.