“Don’t ever believe the old saw about guns not killing people. They do and they will, again and again. Guns shoot children, parents, siblings, lovers, neighbors, co-workers, strangers and friends, in error and in fury. This will happen until we decide it should stop, which would mean getting rid of not only the AK-47s but the pretty little silver .22s as well. All of them. No one ever asks for that, maybe because it feels prudent to not enrage the many people who own guns, but the right to not get shot takes precedence over the right to bear arms.” – Ann Patchett in The Guns of My Girlhood [at nytimes.com]
Stop criminal/terrorist! I have the right to not get shot by you! Don’t violate my rights! I’m warning you. Don’t make me write you a strongly worded letter!
Ms. Patchett lives in a dreamworld far removed from the reality in which you and I live. I don’t a doorman monitoring the front entrance of my residence and I’ll bet you don’t either. I also don’t have a personal assistant who can do all of my shopping and run my errands. Unlike Ms. Ppatchett I don’t live in a lily white, upper class neighborhood. And, I occasionally have to travel through high crime neighborhoods where the locals would show me little mercy if my car broke down.
Engaging in wishful thinking, conscious disregard of history and refusing to acknowledge human nature is not a formula for survival. It is a recipe for disaster. I dare say Ms. Patchett will discover this truth should the SHTF. And so will the rest of her soulmates in the Upper West End. It’s nature’s way of culling the herd.
“I don’t a doorman monitoring the front entrance of my residence and I’ll bet you don’t either.”
Wrong again, I certainly do. I *AM* that doorman, and I will continue to be armed while I perform my duties.
“What are we supposed to use, harsh language?”
She better not write me a strongly worded letter! My right to not get mean words told to me trumps her right to free speech!
And my right to clean EPA regulated air trumps her right to breathe so much of my air. She should be limited to 1 breath a month… after a background check of course. And definitely no high capacity breathing apparatus. That would be crazy.
I’m not aware of the Constitution listing anything about me having a right not to be the victim of a crime…. (“the right to not get shot “) But I certainly do have the right to defend myself against those that choose to operate outside the accepted norms of society!! By Fist, knife or firearm… Or any other method as far as that is concerned!!
It’s implied you have the right to not be the victim of a crime because you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The latter was actually the right to property, but it was changed I assume to give a broader definition to the rights of Americans, cause back when they drafted the document people cared about human’s natural rights.
Which if you think about it, the right to life, liberty and, the pursuit of happiness implies that you have the right to the means to protect said rights, but who am I to wield common sense.
The right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is NOT in the constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence, a document that has no legal authority.
Thank you Nick. You beat me to it.. It amazes me how many people do not know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution… I think Nancy Pelosi made the same mistake recently. Pathetic!
With all due respect it has been cited in cases that went to the supreme court and the provisions in it cites by the majority.
There are at least 100 United States Supreme Court cases that mention the words “Declaration of Independence” somewhere in the dicta of that opinion.
Yet, not one single case can be found where the authority for the holding in that case was the Declaration of independence.
There is not a single case that was specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions. No decision has turned or can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself.
The Declaration is simply philosophical foundation of American freedom. It was the legal ARGUMENT to separate from the Crown… It doesn’t grant you rights. The Constitution does..
The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it recognizes and enumerates them.
Close, Ralph, but not quite. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it protects existing natural (or God-given, if you prefer) rights from government usurpation. If it’s granted to you by a government, then that same government can rescind the grant at will, making it a privilege, not a right.
Nick is obviously the product of government “education”.
The Declaration is the foundation of all that has come after. Without it there is no Constitution, Bill of Rights or anything else. It describe why we exist. It IS law.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/05/declaration_of_independence_as_1.html
Incorrect, I think. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights are a set of guarantees against government interference. So while that mandate of due process prevents the government from shooting you in the street, it doesn’t pretend to offer protection against the thug who wants your wallet. That is the role of legislation, and the role of privately-kept arms.
Guns shoot children, parents, siblings, lovers, neighbors, co-workers, strangers and friends, in error and in fury.
Judging from her photo and comment one has to ask; did she just leave the room with the soothing Neural Neutralizer at the psychiatric hospital penal colony on Tantalus V?
I think she just came off of shift at the Friendship Gulag.
Most esoteric TOS reference ever. Well played.
Some people have no concept of the real world or human nature.
Not surprising since many of them don’t live in the real world.
I don’t think many will survive when real life knocks down the door.
It’s clear to me that these people don’t even respect their own lives much less the lives of others. For who would deny ones self to use any means possible of defending their life against those who would take it? Unless they face the fact that their safety is their responsibility and that their life is more important than that of the criminal their mindset will never change. Sad.
Judging by that smug smile, she could benefit from the right to not have a stick up her a$$…
The Manchurian journalist.
To the People of the State of New York,
WTF happened to you? When I advocated your joining the Union, I was NOT fuggesting that you become the shining beacon of State control. Take it down a notch.
PUBLIUS.
I have a leather bound copy of the US constitution, and many a time I have read its worn pages, and all those times, no where have I found a “right to be safe”.
The closest it comes is the Second Amendment, on various levels.
From the day that Cain struck Abel (by the way: no guns were involved in that murder), human history is rife with examples of the strong preying on the weak, and the violent victimizing the innocent.
You don’t have a right not to get shot. You don’t have a right not to get robbed or raped. You do, however, have the right to defend your life and person against those who would attempt to perpetrate such things upon you.
I choose freedom, with all of its risks and messiness, over the false sense of security derived from the kind of slavery that would be required even to give the appearance of a society where one might claim a “right not to get shot” (which is nothing more than a corollary of a “right to be safe”).
To be fair, one of our founding documents mentions a ‘right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. Interestingly enough, ‘pursuit of happiness’ was originally penned ‘property’ but they didn’t want to insinuate that it was a right to own slaves. But if someone steals your property or takes your life they have infringed on your rights. So there is in essence a right to ‘be’ safe, not to be confused with a right to ‘feel’ safe. The question is who should be responsible for protecting your rights. The Second Amendment places the primary responsibility on the individual citizen. Ms. Patchett would prefer stripping everyone of their right of self defense and replace it with government control. She doesn’t understand that that places all of our rights, even our right to life, at the mercy of the whims of bureaucratic tyrants. Or the historical record of how that usually turns out for the individual.
The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in any court… And that is where you will find “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.. The Declaration was/is nothing more than a legal argument to separate from the Crown.
Rights are not granted from courts or any other government entity, they’re granted from God. Government can respect those rights or they can disrespect them, but they can’t grant them.
“The Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in any court…”
Actually, it did.
An English court, and the response to it was to teach those colonialists a lesson they would never forget.
And we don’t forget, every July 4… 🙂
I disagree with everything she said, but it’s refreshing to see an anti gunner actually being honest.
‘No one ever asks for that, maybe because it feels prudent to not enrage the many people who own guns, but the right to not get shot takes precedence over the right to bear arms.’
First, if it’s the guns that do the killing and not the people, then why would anyone be afraid of ‘enraging the many people who own guns’? Second, why stop at the Second Amendment? Why not insist that a certain segment of the population give up their prophet (for the children)? Oh yea, it’s not Islam doing the killing it’s the NRA for putting understandably upset people into speeding trucks (or something). Liberal logic…
Hmmm…my guns never got up and shot anyone(or anything). Maybe this gal is delusional…the right to not get shot? Is THAT in the Bill of Whines?
Yes, lets just snap our fingers and twitch our noses 3 times and make all those evil, sentient, murderous guns go *poof* and misappear …and then we can get back on our unicorns and ride back to happy happy land together holding hands and tossing daisies over shoulders.
I wish i could live in fantasy land with you, lady – but God didnt grant me that luxury of delusion. I’m pretty sure that crack and meth and heroin are ‘banned’ and that didnt make them go away, did it. How many untold numbers of our ‘lovers and children and fathers and mothers’ do they kill, and lives do they ruin, every day? But i guess your liberal media masters dont blast that messaging into your puny little snobby sheep brain every day, so no worries about that. To think that making all guns illegal will make them, and all gun violence, go away – is the height of naivety and ignorance. All that would do is disarm all of the law abiding citizens and make us all even more susceptible to all varieties of violence. It would also create a Police state by it’s very definition. It would do nothing of which you imagine it would.’Maybe you should stick to gossiping about the neighbors at tupperware parties and leave the serious subjects to others.
I am not enraged by her desire to eliminate firearms. I wish more on her ilk would step out there honestly, take a stand, and try to strip away our rights.
No rage here, at all. Just a calm, righteous determination to see them fail. It’s the same battle fought throughout all human history. The Individual against the State.
I am getting sick of these liberal fascist drones telling me that their made up rights are somehow more important than the rights of We The People.
See the mind locked in the liberal echo chamber.
Yes, exactly. An elitist, snobby, big city, latte-sipping echo chamber.
Google this chick. Then look into those narrowed slits she calls eyes. There’s pure evil behind them. Maybe she shouldn’t be anywhere near a gun but isn’t that what gungrabbers do, project?
If the mere presence of a gun changed someone’s behavior to become violent, or made them more likely to commit violence using that gun, then there would be shootouts in police stations every single day.
If you really distill this down, it almost exclusively comes down to big city liberals and their snobby, cacooned, delusional vision of ‘the world’ – vs the rest of us.
I’m willing to concede all big cities to them, if they stay the f*ck out of my world. They can have their own local laws in live in their little bubble of delusion and see how that goes for them.
I think she has a point. However, I do not think she has extended it far enough.
To begin with, I think her tone is too accusatory and demeaning. I believe my right to be respected both as an individual and as a collective trumps her right to free speech.
Also, I believe that my right to the joys of life trumps her right to accumulate wealth. I certainly hope to receive a check in the mail within the next couple of weeks.
My right to not get shot is why I want my gun. When you threaten to shoot me or mine, you have forfeited your right to not get shot.
The segment of this woman’s opinion piece that is printed in this posting doesn’t really tell the whole story. Near the end of her NYT opinion piece she talks about a friend who is shot and killed by a robber at a small market. That story precedes her comment above.
Surprisingly, there is no mention of the fact that a gun in the store owner’s hands might’ve prompted a different result.
This is what happens when urbanity becomes sanitized. NYC used to breed some tough motherfvckers a century ago, when you had to keep your head on a swivel no matter where you lived. Now massive security theater has created “safe spaces” and generational echo-chambers of statism. I’ve found that big city antis often do not know the history of the streets on which they walk. Kids used to ride trains and subways to the range with guns in their hands. Small business owners shot thieves dead and got a high-five from the cops. There were good guys and bad guys. Life made sense because it ran on common sense. Ivory-tower dwellers like Patchett sadly became the majority, too afraid to live without the state holding their hand as a guarantor that harm will never befall them from cradle to grave.
To me, this just sounds like a programmed sheep – completely oblivious to the programming being she is being fed ‘intravenously’ on a daily basis – regurgitating back the message, in what she thinks is some bold, concise, original statement.
* Guns bad, Guns scary, Guns going to kill YOU.
* Blame the NRA at all times. They are the reason there are (evil, scary) guns!
* Blame the gun, not the person.
* Ignore all other forms of violence.
* There are no other unnatural deaths caused by anything but Guns
* Blame everything on Guns at all times
* Without guns, people would all hold hands
* Ignore all global issues and threats, as Obama does.
* Only focus on guns, guns, guns.
Note: If murderer is Muslim, cannot blame Islam or even mention Islam, as they are not representative of Islam — But certainly can blame and punish all gun owners!
Rinse, Repeat.
Bahhh, Bahhhh
Inner city New Yorkers. I wouldn’t expect anything less – or more – I should say.
You’re off message, Ann… We’re not supposed to tell them we want complete civilian disarmament. We’re supposed to say that “We support the Second Amendment, BUT…” ..and ‘No one wants to take your guns” – and then slowly and quietly take away all of their guns until we have every last one (magically, and without any violence or civil conflict). Boil the frog slowly, Ann – we don’t just throw the Frog in the pot! Remember what happened last time someone tried to do that. We’re all working towards the same goal here, Ann – and trust us, you will be SO much SAFER once only ‘We the Government’ have all of the guns 🙂 Remember the creed, Ann – ‘Give us Safety or give us Death’ – and only we can give you that Safety which you so desire Ann.. (and you never have to worry about the death part either of course, that’s just for effect. No one is going to ask YOU to do the confiscation and risk your life, we’ll do that all for YOU, Ann!)
Those who would give up their liberties for the mere promise of safety, deserve neither! -Ben Franklin, paraphrased.
Listen up Ann. He is talking about YOU!
If you read her article the interesting part is that talks about a friend’s father who was shot after being robbed. If he had been carrying it would have been the robber that got shot.
I don’t believe a word she wrote. I doubt anyone was shooting a machine gun in New York.
Her suicidal tendencies sound like a personal problem…
I gave my guns another stern talking to this morning. No shooting people on your own! They all agreed they would let me do the shooting if necessary. You know, robbers, home invaders, muggers, etc.
That whole article has little to do with guns and is all about her daddy issues.
She has had two men as father figures in her live and has never resolved her feelings about having a stepfather.
She is honoring her real father (at least in her mind) by disparaging her step father.
She ended up putting a gun in her mouth.
Yeah, no mental problems there.
She is the exact person who should never have a gun.
No, no,no, she is exactly the kind of person I WANT to have a gun if only for the fact that eventually she WILL get that irresistible urge to “taste” that metal again and maybe pull the trigger this time around. If we are lucky she’ll do it Nov 8th after it’s been announced Donald J. Trump has won in a landslide.
“but the right to not get shot takes precedence over the right to bear arms.” – Ann Patchett in The Guns of My Girlhood”
Not true, Ann.
My right to life is the same as yours.
My right to defend my life is the same as yours.
My right to use the most expedient means is just the same as yours.
But your right to not get shot DOES NOT take precedence over my right to use fire arms to defend my life.
So the ONLY way you can take my guns is by force.
And if you try to use fore to take my guns then your right to not get shot is truly null and void.
Fixed it for you:
“Don’t ever believe the old saw about Liberals and Liberalism not killing people. Progressives do and they will, again and again. Liberals/Progressives cause the deaths of children, parents, siblings, lovers, neighbors, co-workers, strangers and friends, in error and in fury. This will happen until we decide it should stop, which would mean getting rid of not only the Liberals/Progressives but their nation and community destroying policies as well. All of them. No one ever asks for that, maybe because they’re afraid of being called a “racist” and/or “fascist” or they feel it’s prudent to not enrage the many people who claim to be Liberals/Progressives for fear of being violently beaten and killed in the streets but we must remember according to “the Left” “social engineering” takes precedence over the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights”
“NO, I REFUSE.”
I just LOVE saying that to moonbat anti-gun cultists. It’s like I’m speaking Klingon. The idea of somebody looking them in the eye and saying “no”, just immediately fills their “safe space” with two foot long, poisonous centipedes. They literally don’t know what to say at first, never having heard that word from either the parents or their teachers.
Here is something I do not get.
Many of the rank and file in the Democratic Party believe that cops are basically Klansmen with badges and that the criminal justice system is systemically racist.
And yet, the national Democratic leadership is going all-in for gun control laws, which would be enforced under this systemically racist criminal justice system.
Or do these Klansmen with badges suddenly turn into Freedom Riders when sent out to enforce common sense gun laws?
Comments are closed.