Connect with us

Guns and Crime

No, “good guy with a gun” is NOT invalidated by the Parkland shooting

Published

on

If I had to rank the three most frequently used GIFs or quotes deployed in Twitter conversations with a Leftist, it would be as follows:

3) “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son” from Animal House.

2) Billy Madison’s “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. … Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.”

1) And of course the Princess Bride classic, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Today is a day for all three.

Recent developments surrounding the Parkland shooting suggest that not only was the armed school officer, Deputy Scot Peterson, derelict in his defense of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, but that three other Broward County deputies stood outside the building while an active shooting was in progress. This is vile and egregious, and we need answers.

But ten seconds later and with zero self-awareness, Leftists took to Twitter in an attempt to appropriate the common conservative talking point about how a “good guy with a gun” is needed to stop a “bad guy with a gun,” as articulated by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre after the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012 and again at CPAC this week.

From Vox: “A new detail in the Florida shooting exposes a big hole in the ‘good guy with a gun’ theory.”

Nate Lerner of the Democratic Coalition Against Trump: “Turns out there was a good guy with a gun on scene during the Parkland shooting. He had zero impact.”

CNBC’s John Harwood: “So it turns out a good guy with a gun was there, with sheriff’s dept training no teacher will ever have, and he didn’t stop the bad guy with a gun.”

The insufferable Piers Morgan, ever looking for the next dumbest thing he can add to the gun debate, tweeted: “So FOUR ‘good guys with a gun’ were not able to stop the bad guy. I think this kinda ends the ‘arm the teachers’ bulls**t, don’t you?”

Oh no, he’s not done: “Ah, I see…. My apologies. I was labouring under the absurd misapprehension that you NRA nuts believe ‘good guys with guns’ are the answer to bad guys with guns. How silly of me!”

One thing you have to appreciate about Piers’s writing style is that he perfectly encapsulates his own smarminess; I can hear him saying this trash as I read it.

Piers concluded, “So was the Florida shooter a ‘good guy with a gun’ until he committed mass murder? I mean, he bought his guns legally, exercising his right to bear arms. Then he suddenly became a ‘bad guy with a gun.’ This is so confusing. Can one of you gun nuts explain?”

One good guy with a Twitter account, known simply as Neontaster, responded first to Vox’s absurd suggestion with, “Actually it exposes a big hole in the ‘leave guns to the cops’ theory. ‘Good guy with a gun’ refers to armed civilians, not cops who fail to act.” He then took to Piers Morgan’s initial tweet with, “Still amazed at how quickly ‘good guy with a gun’ shifted to include cops when it was always used to refer to anyone who wasn’t a cop.”

Neontaster is unarguably correct in both of his assertions. Not to mention that guns are used defensively up to three million times to per year, according to the CDC. But you know how well Leftists and logic go together.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza ran an article under the headline, “Here’s definitive proof that a good guy with a gun doesn’t always stop a bad guy with a gun.” He continued, “This latest shooting in Parkland, Florida, isn’t an affirmation of [the ‘good guy with a gun’] view. It’s a direct rebuttal. There was a good guy with a gun just outside the school when the bad guy with a gun started murdering people. The good guy with the gun wasn’t the solution. He didn’t stop it.”

To which I would respond, where was the good guy with a gun? Deputy Peterson was not a good guy with a gun. The other three deputies were not good guys with guns. Sheriff Scott Israel, who knew about his department’s malfeasance and still smeared Dana Loesch and the NRA, is not a good guy with a gun.

But more to Neontaster’s point, police officers in general, though typically good guys and girls, are not indicated in the phrase “good guy with a gun.” The adage refers to civilians with an opportunity to stop a shooter in the average eleven minutes that it takes for police to arrive at the scene.

The Parkland shooting had both pieces of this equation: good people, and people with guns. Unfortunately, the good people were on the inside, sacrificing their lives, hurling themselves in front of bullets; meanwhile, the people with guns stood cowering behind their patrol cars, doing their best to cover up for their failure, while seventeen people were murdered just a few feet away.

Again, this only reinforces my reasons to cling to my own guns. Why should I surrender my means of self-preservation to the same government that will botch my protection on no less than 40 occasions on all levels, watching me being gunned down while they blubber outside like Upham in Saving Private Ryan.

No, thank you.

So Leftists, stop chalking this up to a failure of the “good guy with a gun” theory. I do not think it means what you think it means, and everyone is now dumber for having listened to you.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Advertisement

0

Foreign Affairs

Two asylum-seekers later discovered to be wanted by Mexico on kidnapping, homicide charges

Published

on

Two asylum-seekers later discovered to be wanted by Mexico on kidnapping homicide charges

According to many Democrats, anyone coming to the United States who files asylum claims should be released to the interior immediately. That’s the stance of such notable progressives as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren. Among the people they want released, no questions asked, are two separate Mexican asylum-seekers who, as border patrol later learned, were wanted in Mexico on charges of kidnapping and homicide.

Thankfully, border patrol did their jobs properly detaining the asylum-seekers until their request was denied, at which time they were ordered repatriated to Mexico.

Border Patrol Repatriates Two Wanted Felons

EAGLE PASS, Texas – Within the past two weeks, Border Patrol agents assigned to the Del Rio Sector Foreign Operations Branch worked with the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the government of Mexico to coordinate the repatriation of two men wanted by Mexican authorities on kidnapping and homicide charges.

“The U.S. Border Patrol works closely with the government of Mexico to identify fugitives,” said Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Raul L. Ortiz. “Because of that outstanding level of cooperation, these violent criminals were quickly located and returned to Mexico to answer the egregious charges against them.”

Border Patrol agents at the FOB were contacted by Mexican government officials in July regarding two subjects wanted on kidnapping and homicide charges. One of the men was apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in November 2018 near Eagle Pass, while the other surrendered to Customs and Border Protection Officers at the Eagle Pass Port of Entry in December 2018. Both men made credible fear claims, and were ordered removed by an immigration judge after those claims were denied.

There was no indication prior to contact by Mexican officials that these men were wanted when border patrol picked them up. Had their “reasonable fear” claims been accepted in their hearings, they would have become legal residents of the United States. Only after their claims were denied did news come from Mexico that they were wanted.

Demands by Democrats for immediate release of all asylum-seekers upon processing is the most blatantly dangerous policy they want to inflict on American citizens. You won’t see progressive media reporting this, so it must be spread by conservatives.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Dean Cain’s label of San Francisco’s new incarceration language is spot on

Published

on

Dean Cains label of San Franciscos new incarceration language is spot on

Actor Dean Cain is one of the few outspoken conservatives in Hollywood. The star of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman has taken plenty of heat for voicing support for President Trump and for calling out his progressive peers as they rant unhinged.

One of his latest critiques of leftism was in response to San Francisco’s plan to change official words that pertain to convicted felons and juvenile delinquents. In pure Bay Area-style, the city is planning on sanitizing certain phrases so as to not “further victimize” criminals.

Once we catch our breath after laughing at the way these progressives see criminals, reality sets in about how asinine – and potentially dangerous – it is to cater to the criminal aspects of society at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Here are some of the details of the proposal:

San Francisco to do away with terms like ‘convict’, will instead call them ‘formerly incarcerated person’

They recently passed a resolution containing “person first” language guidelines that all agencies and departments are urged to used.

For example, an offender will now be called a “formerly incarcerated person”, “justice-involved person”, or “returning resident.”

A juvenile delinquent will go by “young person with justice system involvement” or a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.”

How did San Francisco leaders find time to address this non-issue when homelessness has reached crisis-levels and their city is literally covered in human feces? Have voters become so engulfed in tribal allegiance that they can’t see the absurdity in front of their faces?

Cain’s reaction was short and perfect.

In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the nation of Oceania had adopted the official language of Newspeak, “a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought.” It’s both a partial precursor to and a necessity of socialism because freedom of thought allows deviations from authoritarian control. Whether the leaders of San Francisco know it or not, they’re building a version of Oceania right now.

As long as Americans stand by and elect leaders who are more interested in not offending criminals than solving the massive problems faced by law abiding American citizens, this lunacy will continue. San Francisco is dying.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Buying back the ‘assault weapon’ scam with military style hate speech

Published

on

By

Buying back the assault weapon scam with military style hate speech

A look at the insanity of leftist weasel words in furthering their socialist national agenda.

It would seem we are in the calm before the storm of the next gun debate. We’ve gone through the invective of having blood on our hands and all the other insane accusations while the story has dropped from the headlines. But rest assured this is only a lull in the action. Republican leadership has foolishly decided to give a hearing on all the gun confiscation schemes the authoritarian socialist left has been able to dream up the past few years.

In light of all this, we decided to look at some of the language the Left uses in going after a basic human right. Some of it conveys their collectivist mindset, while the rest are simply base substitutions for real civil rights – ‘assault weapons’ instead of arms, hate speech instead of free speech. This gives the left a cynical excuse to attack liberty and individual rights while they pretend that isn’t the case.

These words show the fundamental dichotomy between Individualism and Collectivism

The phrase ‘buy back’ goes to the fundamental political ideologies of Individualism and Collectivism, the basis of all other ideologies and the fundamental precept in arranging a rational political spectrum model. The country began with the setting out of the precepts of individualism in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.

Note that it does not refer to people collectively and that each individual has certain rights that cannot be given away – they are unalienable. Furthermore, it sets out that government is to be limited to securing these rights. Not attempting the impossibilities of fairness and equality, not redistributing other people’s money.

Contrast this with how the collectivists look at the world, were they see everyone as belonging to a certain groups or collective aggregations without individual rights or property. Collectivists have a strange idea that rights or property are somehow under the ‘democratic’ purview of society as a whole. This is how they can rationalize the forcible taking these from some and handing it out to others. It’s that infamous line that is the crux of collectivist thought:

‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’

[Never mind that Karl used gender exclusionary language]

The collectivist mindset is that individuals are only of value in so much that they contribute to the collective, with their rights dependent on being a part of that collective.

The collectivist mentality of a firearm ‘buy-back’

This is how the collectivist can rationalize the theft of private property from individuals. It’s somehow ‘collectively owned’ by society, so taking it back at gun point in exchange for what is essentially someone’s own tax dollars is somehow justified.

Purchasing a gun from a manufacturer precludes it ever being the property of the government [or society as a whole]. Thus, common sense logic would hold that it is impossible for the government to ‘buy-back’ something it never owned. It’s only by the bizarre logic of ‘collective ownership’ that this can be logically rationalized. An authoritarian mindset that believes that private property can be forcibly taken from the people simply because the socialist-left wants it to be so.

Military style hate speech

When it comes to the subject of assaulting liberty, the authoritarian socialist left has no equal. They really know how to twist the language to their own cynical use in developing weasel words as a substitute for basic human rights. These give the left the ongoing opportunity to go after civil liberties while maintaining the false pretense supporting liberty or being ‘Liberal’. The first being the term ‘hate speech’, the term’s construction implies a certain level of laziness in just swapping out the word ‘free’ for the word ‘hate’.

As in all of these weasel words, the idea is to use these as the supposed subject of their ire, while they are really going after free speech. The fact is there is no set definition for the term, so it can be applied to anything they want, this being a common characteristic of these phrases. We tacked on another set of weasel words just to illustrate the absurdity of this genre. Again, there is no set definition of ‘military style’ so it could apply to anything.

The ‘assault weapon’ scam

This is another weasel word construction meant to convey something, but without definition so it can be applied to anything. The fact is, just about anything can be used as a ‘weapon’ to ‘assault’ someone; it’s in the definition of the word weapon. It’s a scam because it’s meant to be used to ban certain arms and then expanded to anything and everything left wants. One can assault someone with any kind of weapon.

Other types of arms have a set definition. Banning those would restrict the standard to just those types of arms. For example, revolvers are one of the oldest repeating firearms. Banning them wouldn’t give them an open-ended way to ban everything else. They can’t very well ban a lever-action firearm as a revolver, for example. This isn’t the case with ‘assault weapons.’ Today it’s semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine, tomorrow it can be bolt action rifles. This is why this phase is a scam, although the same term can be applied to all of the other weasel words of the Left.

The bottom-line

All of these phrases should be rejected by those who are fair-minded and support the rule of law. Since they are undefined or make no sense, they have no place in civil discourse. The fact that the left uses them with abandon proves they are not working in good faith with the rest of us, and any legislation that uses these terms should also be rejected.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending