Light Posting Ahead...

Hey, gang.

Going to be busy for the next few weeks so posts are gonna be light around here.

Back soon!

Gun Control Cultists Always Side With The Lawbreakers

Here's another one from CSGV's Ordinary People blog.

On November 24, 2010, 28-year-old Thomas Baker of Florida went out for a jog, carrying cash and armed with a handgun. He was assaulted by 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier. Baker responded by drawing his handgun and shooting Mustelier eight times.

Go and read the post, then come back here.

Now, you'll notice the majority of the post gives us a fairly decent narrative of the incident and the resulting judgment.

Here's where it gets interesting.

We're told

The NRA couldn’t be happier with the results, calling its law "common-sense."

Then in the next paragraph we get

The family and friends who loved Carlos Mustelier feel differently

Wait a minute.

Granted Mustelier's family and friends lost him to the shooting, but let's not forget what we were told earlier:

18-year-old Carlos Mustelier and his 16-year-old friend saw Baker as they headed to a Beverage King in the neighborhood. Mustelier told his friend he was going to rob Baker. After leaving the store, which was closed, they saw Baker passing them again. "I'm going to bam him. I'm gonna knock him out," Mustelier announced.

Mustelier planned to rob Thomas Baker.

Then we get

No one should paint Carlos Mustelier as a hero in this incident—-he was wrong to confront and attack Baker that night.

Okay. That's true, given what we've read so far.

But here's where it gets interesting:

On the flip side, Baker is no hero either. It’s hard to pinpoint the definition of "Looking for Trouble," but leaving one’s house after midnight with $950 in cash and a loaded handgun must be close.

See what's going on here? Notice the sly, subtle switch-up?

Let me translate: "Carlos Mustelier was wrong to confront and attack Baker. But if you leave your house after midnight armed and carrying a lot of money? Why, you're a bad guy, you're up to no good, and you're planning to randomly kill someone. (wink-wink, nudge-nudge)"

Notice how they conveniently forget that Mustelier attacked Baker with the intention to robbing him.

According to CSGV, we should be on Mustelier's side because he was shot with a gun.

In other words, we should be on the side of someone intent on breaking the law.

To that I say: No.

Uh-uh.

Fuck that.

Gun Control Cultists Say: The Second Amendment Is Obsolete

Gun Control Cultists like to repeatedly point this out to anyone and everyone.

"The Second Amendments has no place in today's society," they say. "It's a product of a bygone era and means nothing in the modern world. It refers only to muskets and other old-style weapons. The Founders could not have forseen the development of semi-automatic pistols and their like. It's obsolete. Therefore we must repeal it."

The Founders also could not have forseen the development of television, movies, and the Internet.

Yet we still apply freedom of speech and freedom of the press from the First Amendment to those inventions.

But in the era of the Founders, press and speech was limited to voice, hand-written literature, and anything made by the printing press.

Nothing at all remotely like CNN, Google, or the latest Steven Spielberg flick.

Therefore we should prohibit the use of First Amendment freedoms to television, movies, and the Internet.

(photo: kjd/flickr)