Newsbusters
Andrea Noble of the Washington Times noted yesterday that a D.C. man could face numerous gun charges related to his discharge of his gun on Sunday to save an 11-year-old boy from being mauled to death by three pit bulls...The District may elect to not press charges, but given their past track record of harassing otherwise law-abiding citizens, it's not likely
I discern a pattern here. Correlate this case with
- Trayvon Martin shooting, in which Zimmerman claims self-defense---doctrine of self-defense under attack
- Benghazi, in which no aid was given despite the fact that it was available---the government's attitude of allowing only "low-profile" military missions in areas in which the risk of being outgunned and outmanned is high
- Gun-control measures like gun-free zones, which are not enforced---which means that nobody can defend against an attack from even one gunman
The pattern is that the government will not defend the people nor will it allow people to defend themselves. What's the use of a government if it doesn't defend the people? Why have a government at all if the government won't provide security and will punish any attempts to obtain it?
No comments:
Post a Comment