Now and then, gun owners are accused of being arrogant, stupid, and dangerous. They are even attacked for thinking that they are in the right. We are, in the eyes of many, “laughable” because we (paraphrasing Uncle Joe (Biden)) think that an AR-15 can stand up to an F-15.
Such accusations normally come from people who want the US Constitution to take away the right to keep and bear arms. Just like they do not understand that is one (of many) rights that are not created by the US Constitution, but simply protected by that document, they do not understand other basic facts.
These hoplophobes (gun fearers) and hoploclasts (gun haters) frequently lament, “why do people need weapons of war in their homes?” This is, apparently, supposed to prove both how stupid gunowners are, and how those gunowners do not “properly” understand what that right applies to. Of course, they also usually fail to understand the difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 or M-4, just as they do not understand that a clip is not the same as a magazine.
But what about that question? How can we answer it easily, in nice short words and sentences? Here is one idea of what to say in a way that might convince even a hoploclast:
Continue reading
Jury power? In the UK? England?
As reported by ZeroHedge (the infamous nom de plume, Tyler Durden, fronting for real author Steve Watson), the Dutch activist which tagged the well-known statue of Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square in London, has been found “not guilty” by an English jury.
Although the argument made in the activist’s defense was that the spray paint used to vandalize the statue with pro-Palestinian slogans could be removed with water and therefore was not really vandalism, the Crown still reported the cleaning cost more than seven thousand pounds.
Clearly, your average British perpetrator of vandalism – even “short-term” and “easily cleaned” graffiti, could expect to be found guilty and required to pay the costs plus some sort of penalty for defacing a public monument. As some pointed out, they suspect a different verdict may have been made if it had been a statue of Gandhi or Mandela that had been so treated. And as several of us pointed out, the government agency probably was incredibly inefficient and wasteful of its money.
Continue reading →