Ok, we all know that foopbaw players have been fortunate in getting great athletic genes. It's only assumed that they paid for it by a shortfall in intelligence genes. After all, Brett Favre doesn't even know how to pronounce his own name.
Hence, when a foopbaw player fumbles in public, no one is really surprised. Like on Nov 29th, when Plaxico Burress shot himself in the thigh with a handgun he was carrying in his pocket in a NYC nightclub. I can go on about handgun safety and the fact that no handgun has ever just "gone off" of its own volition, but suffice it to say that Burress, whether or not he knows anything about handgun safety, screwed up in a way that might have killed him. Depending 'pon the particular weapon, the safety must be engaged, the chamber should be empty or perhaps the weapon simply isn't the type to be carried in the trouser pocket. Burress has more than enough money to purchase any type of handgun, and perhaps should've been a mite more selective.
The interesting thing coming out of Burress' famous blunder involves the news coverage. The media seems to have roundly decided that Burress had no right to be armed in public. The NFL offers no defense of the player, citing its policy that if a player breaks the unConstitutional laws of any locality, the player is subject to punishment by the League--including suspension.
New York City, for its part, is as staunchly anti-self defense as is India or Britain--preferring victimhood to self determination. Rather than fighting crime, the DA of New York City, showing the same stupidity, arrogance and ignorance of the rights of individuals as did the NYC DA's in the tv series Perry Mason or Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer novels, plans to prosecute Burress (not for near-terminal stupidity, but for exercising his right to self defense), those who helped him to the hospital and the medic who failed to squeal on him.
A couple of interesting stats were brought up by John Lott, Jr at The Fox Forum. Lott points out that an NFL player stands twenty times more chance of being crime victims than does the average individual. And, since the police seem to be spending most of their time writing traffic citations and chasing the odd toker, gambler or hooker rather than dealing with crime (which should include supporting productive and law-abiding individuals in their efforts to defend themselves against such threats.
The Lott piece also has something to say about airport security guards hiding behind pillars in the Bombay airport, and British-inspired Indian gun control, for those interested.
A tip of the battered gray fedora to Alan Korwin for pointing me in the right direction.
They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!
Warm regards,
Col. Hogan
4 comments:
Yeah, i remember reading about this. Frustrating it is, trying to explain to gun-fearing morons that you are entitled to defend yourself. it's like banging your head against a wall trying to explain that gun-control doesn't work.
India being the latest example, one has to wonder if there is some sort of mental blockage issue with the gun-haters. How can they not see what is in front of them.
MK,
And yet you can't get an answer as to why the gun control nuts won't post the sign "There are no guns or defensive weapons in this house." on their front door.
Indeed CH. i have asked that question to so many when they come caterwauling at me when i say anything that's pro-gun. Not surprisingly their 'zest' to argue, suddenly evaporates.
MK,
Another ploy I like to use is to suggest that their distaste for the idea of defending their families says something about what they think of their families.
Post a Comment