Rogue xCop Dorner Turns The Gun Control Argument On It's Head

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. pspr


    Alleged killer Christopher Dorner has provided the country with a vital lesson as the gun-control debate rages: The government's officially sanctioned gun owners can slaughter innocents too.

    The fired Los Angeles Police officer and ex-U.S. Navy reservist terrorizing Southern California, allegedly killing three and wounding three, is no Adam Lanza of the unspeakable Newtown infamy, no Jared Lee Loughner, who allegedly murdered a judge and maimed a congresswoman in Arizona, no James Eagan Holmes, whom officials say murdered 12 and injured another 58 moviegoers in Colorado.

    In the gun-control fanatics' fantasy world, Dorner is one of the Good Guys: the controlled, heavily trained few within federal, state and local governments who are entitled to own and handle high-performance firearms as Americans' protectors.

    To the predictable response from the left that the government fired Dorner — in the form of the Los Angeles Police Department sacking him for issuing false statements — it should be pointed out that someone capable of Dorner's apparent crimes could well have done so while still wearing a law enforcement or military uniform, and for rationales other than those he chose.

    Armed police officers turning into serial killers might be rare, but the Dorner nightmare is further proof that the problem is not guns, but criminality; not the tools of crime but its perpetrators.

    Just on Friday, a video posted on the Web showed a San Bernardino, Calif., police officer in a helicopter circling a woman minding her own business on an exploratory hike in the desert, then landing near her and apparently unconstitutionally searching her.

    The same day, a private security guard for the federal Food and Drug Administration reportedly opened fire on a 15-year-old boy at the FDA's Pacific Regional Laboratory Northwest. Is the guard guilty of an act of criminality? Was it violent mental illness? A mix-up or misunderstanding? Or was the 15-year-old a criminal danger?

    The point is that guns can be misused by anyone — even those appearing the be the most upstanding citizens. Even ones employed to use deadly force to protect the innocent and the threatened. Tomorrow, God forbid, a crazed federal agent could snap and open fire on the high-level government official he was assigned to protect.

    But liberal Democrats, and their lackeys in the media, insist on presenting the most horrific incidents of gun violence through an intentionally distorted ideological lens. By their logic, the crimes of Dorner — a supporter of President Obama, whose Facebook "manifesto" declares that "Whether by executive order or thru a bi-partisan congress an assault weapons ban needs to be re-instituted. Period!!!" — should be seen as an indictment of his left-friendly, pro-gun control views.

    Why does he want an assault-weapons ban? So only those with his military and law enforcement training, and with his access to destructive firearms, can even the score with those he thinks have slighted them? Don't expect the ax-grinding establishment media to ask any such questions.

    In the meantime, with this presumably dangerous and heavily armed accused criminal on the loose and a massive police manhunt under way, Californians restricted by the state's gun control laws are defenseless should Dorner show up at their home.

    Americans believe in the right of private individuals to defend themselves. And, to paraphrase a sneer used by the gun-control lobby, that doesn't mean the right to keep and bear bayonets — because the nature of the weapons used by violent criminals has changed since the Bill of Rights was drafted.

    An armed, law-abiding citizenry does not the Wild West re-create. America's latest alleged gun criminal is the furthest thing from a National Rifle Association Second Amendment champion.
  2. jem


    It is precisely the govt of whom we have to be the most afraid.
    The point of our constitution is to protect our citizens from a weak central govt.

    That we now have this huge federal govt and we have had then usurp so much power... is why you have to be an idiot to think we should be disarming law abiding citizens.

  3. Lucrum


    <iframe width="420" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  4. jem


    that was a powerful presentation.
  5. fcuking pwned!

  6. ^ great clip.

    "I know this won't make me many friends in here.. but the 2nd Amendment isn't for duck hunting. It's to protect all of us, from all of YOU up there."
  7. pspr


    I agree depending upon who you mean by, "all of YOU up there." If you mean people in airplanes, then I disagree. :D
  8. I wonder which psych med Dorner was on? His manifesto states he's been depressed since '08...
  9. ==============
    Great points, i agreee with much of it;
    Ducks Unlimited,Quail unlimited may have a different view:D

    That gentleman may have friends where it counts;
    outside the beltway.

    Also Congress[normal /average Presidents also] has NRA LIFE members;
    so it takes all kinds to make a market.:cool:
  10. LEAPup


    NAILED IT!!!!!!!!!!!! We should hold the 2nd Amendment high as it is there TO PROTECT US FROM THE GOVERNMENT!
    #10     Feb 11, 2013