Sheriff Doesn't Think Citizens Should be able to Protect Themselves
Who wants to take a guess at whether we will see more or less of this in the next four years, as liberals become more confident and feel more empowered in pushing their personal agendas. I predict that the Constitution will become even more disdained and ridiculed as outdated and a “dead letter”, just as the Bible has been accused of being outdated and a “dead letter”.
For those who don’t want to read the whole article, here is Ms. Green’s synopsis.
In Orange County California, they have a new sheriff. Sandra Hutchens evidently doesn’t think private citizens should be able to defend themselves. There are 1100 citizens in Orange County who have passed all written and shooting requirements etc. to obtain a legal permit to carry a concealed weapon. These permits were issued by the previous sheriff of Orange County. Many of these citizens have recently received a letter from Hutchins stating that they must now justify keeping the permit they have or face having it revoked. There is the potential for dozens, or even hundreds of permit holders losing their permits for no good reason.
Not surprisingly, Hutchins is getting a lot of angry feedback. She was quoted as saying “There’s so much important stuff going on with the department, I didn’t expect there to be so much feedback on this.”
Important stuff? Having a way of defending oneself and one’s family from harm is not important? It’s ok for you to have that right, but not Mr. or Mrs. Average citizen?
What’s even more alarming is Hutchens’ new policy requiring applicants to prove there is a legitimate threat to their safety and to undergo possible psychological, polygraph, or medical testing.
Legitimate threat to their safety? Read the news lately? It’s pretty dangerous out there these days.
Statistics continue to prove that there is a direct correlation between the issuing of concealed carry permits and the reduction of violent crime.
I think it has been proven that liberals don’t act and react upon logic, but instead, upon emotion. There is nothing logical in Hutchins’ actions.
Thanks to my friend Herm for this one.
thoughts from Ms.Green @ Friday, November 21, 2008
15 Comments:
You're just a bitter American...I bet you're a Christian too.
Sorry, I have to joke about garbage like this or it will raise my blood pressure.
I live in the People's Republic of Illinois and was pleased to see that the village of Winnetka, a more upscale community up the lake shore from Chicago has rescinded their laws against handgun ownership. That's right. Merely owning a handgun was illegal, and I believe it still is under Comisar Dick Daley in Chicago.
Not long ago, a Winnetka man was arrested after shooting an intruder in his home, under their anti-handgun law. The salient point of this story is that a week previous to the shooting, the very same intruder had already broken in to this man's house. Why not? No one's supposed to have guns anyway, so why not hit the same victim multiple times if there's still things to steal. I've heard that in England there are areas where the people cower in fear while creeps rattle windows and doors looking for one that is unlocked.
This is a no brainer. Bad guys are cowards in most cases and don't want to die while stealing or raping. But here in Illinois, we are run by no-brain Democrats challenged by a very weak GOP. Crime is not low in Chicago or the rest of the state.
Dakota, I understand your sentiments exactly. I'm disgusted with what the liberals are doing to our Constitutional rights. I'm sick of hearing about "guns" being evil.
The statistics show that those that are legally allowed to carry weapons are the least likely to use those weapons in an unsafe or criminal way. And when gun ownership is limited or prohibited, it only affects "good guys", not the "bad guys".
The truth behind the anti-gun people is not that they want to control crime - they want to control EVERYBODY. And stupid people who think with their emotions instead of their intellect follow along with them thinking they're doing a "good thing" in supporting gun control.
Marshall, I live in a state where guns are still acceptable and even encouraged. I'm thankful for that, but wonder how long it will be before the feds force Louisiana to start dictating what's acceptable in gun ownership.
MsGreen, Once a few states start to buckle under pressure from the left and the Feds, it will be only a short time before the domino effect takes hold. I look for them to find a way to keep it out of the present more conservative supreme court, and legislate some new law while this ultra liberal congress is in power. Of course any state can legislate its own restrictive laws. I'm not very optimistic about this subject. God Bless, Herm
Herm, I grabbed this from the NRA-ILA website. Seems there are a lot of gunowners out here and it would be very hard for the feds or libs to grab all the weapons without using a lot of force to do so.
"The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (294 million), and rises about 1% annually. Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have found that almost half of all households have at least one gun owner. Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership, probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," residually due, perhaps, to the anti-gun policies of the Clinton Administration."
WWJS?
Jesus said: “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." (Lk.22:36) He knows this wicked age requires even His people to be prepared to protect their families if need be.
David, there is nothing in Scripture that says Christians are to just stand idly by and be violently attacked. "Turn the other cheek" doesn't mean "take the bullet".
In this age, as you said, we need to be aware and need to be able to protect ourselves.
Luke 6:29-30 "If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."
Luke 6:35 "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."
Matthew 5:39-42 "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you"
Seems Jesus is commanding you to allow people to beat and/or rob from you without doing anything to stop them,
Ms Green: "Turn the other cheek" doesn't mean "take the bullet".
It does seem to mean "Do nothing in return, even allowing them to strike you or steal your possessions".
Ms Green: In this age, as you said, we need to be aware and need to be able to protect ourselves.
Aren't many in the early church supposed to have accepted torture and death in the name of Jesus gladly? Don't you have faith in Jesus?
With Yahweh on your side, and ever lasting life to look forward to, why would you need to go against Jesus's commandments and protect yourselves and your possesions in the here and now?
>With Yahweh on your side, and ever lasting life to look forward to, why would you need to go against Jesus's commandments and protect yourselves and your possessions in the here and now?
Because the only reason they espouse the teachings of Jesus is to support their own bigotry. Just like churches in the south preached sermons justifying slavery before the start of the Civil War. When it comes to the actual message of Jesus- how to be in the world but not of it- not being more interested in your bank balance than you are of doing good to your fellow man, not praying in the churches and synagogues to be seen of men, not being judgmental, not favoring your brethren over any other person, rendering unto Caesar the taxes that are Caesar's due, you find that they have no idea what Jesus actually said but have a whole lot of reasons (such as "I don't think that word means what you think it means") to do whatever they want rather than follow even the plainest statements Jesus made.
Anon,
There was a time when some self-proclaimed Christians as well as non-Christians supported slavery. That is a fact that all of mankind should be ashamed of.
However, you have not bothered to acknowledge the lengthy list of Christians who were instrumental in bringing about the abolition of slavery. That list includes William Wilberforce, Charles Spurgeon, John Wesley, Benjamin Lay, Charles Finney, and many others. The Baptist denomination was instrumental in working to abolish slavery, and the number of Black Baptists today is a testimony to that fact.
Why you continue to accuse Christians of racism and bigotry shows your obvious disdain and prejudice against Christianity in general. You are making blanket statements against a whole group of people and lumping all Christians into your personal perception of what Christianity is. That fits the definition of bigot quite well actually.
Ms Green: However, you have not bothered to acknowledge the lengthy list of Christians who were instrumental in bringing about the abolition of slavery.
When the vast majority of the population is of the one faith, statements such as that lose their force.
Do you acknowledge the lengthy list of Christians who were instrumental in prolonging of slavery and keeping bigotry alive? I think my list would be much longer than yours. I also think my list had more biblical support since the bible says little against, and actively supports slavery.
Ms Green: Why you continue to accuse Christians of racism and bigotry shows your obvious disdain and prejudice against Christianity in general.
I thought racism and bigotry were written in the bible? Aren't the Jews Yahweh chosen people, above all others? Seems a little racist to me.
Ms Green: You are making blanket statements against a whole group of people and lumping all Christians into your personal perception of what Christianity is. That fits the definition of bigot quite well actually.
Not wanting to put words into Anon's mouth, but the message of the presented by Jesus in the gospels seems to be mostly as he presented it - don't worry about earthly things.
Pointing out hypocrisy isn't bigotry, is it?
I didn't say "all Christians", you did. I was referring specifically to you and your little echo chamber. And the statements weren't bigotry, just a simple observation.
But after reading a number of posts here and the comments, it seems that deflecting criticism is one of your primary defense mechanisms. No one has a problem with what you do, either they hate all Christians, or they hate you, or they have a problem with your God, or they were the first to be uncivil- thus excusing your incivility.
The question remains. If Jesus was so plain about (in this one case) not returning aggression with aggression that he stopped his defender as he was being led to the slaughter and healed the ear of the centurion, why is your faith so meager that you have to carry a gun to protect you? And how on earth did carrying a gun become so entrenched in "Christian" (your Christian, not actual Christian) dogma? By their fruits shall you know them. And from your actions I am led to believe your religion is not born out of love and striving to be like our Heavenly Father, but simply out of fear and self-righteousness.
Now wait a minute Anon. Your words in an earlier post were :
Because the only reason they espouse the teachings of Jesus is to support their own bigotry. Just like churches in the south preached sermons justifying slavery before the start of the Civil War.
But now you are saying that your problem is not with Christians in general, it is with me.
Please at least be consistent in your criticism.
I'm sorry that you have such a problem with everything I say, do, or stand for. Have you thought about maybe starting your own blog? I know this is a public venue, but it is my blog, not yours. If I am that offensive to you, why not ignore me and go elsewhere. Seems tiring and even depressing to spend all of one's time reading what one diametrically opposes. I know I have precious little time in my life to waste, and I don't spend my time reading and posting in blogs that I disagree with.
Just a friendly suggestion. Life is short. Do some things you enjoy doing.
Post a Comment
<< Home