If I were a criminal, I'd certainly feel more secure about attacking unarmed citizens than I would going after well-armed citizens who could shoot back and defend themselves. I'm just like the crooks in that respect: I _Love_ Me!

And it doesn't take a Ph.D. to realize that, unless you can disarm all the criminals and other low-lifes lurking about, the idea of disarming honest, law-abiding citizens is absurd. -- I repeat! -- Until you can be sure that all the bad guys (and gals) have no more weapons, you cannot take guns away from the honest citizens who obey the law.

There's a lot of truth in some of these one-liners that are circulating
on the Internet, like:

*Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns.

*Assault is a behavior, not a device.

*You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

*Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.

*If you don't know your rights you don't have any.

*Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

*Those who trade liberty for security have neither.

*You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

*74,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

*A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.

*Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

*An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

*The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.

*Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.

*Only a government that is afraid of it's citizens tries to control them.

*When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

But I think this last one is the most important of all -- and the next
time you hear people advocating gun control, remember this: *The
American Revolution would never have happened with Gun Control.

What to do if you happen upon a peace rally by naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiots, to teach them why force is sometimes needed:

1) Approach dumb rich ignorant student talking about "peace" and saying there should be, "no retaliation."

2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.

3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"

4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."

5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.

6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not cause more violence."

7) Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.

8) Punch him in the face again, harder this time.

Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back

I was bored.
Wrote a journal.
Read it twice.
Thought it nice.
Form error.
What a shame.
Couldn't be posted.