A neat, short guest commentary by Ryan Stubblefield
Ryan was asked this question, by a hoplophobe: Since there are more people who don’t own guns than there are people who do own guns here in the States, why don’t those non-gunowners disarm their “fearful neighbors?” That way, “we can live in a safe society free from firearms…” right?
Brian’s response is classic:
We’ll make this simple. 1/3 of the population of the U.S owns guns.
That leaves a 2 to 1 ratio of people taking their guns, Yes?
Should be plenty, normally is.
None of you are armed. I am.
Come to my door, tell me you’re taking my guns.
I instantly shoot your neighbor in the face. This fast. Say, “Bam Bam!”
I let you walk away. Now, it’s 1 on 1.
Not good odds. Right?
Don’t forget, you came onto my property and threatened to steal my guns. I don’t go to prison when I shoot your neighbor in self defense.
You go to prison for a few years for trespassing and attempted larceny of a firearm.
I’m out, free. You’re in. Your neighbor is dead.
Now it’s none to 1.
How’s your plan working out?
A quick edit. Are you afraid of not being safe because of guns? Seems like you’re the fearful neighbor here.
I’m not afraid of anyone. Simply because I can better control my situations, guaranteeing my own safety. You possibly could not. Your post already has marked you as a victim of sorts.
Count our blessings! At least some God-given liberties are recognized in the US Constitution and are not subject to the popular votes of democracy. At least in most of the States.



A bizarre example of judicial wickedness and corruption
From a correspondent in the UK: A group of teenage boys gang rape two girls on two separate occasions, film the crimes and laugh about doing it. As a punishment, they are condemned to community service, with Mr Justice Nicholas Rowland explaining at Southampton Crown Court last month that ‘I should avoid criminalising these children unnecessarily and understand the effects of their behaviour and support their reintegration into society.’
The decision did not go down well with the public, many of whom have grown restless at court decisions, and struggle to understand sentencing guidelines which seem alien to natural justice.
The judge has stayed true to form; in 2023 he handed out a suspended sentence to a paedophile found with the most serious grade of child abuse images, despite five previous convictions. (As it is, the offender failed to abide by the conditions of his suspended sentence and went to jail anyway.) Most people would regard unpaid work as a small price to pay to avoid prison, but many criminals are not future orientated enough to see things that way.
In the more recent case, the judge chose to be lenient because the two rapists were not only young, but too stupid to understand what they had done. This is not unusual – many vicious and violent criminals escape serious punishment because the law sees low intelligence as mitigation. They are “unfit” to be tried, to be held accountable for their actions. However evil those actions are.
Continue reading →