Where was the safest place in the country on Patriot's Day?
The safest place in the country today was certainly not at the Knoxville hospital (by definition a gun-free zone for everyone but security) where today a gunman today killed one woman and shot two others before killing himself.
The midtown Manhattan skyscraper where I work is always very safe, but for all we know, someone could go postal at any time, and the rest of us would have no effective way to defend ourselves. But at Virginia's Gravelly Point and Fort Hunt parks, peaceable people rallied today in support of gun rights, and that's the last place any criminal would have wanted to try anything. How about that debunking of liberals' illogic about firearms! A few dozen people were armed but did no wrong, and no one died, but with presumably hundreds of people at that Knoxville hospital, three people were shot (one killed) just outside and no one could do a damn thing.
By contrast, those rallying at the National Mall could have easily been victims, today or any other day, because they weren't armed. It would have been simple for a criminal to attack a person or two with a deadly weapon, then get away scot-free in the resulting mayhem while any observers would be largely helpless. Yes, an eyewitness can identify the criminal for apprehension, but isn't it better to deter criminals in the first place?
But I suppose D.C.'s anti-gun laws are indeed good, right? They've done a great job eliminating, say, drive-by shootings, or maybe not. And there are still idiots who think that stronger laws will help them. What's the use when the criminals won't obey?
When Eammon Hennessey would be hauled before Judge Ritter, "that old fart," for protesting, he would never plead guilty or innocent, he would plead anarchy.
"What's an anarchist, Eammon?" Judge Ritter would say.
"An anarchist is someone who doesn't need a cop to tell him what to do," says Eammon.
"But we need laws, Eammon," says the Judge.
"Judge, what good are your laws? The good people don't need them, and the bad people don't obey them."
Today is Patriot's Day, to remember those who took a stand 235 years ago. They turned to fighting only after peaceful remonstration failed. And until today, I never realized that it's the same calendar day that the Branch Davidians were murdered. Just like at Lexington and Concord, the ruling government came to take away all the ammo and arrest certain people for being "dangerous" and "extremists":
24 British nationals were among the 76 fatalities. Two more British nationals who survived the siege were immediately arrested as "material witnesses" and imprisoned without trial for months. One, Derek Lovelock, was held in McLennan County Jail for seven months, often in solitary confinement. Livingston Fagan, another British citizen, who was among those convicted and imprisoned, recounts multiple beatings at the hands of prison guards, particularly at Leavenworth. He claims to have been doused with cold water from a high-pressure hose, which soaked both him and the contents and bedding of his cell, after which an industrial fan was placed outside the cell, blasting him with cold air. He was repeatedly moved between at least nine different facilities. He was strip-searched every time he took exercise, so refused exercise. Released and deported back to UK in July 2007, he still holds on to his religious beliefs.How many of you knew this, especially those of you who rely chiefly on the mainstream media? Two people were arrested when there was no evidence they had committed any crimes -- otherwise they'd have been charged outright -- and yet imprisoned for months. "We need them to give testimony" is nothing more than an excuse for the government to declare someone a "material witness" and hold him eternally, under the guise of "law" so that "we the people" won't raise a fuss. Writs of habeas corpus and the Fourteenth Amendment's "due process rights" no longer apply at that point, but the public won't care as long as the government convinces them that those being held are dangerous.
There was absolutely no difference between that and what the Crown did to the colonials, and today is worse than 1993. As I wrote in the last comment here, "What do you suppose is about to happen between Washington and several states? When the colonies insisted on their right to govern their own affairs, the Crown asserted its superior authority and punished them further. What set off the powder keg was forcible confiscation of arms, and I can guarantee you the same result should it happen today."