Why I wouldn't stop in certain parts of town if I had an accident

It wasn't that many years ago that a local woman was arrested and ostracized for driving away from the scene of an accident where she accidentally ran over three young children.  Seems a terrible thing to do, to drive away from such an accident.

Of course the story is much more than this and the things one cannot say about how or why it happened need to be heard before one can really judge her.

Let's say it all starts with thinking about Reginald Denny.  You know, a white truck driver in the "wrong" part of town when people are rioting over the Rodney King verdict.  Wrong color, wrong place, wrong time, pulled out of his truck, beaten senseless, all because of his color.  Now think about this girl in her early 20s, driving through the "wrong" part of town (as with Denny, "wrong" because, in the eyes of the residents "she" and her kind do not belong there).  Any of us who have driven through there know this and also know that people cross this street with little regard for their own safety, daring you (regardless of color) to hit them.  She accidentally and tragically hits a group of young children who are crossing the street, panics and drives away.

Now, read this story and tell me that she should have stopped to try to render aid.  Sadly, in the minds of some people, there are no accidents and the response to any accident is prejudice, violence, and mayhem.  And, as recent events clearly suggest, for them that is okay because it can all be justified.  I can say with certainty that this would not happen in the "other" part of town. So what's up with that?

Until such time as this primitive impulse to mob action and revenge can be quelled, there will be no peace and people will feel compelled to take sides and defend themselves.  Until that can happen, I know I would not stop in the "wrong" part of town, not because I value anyone less than myself, but because I know I am valued less there, where I am seen as nothing more than a representative of my race who is to be assaulted, to be an object for revenge over real, imagined, current or past wrongs I did not commit. Perhaps some will see this as cultural elitism, that I am suggesting that certain cultures and their norms are disruptive to good order.  Perhaps they are right.

Equality implies two sides of the equation; it does not mean one group falls back to allow another to occupy the field.

But it will lead some to be intimidated - and foolish!

To those of us who have watched the liberal insanity of the past few years, it is almost a certainty that the response to today's tragic shootings in Ottawa Canada, regardless of the rhetoric to the contrary, will be cowering in fear and cries for disarmament.

Despite the strong words of the Canadian Prime Minister: "This will lead us to strengthen our resolve and redouble our efforts and those of our national security agencies to take all necessary steps to identify and counter threats" one can have little doubt that anti-self-defense forces will move quickly to condemn the gun that was used by this terrorist, not the individual involved.  We can safely bet that his religion will be absolved of all guilt in favor of blaming the tool he used in service of his ideology (of course they will not blame the car for the recent attack on two soldiers in Quebec). Guns are fair game, but ideology that devalues the life of all but its devotees is off-limits, untouchable.

Some will point to the tragic killing of a soldier at the War Memorial to suggest that an armed populace would not help prevent such attacks (it is not clear to me that this soldier was armed). However, it was clearly an armed "Sergeant-at Arms" that ended this siege on the Parliament building; a good guy with a gun! Imagine that!

Nonetheless, there will be those who call for new levels of gun control, using this event to forward their agenda in contradiction to the facts on the ground.  Once again, these people will fantasize that somehow a law that would forbid this terrorist from having a gun would make it so, would be more potent than the laws that forbid him from killing another.

Quite frankly, I and many others, would prefer the option to stand and fight over running and cowering. Don't get me wrong - those of you who prefer to be unarmed, to run and hide and pray that you are not a victim, are welcome to do so.  What you are not welcome to do, and I will not let you do, is disarm me so that I have no choice but to join you in your terror and helplessness. I would rather die defending myself and others than live knowing I did nothing. I could not live the years I have left, knowing that I survived by hiding while others died.

Some of us were born, bred and built to go out on our feet, not on our knees.

It supports the RKBA, too!

Yes, numbnuts, it may be that the equal protection does that - certainly some will debate the inference that the equal protection clause extends to gay marriage.  However, it is clear and unequivocal that the Second Amendment confirms and protects the right to keep and bear arms - no inference needed.

So how about we uphold the clearly written rights that the constitution protects before we start making inferences?  Support all of it, not the parts you like.