You may be acquainted with 42bkdodgr, my "72-year-old friend" who contributes Special Comments to TPC from time to time.
He sent me this message yesterday, and I had to share:
Yesterday at a Mens Club luncheon I attended as a guest, there was a law enforcement officer running for top law enforcement position in Vegas.
He told the group that he favored no gun registration requirement and that people should buy as many guns and ammo as they could afford, because the way the country was going, they made need them.
I was shocked and scared from what was said. This coming from a law enforcement official.
I'm scared, too, 42bkdodgr, although I am becoming less shocked, which is a commentary on the recent state of affairs in and of itself.
But I'm not just alarmed by that one story. That was bad enough. No, it gets worse. Today, when I opened my L.A. Times, I found this:
One judge's solution for citizens feeling less secure because of budget cuts in an Ohio county: Carry a gun.
He explained that anyone with a gun should be "law abiding".
Yes, I'm sure all those angry, extremist militia types and/or Tea Baggers, and/or anyone with a grudge against the government who is being egged on by the likes of Sarah Palin to "reload" will remember to be "law abiding".
Emotion has nothing to do with it.
Rage is so easily controlled, isn't it? Especially these days. Why, sure as shootin', these people are as trustworthy and reasonable and safety conscious as they can be with their lethal weapons.
Mackey [...] was expressing concerns with budget cuts that have trimmed the sheriff's department from 112 to 49 deputies in the county, which is Ohio's largest by land area.
Asked by WKYC how people should respond to the cuts and limited patrols, he said, "Arm themselves. Be very careful and just be vigilant because we're going to have to look after each other."
Feel safer now? That awesome posse mentality is so in vogue these days. I must remember to purchase Nordstrom's finest hottt studded leather holster to match the gleam of ready-aim-fire in my eyes.
Even if the judge did not intend to encourage vigilantism, IMHO he was being irresponsible. Guns are not the answer to budget cuts. His honor might have thought about the possible consequences of his words before he opened his influential judicial mouth.