Apparently they mean discouraging people from taking any initiative on their own. This is a story of a school safety agent, who picked up a downed officer’s Glock, and fought off the attackers:
The agent, who is not licensed to carry a gun, could face charges, sources said. Two of the robbers were wounded in the gun battle.
Clearly these are common sense gun laws. You see, we’re all cowards. They are heros defending the world against gun violence. They want us to be as impotent as they are. In fact, they will demand it. You will comply or face the wrath of the state. You will be a compliant citizen, or else.
We have to destroy these people politically. The New York and Chicago citizen control regimes have to be utterly laid to waste, or we have failed.
I think the principle you are looking for is called “Learned helplessness”. :-(
I heard about this on local radio tonight. I think its insane the Safety Agent could even think of being charged. I honestly hope the concept of “prosecutorial descrection” comes to play in this one. If we have reached the point, even in selected outposts, where one defends not only the innocent, but officers as well, then we have a problem.
The comments from the New Yorkers was the best part of the article. These idiots vote in the most virulent gun-hating Democrats year after year and they are shocked that this guy might be charged for not having a gun license!! They seem to forget that elections have consequences.
Some of the commentors said that they would leave the country if this guy was convicted. No, you idiots. That isn’t necessary. Just move to a state that respects the 2A. Just don’t move to PA. I have found that New Yorkers tend to take their voting habits with them and we have enough gun-haters living in Philly.
This article shows the arrogance of the average New Yorker. They actually believe that they are the center of the universe and have no clue that most of the rest of the country allows concealed carry.
On a related subject, did I hear right? Did Gov. Jan Brewer veto a campus carry bill in Arizona? So the above travesty of justice (charging a hero with illegal gun possession) could also happen at Arizona State University? What is she thinking?
Illegal gun possession just for picking up the gun and attempted murder for trying to shoot the perps after they had turned their backs and were running away.
That’s the law in NYC where the law protects criminals and punishes the law-abiding. There is no right to keep and bear arms, but there is the crime of gun possession. There is a right to self-defense under certain circumstances, but there is no right to respond with appropriate anger to a criminal attack.
This is yet another incident that shows the dysfunctionality of Bloomberg’s simple-minded, gun ban mentality.
“any initiative on their own”
What are the other types of initiative?
Even in New York, no Grand Jury will ever indict him and no jury would every convict. No way.
Bram is right. No charges.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/04/18/2011-04-18_no_charges_for_school_safety_agent_who_fired_at_thieves_in_brooklyn_gun_battle.html
But I agree with Sebastian … that anyone even thought along those lines is downright absurd.
If he would have saved the little girl from drowning in the community pool, would someone have considered charging him with the crime of not being a certified lifeguard?
Absurd.
@Arnie
Yes, you heard right.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/04/18/20110418arizona-campus-guns-bill-vetoed-brewer.html
She said she vetoed it because it contained a lot of vague language. We’re no stranger to the ill effects of such language here in Ohio. I’ll read a law one way, the cops another, and the courts a third.
Bram Said,
April 19th, 2011 at 7:50 am
Even in New York, no Grand Jury will ever indict him and no jury would every convict. No way.
But it probably would cost him his job and a lot of money for a lawyer. Not to mention a possible felony conviction if it actually went to trial. Don’t forget Bernie Goetz who was convicted of gun posession after being found “not guilty” on attempted murder because the dim bulbs on the jury “had to” convict him of something. After all we can’t have citizens shooting armed robbers can we???
It looks like between the two of them they emptied the entire “assault clip” on the five perps injuring only two of them. But who needs these magazines when we can just pick up a downed officer’s gun?
Bram,
think Brian Atkins. the judge will not allow the jury to hear testimony that his buddy was just shot and dropped his gun. The jury will only hear : “picked up a gun found on the street and shot 2 people in the back”