EMILY MILLER: D.C.s crime solution: Be a victim


PDA






steelerdude99
March 3, 2012, 01:48 PM
More from Ms. Emily. She's putting on a spotlight on the bad policies of our nation's capitol. Check out the link.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/1/dcs-crime-solution-be-a-victim

chuck

If you enjoyed reading about "EMILY MILLER: D.C.s crime solution: Be a victim" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tekarra
March 3, 2012, 08:33 PM
Good on Ms. Emily for the article. It is difficult to comprehend the attitude to accept fear and injury while hoping the attackers, will at some point, stop. This seems contrary to the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

AFDavis11
March 3, 2012, 08:43 PM
Frustrating and embarrassing.

EddieNFL
March 3, 2012, 09:12 PM
Too bad these folks don't live in the US.

jbrown50
March 4, 2012, 12:12 AM
Mr. Quander told residents. It is much better, in my opinion, to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. Youll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.

Sounds exactly like what a criminal will tell you. ie; "just be happy that I didn't kill you this time".

These dense metropolitan areas such as Washington DC, Chicago, New York, Boston, etc. are full of corrupt public officials like Mr. Quander.

Moral of the story is, don't vote for people who have contempt for the Second Amendment. It's an obvious red flag.

exavid
March 4, 2012, 12:30 AM
It's much the same over most of the US, the anti gunners come from the big cities. Most don't have any experience with firearms and are expecting the police to protect them. Most of them aren't used to doing all that much for themselves, in big cities laundry services, taxis, restraunts, buses, rental apartments, et all provide services so they don't have to do much but have the money to pay for it all. They are not used to protecting themselves and fear even the thought. For many of them guns are fearful objects. They think passing a law will make things better. Magical thinking. Just like the federal budget. Somehow even though they know guns will still be in the hands of gangbangers they're afraid of guns in the hands of law abiding people. I don't think there's any real way to combat this situation and fear that eventually the second amendment is going to be debased or erased by these people.

carlrodd
March 4, 2012, 12:54 AM
my unspoken response to mr. quander would be, "fair enough, and in my estimation, it's better to be "illegally" armed and walk away from such an encounter, as opposed to being whatever the criminal decided he wanted me to be after submitting to him." unbelievable that he is more concerned about some potential victim of a potential stray shot, than for the very real, and mounting number of victims of actual crimes.

MICHAEL T
March 4, 2012, 01:02 AM
to be scared, to be frightened, and even if you have to be, to be injured, but to walk away and survive. You’ll heal, and you can replace whatever was taken away.”
If they have body guards. They should be removed so they can have equal opportunity to be all of the above

gunnutery
March 4, 2012, 10:44 AM
I hate it when people assume that all the robbers want is your possessions! Some want your possessions or sex or your health or your life OR a combination of all of the above. You CANNOT know their intent until they do what they want and leave!

I've corrected several friends on this thinking and they had also never realized that robbers might want something more than your worldly possessions.

The one thing we have going for our cause right now is all the media coverage of crime. Sure, sometimes they put their slant on it and vilify law abiding gun owners, but we are saturated with article after article of violent crime and I think we can actually thank the media to some extent for the recent surge in new gun owners. And a special thanks to Emily for daring to bring the truth to D.C. residents and officials!

Bojangles7
March 4, 2012, 10:57 AM
That is the most disgusting article I've read in a long time. He's basically saying that criminals have more of a right to your possessions than you do. All in the name of safety of course. :barf:

8654Maine
March 4, 2012, 11:54 AM
If the mayor and the police chief believe that private citizens should acquiesce, then so should the mayor and police chief.

If the fear is escalation because private citizens wish to defend their right to life & liberty, then that should extend to all citizens. The mayor should not have security (armed anyways). The police should be un-armed because that would only escalate the issue.

It does seem ironic that law enforcement seems to get more militaristic, while the populace become more disabled. Because as we all know, an un-armed populace is a safer populace.

MagnumDweeb
March 4, 2012, 12:32 PM
So basically those states that have allowed folks to lawfully carry firearms are now experiencing a record low rate in crime in the midst of a strained and harsh economy. But D.C., where law abiding folks can't carry firearms lawfully, are seeing an increase in excess of fifty percent in violent crime. Hmmmm.... common sense says there's an inverse relationship but what do I know, I'm not a D.C. politician, just a Floridian living near Olrando which has seen a pretty massive decrease in violent crime over the last couple of years (most of the crime was in the government funded areas where the unproductive types lived, so that's a variable, especially since a lot of the section 8 housing got shut down which helped moved a lot of those folks out).

towerdog
March 4, 2012, 12:55 PM
I hate to sound like I wish harm on anyone but I have to wonder if his opinion would change if he was the victim of a violent home invasion. I wonder if he would go on record after the attack saying that his injuries are ok they will heal his beaten (or worse) wife and him will forgive the invaders and hope that they enjoy the new big screen TV? Or would he go out afterwards and buy a pistol and a pitbull to protect his home and family. :confused:

Voltia
March 4, 2012, 01:29 PM
Right, maybe he'll get shot in the butt or something humiliating like that.

Dr_B
March 4, 2012, 02:29 PM
Almost lost my breakfast.

Neverwinter
March 4, 2012, 04:07 PM
If the mayor and the police chief believe that private citizens should acquiesce, then so should the mayor and police chief.

If the fear is escalation because private citizens wish to defend their right to life & liberty, then that should extend to all citizens. The mayor should not have security (armed anyways).

The mayor stopped becoming a private citizen the moment he was democratically elected by the citizens to public office. We just finished a thread where the idea that democratically elected public officials shouldn't be protected was debunked.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=643894

8654Maine
March 4, 2012, 04:33 PM
Ah, I see. I did mix private and public citizens.

I read that thread. Some of your posts were deleted. I don't think that particular thread debunked anything, like you suggested. In that thread, you attach the importance of scale: that a private citizen's death is less important than a public official's. So the life of a homeless vet has less value than the mayors?

I do agree public officials deserve security. I also agree the office/title deserve protection.

So do private citizens.

Carl N. Brown
March 4, 2012, 04:49 PM
The title of the thread was Media Matters head doesn't believe in guns for you, only his bodyguards.

David Brock through Media Matters attacks gun rights for the average citizen, yet as a private citizen had an aide packing a concealed Glock in Washington DC to protect him, while accepting $600,000 from the Joyce Foundation to back gun control. David Brock then got rid of the armed guard because he did not want to alienate George Soros, another big contributor and supporter of gun control. The theme of the thread opening post and most comments is that antigun celebrities and politicians who surround themselves with armed guards are hypocrites. I too don't think that has been debunked.

Vern Humphrey
March 4, 2012, 05:55 PM
Good on Ms. Emily for the article. It is difficult to comprehend the attitude to accept fear and injury while hoping the attackers, will at some point, stop. This seems contrary to the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Liberals do not believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- for other people.

Neverwinter
March 4, 2012, 09:28 PM
Ah, I see. I did mix private and public citizens.

I read that thread. Some of your posts were deleted. I don't think that particular thread debunked anything, like you suggested. In that thread, you attach the importance of scale: that a private citizen's death is less important than a public official's. So the life of a homeless vet has less value than the mayors?
I apologize if the debunking regarding additional protection for officials was not explicitly shown through acquiescence of the posters who supported an unbacked assertion: they claimed that the loss of a public official didn't matter because they were interchangeable.

The people who believed that were challenged to put there money where their mouth was: unregister/abstain from voting/cast a vote chosen by anyone who asks. This should be an easy task, given the interchangeability of politicians.

To date, no one has come forth to take the challenge.

The theme of the thread opening post and most comments is that antigun celebrities and politicians who surround themselves with armed guards are hypocrites. I too don't think that has been debunked. It would be impossible to debunk for celebrities, because they are private citizens along with the others they seek to restrict. For elected politicians, it isn't hard. See above.

8654Maine
March 4, 2012, 09:57 PM
I do not wish to derail this thread. I will reply in the other thread.

Shadow 7D
March 4, 2012, 10:06 PM
Neverwinter, tossing strawmen again
the point is hypocrisy,
yet you are equating the argument that elected officials are of no more value than anybody else to throwing away your vote (a completely different thing)

I do believe the point is, if someone wants to take guns from EVERYONE, they should include themselves in that, which is the point. As a PUBLIC SERVANT they should be the first one, not the last one... lead by example etc.

Neverwinter
March 5, 2012, 12:09 AM
Neverwinter, tossing strawmen again
the point is hypocrisy,
yet you are equating the argument that elected officials are of no more value than anybody else to throwing away your vote (a completely different thing)
Were it not for the fact that for both cases of assassination and abstaining, one is abdicating the ability to choose one's elected representative, that argument might have held water.

Or perhaps this is only a problem with additional protections for personally unfavored elected officials(in which it wouldn't be throwing away your vote)?

Perhaps the vast expenses and effort for performing fair elections beyond that of a NYTimes poll are not worth the additional protection toward democracy that they provide. ;)

I do believe the point is, if someone wants to take guns from EVERYONE, they should include themselves in that, which is the point. As a PUBLIC SERVANT they should be the first one, not the last one... lead by example etc.No one honestly wants to take guns from everyone. Even the most anti-gun people want to allow the police and military to have guns. Why is that?

danez71
March 5, 2012, 09:15 AM
...
...
...
No one honestly wants to take guns from everyone. Even the most anti-gun people want to allow the police and military to have guns. Why is that?

False...

My own step mom thinks there should be no guns.

Maybe you should rephrase that to support your stance.

Nushif
March 5, 2012, 11:52 AM
Liberals do not believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- for other people.

There we go! Problem solved. Let's shut down the forum and stop all political action in the US, because clearly voting for someone who says they're "conservative" will revive the American dream.
Who would have thought that life was so simple?

Owen Sparks
March 5, 2012, 12:11 PM
This is not so much about liberals as it is statists who believe that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.

rbernie
March 5, 2012, 01:43 PM
This is not so much about liberals as it is statists who believe that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force.
That's absolutely correct - the loose use of the terms 'liberal' or 'conservative' does not accurately capture the true essence of threat or ally.

THR also has specific prohibition about such labels, and we ought to be careful to mind that.

1911Tuner
March 5, 2012, 02:35 PM
I apologize if the debunking regarding additional protection for officials was not explicitly shown through of the posters who supported an unbacked assertion: they claimed that the loss of a public official didn't matter because they were interchangeable.

Not everybody acquiesced. Most of'em just got tired of arguing and let it go because the majority never said that even anti-gun elected officials shouldn't be protected. You threw that in in an attempt to take attention from the topic.

They pointed to the hypocrisy of surrounding themselves with armed security, or even carrying guns themselves while demanding that the serfs disarm...and it is blatant hypocrisy, no matter what sort of whitewash you put on it.

And, they are all pretty much two sides of the same coin in that they're far more concerned with the consolidation of power in government instead of the people...the way that the founders intended for it to be. Lose one, and there are a dozen just like him standin' in line to take his place. Next day, it's business as usual. It's a little like losing the top buck on opening day. There are more bucks that can perform the same task, and the girls will never notice the difference.

mdauben
March 5, 2012, 03:46 PM
Makes me want to get down on my knees and thank god I don't live in DC. I don't know what's worse there, the criminals or the politicians (or is there a difference?). :rolleyes:

Baba Louie
March 5, 2012, 05:35 PM
See Warren v. D.C. for the end results no politician will ever admit.

You. Are. On. Your. Own. Absolutely.

JustinJ
March 5, 2012, 06:10 PM
That's absolutely correct - the loose use of the terms 'liberal' or 'conservative' does not accurately capture the true essence of threat or ally.

THR also has specific prohibition about such labels, and we ought to be careful to mind that.

Personally i think its long past due for a zero tolerance on said rule. I'm not saying to ban members for it but at least delete the threads. The number of threads going off on politcal tangets because somebody can't resist expressing a right wing view is irritating. I've also been dissapointed to see threads with left bashing that received not so much as a warning.

danez71
March 5, 2012, 09:17 PM
Personally i think its long past due for a zero tolerance on said rule. I'm not saying to ban members for it but at least delete the threads. The number of threads going off on politcal tangets because somebody can't resist expressing a right wing view is irritating. I've also been dissapointed to see threads with left bashing that received not so much as a warning.

100% agree.

The term "Liberal" is mis-applied so often its not even funny. The majority of the ones I know are fence sitters on the issue.

Making fun of them or otherwise disparaging them isnt helping.

rbernie
March 5, 2012, 09:19 PM
I've also been dissapointed to see threads with left bashing that received not so much as a warning.You have no visibility into the posts deleted or the infractions handed out, so do not presume too much here. :)

Let's keep things on track, please.

DAP90
March 5, 2012, 09:48 PM
Let's keep things on track, please.

To that end if anyone knows how to contact her we should send a simple thank you for the work that she’s done.

Neverwinter
March 6, 2012, 11:03 PM
Not everybody acquiesced. Most of'em just got tired of arguing and let it go because the majority never said that even anti-gun elected officials shouldn't be protected. You threw that in in an attempt to take attention from the topic.

They pointed to the hypocrisy of surrounding themselves with armed security, or even carrying guns themselves while demanding that the serfs disarm...and it is blatant hypocrisy, no matter what sort of whitewash you put on it.

And, they are all pretty much two sides of the same coin in that they're far more concerned with the consolidation of power in government instead of the people...the way that the founders intended for it to be. Lose one, and there are a dozen just like him standin' in line to take his place. Next day, it's business as usual. It's a little like losing the top buck on opening day. There are more bucks that can perform the same task, and the girls will never notice the difference.
Good effort, but an inaccurate synopsis. My objection was to the claim that was posted in the thread that increased protection for elected officials was wrong. Those posters are the ones who distracted the thread with that internally inconsistent position that they continued to defend.

Additionally, they continued to confuse the concept of private citizens prohibiting other private citizens while retaining their arms along with the concept of elected officials retaining protections beyond private citizens. The former is hypocrisy, while the second is not hypocrisy. Those public officials haven't elevated themselves above to strip the arms of the "serfs"; those "serfs" elected those officials to represent them.

If you want hypocrisy, you can get it from the people who think that additional protection to ensure that their selection isn't removed from their position by an assassination is wrong, while refusing to abdicate their right to selection at an earlier step in the process.

If you enjoyed reading about "EMILY MILLER: D.C.s crime solution: Be a victim" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!