While driving on a rural end of the roadway on Thursday morning, I saw an infant carseat on the side of the road with a blanket draped over it. For whatever reason, I did not stop, even though I had all kinds of thoughts running through my head. But when I got to my destination, I called the Police and they were going to check it out. But, this is what the Police advised even before they went out there to check....For readers in the Colonies, 9-9-9 is the telephone number in Her Britannic Majesty's Realm that corresponds to our 9-1-1.
There are several things to be aware of ... Gangs and thieves are now plotting different ways to get a person (mostly women)to stop their vehicle and get out of the car.
There is a gang initiation reported by the local Police Department where gangs are placing a carseat by the road...with a fake baby in it...waiting for a woman, of course, to stop and check on the abandoned baby.
Note that the location of this carseat is usually beside a wooded or grassy (field) area and the person -- woman -- will be dragged into the woods, beaten and raped, and usually left for dead. If it's a man, they're usually beaten and robbed and maybe left for dead, too.
DO NOT STOP FOR ANY REASON!!!
DIAL 9-9-9 AND REPORT WHAT YOU SAW, BUT DON'T EVEN SLOW DOWN.
IF YOU ARE DRIVING AT NIGHT AND EGGS ARE THROWN AT YOUR WINDSHIELD, DO NOT STOP TO CHECK THE CAR, DO NOT OPERATE THE WIPER AND DO NOT SPRAY ANY WATER BECAUSE EGGS MIXED WITH WATER BECOME MILKY AND BLOCK YOUR VISION UP TO 92.5%, AND YOU ARE THEN FORCED TO STOP BESIDE THE ROAD AND BECOME A VICTIM OF THESE CRIMINALS.
THIS IS A NEW TECHNIQUE USED BY GANGS, SO PLEASE INFORM YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES.
THESE ARE DESPERATE TIMES AND THESE ARE UNSAVORY INDIVIDUALS WHO WILL TAKE DESPERATE MEASURES TO GET WHAT THEY WANT.
Please talk to your loved ones about this. This is a new tactic used. Please be safe.
Get started NOW -- SEND THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND LOVED ONES TO BE CAREFUL AND AWARE OF EVERYTHING AROUND THEM SO AS NOT TO BECOME A VICTIM
This brings several thoughts to the fore:
1. The UK is much more lenient to criminals - even violent criminals - than we benighted denizens of Darkest America. As a result, they have a horrific violent crime rate. With the exception of murder, the UK easily doubles or trebles US rates of assault, burglary (especially "hot" burglary, where the occupants are at home), stabbings, and rape.
2. While Europeans like to lecture us benighted denizens of Darkest America about the virtues of "community action", what we see from this reaction to crime is to reduce community action where it would be most needed: what could possibly be more in need of support by the community than an abandoned baby? But the Public Officials counsel people to pass by; nothing to see here, move along.
3. Sadly, in this degraded state of affairs goes hand-in-hand with the disarmament of the law abiding portion of the citizenry. It's so bad that even having your grandfather's old war souvenir will get you five years in durance vile. Since it's almost impossible to legally carry a handgun in the UK, so the law abiding citizens are placed at the mercy of the thugs.
4. There is a degenerate portion of This Republic - heavily concentrated in Blue regions - who think that we should "be more like Europe", and live our lives in Condition White, disarm ourselves, and trust to Officer Plod. It is a little piece of Europe brought to the New World, with tragically predictable consequences:
I read these stories every few months somewhere or other, and they always end the same way: a few years back, a couple of screwed-up Vermont teens decided they were going to kill somebody just for a giggle. They knocked on doors in neighboring towns demanding to be let in and cranky old plaid-clad coots told them to get lost and not to come back or they'd get it with both barrels. Dumb as they were, eventually the kids figured out that the one place where they'd be bound to find a couple of suckers who'd let 'em across the threshold was . . . an Ivy League college town! So they went across the river to Dartmouth in New Hampshire, were admitted by a couple of professors, and murdered them. The professors were also admirably "progressive": the last e-mails they sent that morning were impeccably anti-Bush.5. It's been said that if you want to know how someone views you, ask them their opinion of whether you should be allowed to carry a pistol. Europeans, or Blue State bien pensants will be horrified at the thought. They see you as a subject. At the same time, they'll make tut tutting and mistakes were made noises about the failure of the Constabulary to protect its citizens, or of the Court System in releasing violent criminals back into a society upon which he will prey.
It's a Condition White philosophy, that they would impose on the rest of us via force majeure. An Institutionalized Condition White, demanded of us by our Intellectual Betters, for our own good.
No thanks. If I thought that these people actually were smarter than me, and actually had thought out the consequences of their philosophy, then I might still count myself as a liberal. They're not, and they haven't, and I don't. I guess that if I were as smart as I'd like to think, it wouldn't have taken me the better part of fifty years to reach this conclusion.
But I have reached the conclusion that it's better to stop to help an abandoned baby. And if a bunch of thugs try to jump me, to use the intelligence the Lord gave me - and the tools created by John Moses Browning, Peace Be Upon Him - to make sure that they don't go home fully staffed that night.
You want a society that takes care of the weak, you arm that society against the jackals that would feed on it.
The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail... the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.- Col. Jeff Cooper
9 comments:
BP, are we sure that notice from the police is accurate? It sounds like the rumors of gangbangers and flashing headlights that get debunked on Snopes ...
Snopes is always worth a check.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/gangs/carseat.asp
Amen BP. And honestly, whether the police report is true or not, the sentiment is still the same. They've disarmed the people and left them to the jackals. This forces them to turn inward and not help their fellow man. It is not community building to create an entire class of victims just waiting to be victimized. It creates an atmosphere of fear. Where all people are armed, they are equals and have no need to live in fear.
I disagree slightly, Jennifer. I don't want to see everyone armed, because there are people who should not carry weapons as part of their everyday lives.
What we need is the concept of "herd immunity" extended to going forth armed. That is, we need to have enough of the populace armed - open or concealed - that would-be criminals are scared of the possibility that their choice of potential victim is actually armed and willing to take them down.
There are definitely people walking around out there who should not be armed. Unfortunately, more than half of the ones with whom I am personally acquainted are police.
Virtually the same email gets passed around here in the states. I got one from a concerned friend (who seemingly can't resist forwarding EVERYTHING to me) the other day. Local references had been insterted, but the rest of the text was almost identical.
This is one of the few hoax emails that I get that doesn't result in me responding to the sender with a link to snopes. I let it stand uncorrected, simply because it might plant the seed in someone's head to actually pay attention to their surroundings a bit more. There's plenty of danger around, even if this particular alarm leans toward the fictional. Most things that tend to increase peoples awareness of this fact is OK by me.
As for some people deserving the right to keep and bear arms and some not - I don't recall seeing any disclaimers attached to the Bill of Rights last time I read it.
I'm of the opinion that if the only thing standing between you killing me is whether you have (legal) access to a gun or not, then what the f*ck are you doing walking around in public a free person.
I agree. Not all people should be armed. Although when you start talking about who should and shouldn't be you require that someone draw those lines. Maybe I'm naive, but I think there are more 'good guys' in the world than 'bad guys.' By enough of a margin to keep the 'bad guys' in check. They'd either decide to behave or reach room temperature in short order.
I agree with the "herd immunity" concept. And it was really closer to the point I was trying to make but I didn't explain it well.
As for some people deserving the right to keep and bear arms and some not - I don't recall seeing any disclaimers attached to the Bill of Rights last time I read it.
There aren't any -- at least, not on the Second Amendment. The problem is not whether or not people have the right; it's whether or not:
a) some people can be trusted to exercise that right responsibly;
and, more important:
b) some people are psychologically capable of exercising that right at all.
I once heard or read something that ran roughly like this: "Never carry a gun if you aren't ready to draw it; never draw it if you aren't ready to use it; never use it if you aren't ready to kill with it." Many people are just not ready to kill on a moment's notice. Such people are more likely to be shot with their own gun than to successfully use it for self-defense.
I'm of the opinion that if the only thing standing between you killing me is whether you have (legal) access to a gun or not, then what the f*ck are you doing walking around in public a free person.
Fortunately, our criminal justice system doesn't jail people for what they might do. Only for what they have done.
Exactly. It's not about legal rights, it's about prudence and responsibilities.
"Should" (as used in "some people should not have guns") is an opinion. It may map to a verifiable and certain fact in some grand cosmic sense that only an omniscient God can perceive, but down here on Earth, among the mortals, it's up to the individual.
"May" (as in "some people may not have guns") is a fact. For it to be true, there must necessarily be an authority dividing those who may have guns from those who may not. The overwhelming weight of historical evidence teaches that no such authority can ever be considered to reliably be both competent and trustworthy. Ergo, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there who shouldn't have guns. Indeed, the fact that such people not only exist but tend to end up working for the authority that gives out the licenses is, IMHO, the best single argument against licensing. :)
Post a Comment