I realize many of our gun friends will object to being swept up with this guy under the heading of "Gun World." But, can they really? I don't think so.Gilbert police have arrested a man they say promoted a fist fight between his two sons and a schoolmate and then pulled a gun and threatened a group of teens watching if they interfered.
Gabriel Alberto Conde was arrested and booked into the Maricopa County Jail. He is being held on $75,000 bond for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, threats and other charges.
When it appears Canada is getting the upper hand, Conde orders his older son to get involved making it two against one. Canada is not taken to the ground.
"That's when they got me. It was all kicks to my face. It was all kicks," said Canada.
Police say as the fight continued, some of Canada's friends started to close in, and it appeared they were going to step in to help their friend. But witnesses told police Conde took out a gun and started waving it around and threatening to shoot anyone who interfered.
You see, the world is divided into two types of people, the ones who own guns and the ones who don't, that would be the Gun World and the non-Gun World. The ones who own guns are further divided into sub-categories, but they all share certain characteristics which are lacking in the non-gun group.
One of those traits is to pass on to the kids their love of guns, their ideas on gun safety, and with boy children, how to grow up to be men. Gabriel Alberto Conde is a typical example in that he is passing on to his sons what he himself has, his values, his notion of right and wrong and of course his ideas of what it means to be a man.
This is true of all the rest, in fact it transcends the boundaries of the Gun World. We all pass on to our children only what we ourselves have, good or bad.
What's your opinion? Although my dividing the world into two types of people is an over-simplification, don't you agree the gun owners both lawful and criminal have more in common with each other than either group has in common with the gun control folks? That makes sense doesn't it?
Please leave a comment.
"You see, the world is divided into two types of people, the ones who own guns and the ones who don't, that would be the Gun World and the non-Gun World."
ReplyDeleteInteresting - by your definition I would fall into the non-Gun World since I do not own any guns myself. I do however agree with the Gun World that all American citizens are granted the right to keep and bear arms and should be free to do so.
Is that true, Jim. You do not own a gun?
ReplyDeleteHow rare does that make you, then, standing up for their "rights."
I say there are far more gun owners who agree with me than guys like you. What do you think?
The problem is, Jim, that the right to keep and bear arms was supposed to prevent the establishment of a standing army;
ReplyDeleteIn the Massachusetts Bill of Rights the language is: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, and as in times of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without consent of the legislature." In that of Connecticut: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense (p.476)of himself and the state." In that of Pennsylvania: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned." In that of South Carolina: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense." In that of Virginia: "A well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." In some of the states the language is condensed into "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
But, however concise the language of the provision, it should be construed in connection with the well-known objection to standing armies and the general belief in the need and sufficiency of a well-regulated militia for the defense of the people and the state. Thus construed it is a provision for preserving to the people the right and power of organized military defense of themselves and the state and of organized military resistance to unlawful acts of the government itself, as in the case of the American Revolution. To quote Bishop, Statutory Crimes, § 793: "In reason the keeping and bearing of arms has reference to war and possibly also to insurrections where the forms of war are so far as possible observed." The phrase itself, "to bear arms," indicates as much. The single individual or the unorganized crowd, in carrying weapons, is not spoken of or thought of as "bearing arms." The use of the phrase suggests ideas of a military nature.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS [ Originally published as 28 Harv. L. Rev. 473-477 (1915).]