Michelle Malkin points to what she calls "an unconscionable mugging." Unconscionable, because a gang of thugs attacked a disabled veteran and his wife.
This is no more unconscionable than if they had attacked any other person.
These people attacked because they saw an easy target. It could have just as easily been someone elderly and feeble, a lone woman, or someone physically small and apparently weak. For that matter, it could have been just about anyone since there were five attackers in the gang.
These people were not making a political statement. They are no different from any other pack of animals of prey that chooses what appears to be the weakest and easiest target.
"I can't believe someone would mug a guy with one arm, one leg and a woman." -- Lance Corporal Mark Beyers, interview with WUSA 9 NewsOh, I can. They chose Lance Corporal Beyers exactly because he is obviously disabled.
Maybe he's now eligible to legally carry a concealed weapon now that he's been attacked, according to Maryland's onerous and unconstitutional firearms laws.
So, how exactly is a disabled person and his wife supposed to provide proportionate response to a gang of five attacking punks?
I think if each had been armed with a full-capacity semi-auto pistol (15+15=30, 30/5=6 slugs per worthless punk), that would have been about the right proportion.
