In a letter to The Providence Journal, Scituate resident Austin O’Toole wonders why The Ocean State’s waterfowl hunting laws — restricting shotguns to three shells — don’t apply across the board. “It appears that we protect ducks from firepower better than we protect school children, church faithful and concert goers and anyone else hanging around.” So much fail in such a small space. In this, Mr. O’Toole is not alone . . .
San Antonians Want Academy Sports to Stop Selling Semi-Automatic Guns:
It wasn’t just the questionable marketing that brought Perez and a group of 30 parents, kids, and other gun control advocates outside on a drizzly Saturday afternoon. They want the Texas sporting goods store to stop selling semi-automatic firearms altogether.
“CVS stopped selling tobacco. HEB doesn’t sell liquor. Academy shouldn’t sell assault rifles,” said Yonhui Bell, who came to the rally with three of her kids. “This isn’t meant to be political, or partisan. This is about a store where you take your children that’s selling guns that have been used to kill children.” . . .
“A semi-automatic weapon is designed to kill many people in a very short amount of time. Seconds. There’s no way anyone in that church could have reached for a gun before they were hit,” [Shannon] Perez said.
If [Sutherland Springs mass shooter Devin] Kelley had come in with a handgun or shotgun, Perez said, the churchgoers would have likely had time to react and stop him. But a semi-automatic weapon is an entirely different type of killing machine.
Over in the Bay State, Ruth Bass writes the following for berkshireeagle.com:
The Second Amendment never meant that you and I have the freedom to own a weapon that’s a threat to family, neighborhood and town. It does grant “the right to bear arms,” which certainly was essential in the pre-police, pre-army days when an individual had to nail a coyote before it grabbed the last sheep or protect the family from a band of marauders. In either case, they did a lot of reloading.
Sigh. Is it me or are many if not most gun control advocates as dumb as a box of hammers? Please share any personal examples of close encounters of the anti-gun idiot kind.
Some of them are dumb enough they should worry about drowning in a summer rainstorm.
Most of the leaders aren’t so much stupid as they are simply overcome with hate and prejudice for gun owners.
The vast majority of those they claim as “supporters”- I don’t think they’re really completely on board: “ban guns? Yeah, sure. Sounds good” But in truth, I doubt they’ve actually put much thought into it. Just following along with the loudmouth claiming to lead them. 🤠
Dumb or not, they better be on a DHS watch list, or the rest of us better not be.
Yup, American sheep, following the flock. Sadly, they vote the same way too.
Seriously, I don’t think they’re stupid, I believe that people fall for emotional arguments and never think at all. My opinion is that is why the left always talks up “feelings”. Emotions are easier to manipulate than thoughts.
No, sorry, they are “mentally challenged”.
“It wasn’t just the questionable marketing that brought Perez and a group of 30 parents, kids, and other gun control advocates outside on a drizzly Saturday afternoon….”
It is totally beyond their capacity to understand, as they stand there in the rain outside the store selling these deadly weapons, a store FULL of those deadly weapons, and ammunition, THAT NOBODY IS SHOOTING AT THEM TO MAKE THEM GO AWAY.
Could that possibly be because the owners of the store and the workers in the store and the customers in the store are law-abiding GOOD GUYS?
If these people truly believed what they are saying and understood the ramifications of what they think is truth if it were actually true, they would be too frightened to even step outside their front doors for fear of being shot down by random strangers, or their neighbors.
And yet there they stand, in broad daylight, in the rain, intentionally pissing off the people who own the guns they claim to be so frightened of.
You mean like the citizens of Mexico which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world? Ya, the citizens don’t have guns but they have been killed by the hundreds by the drug dealers and their thugs. Hitler executed thousands of people during the 1930’s and 1940’s after he collected all of their means of self-defense.
As for the church shooting in Texas, it would depend on how many people were armed. Had he known that they were armed, chances are, he would not have gone there is the first place (another fun free zone) knowing that he would be shot.
In home defense, an AR15 is my weapon of choice, as it has the firepower to stop several intruders. It is rare that home invaders come alone, they almost always come as a group.
You’re WRONG! If any of these fools that follow the left were even slightly intelligent, they would NOT follow the left at all! When you fail to (or are unable to) use common sense, reasoning, and accept FACTS to make an informed decision, then you are STUPID! The same goes for making decisions based on emotion over your brain!
To anger a conservative tell him a lie, to anger a libturd tell him the truth!
The worst part of the left are those (like in the photo) who use their children to push their ignorance and stupidity.
“Is it me or are many if not most gun control advocates as dumb as a box of hammers?”
Don’t *ever* mistake the way they act for stupidity.
Sure, they have (more than) their fair share of ‘useful idiots’ (*cough*, Shannon, *cough*). Those that orchestrate them are political ‘true believers’ and they are *very* well-financed.
They will settle for nothing less than full civil disarmament, and they don’t care how long it takes to get there, or what it takes to get there.
They will lie, cheat and steal, and do it with a face mask of ‘caring for the children’.
They are nothing short of evil incarnate, and we’d better not forget it…
Although I understand what you are trying to say, you’re a bit off base. Leftists ARE stupid! An intelligent person does NOT simply follow another stupid person, nor does an intelligent person have to resort to lies, cheating, stealing OR violence to accomplish their goal. Many people believe that the upper crust of the left are intelligent because they know how to manipulate the “peons” to accomplish their goal, the problem lies in that all the upper crust understands is money, they are unable to understand how their agenda really will end, even though history proves over and over that socialism and communism cause a complete collapse!
This has happened to me more than once. When arguing with every so-called policy expert I know: they inevitably screech to me about the need for more gun control laws and state matter-of-factly that machineguns are commonly available to private citizens, unregulated, and a constant threat to our society.
That lie is so prevalent, I had a colleague from Australia tell me their gun laws were very different…because they couldn’t purchase full automatic weapons like we do in America. He was very surprised when I told him we can’t go buy full-auto either. He said the media makes it sound like we can.
The liberals are either really supid — or they are so diabolically smart they know stupid lies, repeated often enough, will eventually change policy.
These sorts of factually inaccurate arguments are common place.
I think the better request is for examples of cogent, well informed arguments from gun control advocates.
<crickets/>
Yes, most are that dumb. We need to try to enforce the laws already made. Making new laws on top of unenforced laws just makes more criminals that can be restricted from owning guns. That is the agenda.
Now, we need to get rid of unconstitutional laws that have no effect. aka ALL OF THEM. The 2nd amendment doesn’t have a “former felon” exception. If you’re a free citizen in the United States, you have the right to own the weapon of your choice and carry it as you please. All other arguments treat the 2nd amendment as a privilege instead of a right.
there used to be three possible statuses (statii?) for people:
A) honest, trustworthy people who could openly brandish and nobody would be concerned.
2) dishonest, untrustworthy people who were rightly locked away from polite society
d) dead people.
Thanks to the ever creeping nature of progressivism, we’ve introduced a 4th option: people who are not criminal enough to warrant being locked away or killed outright, but still criminal enough that they cannot be trusted with dangerous weapons.
Until we fix THAT problem, solutions are merely window dressing.
there used to be three possible statuses (statii?) for people:
A) honest, trustworthy people who could openly brandish and nobody would be concerned.
2) dishonest, untrustworthy people who were rightly locked away from polite society
d) dead people.
Thanks to the ever creeping nature of progressivism, we’ve introduced a 4th option: people who are not criminal enough to warrant being locked away or killed outright, but still criminal enough that they cannot be trusted with dangerous weapons.
Until we fix THAT problem, solutions are merely window dressing.
^^^This.
The Second Amendment does not have a “former felon” exception, nor a “Mentally insane/unstable” exception. The reason being that such exceptions WOULD be misused by the government in allowing them to decide what felonies or mental issues constituted a loss of your Second Amendment protections to keep and bear arms.
It is not difficult to envision a government (tyranny) that truly believed that opposing their edicts were criminal acts equivalent of a felony (New York Safe Act) and while they’re at it, if you disagree with them you MUST be insane and so cannot be trusted with firearms.
Anybody here heard of antifa? It does not take much imagination to see that faction coming up with those arguments to restrict the RKBA.
Pssst…….the 5th amendment authorizes denial of life, liberty, and property, provided the accused is afforded due proccess. Liberty includes the right to keep and bear arms.
JH-
Umm, Liberty is being free to go where you please. Denial of that would be incarceration. Denial of property would be taking away property you now possess, not limiting you from acquiring property in the future. Denial of life would be…well, you dead, son.
Now you’re just nsulting a box of hammers. And they’ll be next on the hit list.
This is why we need an IQ test to vote. The 2nd amendment is not about shooting deer, coyotes, or criminals. It’s about shooting tyrants and their lackeys.
“It’s about shooting tyrants and their lackeys.”
So it is about shooting criminals and coyotes.
But we can still shoot the deer for dinner, right?
“But we can still shoot the deer for dinner, right?”
If the deer is just gonna stand there and be shot, hell, yeah!
Act like prey, be slaughtered like prey…
(Venison jerkey – Mmmmmm) 😉
Most of the restriction supporters are fairly intelligent individuals. They have simply been lied to and manipulated by a gun restriction leadership hell-bent on the political gain, aided and abetted by politicians and the media.
Shannon Watts is not stupid. She is a multimillionaire who was a powerful public relations representative for General Electric and Monsanto. She knows the difference between semi auto and full auto, The statistics regarding urban firearms violence and the rest of America, etc., etc.
She represents a particular political agenda that she does not necessarily believe in herself but that assures her continued publicity and money.
So I don’t blame the rank and file for having faulty intelligence, I blame their leadership for feeding them The Big Lie 24 hours a day
“They have simply been lied to and manipulated by a gun restriction leadership hell-bent on the political gain, aided and abetted by politicians and the media.”
You stopped a bit short, end of that sentence should be “since they were in kindergarten.”
One of the better twitter debates I had. A gun control advocate asked why I needed high capacity ‘clips’ for my defense guns. I said, what if three intruders broke into my home… they responded “If you had a revolver and practiced, you could shoot the three and have three extra bullets.”
My response was, “Then why don’t police carry revolvers then.”
Ah… the “magic death ray” gun myth. I always have to explain to these cretins that criminals are generally very violent and resilient individuals. A single round (of any reasonable caliber) is unlikely to stop them fast enough to protect you. This is why I’m a firm believer in the theory that anything worth shooting once is worth emptying the damn magazine.
I often use the paintball gun analogy when talking to guys cause most have played at least once. There may only be 6 guys on the other team but you damn sure fill up that hopper! Shooting moving targets sure ain’t the same as shooting paper…
No “close encounters” with anti-gun ninnies, thankfully. I know a few, but I know better than to try to engage them in rational conversation about it, and to their credit, they also know that they have no rational arguments to make. They don’t butt in on my social media posts about guns or try to convince me I’m bad and wrong for owning guns, and I don’t butt in on their anti-gun nonsense. It’s the only way to keep the peace.
Killing ducks is legal, killing humans is not.
Like most anti-gun arguments there is a simple rebuttal. Unfortunately, you can’t reason with the unreasonable.
See, there you go being smart. Think of the anti-gunners… haha
Ducks don’t break in your house 5 strong either.
Logic would dictate that if semi-auto guns are so deadly, and pro-gun people so heartless, there wouldn’t be any anti-gunners left.
I think of it more as willful ignorance. They don’t know much and don’t want to know more. They know enough to have an opinion that makes them a hero to their little circle of like-minded people. Once they get enough people around them nodding in agreement, the need or desire for more knowledge promptly disappears.
It doesn’t take knowledge to make an emotional argument or to make any argument in a crowd where people simply agree with you regardless of the legitimacy of your points or perspective.
The natural state of humanity is probably pretty dumb. It is not rational, nor wise, nor judicious. People are, and will remain, pretty dumb unless and until they make some conscious effort to not be.
They always use the phrases “Its for the children” and “If it saves just one life” right?
So a childs life only matters once they are born?
I used that one on one of my neighbors a couple days ago….
I was called a racist!?! So i guess i won that argument.
Not sure it’s “dumb” as opposed to too lazy to fact check and having sheeple syndrome.
Sure some people will just never understand or accept facts because it means they have to acknowledge they were wrong or they have to change their perspective.
People are more prone to believe things that require minimal effort on their part or it’s far removed from their lifestyle. It’s easy to pass judgement and make laws around objects (firearms) they will never, utilize, own, or learn about.
But if you tell them they can no longer call the police for emergencies, they suddenly will want guns for self protection.
It’s hard for people to remember that governments have killed more people than criminals have in the last couple hundred years. Then asking them to remember that the constitution was written by the winners of a revolutionary war… cognitive dissonance alert!
I’d put them right up there with the global warming activists in the stupidity department.
Is this a trick question?
These people belong in concentration camps and labeled as anti American combatants, along with the millions of other Liberal Terrorists™. And yes, I’m serious.
I couldn’t agree more !!!!!
“Question of the Day: Just How Stupid ARE Gun Control Advocates?”
ROFLMFAO…
Calling gun control advocates, “dumb as a box of hammers,” is offensive to boxes and hammers everywhere.
“Just How Stupid ARE Gun Control Advocates?”
Must . resist ……. must . not . give . in . to . temptation …
Insulting hammers as a group makes you look petty.
The idiots get paid to protest by some rich Libtard organization. Follow the money.
They are dumber than rocks.
The politicians and anti-gun organizations are anything but stupid. They have a goal and a plan. The average anti-gun citizen, and the news media are utterly ignorant. Not necessarily stupid.
“The average anti-gun citizen, and the news media are utterly ignorant…”
Do not look for explanations in ignorance and stupidity, when a clear conspiracy to disarm the public satisfies.
Generally the rank and file don’t seem to me to be “dumb” but rather filled with animosity that’s politically driven. The disagreement is over a wide range of political topics but gun control is the topic that gives liberals the vapors and it’s an easy target because rather than trying to explain things they don’t understand they can just mutter “murder machine” and feel superior.
The person who has a Bernie 2016 sticker on his/her Prius probably has a lot of political views that don’t jive with the guy driving a lifted F350 with NRA stickers on it and, IME, the Prius driver probably looks down the the F350 driver as being a knuckle-dragging, science hating, gun loving, war mongering, sexist, xenophobic, bigoted redneck asshole who lives in a trailer park and drinks a lot of cheap beer.
In other words; it’s a “culture war” and guns just happen to be a prominent and easy target for the differences of opinion between the sides.
[Edit] It’s also true that some POTG don’t help the situation. I have an acquaintance who I recently turned from being anti-gun to being ambivalent (better that than hard-core anti). A friend of mine had been trying to turn her for years and when the topic came up she said to me “Oh, you’re gonna be just like [redacted] and tell me I need to go buy an AR or something”. She was shocked that I didn’t take that tack and rapidly came around to the idea that people should be allowed to have whatever weapon they are most comfortable with. For her it’s a baseball bat rather than a gun. So I told her to stick with the bat. She appreciated the fact that I didn’t beat her over the head with the “guns are good you need one” rhetoric.
While I agree that it is a culture war, it is the widening gap BETWEEN the cultures that concerns me. “Intelligence” is fine in academia where mere debate is as far as it goes. But in real life intelligence can literally be a killer when teamed with a vicious MSM. ANTIFA, BLM, are just the tip of the iceberg. Sooner or later somethings going to give.
Good on ya.
I’d suggest she get something other than a bat, though, as it’s easy for an aggressive attacker to grab away, especially from a woman (sorry, but upper body strength etc).
A very sharp sword would be quite difficult for an attacker to disarm her of.
Velcro a can of ‘Bear-b-Gone’ 30-foot range pepper spray to the grip of that ball bat…
My attitude, as I explained to her, is that I’d rather you have a weapon that you’re willing to use than one that you are not.
If she is willing to swing a bat with the intention of fucking up some lowlife that is, IMHO, infinitely better than having any other weapon that she’s not willing to use.
Bear spray gives 30 feet of ‘stand-off distance’, while the bat is arm’s reach distance.
Now, some women actually like hand-to-hand combat (I dated one years back. Yeowch. Face bashed through glass.) Give most women (and some men) a choice, and they may prefer dealing with the issue from some distance…
She’s thinking of it more as a home defense type of situation. Personally I wouldn’t want to light off a can of bear spray in my house.
Either way, it’s up to her and no one else.
That guy with the f350 could own 4 prius’. You are the ignorant one here. That prius driver is lucky to even make it home after driving like an idiot endangering others thinking he/she is saving the world. When people prepare for the zombie apocalypse it’s those type of people they are talking about. The ones who couldn’t save themselves from their own stupidity.
Your disjointed comment here is unintelligible and barely passes for English. Try again.
“It appears that we protect ducks from firepower better than we protect school children, church faithful and concert goers and anyone else hanging around.”
What’s the bag limit on church goers and school children? Does that automatically come with the license, or do you have to pay extra for those stamps?
“What’s the bag limit on church goers and school children?”
In New York state, it’s apparently 7 per magazine you’re carrying.
They are obviously just fine with 7 dead kids or grandmothers, since they could have set the max capacity to two or even one if they wanted to.
In fact, they should make any less than 8 dead in a mass shooting a misdemeanor…
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
Albert Einstein
While some of them are indeed stupid, most are intelligent but just don’t want to deal with inconvenient facts. (“My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”)
I recall a conversation I had recently with a couple of friends, one of whom is a fellow POTG and the other is a hyper-lib PhD research scientist. The conversation turned at one point to guns, and Friend #1 and I were discussing things like the relative merits of Glock v. 1911, pocket carry v. OWB, NFA trusts, Mozambique v. 2-2-1 FTS technique, etc. After a while Friend #2 (who’d been looking increasingly uncomfortable as the tenor of the conversation was making it pretty obvious two of us were probably armed), he interjected that he was really uncomfortable about guns, and that the more guns there were the more crime there was.
I asked him why he thought that, and he said, essentially, “well, it’s just obvious.” I said, “look, you’re a scientist. Doesn’t data matter to you?” — which he had to admit that it did. So, of course, I asked him that, if “more guns => more crime,” why has the crime rate since 1990 gone down by literally every metric, while during that same time the number of guns in circulation had increased dramatically? And, of course, during that same time period, the number of people carrying legally has also skyrocketed. So what’s the actual data for the proposition that in America, “more guns => more crime”? Needless to say, he had none.
Just to torture him a bit more, I asked him out of all the gun-related deaths in the US in the past few years, what category did he think accounted for the clear majority of them? (His guess: “domestic violence.”) I told him the suicides were far and away #1, followed by gang homicides (occurring disproportionately in Chicago, Detroit, DC, Baltimore), and that domestic violence was only a small fraction of the amount.
Ultimately, after a few minutes of being challenged (in a friendly way) in this fashion, he candidly admitted that he hadn’t ever seen (or looked for) any of the actual data . . . but that it didn’t really matter to him because he just didn’t like guns.
And that, of course, is what I think is really going on in the minds of most of the anti-gunners. They aren’t intrinsically stupid, they just have feelz that they don’t want contradicted.
“They aren’t intrinsically stupid,..”
Yes, they are.
A person can be ignorant, but not stupid.
A person cannot be stupid, but ignorant.
Ignorant = lack of knowledge/information
Stupid = having knowledge/information, but refusing to act on it.
One does not make “ignorant mistakes”; one makes “stupid mistakes” (you knew better, but did it anyway).
Not to pick too fine a nit, but the primary definition of “stupid” is “slow of mind.”
Or to use your analysis, “having knowledge/information, but lacking the mental capacity to intelligently act on it.”
By and large, our adversaries aren’t stupid. They have the mental capacity to evaluate data and act accordingly, but they just choose not to. That may be intellectually dishonest, but it’s not stupid.
A common response I get when talking about stats is “well the NRA made it illegal for the CDC to do gun research, so how do we really know?”. That’s a good time because the CDC was only forbidden from using public funds to push biased policy, as found by a Congressional investigation.
Not only that, but the Obama administration gave the CDC $10 million in 2013 to do more gun research. The results didn’t support gun control and actually came up with an estimate of legal self-defense with a gun between 500,000 and 3,000,000 cases, about ten times higher than the DOJ estimate.
Most people still think the CDC can’t research guns, the truth is anti-gun groups don’t want them to because the truth doesn’t support gun control. That’s why the CDC in the 90’s had to mislead and outright lie.
last I checked the NRA has no power to control the budget, regulations, or statues that affect any government agency.
I have had good luck explaining why the CDC research was cut to some those have been lied to.
I ask them if I leave a gun on the table does it split and become 2 guns? If you grab a gun, do you suddenly get a fever and have to shoot it? Will a gun sitting on a table in a room make anyone sick? Bottom line its not an disease or an item that can cause disease, and there fore its a waste of time and money to research gun deaths as such under the guise of public safety.
If you want to increase public safety spend that money on prosecuting those who have criminally used a gun,
“he candidly admitted that he hadn’t ever seen (or looked for) any of the actual data…”
Skillfully played, LKB, very skillfully played…
*applause*
Luckily, I do not have very much contact with anti-gunners. Most of the people in my life are, at best just like me (ain’t that funny…at their best, they’re just like me!) and 2A absolutist gun nuts. At worst, they are Fudd-lite. Friends of friends, or my significant other’s friends that I suspect of harboring anti-gun sentiments seem to understand they won’t change my mind, I won’t change their mind so why have the conversation.
Those who seriously think that “they” will one day eradicate guns and “gun violence” from society are quite stupid…and could probably have their energy redirected to some other worthy cause, easily too. If the civilian disarmament drum weren’t banging, they could put their time and focus or clicking finger to other issues. They are stupid after all. Many more are just ignorant and might come over to the good side, if given the opportunity. The others are incredibly intelligent and sinister…those are the ones that we must remain vigilant about.
Hows about the average anti is dumber then dirt. They know noting about guns. Or how they work or the differences between them.
What the heck, All most know is they hate guns for no other reason then almost 100% ignorance.
A few here and there believe they have a good reason. A family member or close friend was/is, has been involved in gunplay of some sort. Most though in my experience. You cant talk to a closed mind.
Is it just me or does anyone else see it as really creepy when folks use kids, especially their own kids, as political props?
Hi! Believe it or not, I am a kid. A regular middle schooler. The truth is, our parents are not forcing us to do this. We’ve seen what’s happened, from the shooting in parkland, to the shooting in Las Vegas, and GUESS WHAT? We CARE that we could be shot to death every time we walk into school! We CARE that it’s unnaturally easy to buy an assault rifle! The standout that took place at my school was done in spite of our school district, who wanted no part in this. It was done in spite of our parents, who didn’t want their children so involved in politics. It was completely organized by 8th graders alone with no adult influence or support. We did it because we care.
Strictly speaking, limitations on shotguns are not intended to protects ducks from being killed. They’re intended to preserve the availability of ducks so that all hunters get to kill some ducks. That is, it doesn’t save a duck’s life; it just passes the duck’s death off to the next killer. Part of the value that ducks deliver to society requires that they die. The limitation, thus, is geared toward preservation of a natural resource, which is a valuable purpose.
Now, I don’t know where this lady is from or what she’s used to, but where I come from, our goal is zero killings of children. Zero. We even have laws against it. The issue of magazine capacity is not an issue at all, because the public policy question of killing children begins and ends with “No.” The value that children yield society requires that they live.
These ammunition limits in hunting are for conservation purposes, where shooting is already allowed for hunting’s purpose od harvesting game. Firearms for self-defense purposes are tailored to a different purpose: lawful defense against violent criminals, invaders, and oppressors. All that magazine restrictions in that arena would accomplish is the preservation and propagation of violent attackers. What valuable purpose does that serve?
The one poor child in the image has a leg in a cast. Is the parent in jail for failing to protect their child from harm? Isn’t it’s a parent’s job to ensure the safety of their children? I bet those women have smartphones, dare say they have used them while driving, so put the public, their kids and themselves at risk of death than being a mass shooting victim unless they earn a living in recreational pharmaceutical distribution and retail businesses.
Also, until a person is 18, they have no legal say in how our govnerment is run. (I would allow an exception to anyone on active duty at 17 yo, if they have agreed to risk their life for our nation, they have every right to have a say in it.)
Yea, I have always gotten a kick out of the antis use of children to try and get their point across; in fact, it seems to be a common tactic among the lefties. Honestly, I do not care what a child thinks on the matter of firearms, government policy, society etc. They are children, and I am a man. If anything, the antis use of children further cements my view on guns: I will use whatever means necessary to protect children, regardless of how they, the children, feel about it. Adults do not need permission or council from children.
In the movie Dr. Zhivago, the rich folks are in the restaurant and hear the revolutionaries outside singing. Komorovsky jokes “no doubt, they will sing on key after the revolution” and everyone laughs. I hear that laughter in the response to this post.
However, later Komorovsky confides “they may win.” Could that be our situation as well ?
“Komorovsky jokes “no doubt, they will sing on key after the revolution” and everyone laughs. I hear that laughter in the response to this post.
However, later Komorovsky confides “they may win.” Could that be our situation as well ?”
I am *cautiously* optimistic we will come out on top on this, and here’s why –
Public opinion on the 2A is on our side and is accelerating in our favor. About 25 years back or so, less than 50 percent of Americans believed they had an individual constitutional right to own a handgun.
Today, that number is about *70* percent. *Winning*.
SCOTUS is currently evolving to a pro-2A stance, when Kennedy or a Leftist vacates the bench, we will have a court that will recognize a right to carry outside the home. That will be big. However, that’s conditional on none of the conservative justices vacating the bench when the next Leftist POTUS is inevitably elected. That will be bad, because they *will* pack the court with modern, young Progressives who will toe the Statist line, and that will sway the court for decades.
The very same grim determination that elected Trump in 2016 will sway the 2020 election, but their motivation is as equal as ours in denying the 2020 election for us. At this point, I doubt Trump will be re-elected, but then again, Trump has pulled of serious upsets.
SCOTUS is the key, in my opinion. If we can get the balance in our favor, we will have bought ourselves some time. I’m under zero illusion that the next time the Statists controls the court, they will reverse Heller, McDonaled, et all. All the while lying through their teeth as to how they “respect the 2A’.
That will be unacceptable to us, and at that point our only option is succession, a split of America. As far as I’m concerned, they can get the fuck out of *my* country.
If at that point they don’t want to pack their luggage and get out, we cannot guarantee their safety… 😉
I simply don’t see us or them budging on the issue. Neither side is interested in changing our minds about each other.
The make-or-break issue will be mandatory gun registration.
I’m convinced the United States of America as we currently know it is on borrowed time.
If the divorce isn’t amicable, national domestic violence will be inevitable.
Let’s hope the cooler heads prevail… 🙁
“Today, that number is about *70* percent”
Source? I am really behind, here. Have not seen better than a 49-49 split. If we are “winning” why has national reciprocity (which is bad) not been overwhelmingly passed already?
“SCOTUS is the key, in my opinion.”
SCOUTS ruled twice in “our favor”. The lower courts are simply ignoring those decisions. If we have to depend on court rulings, we are no better than those who try to curb our rights by looking to get in court what they cannot win politically.
There will not be a division of the union; period. The other side believes they are in control (which they are, even as “losers”). They will not support splitting the union because they believe they have no reason to leave. As the majority and the power in the nation, they will not allow any other state to leave. There is not going to be a third revolution.
We are forever locked in struggle. Lokai and Bele on Cheron.
Consider the sources. They rely on incredibly misleading articles based on even more misleading “studies” that usually use two-variable correlation to “prove” causation. With their kinds of models we could “prove” growing bananas make the Caribbean hotter.
Their willful ignorance has to do with being limited to anti-gun publications for any information on the topic. I usually go to one of the “studies” in a linked anti-gun article and pull out relevant stats from the actual study the article is based on that indicates the opposite of the main argument.
One person actually suggested we place a $500 fine on straw purchasers to eliminate the profit from illegal sales, especially across state lines. He didn’t say anything in response when I notified him the penalty currently is ten years in jail and up to $250,000 in fines, and of course add a couple felonies for selling across state lines for profit.
The “gun control debate” isn’t a debate when one side has no idea what reality actually is.
My favorite was the infamous study that correlated European stork migratory patterns and local birth rates. Turns out, the statistics prove that babies are delivered by storks.
Depends on who they are. The foot soldiers are pretty much all dumb as doorknobs. The higher ups on the chain are definitely not dumb at all: Bloomberg, Clinton, Clinton, and Soros definitely know exactly what they’re getting from civilian disarmament.
It seems to me “bands of mauaraders ” still applies. So I’ll keep my arms thank you.
Why do people continue to think the police are there to protect them?
If some breaks into my house rapes my wife the police are not there to protect us. They show up as soon as possible and collect evidence and attempt to catch the perpetrator. They weren’t there to protect me. Just to catch the suspect. They are reactive by nature, only randomly are they proactive.
I have been shouting this from the metaphorical rooftops! I recent got into a pretty heated discussion about the topic of police protection, the duty to protect and the lack there of and the hostility I received for merely conveying facts of palpable. My friends behaved as if I told them that Santa Claus wasn’t real, the response was akin to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.
My wife is not stupid, but she is willfully ignorant and has no desire to engage in a debate or to review the actual statistics. The fact of the matter is that the mere sight of guns upsets her. Hearing about killings and massacres upset her. She has a visceral and irrational fear of guns and all they stand for. Reason, facts and logic are irrelevant and cannot change her mind.
Somewhat hypocritically though, she does not want to see a gun on my hip, but since she is disabled, is glad that it is there when we go out as she realizes that she is completely defenseless.
I recommend you explain to her that you will not use a gun to defend her from attack. That in fact, since you do not know which weapon she would find acceptable, you, being all sensitive and caring about her sensitivities, choose not to impose defense upon her, at all. Tell her that if the home is invaded, you will defend yourself, while you look for a way to escape. That she is on her own to choose her favored (acceptable) means of self-defense. Assure her that you understand that it is a man thing to want to impose self-defense on another person, and that you are working really hard to get over all those “man things”.
And be sure she understand you are acting in her best interest.
I got into a Facebook argument (I’ve since quit the platform) with my brother over the utility of having a firearm for home protection. He claimed that he’d rather rely on martial arts…and as proof he linked to an article about a PROFESSIONAL MMA fighter (Joe Torrez) who beat a home intruder to death and wounded two others. Now…we’re all pretty fucking far from being professional martial artists…my brother even more so. And yet, to him, the exceptional served as proof.
If you think that made you dumber…try this one on for size.
In the same thread I offered the death of Bosnian immigrant Zemir Begic (you may remember he was murdered in the wake of the unrest in Ferguson) as an incident which should have been a defensive gun use. His response…a gun wouldn’t have saved him because he was outnumber and the rest would have “swarmed him.”
….
I could keep going…
When I was living in Costa Rica one of the guys who was slated to be part of their Olympic team for martial arts (Judo I think) walked into a bar in San Jose and was accosted by a drunken patron.
The martial artist threw the guy to the floor and told him to GTFO, which the drunk did, cursing that he’d be back and that he’d kill the martial artist.
Other patrons warned the Judoka that the drunk was a bit unhinged and that the Judoka should leave before something bad happened. Our Judo guy laughs and basically says “What’s he gonna do?”. Well, what the drunk did was walk out, get himself a .38, walk back in and shoot the Judoka five times in the back at point blank range, killing him.
Look I love martial arts and I practice them but in many situations no martial art is a replacement for good judgement and proper weaponry. Usually the best weaponry commonly available, legal and easy to cart around with you is a handgun. If I’m resorting the Karate or BJJ then I’ve already expended all my options for my pistol(s), knife (or knives) as well as any improvised weapons that might have been available. In other words, if I’m down to hand to hand it’s already a really, really, really shitty day.
Yup, I’ve taken some Karate earlier in life as well as some combatives training while in the Army…I’m also 6’3, nearly three bills and built like an O-lineman…but I NEVER want to resort to going hand-to-hand on the street. Any fight not worthy of lethal force isn’t worth having…just walk away.
I’m sure those families had a good time organising their protest. Mom sitting down with the kids, thinking up slogans, making signs. If it takes a gun control protest to bring families together, good.
My brother in law recently and proudly told me that he would do away with the 2nd amendment. I told him that it is our 2nd amendment whether he likes tor not. It is our Bill of Rights and that I don’t pick and choose which amendments I like.
“are many if not most gun control advocates as dumb as a box of hammers?”
Yes they are, and much less useful to boot.
Two of my wife’s friends said basically the same thing independently – “I don’t like guns and I believe no one should have them. Except police.” One of them even decried how hunters keep shooting each other.
When asked how exactly would they disarm not only law abiding folks but especially criminals, all I got was blank stares. Smart they are not.
In the article from Ruth Bass in the Berkshireeagle.com wrote:
The Second Amendment never meant that you and I have the freedom to own a weapon that’s a threat to family, neighborhood and town. It does grant “the right to bear arms,” which certainly was essential in the pre-police, pre-army days when an individual had to nail a coyote before it grabbed the last sheep or protect the family from a band of marauders. In either case, they did a lot of reloading.
Wrong ! Wrong ! Wrong.!
The second amendment Says nothing about what fire arm we have the right to own lady. Just that we have the right and that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED period !! And really ? She thinks we should revert back to using something akin to muzzle loaders . Lets just move to the country and live in mud huts and hunt with rocks like cave men. Of course now I am being ridiculous
Never ceases to amaze me just how ignorant people are about firearms ownership.
Comments are closed.