This morning a liberal friend posted the following quote by Ronald Reagan:
I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense in a home.
Personally, I loved Ronald Reagan. He was president for most of my early childhood. And you have to admire the set on a guy who, after being shot himself, refuses to advocate the banning of handguns and other weapons typically used by law enforcement and private citizens for hunting and home defense. I also occasionally disagreed with his policies (in retrospect only – I was nine years old when he left office) and statements, the above included.
But it was the comments that followed the post that were telling. One lady, suffering from bad grammar and a horrible case of CAPSLOCK, claimed that the quote was a FAKE. She was quickly spanked by a link to snopes that verified it as true.
Another, and this is the one that struck me, made the following statement:
I personally believe it’s impossible to rid the world of guns. I would love to, but I can be realistic. I do believe, however, that no one outside of the military needs more than a handgun, shotgun or basic rifle for hunting or protection.
How many times have we heard that same argument from liberals or moderates? And when do we realize that it’s all part of their plan? The person who makes that statement is attempting to placate you by saying,
See? I can be reasonable. I’m not like all those other liberals who will just say you’re stupid and call it a day. I know we can’t ban ALL guns, we just ought to restrict whichever guns we can.
I guess my copy of the Constitution is missing the full text of the 2nd Amendment:
the right of the citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed – unless, of course, you can find a way to confiscate all of them from the bad guys as well.
Or maybe:
citizens may keep and bear only the arms they need – oh, and the government is better equipped than the individual to evaluate said need.
Someone needs to break out the history books and remind these people that the 2nd Amendment was not written because the founders realized that ridding the nation of privately owned weapons was an unfortunate impossibility – rather, it was written to protect the citizenry from any government oppressive enough to make the attempt.
Great piece!
> “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense in a home.”
An AK-47 “machine gun” is a full auto military weapon.
Reagan’s quote simply reaffirms the restrictions that had been in place since the 1930′s.
I have no idea why liberals think discussing weapons that have been restricted for 80 years helps their case.
> “I do believe, however, that no one outside of the military needs more than a handgun, shotgun or basic rifle for hunting or protection.”
In all reality, a ‘basic rifle’ is a broad enough description to include semi-auto weapons that fire a standard, internationally used NATO round, and are simple enough to fire that petite women can shoot them while sitting down.
Try that with a shotgun. These girls did.
http://drawandstrike.blogspot.com/2013/01/joe-biden-shotgun-is-better-for-self.html
The AR-15 is, quite literally, the “basic rifle” of our times, regardless of how many nifty accessories one can stick on them or how scary they look to the uneducated.
This is the 21st Century. AR-15′s with 30 round clips are unquestionably the standard firearm of the day. If we listened to phobic liberals, we’d all be limited to technology from the century before last.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1894
And conservatives are the ones who are supposed to be afraid of progress.
This is one of the tactics of the left, and it’s dirty pool low-rent at that. Suppose you and I were in a deal, say I had ten acres of land I want to sell and you were interested. You offer $100 grand, I say no I want a million. There’s a back and forth and slowly the agreed price is oh say $300 grand. I give up something for what I want, which is cash, you gain something, which is the land. Each walks away with something but there is also a cost, and everyone is annoyed. That’s the essence of a compromise, everyone walks away pissed but with something, and then it ends there.
So let’s take for this example a pendulum, it swings one way, it swings another, and it rests in the center. While we were talking about land and money the pendulum swung here and there, now it rests at the center, sweet equilibrium.
Now how does a leftist “compromise”? After the compromise has been struck, and the pendulum is at rest, where both sides are supposed to walk away, the leftist comes back and says “ok now for round two, and we start where the pendulum is now”. Um, no, there is a deal struck, a compromise made, everyone got some but not all and we go our separate ways. We’re done. “No no, you’re being partisan, we have to compromise”. We already compromised. “No we didn’t no we didn’t, we have to start again, but we’re starting from here!”
That means that supposing we put a number on it, the center being 50%, the leftist wants to start at 50% and go halfway back again, gaining to 75%. And then the next time “You’re not compromising!!” will get to 90%. And so on.
This is the ideology of the spoiled child. “I want all the candy, no I won’t share, it’s all mine you big poopy-head!” There is compromise offers from the GOP, such as with gay marriage and civil unions, but no, they want all 100% and beyond. There was a compromise offer on taxes, GOP members say we can go past it now, Fuck Schumer and Nasty Snatch Pelosi said “oh no, we’re not done raising taxes”.
What should happen is that, since one side continuously acts in bad faith, the Republican should say “then the compromise is broken, you’re in breach of the contract, and we’re no longer going to negotiate with you. You Sir and Madam, are liars and we cannot trust the signature on the paper you sign”. Walk away from them, walk away. There is no compromise with the left, it’s not possible. For the mumblemumble years I’ve been paying attention to politics that’s all the Republicans so, compromise compromise compromise. They get kicked in the teeth for it, by those they just shook hands with, and then it starts back up again at 50. That’s what’s called being “a sucker”.
Walk.
Away.
WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?
“Civil Unions” aren’t compromise, they are a slap in the face. If we want to call it marriage we should be able to call it marriage.
Anyway, where is your well-regulated militia?
It starts with me, then expands.
WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?
That’s what I thought! Continue to leave that out again and again when you bring up the second ammendment!
If people can’t meet the requirements to qualify for a legal contract that is licensed by the state, they probably should just settle for whatever they can get.
Because we really DO need a scant minority of activists telling the state they won’t abide by the already all inclusive gender requirements in place, they’ll only deal with their own kind by purposeful exclusion!
There’s a great legal precedence.
That’s just what this country needs to set in motion….gender exclusion from contract law due to “personal preference.”
That’s a slippery slope even without all the lube being liberally applied.
If you wanna see a well regulated militia, kick down a few doors for some unconstitutional gun confiscation.
Civil Union/Marriage:
Call it whatever the hell you want. It’s only a damn word. What you want are the rights behind it.
Yeah can you believe gay people actually want RIGHTS?!? crazy I know…
I don’t care if they have the rights. Why should you care what it’s called?
The ‘right’ to exclude a gender from a state licensed institution that requires both! There’s a fine goal.
NEXT UP: Demands from select activist groups to exclude a race due to ‘personal preference.’
You talk about “gays wanting rights” as if they don’t already have them. Equal rights are not what you want. They are what you have. As a woman, I am not allowed to marry another woman. The fact that I choose not to is completely irrelevant.
What you are asking for when you ask to call it marriage is not an equal right, it is a different right. You want a right that heterosexual Americans don’t have – the only difference is that they aren’t complaining about it because what they choose happens to fall in line with the law.
Ladies and gentleman, the Michelle Bachman defense.
Not sure what your point is there, you completely bypass what I said, focus on one sentence, then make a non-sequester as a response to boot. Oh wait, I forgot my own point, the “logic of a spoiled child”….. never mind.
WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?
“WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?”
Nothing.
He dead.
Past tense seems to confuse the twisted ghoul.
Proper contractions are clearly beyond all hope.
First he died, now he dead.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
People fall for that one every single time.
Your heroes, Hitler, Mao, Marx, they’re dead too. HA HA HAAAAAA! They’re as cold as their ideology, your ideology. They’re remembered as bad punchlines to us, you’re remembered as…….oh wait I had some shit on my shoe, had to scrape that off.
WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do? Forever.
I’ve just invented a brand new Internet law.
I’ll calling it ‘Purple’s Law’.
“When debating with idiots the chances of one of them eventually not claiming that Hitler was actually a leftist is vanishingly small.”
He was a leftist.
He was the head of the Socialist party, he was a vegitarian nut, an eviro-nut, he was an outrageous rascist (you should be versed in that), he used brutality to win an arguement (the original Occupy Wall Street-er), if you looked at writing of his versus writing of any leftist today they would be identical, so yes, quacks quacks quacks like a duck. The only hook the leftists hang their hat on is “well if he was so much of a leftist then why was he against Communists?” That’s called “competition”. They sang from the same hymnal, just wore different collored smocks. Hitler was more for the nationalism of Germany than Stalin was, but they used the exact same techniques.
You “Sir”, and your entire perverted ideology, are the same as the most despised man in history. You are a Nazi. You walk alike you talk alike sometimes you even lie alike, it can blow your mind, when Socialists are two of a kind!!!!
WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?
Now see, this is just typical of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the far-Right in America today.
You know you are talking nonsense, for one thing nobody with the intelligence to operate a flushing toilet without adult supervision thinks that Hitler was a Socialist, and secondly I have posted the proof that this is an idiotic theory that bears no relation to reality on this website at least twice.
Bit still, “facts” “reality” “evidence” who needs them hey Schneyer?
Certainly not you, that’s for sure.
Anyway, you carry on pretending you believe what say you believe if you want, but as yourself this, what’s the point?
You know the truth, I know you know, so what’s the point of this ridiculous charade, other than a lame, failed attempt to piss somebody off. Is that really what Misfits is for?
There is nothing funnier than a deficient authoritarian ideologue trying to discuss morality and intelligence while defending genocidal failure.
No a Misfit is someone who exposes the likes of you, Nazi. So how many Jews have you killed today? Go on, you’re a proud Socialist, tell us, we really want to know. Every one of your kind jumps and salutes at the mere thought, started with masterbation then the high salute at orgasm and “Heil Hitler” as the climax subsides. I guess you always remember your first, ah true love. You’ve already exposed yourself (dude put your pants back on, and speedos? really?) so might as well go full on and tell us.
WWBD? What Would Breitbart Do?
So stop defending it then Dee Dubyah, then you won’t be funny anymore.
Yes, because there’s all kinds of proof I’ve defended genocidal failure at anytime.
It’s the glaring things like this that trip the moronically inclined up.
“Never mind the word SOCIALIST in the organization’s name!”
“Never mind he’s never defended genocide!”