I had an epiphany today

[daddyo]

Why is it that the bed wetters don't trust people to own and carry firearms, yet they have no problem getting out on the road with thousands of other drivers, some of whom have no business behind the wheel of an automobile, and taking their chances that way?

 

Why is death by shooting worse than a traffic fatality?

Edited January 20, 2013 by daddyo

[TGO David]

Because it's not truly about safety.  It's about what they don't like.  They like electric hybrid cars and rainbows and puppies and socialism.  They don't like V8 muscle cars, AR-15's or the Constitution.

[MacGyver]

I was part of an interesting conversation with a liberal friend the other day after someone on the left made a comment about wanting to kill members of the NRA.

It wasnt just that we disagreed; it was completely out of their worldview that someone could carry a gun and not feel compelled to use it at any point in time. They made the comment that if they carried a gun, they'd almost certainly be in jail for killing someone.

Perhaps one of the reasons they want to ban guns isn't necessarily about us at all. They don't know us. Rather they project themselves onto us, and they don't trust themselves with guns.

[daddyo]

I agree, but why do they work so hard to hide the fact that they simply do not like those things? That would at least indicate some sort of normality instead of intentionally trying to deceive.

 

All their attempts at telling us why we don't "need" 30 round "clips" or so-called "assault weapons" for self defense or hunting is really just code for "We don't like those things because they scare us", so why not just be honest about it?

Edited January 20, 2013 by daddyo

[MattCary]

Why is death by shooting worse than a traffic fatality?

 

Because banning cars would get them a screaming mass of resistance. Everyone "needs" their car, and understands why others need theirs.

 

No one needs a "military style assault weapon with a 30 round "clip" and a shoulder thing that goes up."

 

Think back to the war on SUVs. Same arguments were made.

 

Dead on David; I'd add Big Gulps, Salt, Pizza day at school, etc.

[TGO David]

All their attempts at telling us why we don't "need" 30 round "clips" or so-called "assault weapons" for self defense or hunting is really just code for "We don't like those things because they scare us", so why not just be honest about it?

 

It's the Bill of Rights... not the Bill of Sh*t This Administration Thinks I Need.

[MattCary]

Perhaps one of the reasons they want to ban guns isn't necessarily about us at all. They don't know us. Rather they project themselves onto us, and they don't trust themselves with guns.

 

This.

[mikegideon]

I was part of an interesting conversation with a liberal friend the other day after someone on the left made a comment about wanting to kill members of the NRA.

It wasnt just that we disagreed; it was completely out of their worldview that someone could carry a gun and not feel compelled to use it at any point in time. They made the comment that if they carried a gun, they'd almost certainly be in jail for killing someone.

Perhaps one of the reasons they want to ban guns isn't necessarily about us at all. They don't know us. Rather they project themselves onto us, and they don't trust themselves with guns.

 

Good point. They're going to kill NRA members with what? This whole thing would be comical if it wasn't so serious. We have been vetted time and again. I wonder how many of the outspoken anti's could get through those same hoops.

[Dennis1209]

Personally, I'd like to see a "comprehensive" study on the percentage of bed wetting liberal anti-gunners who have not served protecting this nation, and just "take" and enjoy what this nation has to offer.

 

My "comprehensive" study of the 2nd Amendment issue would include participants of the following...

 

(1) Had their brain chemistry changed by experimental drug usage.

(2) Did not serve in the military because of their "beliefs".

(3) Burned their draft cards.

(4) Avoided the draft by faking injuries / illness.

(5) Whetted their beds in basic training to get discharged.

(6) With old money and public funds, made careers of college deferments.

(7) Has a "you owes me" mentality.

(8) Contributes little to nothing for charitable contributions.

(9) Never performed any community service.

(10) Think they are "elite" and smarter than the average Joe.

(11) Entered government employment, politics, public education, colleges, universities, media outlets and Hollyweird.

(12) Wants to do bee hive good, but with your money and not theirs.

 

I wonder what the results would be?

Edited January 20, 2013 by Dennis1209

[gregintenn]

A few days back, in one of his many many speeches, the president was talking about gun control. He made the statement "if we can save only one life....". The first thing that came to my mind was how many lives could we save if he didn't support abortion.

[Dennis1209]

A few days back, in one of his many many speeches, the president was talking about gun control. He made the statement "if we can save only one life....". The first thing that came to my mind was how many lives could we save if he didn't support abortion.

 

I suppose a true hypocrite would surround himself with children when making statements like that?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They don't have a problem with car accidents that people get killed in. It goes along with their overall attitude about life and death.

Liberals flock to that idea, and take advantage of causing all those cars with added "safety devices" which add to the cost and

further drain the economy, which in their minds is a slower death. Kill the economy, kill babies, kill adults with crazies, kill in the name

of the environment just leaves gun control to kill off the resistance to the "rulers", who will be left behind, until they die off of starvation.

 

Some of them may not realize what they are doing, but a lot of them do.

[Keyless]

Lets not confuse them with the facts. They don't think that the unborn child is a human . They are wrong on that one as well

 

 In order to save one life ( from a criminal with a gun ) , using their logic brings a much bigger question . How many have to be beaten , raped ,car jacked , home invaded or even  be murdered because they couldn't defend his or her castle ,  because the honest law abidding are going to be the only ones to not have a gun ?  Home invasions are very high overseas where guns are banned and from what I hear they often attack the elderly .

 

It is really hard for me to believe where we are as a nation . It is like no country out there learned from the past history . Britian had to have us send them guns at the beginning of WW 2 and what would they do now if attacked . I would vote to send them Piers Morgan and a bundle of sticks and that would be it.

 

 Do people really think the past can not be repeated ? Every country that gets disarmed , get the bonus of a Dictator . History shows us what follows . The Government of Hitler ,Stalin , Mao and other have killed more of thier own people than any war .

 

I would like to think it would never happen here but we are using the same directions and I don't see how following the same coarse of action is going to turn out any different this time. This is like watching the same movie over and over thinking it will end different this time .

 

 Not an overnight transformation but look where we where 40 years ago to now. Then look around at all these panty waisted morons who believe the global warming crap , that it is better to have the hybrid car to save the universe that drill our own oil and tell the forien oil suppliers where they can put their dipstick. What will it be like in another 40 ? Or at the current speed , say 10 years ?

[Oh Shoot]

A few days back, in one of his many many speeches, the president was talking about gun control. He made the statement "if we can save only one life....".

 

(inspired by a point made by MrColionNoir regarding mass killings in schools) ...

 

Instead of further corrupting the Constitution by banning guns in an futile attempt to save one life at a time, how about we put practical civilian carry polices in place so that we vastly reduce the odds of losing twenty-seven lives at a time.

 

- OS

Edited January 20, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RED333]

Still doing homework, How do we get the left to listen?

[TGO David]

Still doing homework, How do we get the left to listen?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qomGpsUyDrw

 

 

In my opinion you will never get them to listen en masse. When you get a bunch of leftists together they create a "reality distortion bubble" and support each other's nitwittery like a bunch of seagulls squawking.  When that happens, their co-supportive squawking absolutely drowns out any common sense ideas you might be putting forth.

 

The only way you can open their eyes is to engage them privately, one on one, and lead them to the conclusion that they need to make.  As long as it's their idea and they experience an orgasmic epiphany, you stand a reasonable chance of success.  If you try to bludgeon them with the truth, you close their ears and support the prejudice they already harbor against you as a damned conservative. 

 

This is why so many leftists suddenly see the need for firearms ownership after they've been beaten almost to death in an alley-way robbery, or left sobbing in a heap after a vicious rape.  Suddenly they understand that it's not about the gun, it's about never being made a victim again.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's about the only way it will happen: one at a time. Slow process, but it works better than any other way.

[JR2ATN]

I was part of an interesting conversation with a liberal friend the other day after someone on the left made a comment about wanting to kill members of the NRA.

It wasnt just that we disagreed; it was completely out of their worldview that someone could carry a gun and not feel compelled to use it at any point in time. They made the comment that if they carried a gun, they'd almost certainly be in jail for killing someone.

Perhaps one of the reasons they want to ban guns isn't necessarily about us at all. They don't know us. Rather they project themselves onto us, and they don't trust themselves with guns.

 

You may be on to something.  I found this earlier.....

 

 

"The five worst mass killings, where a firearm was used, have a common thread. Hint #1: They didn’t belong to the NRA. They don’t fit the stereotype of the “red-neck” gun owner.

 

Check it out …

Ft Hood: Registered Democrat/Muslim.
Columbine: Too young to vote; both families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.
Colorado Theater: Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
Connecticut School Shooter: Registered Democrat; hated Christians.

 

Common thread is that all of these shooters were progressive liberal Democrats.

Also, of the worst killings in the last several decades, only one was a female, all the rest were boys, barely men. Their role models were rappers, action movies, comics and violent video games."

 

 http://clashdaily.com/2013/01/the-5-worst-mass-murders-in-the-usa-with-a-firearm-came-from-democrats/#ixzz2IZTMGCLI 
 

Edited January 21, 2013 by JMR1138

[RED333]

Well, I will be the first to tell you I am NOT the one to try and talk to a Liberal about firearms.

Back to doing homework.

[1gewehr]

A lot of what it boils down to is whether a person is able to take responsibility for themselves.  Liberals, by and large, do not believe in personal responsibility.  They blame guns for violence, bad fortune for poverty, and Republicans for the bad economy.  that si why they want to have a government program to take care of people.  They do not believe that people are capable of taking care of themselves without help.  They do not take any responsibility for their own decisions unless it works out well.

 

And since they are incapable of taking responsibility for themselves, they cannot conceive of others who CAN take care of themselves without help.  Likewise, they cannot conceive of people who are not only capable, but willing to be prepared to protect their lives, families and property.  Somehow, once a person puts on a uniform or badge, they are magically capable of being trusted with firearms where normal folks are not.

 

Likewise, their politicians magically become honest, moral people with only the most altruistic motives once they are sent to DC.  This, in spite of all of the evidence that Democrat politicians seem to be even more venal and dishonest than Republican politicians.