bump
bttt
No elected official should ever be out of rifle range of their constituents.
It’s amazing how so many on the Left can’t understand the meaning of the Second Amendment; especially when our Founders wrote so much about it! Jefferson put it so well: “...when any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...”
BTW, for those who may think they were referring to people’s right to hunt, the term “ARMS” is only used in a military sense (one does not bear arms against a deer in the woods!)
He sure likes the adjective “infantile”. He used it a lot.
Anyway, he seems to be pushing the edge of kookville prety hard to me. I am all for gun rights but as much as I may get flamed for it, I don’t think the constitution protects your right to own a suitcase nuke.
I do believe your unhindered ownership of rifles, shotguns handguns and a whole lot more is protected.
I love it. Extremely well said.
Classic El Neil.
Bump.
Gang bangers, violent felons, child molesters are not my freinds, and my friends wouldn't let them get their hands on a gun. Psychotics could be my friend, but I'm not going to let them get their hands on a gun, and my friends won't give them guns either. Then there's that enemy of the US to consider...
Any decision that you make that is good for our country is the right decision. There is no Plan B.
"-- If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you.
And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it? ---"
What is the best (serious) response to this sort of exaggeration?
read at home tonight BUMP!
“DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.”
oh I like that
This may sound absolutely unbelievable and out in left field to those of you under 50, but that's exactly what it was like when I was a kid - and it was like that until around 1968 when the feds passed the Gun Control Act after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.
Before then, I could walk into any hardware store (and a lot of gas stations, roadside stores and department stores) and buy guns and ammo if I had the cash. Almost any store (other than a grocery store) worth it's salt had them available for sale.
It has been Control Freak City ever since.
I do not own a gun and don’t plan on ever owning one. That, however, is my choice, and not something that is dictated to me. If the government can take away my right to own and use a gun they can take away any of my rights, the right to vote, free speech, practice my religion, peacefully assemble, etc. If one can go all can go.
How about the right to carry a Barlow knife in school? Every boy needs one.
I’ve read this before. It’s right on the money.
“Day 309: The democrats haven’t ended the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq”.
I enjoyed the article but this comment lead on L. Neil Smith’s website is off the charts!
Whatever the federal government is allowed to have, the citizenry is allowed to have.