- even the little girls around here say
Posted on 06/20/2013 3:42:55 PM PDT by George_Vreeland_Hill_5
The NRA and other gun lovers use the Second Amendment as proof of their right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is outdated and is of no use in today's society. In fact, the Second Amendment was written as a right to bear arms for colonists to protect themselves against other colonists, Indians and to form a militia in case the British invaded farms and other private lands. To use it today as a law is very silly. If that is all the NRA and their followers have to justify their use of guns, then they will soon lose the fight about gun control. It is a matter of time. Guns that are used to kill other people such as pistols, assault weapons and others must be banned. They have no business being in people's hands. Our right to be free from gun violence far outweighs any right to bear arms. We have had enough of guns.
George Vreeland Hill
Obviously a delusional lib moron with a subpar education. Thanks for the update!
I hardly ever laugh TOL. After looking back at what was posted, I could not help myself. Thank you for the ping.
An irrational fear of firearms is a form of mental illness known as hoplophobia. It is treatable and those afflicted should seek the assistance of a mental health professional.
Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
HOPLOPHOBIA - A modern scourge
Pacifism: The Ultimate Immorality by Raymond Kraft
Last week, Jack and Jill Pacifisto were walking home through the park after dinner with friends, during which they had spent a few hours discussing the immorality of violence and war and their commitments to send more money to progressive activists over the next year. Suddenly, Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows and pointed a pistol at Jack and said, “Give me your wallet,” and, pointing the gun at Jill, “Your purse.”
“What?” asked Jack, incredulous, “Hey, we don’t want any trouble. We’re pacifists. We aren’t going to hurt you.”
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your money.”
So Jack and Jill did, and then Tony said, “And now gimme your watches, rings, jewelry, everything worth anything.”
“Hey,” said Jill, “This is my wedding ring!”
And Tony said, “Not my problem.”
Jack and Jill handed over their wallet, and purse, and all their jewelry and Rolex watches, and then Tony shot them both twice in the chest and picked up the loot and stepped back into the shadows.
As Jill lay dying she whispered, “Jack? Why didn’t you fight back? Why didn’t you have a gun?” Those were her last words.
“I couldn’t,” whispered Jack. “I’m a pacifist.” Those were his last words.
A few days later, Bill Thaxton and his wife were walking home through the park after dinner, when Tony Thug stepped out of the shadows.
“Give me your wallet, your purse,” said Tony, pointing his gun first at Bill, and then at his wife. He did not know that Bill was an old lawman, and had been a Marine sniper when he was young, and was active in the Single Action Shooters Society and had a concealed-carry-permit. Tony assumed that the old man was just an old man with some money and a few credit cards in his wallet walking home from dinner.
“Sorry, friend, I don’t like guns, and I don’t want any trouble,” said Bill.
“Not my problem,” said Tony, “Gimme your wallet, your purse,” he said, waving the gun at Bill’s wife, “Rings, watches, everything.”
“And what if I don’t?” asked Bill.
“I’ll shoot you both. Her first,” said Tony, pointing his gun at Bill’s wife again.
“Well,” said Bill, “Okay, honey, do what he says.”
She tossed down her purse. Bill reached slowly for his left lapel with his right hand and then, like lightning, did a cross-draw with his left and came out blazing with his trusty little 9, nailing Tony three times.
As he lay on the sidewalk dying, Tony Thug was heard to mutter, “Damn, I shoulda stuck with the pacifists . . .”
An acquaintance wrote me last week to tell me proudly how he had been a pacifist since the ‘60s. His letter set me thinking about pacifism, which is the ultimate and vilest form of immorality.
If you are Hitler, or Saddam, or Osama, or Ahmadinejad, your desire to kill those you dislike is at least honest and open. You wear you hate on your sleeve and we know who and what you are. But the Pacifist wears his refusal to resist evil as if it were a badge of honor, and claims it as a sign of his or her absolute moral superiority. The Hitlers and Osamas are at least honest about who they are, the Pacifist is not. Not even to himself.
The German Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote a poem circa 1946 about the quiescence of German intellectuals in the face of the Nazi rise to power that has become famous. Translated, it reads:
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent,
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists
I did not speak out,
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews
I did not speak out,
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me
there was no one left to speak out.
The Pacifist says something like this, but, unlike Niemoller, without apology. He says:
When you come for my allies
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my countrymen
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my neighbor,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my mother,
my father, my brother,
my sister, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for my wife,
my husband, my son,
my daughter, I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
When you come for me,
I will not fight you,
for I am a Pacifist.
The Pacifist claims that he (or she) is too good to fight against evil, and this is the catastrophic intellectual and moral failure of Pacifism. In the guise of being too good to oppose evil, the Pacifist invokes the ultimate immorality by aiding and abetting and encouraging evil, on the pretext of being too pure, too wise, too sophisticated to fight evil, thereby turning the pretense of goodness and purity into an invocation and license for evil to act without opposition.
The moral stance of the Pacifist is, unwittingly perhaps, homicidal, genocidal, fratricidal, suicidal. The Pacifist says, in effect: “There is nothing good worth fighting for. And there is nothing so evil worth fighting against.”
The Pacifist is willing to give evil free reign, because he or she thinks or feels that fighting against evil is even worse than evil itself . . . an intellectual and moral equivocation of monumentally staggering proportions. In order to be a Pacifist, one must hold that Nazism or Islamism or Communism or any other puritanical totalitarian ideology that seeks to slaughter or oppress all the Jews or all of any other race or tribe is no worse, is not morally inferior, to the existence of Jews and Judaism, or whatever other race or tribe is the whipping boy of the day.
To be a Pacifist, one must hold that acquiescence to a Jihad that seeks to destroy Western Civilization is no worse than Western Civilization, even though the Jihad seeks to extinguish intellectual freedom, religious freedom, political freedom, and ultimately even the freedom to be a Pacifist.
As the English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” The Pacifist replies, “I am so good that I will do nothing, I will hurt no one, even if that means that good will be destroyed and evil will win. I am so peaceful that I will not discriminate between the goodness of good and the badness of evil, certainly not with enough conviction to take up arms, literally or figuratively, against the triumph of evil over good, of totalitarianism over freedom, of barbarianism over civilization.”
And so the Pacifist, perhaps unthinkingly, unwittingly, mistakenly, is deeply mired in his intellectual confusion, but surely and unequivocally, the epitome of evil itself, For the Pacifist devoutly believes that by refusing to fight against evil he is affirming that he is good, too good and pure to oppose evil, too good and pure to fight evil, to good and pure to kill evil. But in the end, he is the enabler without whom the triumph of evil would not be possible.
My pleasure, sweetie! It’s great the ZOT post gave you a little chuckle.
Thank you for the classic post. It is a good combination describing what is terribly wrong about the OP.
It is the last nail in former FReeper Mr. Hill’s virtual coffin.
I have had more than enough of liberals. Write about that troll.
The 2nd guarantees the 1st (among others).
You are an idiot.
More important today than ever. Except today it's to protect me from Democrats.
Feel free to ammend the US Constitution. The founders brilliantly authored a process to change the document as needed, you simply need to follow that process.
Oh wait, you’re a moron so following instructions would be too much of a challenge.
From George Vreeland Hill’s blog archives:
“Gay Marriage Is Not About Equal Rights. It Is About Love.”
I’d link, but it would just make you sick.
His name does sound kind of queer.....
I’m gonna buy an AR-15 in this twerp’s honor.
This type of one-off troll is exactly what this communist administration is doing with our money, DIVERT AND DISTRACT. This species of trolls is unlike the homosexual ones deeply embedded in FR who can’t keep their hooves from the keyboard, hence, they commit suicide by zot.
Rile up conservatives by showing them a shiny object, as a direct attack on what they stand for, to distract them from the hugh and series daily crimes of the communist regime.
What they fail to understand is that we can have fun with trolls without being distracted. They choose to believe that we can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.
The more communist crimes are brought out in the sunlight, the more trolls will be talking about something else.
” When you come for my wife,
my husband, my son,
my daughter,I will splatter you all over the wall” : )
Grand idea! Will you have it engraved with his name in girly script and filled in pink? ;-)
Good insight, M., and well said. No, we are not distracted by leftists’ shenanigans.
Eyes on the prize, always.
If your wife, husband, son, and daughter don’t beat you to it. [smiles]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.