Posted on 03/07/2014 8:43:12 AM PST by grandpa jones
In 1921, advertising executive Fred R. Barnard originated the phrase, “One Look Is Worth a Thousand Words”, which has evolved over the years to become “A picture is Worth a thousand words.”
Perfectly illustrated here, don’t you think? (click to enlarge)
I’ve been tinkering around with new nick-names for the gun-grabbing crowd, and narrowed it down to 2:
1) Deniers - turning their own Gore-bull warming tactics on them. and,
2) Infringers – as in, “What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you get?
I like ‘em both. what do y’all think?
I like infringers!! The TERM that is!
they want to deny us the individual right to ownership and empowerment which include the right to own guns
democrats want us disarmed so government can control us and genocide us if they want.
call them what they are socialists/collectivists/Marxists/communists
(psssst, Don’t tell them a rifle without pistol grips or flash suppressors or bayonet lugs can do the same things as those that do. It’ll give them ideas and not the good kind.)
I like “deniers” because that brings to mind the Holocaust deniers. Their views would bring about a whole new Holocaust. Leftists murder wholesale once they have the power to do so.
Fringers.
Still like “Gun Grabbers” best.
Denying infringers sounds good to me.
Their achilles heel is that feminists tend to be big believers in carrying a gun for self defense. There is discord in their ranks on this issue. It’s why it’s a non started.
or even infringing deniers!
Works for me.
This is a GREAT term
“ Fringers”
since that is exactly what they want to do
Good One!!
They’re statists. They usually don’t grasp what they’re supporting.
Statism allows for a “captured state”, a nation run by a few corrupt elites behind the scenes.
Statist security and police can run roughshod over a disarmed public “sheeple”.
Almost none of the supporters of gun grabbing would be amongst the handful of elites; they’d merely be sheeple working for the state themselves, thus living a life of slavery.
:-)
or infringing denying communists
The fundamental political conflict in America today is, as it has been for a century, individualism vs. collectivism. Does the individual’s life belong to him—or does it belong to the group, the community, society, or the state? if it belongs to the state then the individual has no right to own guns nor even property or a house.
there are 2 groups of people conservative and liberals. democrats and republicans. but really it’s a battle between individualism vs collectivism. I’m telling you all every single democrat is a collectivist and they are driving us to a state where an individual will not even be allowed to own a house nor property much less guns. but it’s the same principle : private ownership.
democrats/liberals/progressives or whatever they call themselves are just collectivists which = also marxists/sociaslists/communists
Individualism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs to him and that he has an inalienable right to live it as he sees fit, to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the product of his effort, and to pursue the values of his choosing. It’s the idea that the individual is sovereign, an end in himself, and the fundamental unit of moral concern. This is the ideal that the American Founders set forth and sought to establish when they drafted the Declaration and the Constitution and created a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.
Collectivism is the idea that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group or society of which he is merely a part, that he has no rights, and that he must sacrifice his values and goals for the group’s “greater good.” According to collectivism, the group or society is the basic unit of moral concern, and the individual is of value only insofar as he serves the group. As one advocate of this idea puts it: “Man has no rights except those which society permits him to enjoy. From the day of his birth until the day of his death society allows him to enjoy certain so-called rights and deprives him of others; not . . . because society desires especially to favor or oppress the individual, but because its own preservation, welfare, and happiness are the prime considerations.”1
Individualism or collectivism—which of these ideas is correct? Which has the facts on its side?
Individualism does, and we can see this at every level of philosophic inquiry: from metaphysics, the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality; to epistemology, the branch concerned with the nature and means of knowledge; to ethics, the branch concerned with the nature of value and proper human action; to politics, the branch concerned with a proper social system.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism.asp
“Crybaby A**holes” always worked for me.
wish there was a ‘like’ button. Great comment
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.