Posted on 12/15/2012 6:18:01 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
To anyone who may be persuaded that “a national conversation” on guns and violence in society is needed, rather than automatically accepting the assumptions of those who think it ought to begin with calling for more citizen disarmament edicts, answer one question first:
If you saw someone methodically murdering children and you could get your hands on a gun, would you use it to stop him?
Yes or no? There’s no time for equivocation. Every second you hesitate, another innocent is being slaughtered.
If you answered “no,” you’re an irredeemable coward, unfit for the company of free men and women, and deserving of the slavery you accept and would impose on your betters. We will hold no conversation with despicable domestic enemy wretches the likes of you. Go away, leave us alone, or bring it on. We will not disarm.
If you answered “yes,” then ask yourself since when it’s in anyone’s interests to bare his throat to someone who would slash it? And just as being armed, trained, prepared and willing can discourage an individual aggressor, do they also not, as Thomas Paine observed, “keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property”? Would not “horrid mischief … ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them”?
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Let us start by having a national conversation about moral relativism and liberal denial that evil exists in this world.
Those drooling in cup, those not paying attention, don't quite get it.
The politicos, the government elite and well connected are surrounded by security, guns, layers of armed security etc., yet they want to take away security of the law abiding?
In a world gone mad
Those drooling in cup, those not paying attention, don't quite get it.
The politicos, the government elite and well connected are surrounded by security, guns, layers of armed security etc., yet they want to take away security of the law abiding???
Does anyone buy this?
These facts are known by the politicians.
These side effects have been acknowledged by the drug companies.
One begins to wonder if the fascists in our gov’t - who know the first step in taking over a country is the necessity of stripping citizens of their guns - didn't go to the drug companies and make a deal to develop these drugs - for this purpose. The fact that these gun-controllers, from the president on down, were loud and clear in demanding gun-control, using this tragedy for their agenda, while those little bodies were still in that school speaks volumes!
Yes, such evil exists. It operates on such high levels because decent people can't conceive of such raw evil.
We need to acknowledge it.
We need to let our politicians and media KNOW we know - and know THEY know - and demand they answer us individually.
BAN THESE DRUGS...and those that demand gun-control. They are even more dangerous.
Answers................
http://evansayet.com/lies-only-when-republicans-tell-them-right/
http://evansayet.com/dems-seek-only-to-mitigate-the-consequences-of-the-evil-that-they-promote/
http://evansayet.com/dems-seek-only-to-mitigate-the-consequences-of-the-evil-that-they-promote/
Good point!
First of all, referring to a "gun culture" plays right into the the gun grabbers' hands. There are Americans who choose to own firearms. Nothing more, nothing less. "Gun culture" as a term is meant to disparage American gun owners.
Secondly, why on Earth is it an "obsession" to like ARs? Why should a person have to "check their motives"? I'm all for protecting people (career military), but deciding to own guns in no way mandates a duty to protect anyone. It is a constitutionaly-protected freedom.
I certainly hope youre not going to become one of those damn "Elmer Fudds" who turns on owners of black rifles in order to protect his precious bolt action hunting rifles from the gun grabbers. Yeah, they'll come for you, too. It's just a matter of time.
Someone gets it.
Tell me, if Israel is so secure and bad assed, why do we hear so much crying and whining from Israel being abused?
The silence is deafening...
1. No more gun free zones. Period.
2. 25% of the teachers in every school district be required to take a two week "summer camp" firearms instruction course, 1st week basic, 2nd week advanced, by certified instructors.
3. The staff rotates every summer until 100% of the staff are handgun proficient.
4. At least 50% of the staff on any given day are carrying, with rotation of assignment.
Any logical arguments against said proposal?
As the picture from Israel shows, if this happened in the USA, it would save unknown countless kids lives. Is your kid worth it?
No, but rational arguments against your proposal will not be offered by the pro-death and enslavement left. Only wails of emotion and threats to kill you, if you don't see things their way.
Sorta like a certain ROP.
An Armed Man is a Citizen.
An Unarmed Man is a Slave.
It’s ironic that two Black men, Obama and Holder, want to make me a Slave.
In defense of 2A here, it is clear he was not stating a strategy but a value. Human life is of far greater worth than the ownership of any kind of property, including weapons. And if we lived in an ideal world, where all people had angelic natures and never contemplated harm to others, who would need weapons anyway, except perhaps for hunting?
But it is a pure hypothetical, not an actual proposal, only to show we do value human life. We all know we do not live in an ideal world, and that in a world with evil people, we must be armed to survive. In fact, that is the same valuation of human life. We defend our life, our family’s lives, because we hold these lives in such high value they are worth defending with lethal force when necessary.
And as this last election suggests (even after accounting for rampant voter fraud), we need to win people to our side whose world view doesn’t make this connection between the value of life and the responsibility to defend it. I have had some success dealing with liberals by starting the argument from within their own set of presuppositions, and showing how their own first principles actually lead to the conservative position. We can help them connect these dots.
So, like 2A, I see nothing wrong with messaging that begins with the premise that we do value the lives of precious children far more than we value firearms. Weapons are only a means to an end, preservation of innocent human life is the end itself. Only in honor of those lives, we also are realists, and accept the world as a hostile environment, with no illusions of utopia, and thereby reach a different and better conclusion on how to protect innocent children: weaponize the good guys to whom we entrust them.
Nope. It's time to have that national conversation about violent images dumped into the minds of the marginally sane and the evil by the media and the government, whether game industry, movie industry, or abortion industry.
ALL train in the killing of PEOPLE and desensitization to the sacredness of life.
I'm also hoping that schools will rethink the strategy of huddling children all together as they did in this situation. It just made it easier for the whackjob.
Wondering if the shooter's mom was a liberal? And if so, what was she doing with guns? I thought all the liberals hated guns and hated everyone having the right to have them.
National conversation. Right.
Just like the one we are always supposed to have when a black guy gets killed by several white guys.
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.