Facts the antis don't want to confuse anybody with:
Virginia Tech was a "gun free zone."
Cho did not get any of his weapons at a gun show.
But we're dealing with evil, opportunistic tyrants, agenda-driven and ignorant media co-conspirators, and cud chewers conditioned to the damnable lie that is "The Only Ones."
"He lived."
No thanks to you, lady.
22 comments:
It's almost as bad in Connecticut, where the state government is promising reform of the corrections system. What's the first reform? To enact mandatory sentences for repeat offenders.
Problem is... It's for violent offenders, and since this was brought on by the home invasion/assault/arson/murder that recently happened in Cheshire, it's important to note that the two perpetrators of those crimes were not violent offenders.
Feel-good fixes: "You'd better stop it you bad, bad men, or we'll write another rule at you!"
I must think that woman doesn't love her son. Else why would she demand he remain helpless when she can see the results of such a state. Life insurance, maybe?
Anti-freedom people must either lie or confuse the issue to seem reasonable. I've seen it a lot.
For God's sake, get a grip. She's wrong because she thinks it's safer to be unarmed? Because you think it's safer to be armed?
Fine, that's great.
Don't get stupid and start saying she hates her son. Do you have any idea how insane that makes you (and me, by implication) sound to all the fence-sitters out there?
Think about the last time some anti-gunner talked about how gun nuts don't love their children because they let them live in homes with guns in them. Did you buy that crap? I doubt it.
I agree with Don Gwinn.
This is not the time for us to show the world our collective ass.
She thinks closing the gun-show loophole will prevent another massacre; she's incorrect. It didn't stop that one, and it won't stop the next one.
That is all.
The world will not see this and the world will not see our arguments. But the world will see her, and see her arguments. The media will see to that.
She is aiding and abetting in the destruction of our rights and should be judged harshly. I don't care if she's deluded--so are most enemies of liberty.
As for fence sitters, if those incurious, lazy and detached slugs are still oblivious to the outrages, they'll just be whining burdens anyway when TSHTF. This train has already left that station. This is the place for people who have already done their homework and decided to get radical about their rights. And it's one of the few--other "gun blogs" are talking about holding their noses because McCain will appoint better Supreme Court Justices than Hillary. We don't do that kind of illusion/self delusion/denial here. We know there will be a price, and it will be a lot higher thanks to selfish, subversive tools like this foolish woman.
If we fear speaking with deadly seriousness here, how will we ever act that way? It's past time we let the other side know there is a price to pay for the evil they perpetuate too, both perpetrator and pawn. You tell me how much sympathy you'll feel for this ignorant ***** when it's your door kicked in by the JBTs, your kid shot, your wife's head smashed into the floor while they laugh and trash the sanctuary of your home. That's what she and her kind are enabling. The hell with them.
I'm not interested in making nice with them or educating them or outreaching to them. I'm interested in defying them. If more of us were, we'd have our rights back tomorrow.
This is The War on Guns-Notes from the Resistance. Does anyone think those are just words?
There damn well better be an "or else" at the other end of the rattle or we're lost. How come so few of us are rattling? You don't think we're up against a ruthlessness that wants men like us out of the way?
Really? If you don't think nothing less is at stake here than the future of the Republic, and that the day of reckoning fast approaches, I don't get the motivation for gun rights dialog. What is it, a hobby?
Really? If you don't think nothing less is at stake here than the future of the Republic, and that the day of reckoning fast approaches, I don't get the motivation for gun rights dialog. What is it, a hobby?
That about sums it up.
Debating who will give us more flavorful scraps from the table is just a hobby for far too many people (I hear Huckabee will feed us more bits of rights than Obama!).
The assaults on our liberty are accelerating. More do need to end their demands with "or else".
This blog is patriotic in exactly the same way our founding fathers were. Demand human rights, then take them.
Thanks David.
straightarrow didn't say that the psycho hag "hates her son", but that she "doesn't love her son". Hate is an active dislike, but "not liking" can be passive, just like her demand that her son and our sons and daughters must remain victims. If that doesn't say "not love" then I don't know what does.
I am getting really tired of people who are scared to call evil "evil". David makes me proud of freedom fighters.
Thank you David.
C.H.
David,
Truly inspirational, and 200% true.
Thank you for writing that.
The pro-gun movement took a huge step forward with the inclusion of internet assistance, now many of us need to take it a step farther and MOBILIZE ourselves and others towards the cause, whether that means getting involved politically or showing John Q. that owning a gun does not make us the "bad guys", etc.
Freedom must be fought for. I know of no other way to achieve it, and obtaining it any other way makes it meaningless.
James in Texas
I said it, I meant it. If you are too timid to appear as though you care, that is your moral cowardice with which to deal.
Deal with it away from me. I have no time for people who would rather be liked than be right. Especially if they would rather be liked by those who would provide for the destruction of themselves and me and mine.
Imagine your daughter was raped, would you demand a law that she and all other young women go out in the world naked and unarmed?
That is what this woman did. If you haven't the guts to call it evil, then I would prefer you be on the other side. I don't want to engage the enemy with the thought you had my flank, only to find I was alone because you were worried about your image in the minds of those who would willingly demand your children suffer the same fate as her son, who was lucky to survive, suffered.
At least do me the honor of allowing me to plan without relying on you, if the above be the case.
I am glad he survived, but I would rather many more of those helpless victims had survived through self defense than luck. Luck just didn't work for them, did it?
This isn't a disagreement about which color of paint should adorn the study. This is about the sanctity of life and liberty. This woman is demonstrating her unhappiness with anyone having the ability to protect either.
How in the Hell does that translate to she loves her son and believes he would have been safer if only everybody was as helpless as he and 32 others?
You say disagreement, I say horseshit. If this atrocity didn't bring home to her the need for her child to be a full adult with the duty to protect himself and others when necessary then she is incapable of love. Ergo, I say she does not love her son. Love demands we provide for defense of the loved. She obviously does not believe in that. Further she demands my children be as at risk as hers. I don't think anything I can say of her is too harsh, nor do I believe it unrespectable to state it as it is.
In a very bad book by Dean Koontz, I found one gem to keep. "In self defense and in defense of the innocent, killing is not murder, hesitation is not moral, and cowardice is the only sin."
It's got nothing to do with making nice. It's about telling the truth to yourself and everybody else.
Pretending that no one can honestly disagree with you is delusional.
Posturing about how you want me "away from you" is laughable. You don't know me. You have nothing to do with me. You've exchanged a few words with me over the interweb.
And yes, David, this blog IS a collection of words. I hadn't realized that you'd decided it was time to stop talking and persuading and time to start shooting. Maybe the fact that you're writing a blog instead of manning a barricade misled me.
Well, hey, if you want to imagine that there's no one in the world who honestly disagrees with you, that's your lookout. Good luck.
Wrong, Don. If you think intelligent defiance and resistance involves making yourself a target and manning a barricade so that you can be wiped out, you're demonstrating a profound lack of imagination and creativity. You have no clue as to sacrifices I've made and risks I've taken, and your trivializing what you're ignorant about, while pretty damned irritating, reflects on you, not me.
He'a a moderator at that pompous The High Road. What do you expect?
Answer the question Don. If you don't, you have surrendered in this debate.
Here it is again;"Imagine your daughter was raped, would you demand a law that she and all other young women go out in the world naked and unarmed?"
You would say anyone who answers in the affirmative only has an "honest" disagreement with you?
David and I, for instance, have one substantial disagreement and one minor one (probably more, but don't know about them). Yet, I have no grudge against him, nor do I think there is any reason to doubt his character, honor, or courage. His being wrong on our disagreements is an honest opinion based on principle, as is mine. We just weight the same principles with different values, neither of us would deny the principles' existences. Which is what this woman has done over the life of her own son, and you call that an "honest" disagreement?
You are a different matter. I suspect your courage. Very simply put, I find you to be a coward.
I don't know if you are a physical coward, but I do know you are a moral and intellectual coward. So, when you say I don't know you, you are wrong. I know you, have known you and will know you in your many guises. You are the man who cannot stand up and say someone is morally corrupt, even when they call for the victimization of innocents. Even if their call endangers your children, and you say I don't know you. Of course, I do. You're every sell-out I ever met.
Answer the question.
Huh! How 'bout dat? He left. Guess he didn't believe anybody could possibly have an honest disagreement with him.
The answer is no. It has nothing to do with what we're discussing, but it's no.
You have now succeeded in proving that I don't agree with the woman in the article. Congratulations.
As for whether I would say someone who believes something different from me has an "honest" disagreement, that's what the word "honest" means. "Honest" means you say what you believe is true. There's no way around that no matter how long-winded or how insulting you care to get.
Everyone deals with grief differently. To argue that the woman does not love her son is ludicrous.
The extremists on her side are, for the large part, hurting inside and see the gun as a safe target on which to vent their anger.
She isn't thinking rationally anymore than I would in the rape scenario mentioned. I'm pretty sure I'd go in the opposite direction she did.
There is a difference between being radical and saying radical sounding stupid crap. When it's put up or shut up time, how will casting spurious allegations as to her motives be of any help?
DG and FF, there is nothing ludicrous about saying the woman does not love her son. At least, not as any rational person loves.
If you believe she can truly love her son while trying the visit the same atrocity on him again and the children of others,also. I submit neither of you understand love.
No one should be subjected to that kind of love. Using that example, it can be said that though Cho may not have loved him, he must have liked him an awful lot.
I understand grief, and have suffered it. I understand how it can disconnect one from the world, for a time. I do not believe it is possible for grief to cause one to wish for more destruction of that for which one grieves.
I do believe it is possible to feign grief to attain attention and achieve otherwise difficult goals while trading on the respect of others who believe the feigned grief is real, and therefore do not oppose you as vigorously.
I do believe that is exactly what this woman is doing.
I think it ludicrous that you could say she loves her son, when she wishes more of the same on him and fights to make it law.
Of all the myriad things of substance to comment on in a public forum, Don Gwinn chooses one topic only...to criticize a supposedly fellow pro-gunny on his "bad-form" commentary. Great choice of priorities, eh?
Typical, DG. Style over substance. Form over function. Agree or you're stupid or insane. This approach to discussion becomes habitual, when one wields a self-important moderator bludgeon in some forum or other.
Outside those small fiefdoms; most see it as petty; over-compensating.
Another Nony Mouse heard from.
I'll criticize anyone I think warrants it, thank you. He said that the woman doesn't love her son and would like to see him killed so that she can collect a life insurance policy.
What exactly is the substance you find defensible in that assertion? It's hard to believe so many people think even that kind of wild irrationality is above criticism, especially while touting rational thought at the same time.
Also, a few days ago, the problem was that I'm too tolerant (because I'm not "brave" enough to declare that my political opponents are motivated by murderous intentions toward their own children.) Now it seems I'm not tolerant enough.
I didn't call anyone insane. I did mention that assuming a woman doesn't love her son and wants him dead because she doesn't choose your method of keeping him safe is stupid. It *is* a stupid thing to say, so I don't feel too bad about that. It would have been easy for Straightarrow to take it back and explain that he got a little too enthusiastic in the moment, but he chose not to do that, so I guess he can live with having his choice labeled "stupid" by someone who thinks it was stupid.
At least I didn't accuse him of being an inhuman monster who would be happy to see his child murdered.
She's being irrational and so is Straightarrow. I see why she's irrational; her son almost died, and like most people, she had a kneejerk reaction to that. What's your excuse?
I asked about insurance as a possible motive. Whatever her motive is, it is about herself, not her son.
I didn't say she wants him dead, I did intimate that she doesn't care if he dies if it advances her position. I still hold that opinion.
I find your apologist attitude toward people who would again fling their child unarmed in harm's way and demand you do the same to be irrational.
You do not have the moral high ground here in the name of "tolerance". Some things are intolerable. Her demand that my children be at the same risk as hers was is one of those things.
Your "understanding" of it is another.
Post a Comment