Liberal Anti-Gun Commentary

[jwh20]

Interesting commentary by Kurt Schlichter here:

Dems Shoot Themselves in the Foot Again On Guns - Kurt Schlichter - Page full

I particularly like this point he makes:

This isn’t about dead children. If saving kids was their real motivation, liberals would have long ago allowed the police to end the daily slaughter in Democrat-owned war zones like Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. No, this campaign is driven by elitist hatred for regular Americans who refuse to bend to their will, who defiantly live life on their own terms, and who stubbornly resist accepting the moral supremacy of the urban liberals who would rule them.

They want to show us who is boss, to put us in our place, to take away the proud symbols of – and the tools that protect – our independence for one reason and one reason only. They want to show that they can. They want to demonstrate that what rights we have come not from our maker but from them, to be granted or withdrawn as they please.

They want us disarmed, demoralized and defeated. They are furious that we refuse to allow it, but anger is a poor foundation for building strategy.

 

[LP1]

He claims to know what is in the hearts and minds of a large group of people. It must be nice to have such omnipotent knowledge.

There are a lot of false assumptions (on both sides of the debate) regarding proposals for firearm legislation, and this is just one more example.

It kills me every time I see "elites" and "Democrat" mentioned in the same breath. It's as if there are no "elites" in the Republican party - I guess Romney and Clarence Thomas are just regular folks, huh?

Instead of trying to whip people into a frenzy with speculation, let's stick to the facts.

 

[Expat]

The facts are that the Democrats in this country declared war on gun owners. At the national level and almost every state controlled by Democrat majorities, they have been trying to push gun control, including confiscation, into law.

As to the Clarence Thomas, he actually did come from nothing and pulled himself up to the level he is at. That is why the liberals hate him so much.

 

[Bill of Rights]

He claims to know what is in the hearts and minds of a large group of people. It must be nice to have such omnipotent knowledge.

There are a lot of false assumptions (on both sides of the debate) regarding proposals for firearm legislation, and this is just one more example.

It kills me every time I see "elites" and "Democrat" mentioned in the same breath. It's as if there are no "elites" in the Republican party - I guess Romney and Clarence Thomas are just regular folks, huh?

Instead of trying to whip people into a frenzy with speculation, let's stick to the facts.

Hold on. Just because there are elitist Democrats does not mean there are no elitist Republicans or even elitist Libertarians (I'm not aware of any of the latter, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.) The same is true if you substitute "conservative" and "liberal" for the party names. We have enemies on both sides of the aisle, to be sure, even in our own state: Republican State Senator Tom Wyss, for example, is very vocal in his opposition to gun rights, but then again, we have friends on both sides of the aisle, too, such as Democratic State Senator Lindel Hume.

To identify someone by the group to which they belong and by which they identify themselves is not whipping anyone into a frenzy, it's just a statement of fact. If someone is an elitist, that is a fact independent of their party, and vice versa. To identify them by both is like calling me an American man. Both terms are true and in my case, I wear them both proudly.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ModernGunner]

^^^^ Yeah, what HE said! ^^^^​

 

[CathyInBlue]

To identify them by both is like calling me an American man. Both terms are true and in my case, I wear them both proudly.

I hope you don't wear your manhood too— proudly. Some places frown on things like that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I hope you don't wear your manhood too— proudly. Some places frown on things like that.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to CathyInBlue again."

 

[LordTio3]

If saving lives is the actual goal here, then why doesn't every speed limit sign say 35MPH? If saving lives is SOOOO paramount, then what business does ANYONE have driving 70?!

We could save a TON of lives in a year at 35MHP for everyone, including more children than have died in the last 10 years due to firearms.

Use that logic on a Liberal and watch them try to backpedal about THEM being responsible enough to handle their vehicle at increased speeds; and watch them make your argument for firearm ownership for you.

~LT

 

[jwh20]

If saving lives is the actual goal here, then why doesn't every speed limit sign say 35MPH? If saving lives is SOOOO paramount, then what business does ANYONE have driving 70?!

We could save a TON of lives in a year at 35MHP for everyone, including more children than have died in the last 10 years due to firearms.

Use that logic on a Liberal and watch them try to backpedal about THEM being responsible enough to handle their vehicle at increased speeds; and watch them make your argument for firearm ownership for you.

~LT

Why stop at 35 mph? If this is so darned important BAN automobiles completely! That would eliminate all traffic injuries and accidents. It would put a huge dent in "carbon emissions", the so-called oil shortage would vanish. Health care costs would plummet as folks got exercise walking or riding bicycles. It would be a UTOPIA!

 

[Trooper]

He claims to know what is in the hearts and minds of a large group of people. It must be nice to have such omnipotent knowledge.

There are a lot of false assumptions (on both sides of the debate) regarding proposals for firearm legislation, and this is just one more example.

It kills me every time I see "elites" and "Democrat" mentioned in the same breath. It's as if there are no "elites" in the Republican party - I guess Romney and Clarence Thomas are just regular folks, huh?

Instead of trying to whip people into a frenzy with speculation, let's stick to the facts.

You are reading things into his statement. When the middle class split in the late 1960s, it created the professional class and the working class (social classes instead of economic classes) based on whether you went to college or worked at jobs that were either skilled trades or factories. Due to the fact that the Baby Boomers expanded the number of college grads, it created a class war on social issues. Thus abortion is more favored by the educated than it is the workers. Same with gun control. It is about those with college gaining the upper hand over the uneducated workers.

If you look at the democrats, they have forsaken the working class in favor of college boy issues (gay rights, gun control, abortion).

 

[Trooper]

If saving lives is the actual goal here, then why doesn't every speed limit sign say 35MPH? If saving lives is SOOOO paramount, then what business does ANYONE have driving 70?!

We could save a TON of lives in a year at 35MHP for everyone, including more children than have died in the last 10 years due to firearms.

Use that logic on a Liberal and watch them try to backpedal about THEM being responsible enough to handle their vehicle at increased speeds; and watch them make your argument for firearm ownership for you.

~LT

Look at the news where the NTSB wants to lower the standard of what is a DUI from .08 to 0.05 thus making more arrests.

 

[jwh20]

What's NOT being said is HOW MANY ACCIDENTS are caused by drivers with BAC between 0.05 and 0.08? So these would be LEGAL drivers today but are causing accidents.

My guess is that the answer is NOT all that many.

What baffles me is that over and over again we read about so-and-so who is a REPEAT offender, or is driving on a suspended license, or (as in the case of Mr. Bisard) is awaiting trial on a drunk driving charge but is driving ANYWAY!

We could save a LOT more lives if:

1) Drunk drivers were prosecuted and lost their licenses.
2) Drunk drivers were given a SPEEDY trial whether they want one or not.
3) Driving with a drunk-driving suspended license lands you in prison.

This 0.05 BAC suggestion is a load of crap IMHO.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Not more more to be said about this topic than that.

 

[DRob]

Why

Why does "why" matter so much? We waste more energy trying to figure out "why" than we do trying to prevent them from doing what they want to do. I don't care "why".

Interestingly enough, the above can be applied to either side of the gun rights argument!