Quote of the day—Bob Walker

FreedomChannel.com will be a valuable tool to reach Americans from all political persuasions. The fight against gun violence should not be a partisan issue and we look forward to getting our message out to the public through FreedomChannel.com.

Bob Walker
President of Handgun Control, Inc.
November 4, 1999
[One would think it has to be satire when an organization with a name like “Handgun Control” gives praise to an organization with “freedom” in its name. But FreedomChannel.com was an Orwellian construct. Apparently they really believed that if their slogans are repeated enough people will believe them. It was a slogan taken directly out of the book, WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and, obviously, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

Apparently they thought people would fail to recognize Nineteen Eighty-Four was dystopian novel rather than play book to achieve their goals.—Joe]


13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bob Walker

  1. Of course, it is also worth noting that FreedomChannel.com seems to have failed, miserably, and is now being domain-sat by some Asian linkfarm.

    I wonder how long the Brady Bunch will continue wasting money paying the registration fees for “banassaultclips.com”…

  2. It seems the Brits are content to use 1984 as an instruction manual.

  3. Seems accurate if the word ‘channel’ is taken in the sense of rationing. The definitions of channel includes enclosing and limiting something, to direct it where you want to go – they want to limit freedom.

  4. If you really think about it, not owning a gun is a type of freedom. A gun is a responsibility, just like a lot of other things are (cars, houses, kids, pets, etc.).

  5. @ubu52, I can see that. And I propose we maintain the freedom to sell or give away personal firearms without undue hassle or paperwork.

    If you have one to give away I will be willing to take over the responsibility of it. Just let me know and I’ll handle almost all of the hassle and paperwork until we can get the laws fixed to make it hassle and paperwork free.

  6. “…not owning a gun is a type of freedom. Yeesh. By that logic then, not owning a house or a car is a type of “freedom” also, so lets take away everyone’s houses and cars by force (that’s your end game – force). Eventually, we get to; “Not being alive is a type of freedom” which is where many leftist societies have actually gone, killing millions.

    No, Little Grasshopper, freedom is this country means freedom from government interference. It means, concurrently and fundamentally, the acknowledgement and protection of rights, i.e. the protection of individual self determination from two threats – government and criminals (often difficult to distinguish from one another). It means the protection of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

    Nice try though. You did manage to waste a few minutes of my time responding, so you accomplished something.

  7. ubu;

    If you really think about it, owning a business is a huge responsibility, so let’s have the government run all our businesses, and set us “free”.

    If you really think about it, raising children is a huge responsibility, so let’s have the govermnment raise all the children, AND SET US “FREE”.

    Girl, you be trippin’!

  8. With guns comes grave responsibility. I like Joe’s response better. I’m glad for anyone to freely choose to be free of that particular weight on their shoulders, as long as I and anyone else remain free to take it upon myself should I so choose (freely, of course).

  9. I’d have to agree with ubu here. Just as I support the right of all law-abiding citizens to own a house, a car or a gun, I support the right of anyone not to own these things if they so choose. The point is that these choices should be left up to us and not to the government.

  10. You can agree with ubu’s one short comment, if you take it all by itself in isolation. But she’s leading you on in classic ubu style. She is not an advocate of liberty, as those of us who’ve been dealing with her over the years know very well. Hence my responses.

    In practice, there is no common ground between advocates of statism and advocates of liberty, any more than there can be common ground between advocates of poison and advocates of clean food. One destroys the other.

Comments are closed.