Quote of the day—Reflections of a shallow pond

I’m not proposing to rid society of all firearms. But how about if we start with the handguns?

Reflections of a shallow pond
June 1, 2012
Slaughter in Seattle: Why Gun Control is Out of Control.
[Yeah. A good first start. I got it.

Mr. Shallow Pond needs to spend a little time thinking on this. I would like to suggest he investigate the time when this country tried to rid society of “demon rum”. And what cave has he been hiding in such that he has Internet access and hasn’t heard of the war on (some) drugs? Does he think efforts to “rid society” of handguns as a start is going to turn out any better? As a final lesson, in more ways than one, I would like to suggest Mr. Shallow Pond look up the phrase molṑn labé.

I especially “like” how he doesn’t propose a plan for how to get around the Constitutional issues. My guess is that like most people demanding the government “do something” the Bill of Rights and enumerated powers is totally irrelevant to them.

For some reason I keep thinking it’s a mind not a pond that we are seeing the reflections of here.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Reflections of a shallow pond

  1. It’s nice of the author to propose gun control under his own name. Should his ideas succeed to any extent, millions of people would know who to thank personally for the damage to their rights. One of those millions might have the opportunity to make the thanks stick.

  2. Hmmm. ” I’m not proposing to rid society of ALL Firearms. But how about if we START with the Handguns.” If he was Honest with his first statement, then his second should have said something like “But how about we ban JUST the Handguns, except for the Police.” So, by his own reasoning and statements, he wants to Disarm everyone.

    This is what the Antigunners call a “Reasonable Discussion.”

  3. If he waved his magical wand filled with the rainbows that come from the hindquarters area of unicorns and all of the firearms in the world disappeared today, I would weep for the future. It would be a future where the strong would prey on the weak and brute force would rule the day.

    Would assault, robbery, rape, and (mass) murder disappear along with the firearms in this unrealistic future? No, they would still plague us, so, I thank him for his simpleton suggestion, but I will keep my 12 gauge at the ready.

    This begs a question. How do so many gun control advocates approach the topic in such a simplistic, emotional manner and still maintain their convictions? It is embarrassing!

  4. The author’s thought process certainly lives up to his online username.

  5. “I’m not proposing to rid society of all firearms. But how about if we start with the handguns?”

    How about no.

  6. “I’m not proposing to rid society of all firearms. But how about if we start with the handguns?”

    Then what? Or, if it won’t violate Godwin’s Law, “Und dann Was?”

    By saying “start” he telegraphs the idea that it won’t be enough.
    We know where this will go. Ask the Cambodians in 1980, or the Red Chinese in 1960, or practically anyone in 1950. Heck, we can even ask the Jews in 1945, if that wouldn’t be too embarrassing a question.

  7. Why start with the handguns? Why not start with machine guns instead?

    Oh, wait, we already did. Ironically, with the exception of the occasional massacres fueled by prohibitionist gangster wars, blood didn’t flow in the streets when they were legal; and banning machine guns didn’t end the violence, either.

    And now you want to go after handguns? After all, it’s worked so well in Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C.

Comments are closed.