Quote of the day—Lila Newark

“Freedom is on the march” – in our movie theaters now – not Ay-rak. It’s the “American exceptionalism”! If compared with the rest of the FIRST & SECOND WORLDS, where selling ammunition on the internet – like “only” 6000 rounds + assault weapons to the general population is considered INSANITY. Here is it “intended for hunting – shooting a duck”? haha. Sitting ducks? ….like sitting ducks in movie theaters? 36 acts of mass violence in 30 yrs will not deter bloodthirsty NRA money addicts who preach freedom on the outside and profit on the inside as they sell WMD to men with small brains and penises who need to be compensated by owning their big guns to make them feel like real men – and at which cost? How many more deaths does this “freedom”/insanity cost?

Lila Newark
August 1, 2012
Comment to NRA Enabled Bullets-by-Mail Used by Colorado Shooting Suspect.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

If I could make sense of it I might have considered discussed threat modeling, attack surfaces, and other security analysis methods. But it is clear Newark cannot focus their own thoughts for more than a few seconds let alone grasp the thoughts expressed by someone else.

As I tried to make sense of this rambling rant I kept thinking, “Are there some meds they should be taking?”—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Lila Newark

  1. Lila Newark’s rambling is what passes as sophisticated intellect nowadays. It is taught in our schools and universities. It is “Critical Pedagogy” and is purely political. Being most forgiving to Lila, she is one of those useful idiots that Marx spoke of in his own ramblings (though I submit that Marx was himself a useful idiot).

  2. You know, this quote just made me realize something.

    Markley’s Law gets invoked a lot on the anti-gun side b/c gun owners own guns, so therefore they must be inferior in some way. But what if gun owners suddenly gave up their guns (willingly or confiscation, take your pick)? Would they suddenly be equals to the anti-gun crowd? I submit that guns might be the only thing keeping anti-gunners from wholesale figurative slaughter of those they deem inferior.

    BTW, been reading the blog for a while, just never posted before.

  3. Another blithering idiot speaking from her ass; she obviously hasn’t a clue what she is talking about. I get amazed at people who can get all fired-up and start spewing a skein of drivel without a shred of knowledge or logic.

  4. While “NotClauswitz” is correct, “the dude” is also unfortunately correct.

    Liberalism is the shortest trip to genocide a society can take.

    This is why we can’t have nice things.

  5. Building on NotClauswitz, the dude, and mikee’s comments…

    While the argument for individual protection by firearms from criminals is valid, I believe the ability of armed citizens to deter governmental oppression dwarfs it.

    Criminals might kill thousands of innocent victims; however, an evil, oppressive government can kill millions upon millions of its citizens.
    Just look at how well gun control worked for minorities in Nazi Germany, Turkey (i.e. Armenians), all of the communist countries, and so on.

    I believe that innocent life is precious and to be protected, so that is why we must have access to firearms as an equalizer.
    Our Second Amendment is why we have our freedoms and the peaceful transition of power (except the Civil War) since the founding of our country.

    Molon Labe!
    Never Again!

Comments are closed.