This is what they think of you

Via email from Col. Milquetoast who says, “Phillip Adams is an old Australian lefty with a newspaper column and a radio show. And apparently a bit of a totalitarian streak”.

Adams’ Twitter profile says, “Broadcaster, columnist, presenter of Late Night Live on ABC RN.”

Adams wrote this column on September 10, 2011:

It was widely accepted that her attempted assassination was triggered, no pun intended, by the verbal violence of US politics – such as the “lock ’n’ load” rhetoric of gun-totin’ Sarah Palin, whose campaign literature literally targeted political opponents, depicting them in the crosshairs of telescopic sights.

While sticks and stones break bones, words can never hurt? Manifestly untrue.

The massacre in Arizona that almost killed Giffords killed six others – and the appalled reaction almost killed off Palin’s campaign. Let this and Norway remind us to turn down our political volume and venom. It’s not enough for Abbott to tell us he “doesn’t entirely agree” with vile placards being waved at right-wing rallies. He must denounce them. And when an Alan Jones suggests that Gillard should be drowned in a hessian sack? With memories of his role in the Cronulla riots, he should he sacked.

Today, words. Tomorrow, sticks and stones. And the day after that?

It might have been “widely accepted” by those who do not require evidence to form their beliefs but it wasn’t accepted by most people. But that is mostly beside the point.

The main point is that he then demonstrated his total lack of an irony co-processor, or perhaps an overactive hypocritical gland, by tweeting the following:

Tweeted December 14, 2013 3:53 PM:

Biggest US death toll?Not Iraq or A’stan but the war waged within the US by the Invincible NRMA.Seems to gain strength with every massacre

Tweeted December 14, 2013, 3:58 PM:

The target of the US war on terror should be those NRMA nutters-who outgun and outmaneuver every challenger from POTUS down.And always have

Tweeted December 14, 2013, 3:59 PM:

The charnel house of Charlton Heston

Tweeted December 14, 2013, 4:05 PM:

Oops. NRA. Brain dulled by medication

Tweeted December 14, 2013, 4:07 PM:

National Ratbags. National Racists

This is a broadcaster with ABC who thinks “The target of the US war on terror should be those NRA nutters”. You, as a NRA member and gun owner, are to be give special treatment. This is not the special treatment afforded to others exercising a specific enumerated right but the special treatment of military assaults, detention without trial, and drone strikes.

How would ABC handle it if he were to say something similar about blacks, Jews, feminists, or gays?

17 thoughts on “This is what they think of you

  1. My understanding is that the Aussie Leftists are getting very scared because the New Sorta-Kinda Conservatives down there are serious about dismantling their Nanny State. Part of this is a movement to try and regain some of their Firearms Rights that the Aussie Commies have denied them. And the Aussie Pro-Gunners are using the NRA as a Model and a Mentorship for their Campaign. So like most “Good Commies,” this Asshat has to Demonize the Opposition, since their Failed Political Beliefs can’t stand up to Logic and Truth. Thus the attacks on the NRA.

  2. Just to play devil’s advocate here for a bit;
    That is also what we think of them. We would have anti rights politicians, bureaucrats and cops arrested, tried, and some of them even executed for their crimes. Therefore the sentiment on both sides appears to be very similar. Therefore it is not the willingness or even the wish to see physical force applied to the opposition that defines either side.

    What is That One Thing, then, that sets up apart? Through most of my junior high and high school years, I was being fed the left’s anti-principles assertion; “It takes two make a fight” which implies that there is no right or wrong, but only the inability to get along, or the inability to refrain from using physical force.

    That statement of course ignores, and I say it’s hostile, to the very concept of right and wrong, and to the fact that it takes only one aggressor and one defender to make a fight, that while under attack it is the responsibility of the victim to defend himself otherwise aggression is emboldened and by default it is promoted and guaranteed to grow.

    Even still, reading through this, a Marxist could very easily see himself as a defender and we the attackers, and so, again, what is That One Thing that defines the dividing line?

    That is where we must be focused.

    • I think there is a world of difference between what we think and say about them and what they think and say about us.
      First, the relationship between word and deed is very different when one sets the two groups side by side. The correlation between mass murders in the modern era and left-wing politics approaches 1. Second, we and they may be using the same words, but only we are using the correctly. We are defending what is rightfully ours. We are asking for the enforcement of the laws

      • My phone hates me.

        As I was saying, we are asking for the enforcement of the Supreme Law and insisting that our rights be respected. We may joke about liberals and lamp-posts, but we respect the rule of law, such as it is these days, too much to stoop to vigilante politics. The statement “If you cross that threshold, I will kill you” is a threat, and possibly a crime, if spoken from outside a house to its rightful occupants. If that same sentiment is spoken from inside the house by its rightful defenders, it’s merely a warning.
        Their descriptions of us are absurd hyperbole constructed from rank ignorance. Ours might also be, but I doubt it. We know ourselves. We know them and what their fellow travellers have already done over the last hundred years in the name of “progress”.

    • The thing that sets us apart is that we are defending the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rule of law. They are “defending” a set of “principles” that are contrary to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and are the rules of a whimsical tribe and/or tyrant.

  3. So the test we should present him with is an areal photo of a house caught in crosshairs: “The drone is in position. You can choose to destroy the house of this NRA member and kill him right now. Do you press the button?”
    On the other side of that button press is the pic of the family that was killed, NRA members every one. Let them see the face of the NRA: white, asian, black, homosexual, all of their favorite check boxes. They have an inaccurate picture of the NRA. The NRA is us, and we are everybody. They need to see that.

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » Why are anti-gun activists so violent?

    • Do you not think people will use that against you at the first chance they get. They’ll probably abuse it in ways most people couldn’t imagine, like requiring registration but then not allow new registrations.

      Do unto others… isn’t a perfect political philosophy but I think it beats getting hoisted by your own petard.

  5. Just to be clear, it is the Australian public broadcaster ABC not the US ABC. Last I heard Adams was paid around $120,000 a year in Aussie tax payer funds. He has in the past described himself as a former communist party member.

    Notice it isn’t the people actually committing the murders that he wants to targeted but the NRA.

  6. Interestingly, and not surprisingly coming from The Left, he is advocating capital punishment for possessing a philosophy rather than committing an act. Looking at history, that appears to be a constant.

    That said philosophy is supported by, and adheres to, centuries of documented, established rights, which in turn is supported by the natural laws of this particular planet, is irrelevant to him; it is the philosophy he considers so dangerous.

    This is certainly a real stretch – for the moment, anyway – but at what level does such a threat constitute basis for justifiable defensive action ? For now it’s just talk; I suspect as political power waxes and wanes it may not always be.

  7. I would note that the disarmament he so desires will not be enacted by him in person. He will, of course, sent agents of Government out to do his bidding, while he himself remains safe and sound ensconced in the progressive bubble he and his ilk fashion for themselves.
    One wonders (as a purely intellectual exercise) what he would do if that safe bubble was pierced by, say, a 175 grain hollow point boat tail to a ticklish spot on one (or more) of his friends…

Comments are closed.