Quote of the day—Aaron Peori

No handguns.

No automatics of any kind.

Single action long arms will fulfill all the needs of home defense, hunting and sport.

Aaron Peori
September 11, 2014
Forum post in Your Ideal Gun Control Method
[It’s a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. And the Supreme Court of the United States says the Bill of Rights protects the type of guns this idiot would have other people take away from you.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


22 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Aaron Peori

  1. Get rid of all of them. Then we can go back to swords and war hammers and have real fun.

    • It would certainly make rape of women and repression of minorities easier, as they would have a much harder time defending themselves.

  2. Home defense? Why no mention of self defense away from home?


    Hope no one notices the glaring ommission!


    Does my right to live end at my doorstep? Oops! We can’t bring up “right to life” because that would provoke the ire of Progressives. I forgot.

    Well; at least Mr. Progressive operative HAS acknowledged a right to self defense at home. Now we’ve got him, and so the next questions for him are; “If life is worth defending at home, is it not worth defending with with the most effective tools available, or with those tools of the defender’s choice? You’re all about choice, right? If life is worth defending at home, is life NOT worth defending at other locations. Would not defense away from home require easily portable arms like handguns?

    • No, the solution is to “just teach the rapists/murderers not to rape/murder.”

      That, and “just give them what they want; it’s not worth your life.”

      At least, not until what they want is your life, but in these people’s minds (if they can be called that), throwing yourself on the mercy of a cold-blooded killer is more reasonable than forcefully defending yourself from said killer. In short, the killer’s life has equal or greater value to yours.

      That’s the world they want for us.

      • Or as we keeping putting it, ‘Their position is that a woman raped and strangled in an alley is morally superior to a woman who shoots her attacker stone dead.’

        I still don’t understand it, myself. Maybe I lack the requisite brain damage to think like a gun-grabber.

        • Ah, but Aaron Peori, though he be a fool, did at least acknowledge a right to self defense! This is key. Once that happens it’s Game Over so to speak– A person no longer has the ability to argue against self defense.

  3. Also I must be a pointy-head and note that all my long-guns, even my evil black FAL are single-action.

    Of course this just shows the person has NO idea what they’re talking about, but they don’t care, THEY know what they want to ban, and we will just have to be at the mercy of fools!

  4. I am no longer surprised when antis are weak on nomenclature. I’m not sure if he thinks single action means single shot, or if he includes manual repeaters in his made up definition. I can’t think of any long guns that have a double action trigger, though there may be one somewhere. The antis don’t generally care what the right words are. They’ll just add another confusing definition to whatever law they pass. Any ambiguity will mean that the firearm in question is illegal. After all, the goal is to make them all illegal, so sloppy new definitions only help them move toward the goal.

      • Anyway, the whole concept of technical restrictions on guns is to chip away, divide and conquer. It’s a ruse and nothing more, and so it’s pointless to get into technical arguments with Progressives (the only exception being that it may be fun pointing out their PDIs [Public Displays of Ignorance] but that does nothing for the cause of liberty).

        • Yes.
          “We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily … given the political realities … very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” — Peter Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc.
          “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.” — Janet Reno
          “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” — Bill Clinton

      • I know offhand of at least one Italian submachinegun (not “machinepistol”) that is DAO. . .

        • Errr, how does that work? To be DAO there needs to be a striker or a hammer that’s cocked by pulling the trigger, but a machine gun would either be slam fire or it would cock on the rearward stroke and release, “single action” upon chambering. If maybe the first shot is DAO, that would mean the hammer or striker would have to fall upon trigger release, but not fire the last chambered round. So educate us here, please. This is something new to me. I guess if the hammer or striker is both cocked and released, like a DOA revolver, on the forward stroke, without dwelling on a sear, that would qualify as a DAO full auto, but what happens when you release the trigger?

          • It’s called an “auto sear”, just like the M16, FAL, etc., all have (being hammer fired guns with full auto capability).

            How the hammer gets cocked in the first place is irrelevant, if the auto sear keeps the hammer from being released until the bolt is fully closed.

            Not all submachineguns are simple open bolt slam fire guns using advanced primer ignition.

          • Hell, what keeps a DAO semiauto pistol from going full auto? An auto sear does exactly the same thing as a true disconnector, at least until the action is fully in battery, at which point the auto sear disengages automatically.

  5. You should have read farther, LordSquishy has him beat by a mile…

    1. Eliminate self-defense exception to homicide and assault laws
    2.Prohibit private ownership of all handguns and semi-automatic long arms
    3.Absolute liability, joint and several, to manufacturers and owners for any privately-owned firearm used in a crime.

    No, #1 isn’t a misstatement. He goes on later to defend at length the idea that if someone is attempting to kill you, you shouldn’t be able to kill them to save your own life or prevent injury or loss of property.

    • His brain-damaged pacifism eventually led him to firing some fairly crass remarks at Rocketmedic, which subsequently got him tossed into the penalty box.

      I’ve never understood that level of ‘nooo yu can’t hurt dem’. No, you shouldn’t shoot someone who doesn’t pose an active threat (a burglar who is fleeing, for example, or one who you have down on his face). But if someone is trying to carve you like turducken, shouldn’t you fight back until they are dead, incapacitated, or fleeing for their lives?

      • It is one’s duty to fight back.

        Anyway, no government ever tried to disarm the citizenry out of compassion.

        “Total control of handguns”. That means they want control of handguns, meaning they’ll have them and you won’t.

  6. This statement ties in well with the single functioning brain cell Aaron obviously employs.

  7. Ironically, one need only read “What I Saw at the Coup” to understand how correct he is.

Comments are closed.