Via a tweet from Linoge we have this:
@OfficialJackson 12 slaughtered in Paris w/ a spoon? fork? knife? fist? NO, a “MODERN SPORTING RIFLE” #NRAExtremism
Also about three hours later using the same image:
@foxoutdoors This guy on an American street is just another #OPENCARRY Patriot (until he pulls the trigger). #NRAAM
This is what they think of NRA members and I presume nearly all gun owners.
It is good that they keep telling us, who they are.
“Tell you what: I’ll support restrictions on the 2nd Amendment to reduce firearms violence the moment you support restrictions on the 1st Amendment to reduce Islamist violence.”
I don’t think either one of those would be any good at all.
That’s the point, and why I put it in quotes; it was my pretend response to a gun-grabber. The intent is to say “I can claim just as much justification for limiting the First Amendment as you do the Second; I bet you’re not as hot for it now, are you?”
Be careful what you suggest. I just almost had a nervous breakdown watching Neil Cavuto interview a disgusting fascist named Bill Donohue, apparently the president of something called the “catholic league” (whatever that might be). He was basically arguing that we should “stop provoking people with vulgarity”. What a piece of scum. He didn’t get much sympathy from Neil, thank goodness.
So there are plenty of people out there who would be happy to use this sort of thing as an excuse to cut back the rest of the Bill of Rights, too.
I heard him on Hugh Hewitt, and Hewitt got really rough on him* because he was being evasive while standing by his statement that the murdered magazine employees wouldn’t realize their role in their deaths.
I could not have resisted a Godwin’s law moment by asking what was the role of the Jews in Germany and Poland in their trip to the gas chambers.
delightfully so, because I was following the conversation very easily and understood the issues.
The person posting this likely misses the irony of saying that Islam should not be blamed for people murdering in the name of Muhammad when using a gun, but gun owners who had nothing to do with it should be.
He would certainly object if he were to be punished for the hate speech of the imams.
So we’re to conclude that a jihadist with a gun = an American patriot with a gun. Zero difference? Aggressor = defender? Criminal = protector? Then we’d have to conclude that all cops and all soldiers are exactly as bad as all jihadists or other murderers, that self defense or the defense of other innocents is exactly the same as murderous aggression. By extension then, a jihadist is just as “good” as the person who would use force to stop the jihadist in the act.
That anyone could entertain such a position for one second is, to my way of thinking, conclusive proof either of outright insanity, a transparent and pathetic attempt to smear peaceable Americans (which is insane), or it’s the result of a hypnotic state. In any case it will have the desired effect on some of the more weak-minded people.
I’m reading an essay called “letting the tigers fight.” It’s about how the Russia played one strong force (or “tiger”) against another, such as the US vs China, in order to profit from the resulting clashes, create buffer-zone nations, and keep from getting involved directly in a bad two-front war. I’ll never look at WW II, Korea, and Vietnam the same. What I always understood to be tremendous blunders and bad planning was actually a giant chess game in a way. The USSR didn’t want any clear cut victory, by either side, in Korea; it wanted a weak client state and buffer zone. They helped suck the US into Vietnam escalation by deliberately being nice and quiet in the rest of the world, making us think they were reasonable.
Actions are only insane if you do not correctly understand the goals of the other actors.
Exactly, which is why I brought up “hypnotic state”. The insane ideas expressed in the OP didn’t just jump up out of nowhere, nor were they spread by otherwise perfectly unaffected American citizens.
Interesting that you mention the Russians. Have you checked out the Yuri Bezmenov interviews? If I continue, I’ll be accused of being “conspiratorial” which I take to mean someone who believes that it is possible for two or more persons to work together toward the same destructive goal.
I forget who it was who originally wrote it, but the statement went roughly like this: We all agree that pushing little old ladies is bad, but the inability to distinguish between someone who pushes little old ladies onto train tracks and someone who pushes little old ladies away from train tracks is incapable of making distinctions any adult can make.
And remember using the reprehensible actions of members of a group to justify restricting the civil rights of a whole is reprehensible: See worries against a backlash against Muslims.
Unless it’s about guns. Then it’s, apparently, okay to use terrorism/crimes across the ocean to justify taking away the rights of American Muslims (and non-muslims) to own guns.
And they bought those modern sporting rifles from a legal dealer after undergoing a background check, right? And the guy taking that picture had a phone in his hand rather than a gun because he just chose not to arm himself for defense against the city’s urban youth, right?
Not only is it worth remembering that this is what they think of us, it’s also worth remembering that they think the slaughter of defenseless innocents is an acceptable price to pay to satisfy their fetish.
Pingback: Quote of the Day: Erin | Weer'd World
If only France had more laws double making owning, carrying, and shooting people with rifles illegal, then none of this could have happened.
If there is one thing Twitter is good for, it is allowing us to keep our fingers on the pulse of our opponents. It seems they truly allow the filters to fall there and express their actual feelings.