They don’t want a discussion

From Half of Gun Owners Support an Assault Rifle Ban, So Why Are Politicians Still so Afraid of the NRA?

now that I’ve mentioned the unmentionable, those readers in the pro-gun community will please do everyone a favor and keep their comments to themselves.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you they are interested in a “discussion” about gun control. Always remember that the phrase “reasoned discourse” used by the anti-gun people was a euphemism for blocking and/or deleting comments by pro-gun people.

They just want you to shut and listen to them display their ignorance.


3 thoughts on “They don’t want a discussion

  1. We’ll tell you what you beleive peasants!

    Weisser is *such* a guy, shouldering the burden of speaking for the “silent majority” of gun owners that just happen to support his position and want to ban the most… popular of rifles.

    Still, he’ll fight all those ‘uppity’ gun owners in defense of that apparent bulk of gun owners that remains mysterously silent. Maybe they’re shy.

    I mean… even if Weisser were correct about his “silent majority” theory. Does the fact that he won’t get legions of gun owners defending his position indicate that the political interest and activity isn’t there? (I mean if you can’t get internet comments, getting acutal donors and volenteers is even harder). And thus the political and lobbying muscle behing the gun rights movment is going to follow those who are, you know, vocal and active?

    It is an interesting twist on the “Stupid paranoid gun owners thinking we want to ban guns just because we talk about how awesome gun bans are.”

    Now we’ve got. “Stupid paranoid gun owners thinking we want to ban guns just because we talk about how you gun owners totally want to ban guns.”

  2. It doesn’t matter how many people do or do not support any kind of gun ban, the constitution still says it illegal.

    The Bill of Rights exists specifically as a counter to popular opinion, consensus, mandate, and especially the vote. Even if there were a constitutional amendment making a ban technically “legal” it would still be a violation of a basic human right, and many of us would defy it.

    In short; human rights do not exist, nor can they be eliminated, because of a vote or any other kind of consensus or mandate.

    Rights can of course be either ignored and violated or acknowledged and protected, but that’s another matter entirely. Like energy, rights can be neither created nor destroyed by mere mortals.

    We long ago started down the path of appeasement. Appeasement of those would deny human rights is THE recipe for disaster. If we back down for the sake of temporary peace, even in the smallest of ways, we have only ourselves to blame for what will surely come after, for what is at stake, what is under assault, is the very right to exist. NO ONE with good intentions would ever attempt to disarm his fellow citizens.

    NEVER accept the “good intentions” defense! Those asserting it either have very ill intent or they are serving those who have very ill intent. They KNOW that the restrictions are illegal, too, and contemptuously dismiss the fact, believing that they are safe from justice in their numbers.

  3. “The new Bloomberg survey …”
    That explains everything.

Comments are closed.