Quote of the day—David De Santis

No one wants to disarm anyone.
We want to reduce hand guns IN PUBLIC.

David De Santis
June 2, 2014
Comment to Editorial: More gun violence, but not prevention
[Not only is prosecuting people for handgun possession in public infringing upon the “keep and bear arms” section of the Bill of Rights De Santis’s statement is self-contradictory. This conclusively demonstrates it is non-sensical from an epistemological view. This means De Santis does not know what it means to know things.

And yes, he actually wrote that in consecutive sentences. He didn’t write three paragraphs and arrive at a different void in his mind where communication from void A to void B was nothing but static. This had to be part of the same void or else these voids in his mind are so close together they have merged into one.

Apparently Mr. Crap for Brains David De Santis, like many anti-gun people, is nothing but a vacuous noise maker.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David De Santis

  1. As a former default-leftist thinker, I can tell you that even after reading your post and genuinely pretending* to try to understand it, most of them would not see the contradiction. The very few leftists who could articulate it, would inform you that it is perfectly consistent to say that you may NOT take your gun into “public”, and because you still own a gun, you are not “disarmed”.

    You are not prevented from owning and driving a car by the fact that there are licensing and insurance requirements and traffic rules, or by the fact that you may not drive your car on sidewalks and public lawns. See, Little Boy– no one is trying to take your precious car away… Same thing.

    You see the distinctions very clearly. They do not.

    That is consistent with the oft implied (but never clearly stated) leftist theory that, until you have been forcibly stripped of any and all weapons, there has been no “infringement” against you. It’s simply a matter of understanding Left-Speak;

    “Disarmed” = having no legal access to arms at any time or place.
    “Infringed” = utterly and totally, irrevocably eliminated.

    Thus we could gang up on you, beat you up, tear through your property, seize all of your guns and ammunition save one, single-shot 22, which must be kept in a public vault and you may only see it on a few predetermined occasions per year and only under police supervision, and your 2A rights have not been infringed. You have not been disarmed. Thank you for your cooperation.

    And it just occurred to me after reading your post that the leftist dupe’s inability to understand the RKBA and his failure to understand taxes are in fact exactly the same failure. It is the failure to understand this two-sided coin of human reaction; 1)people modify their behavior according to the circumstances, and 2) most people have a built-in sense of justice.

    Raise taxes beyond some fairly low level, and revenues fall due to decreased productivity and reduced compliance. Reduce citizen armament by threat of force and crime rises due to the inability to defend and the resulting encouragement of crime, and the general sense that justice is not the order of the day.

    Both of those government actions are an affront to liberty and justice. Both government actions discourage the good and encourage the bad. Both government actions are attacks on human rights and sovereignty, and will automatically invite other such attacks from all directions. It is a general signal that iniquity is now the order of the day.

    Of course the perpetrators among the left, the leaders, are well aware of these things which is why they advocate them.

    *the only thing genuine about any leftist lies in their heart-felt desire to appear genuine, their attempts to appear genuine and their skills at appearing genuine.

  2. Let’s start with disarming the Secret Service, the police, the SWAT teams and the special security details for VIPS.

    Then come and talk to me about public disarmament.

    This person is a moron who thinks that there is little to no need for firearms in public. Yes, there are home invasions, but most of us are out and about during the day and plenty of violence and crime occurs out there in the real world.

    I would say that the special concern about it being in public is true hoplophobia. If it is out of sight it is fine for people to have firearms. How childish.

    How about this…
    No one wants to be bigoted.
    We just don’t want [insert blacks/Christians/homosexuals/Tea Partiers] in PUBLIC.

  3. Actually, reduction of handguns in public has been accelerating. Just a few short decades ago, if you wanted to carry a handgun in public, you were pretty much limited to a full sized Government Model, or perhaps a Chief’s Special. There were a few Raven and Jennings pocket pistols, and the rare Walther, but not much in the small category.
    Now we have a flurry in the development of reduced handguns – there has been healthy co-evolution of reliable .380 pistols and improved defensive ammunition to feed them.

    I see this reduction of handguns as a good thing – they are flying off the shelves and into people’s pockets. Or is this somehow not what De Santis is wanting?

Comments are closed.