So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot. You need to feel a bullet rip through your flesh, and if you survive and enjoy the feeling––then the right to bear arms will be all yours.
October 16, 2015
Want a gun? Take a bullet: Take this, gutless NRA cowards — you can have a gun, once you understand the pain of being shot
[It appears to me he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of a specific enumerated right. What “price” must you pay to exercise your other rights as enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution? How about the 13th Amendment?
Actually it is more than a just a misunderstanding. He has it exactly backward. If he is going to violently infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms he is the one mostly likely to pay the high price.—Joe]
Going past some of the obvious counters of:
“Oh… so if I am shot you’ll support me getting whatever gun I want?”
“What about surgeons? Should they be cut up first?”
“How about police, do they need to be shot first?”
“What about people who hire body guards? Or is the ‘get shot’ onus on their hirelings?”
“Related… what about calling the police? You’re literally inviting armed men into a situation for conflict resolution. Are you advocating citizens get a bit of whomping with a nightstick before they can summon the constabulary?”
Let’s get past all that. And point out the breathtaking hypocrisy of the writer himself.
In the above link David Cole goes into some of D. Watkins’ past articles and finds… surprise!
Watkins has illegally purchased handguns and has illegally carried said guns.
And nowhere does Watkins mention that he himself has been shot.
People who want to take your rights away are criminals. (It says so in the Federal code…) So it’s not surprising that this particular guy is doing criminal things in other areas, too.
Not at all, but when it’s as blantant as this it is certianly illustrative.
Does D.W. have a fire extinguisher in his house? If so, is he qualified to have it by previously having set his house on fire? Idiot.
let’s start w/ him!!
Well, if you’ve been taught all your life, and you believe it, that all gun violence is the fault of all private gun owners collectively, then you’d hate all private gun owners too. You’d probably even want them dead, so as to end violence once and for all and make the Earth clean again…
Isn’t that how all major bigots think? A Jew did something wrong, so kill all the Jews. A white man did something wrong to a black man, so kill all the white men. If an Irishman raped your daughter, kill all Irishmen, etc…
If you’re a collectivist SJW, why would you NOT think in such terms? It’s collectivist thinking in a nut shell.
One could argue that collectivism requires such an attitude, for how else does one come to favor the coercive power of government as a tool for social change? Certainly, one would have to believe that said coercion would be used against someone other than one’s self. One could further agrue that bigotry is the starting point, or genesis, of all collectivist thinking.
So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot.
I don’t love guns. I value them as the valuable tools that they are. (I don’t love my seat belt or my claw-hammer either, but I’m glad I have them.)
Guns don’t make me feel safe, not really. *I* can make myself feel safer, in part with equipment and training. (For example: it’s not enough to have a lock on the door if you haven’t trained yourself to keep it locked.)
I certainly don’t hold guns and cuddle with them at night. I can’t say I’ve ever met any gun owners that did.
Since the first three clauses don’t apply to me, I can only surmise that the fourth doesn’t either.
As a peaceable, honest man, should you be made to justify or explain yourself to anyone who stands before you and declares himself your master?
No, Young Grasshopper; it is he who questions and impugns the rights and sovereignty of others who must answer for himself.