Quote of the day—Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks

@_Stars_Stripes_ @NRA ban all guns for the actions of the majority. Gun owners are terrorists throw them in prison

Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks
Tweeted on April 12, 2016
[This is what they think of you.

This is typical thinking of statists. They refuse, or are unable, to think in terms of individual rights and responsibilities. If one, or a small minority, of people do something wrong it is justification for punishment of an entire class of people. One of the problem with this type of thinking is that you can justify almost anything. People could justify prison for all young black males because the statistics show young black males commit crimes at a higher rate than young Asian females. Our nation, and to a certain extent Western Civilization, was founded upon the principle of individual rights. People like this appear to think in terms of group responsibility. It’s a slippery slope to the good of the many outweighs the good of the individual and to everyone according to their need and from everyone according to their ability.

Then look at potential consequences of what he is saying about gun owners being terrorists and belonging in prison. Do these people think things through? This is very dangerous talk. I keep thinking that if this is what they really think of us then why would people bother to try and convince them otherwise? If one is told they belong in prison for simply existing, and there are people actively attempting to put them there, then what is the downside for doing something the actually earns a prison sentence? It would be easy for people to rationalize showing them the contrast between the way things are now and the way they could be if typical gun owners really were terrorists.

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

19 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Basepaul Season @paulbensonsucks

  1. Actually, it’s true that no one wants to take our guns. They all want someone else to take our guns…or die trying.

      • Yes, and that unfortunately is the real problem. If all that happened is that the bad guys die in the attempt, that’s ok, think of it as evolution in action. But when the good guys are hurt, that’s a serious problem.

        • And that is why grandpa is a lot more dangerous that dad. Dad still has a family to support. Grandpa? He doesn’t have long in the best case scenario, so going out in a blaze of glory is a lot less problematic.

  2. I’ve been saying that these people are talking themselves into building concentration camps for their political enemies.

    • Sure, that makes sense. And why not — they tend to point at FDR as their role model. (That also explains why we’re in a depression again.)

  3. “This is typical thinking of statists. They refuse, or are unable, to think in terms of individual rights and responsibilities. If one, or a small minority, of people do something wrong it is justification for punishment of an entire class of people. One of the problem with this type of thinking is that you can justify almost anything.”

    Punishment of a class of people is wrong based on the actions of a minority unless you’re Muslim, based on posts and comments in the last couple of weeks.

    • The difference is that the Muslims are members of a group whose defining documents DEMAND that the members treat the rest of the world in a manner that should automatically get them removed from any civilized area with extreme prejudice. It’s there in black and white, for all to read. Since the currently inactive members make NO attempt to quell the actions of the active ones, and in fact actually support them in various ways, the group as a whole, and individually, must be treated differently than any others.

      • Defining document: Deuteronomy 17:2-7

        Jews, and Christians who follow the old testament, are supposed to stone those that worship other gods. I guess they need to be rounded up too.

        • If they have be condemned either by a small Sanhedrin or by the Great Sanhedrin, depending on circumstances (BT Sanhedrin I:1).

        • Jesus said render under Ceasar that which is Caesar’s, i.e., submit to the laws of the nation in which you live. Islam demands to BE the law. It is a totalitarian, authoritarian, ant-individual rights system that is antithetical to Western culture. The “five pillars of Islam” do not actually require any belief to perform – they are outward acts to convince others of your belief, much like “sieg heil” was used to indoctrinate people into believing in the government by having people do it so often that they (a) would start believing it themselves, and (b) throw suspicion on anyone that didn’t, thereby isolating them, because it’s easy to go with the crowd. It’s a marvelously designed mass indoctrination program, complete with the Haj, so that people are constantly coming to the capitol where they can be taxed / pillaged, etc. But none have to do with the actual ordering of a functional society.

          OTOH, even if you remove the religious aspect, the 10 commandments outside of the 1st are essential (though not sufficient) to an orderly, productive, free society. Christendom has had its reformation; Islam is still a dark-ages system.

          Comparing what a tiny minority might believe and don’t act on to what a significant percentage believe and DO act on is really stupid, FWIW. When the menonites are as much a problem with terror-bombings as Muslims, you may have a point. Until then…..

    • I’m in strong agreement that, in general, all people should be judged as individuals and given due process. This becomes impractical when we are in a declared war. For example, during WW II someone in a Nazi uniform didn’t have to be read his rights and given a fair trial by a jury of his peers before being shot. A different set of rules, and rightly so, applied.

      While we are far from in a explicit, declared, war with all Islam one could make the case we are in something similar to the cold war with the USSR with certain sects of Islam. I’m not certain what the correct set of rules to apply in our situation are and I don’t think any options I have seen articulated to date are particularly convincing.

      • We should note that the muslims are too cowardly to declare open, full-scale war, knowing that right now it would unite the rest of the world to destroy them.

        So, instead, they use proxies and terrorist attacks to advance their cause without provoking us into nuking them into oblivion.

        That is the problem with islam. It wants war, but will first weaken us by invasion, “lawfare”, terrorism, and cultural disruption.

        I do generalize that ALL muslims by their stated belief in the koran as the absolute revelation of allah cannot be trusted. Most are content to stay on the sidelines, but far too many take an active role. I liken them to the nazis where many in the party were in support roles, but there were enough to man the death camps. Collectively, they all subscribed to the same evil philosophy and thus share in the guilt.

        • Starting a fight in a way you KNOW you will lose is stupid. So, they don’t; that’s not cowardly, it’s effective. But the birthplace of Islam, with the Arabs, has a raiding culture; it’s never had a stand-up battle culture. It’s tribal, not a high-trust place. So they are well-adapted for 4th gen warfare, which is in many ways a reversion to the very earliest sort (pre- Treaty of Westphalia). Their refusal to do open formal-state warfare puts them outside of the protections of the Hague & Geneva conventions, but we are so used to only dealing with state actors that it looks cowardly.
          The problem is that we have not got the self-confidence to say “screw it. You want to fight without rules? OK, lets show you what happens when the West takes the gloves off!” to force them to be more reasonable (according to OUR sensibilities). As long as we tie our own hands and fight by gentleman’s rules, and they call us chumps and hide behind women and kids, we WILL lose. When they learn that all hiding behind women and kids will do is get the entire town killed off – including women and kids, and when the hostage-takers are identified it’ll get their home-towns killed off, too – they will start fighting more on our more formal rules.

          We should not treat our values as a suicide pact – they should be extended only to those willing to extend them back. All carrot and no stick is a bad place to be.

  4. friends:

    to hell w/ them. let them try. let the games begin. as to our guns — use them, or loose them. it is getting as simple as that.

    john jay
    milton freewater, oregon

  5. But, very oddly, they are highly selective about the whole individual/group thing.

    Pedophile Priests? The whole church is evil and must be destroyed.
    Pedophile Gay guy? Oh, no, can’t tar the whole group for the failings of one man.

    Thug with long criminal history murders someone with a gun? Gun-owners are evil, and must be destroyed.
    Random Upstanding Citizen (RUC, formerly “law-abiding,” but with so many stupid / unconstitutional laws…) shoots intruder? That’s a isolated event that cannot be generalized.
    Cop shoots hostile criminal? That’s proof of widespread police brutality.

    Suicide bomber sets himself in the name of Allah? The work of a lone individual misunderstanding the Koran, can’t possibly blame the group, must welcome them and celebrate them to prove no bigotry. Fears backlash.
    Guy bombs an abortion clinic when nobody is there? Blame all Christians, and ban anything Christian from the public square; promotes backlash.

    Man hits wife? Spousal abuse, all men are evil! Calls for loss or rights, money, reeducation camps (counseling, etc).
    Woman hits husband? She’s just a PTSD battered wife defending herself from a future attack.

    Man gets drunk, has consensual sex? He’s still responsible for any and all of his actions, and guys in general will be castigated for anything he does that might be considered out of line. Or even in line and publicly acclaimed by his partner.
    Woman gets drunk and has sex? She is blameless for anything and everything that happens, and if she later regrets her actions, any males present can be held responsible for not protecting her sufficiently from her bad choices (which she gladly made at the time).

    White man with history of mental problems shoots politician? Must blame all whites, all men, all guns, and lack of government funded mental health services (which were blocked mostly by white Christian men, nach).
    Dark-skinned man shoots people in uniform while shouting Aloha Snackbar! and it’s an isolated event that means he was oppressed and it’s PTSD from being discriminated against.

    Homosexual lifestyle associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates? Only a hater or homophobe would push out such an agenda. Diversity Must Be Respected, and ALL lifestyles are equal. You can’t hold anything someone from that group does against the group.
    Traditional married lifestyle associated with higher lifetime incomes, longer life, better physical and mental health? Anyone promoting traditional values that does the slightest thing wrong just proves all traditionalists are hypocrites and liars and their lifestyle is a fraud, a sham, and the patriarchy represses women.

    It takes a high degree of denial, delusion, and double-think to hold so many dichotomous pairs in the memory banks simultaneously.

  6. Perhaps we should take a Swiftian approach to the typical anti-gun marketing plan after a crime, and get our hit in first, by their rules:

    “In the wake of the attack at FILL-IN-THE-BLANK, I saw that we have to do something to stem the tide of violence coming from baseball-bat wielding transgender black Democrat journalists. I know that information about this particular attack is sparse at this time, and I have no direct knowledge of the incident, but I think that reasonable people can come together to pass common sense legislation outlawing the game of baseball, compulsory psychiatric care for deviant sexualities, prosecute and ban the Democratic Party for hate-speech and incitement to violence, and incarceration of anyone with a degree in journalism. I may not have all the details of this terrorist’s identity 100% correct at this time, but if someone would provide me with better information, I am prepared to make unsubstantiated generalized accusations at whatever group or class they belong to without delay, and ramp up my hyperbolic rhetoric to push my preconceived solution, which, I’m sure you will agree, will be a final one.”

Comments are closed.