Quote of the day—John Charles Lemr

The only real solution would be to ban the sale of all semi-automatic rifles. All rifle purchases should be relegated to single shot, bolt-action receivers.

John Charles Lemr
April 24, 2016
California’s half-measures on guns and ammo clips won’t work
[H/T to Sebastian.

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

2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John Charles Lemr

  1. Would that be a Final Solution or just another step in that direction?

    One small gang could kill a lot of innocent children with bolt action single shots. If you allow such weapons on the streets you’ll have to explain to the grieving parents why you wanted criminals to have the bolt action single shot rifles used to murder their kids. Also some of the most accurate, long-range, high power rifles are bolt action single shots. If you allow them on the streets you’ll have to explain to all the families of sniper victims why it was you advocated for these terrible weapons of long range death.

    Single shot long guns were the military firearm of choice for countries all over the world for hundreds of years. They are responsible for MILLIONS of deaths, and you’re going to unleash these military style killing machines against the families, the children, the women and the minorities of our communities? John Lemr; you clearly want our kids dead, and you clearly hate women and minorities.

  2. Yeah so the point is the argument has become, not about rights, not about the constitution, now about defense of life and liberty, but what we’re comfortable with violent criminals having*. Neat trick huh? And how many of us have fallen for it to some degree, at one point or another?

    *Magazine capacity limits, for example– If you’re committing a mass murder, the idea being that you’ll be able to murder fewer people if you have to reload more often. Or semi-autos– While you’re engaged in your murderous campaign, the image we’re programmed to have in our minds is that a self-loader will allow you to murder more people compared to using a bolt action for your murdering. And of course back in 1934 the idea was that your friendly local murderer would be able to murder more people using a machinegun compared to using a manual repeater or a single shot. So there it is; it’s all about which weapon style we’d prefer to be murdered with and nothing about effective self defense or defense of community and country. It’s “gun = murder” instead of “gun = protection of rights, life and civilization”.

    The come-back to that is; “If life and liberty are worth protecting, then surely they are worth protecting with the most effective means available.”

    The real argument then centers, not around the hardware at all, but around the one question; “Are life and liberty worthy of protecting?”
    I say “Yes” and the Authoritarians (today’s Progressives in both Parties), by their actions, say “No”.

    And as for you statisticians, those who meticulously gather and pour over the numbers, and execute carefully thought-out analyses, ending up with brilliant results; tell me where the numbers answer that question. Answer “What is the value of human life and liberty, and where did we get our rights (if indeed we truly, objectively have any rights)?” or the question “Who should be in charge of deciding your path in life, and your actions by way of taking that path”? using an unassailable set of numbers or statistics. I submit to you that it can’t be done, and anyway it would be missing the point if one were to try.

Comments are closed.