My actions have never been about taking away guns from people. I respect the Second Amendment, but we have a law on the books, and it’s an important law. It says that civilians can’t walk around with or be in possession of military-style assault weapons…
Maura Healey
Massachusetts Attorney General
January 25, 2017
Gun rights group challenging state’s assault weapon ban
[No matter how many times it happens it always surprises me when someone contradicts themselves in sequential sentences. To me that is clear and convincing proof of insanity. But in the political world it appears that is the sign of a good politician. It allows the reader/listener to take away whichever fragment they want and ignore the rest.
It think it means they are evil and/or have crap for brains and hence are unfit for anything other than closely supervised menial labor.—Joe]
If that’s true that they can’t WALK around with them, then what if I were to sashay or promenade around with one?
Did someone not tell her that words have meaning?
She also says you may not possess one.
Unless he is the embodiment of a demonic spirit, it is unlikely that he could posses one. But it could make for a good film. Something like a cross between The Exorcist and an old silent movie.
On the forum known as “The Gun Counter, the member who calls himself Randy once said, “The use of the word ‘but’ usually indicates that everything preceding it in a sentence is a lie.
E.g.:
‘I believe in Freedom of Speech, but’. . .
‘I support the Second Amendment, but’. . .”
We can see what part of this quote are obvious lies.
As for evil or crap-for-brains, I’ll take “Evil. unprincipled liar” for $800, Alex.
One does not reach the position such people as Ms Healy have if one’s brains resemble Bandini Mountain.
If it suits their evil purposes, they are all “There’s this law on the books and I HAVE to enforce it.” If it suits their evil purposes, they are capable in the same breath of inventing the concept of “sanctuary city” or “patriotic dissent.”
“I respect the Constitution, but want to enforce this unconstitutional law.”
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
You win the Internets!
Perfect summation of their vileness.
Nope. You must have cognition to for it to dissonant. Er, well, you know what I mean.
Kind people say we should ascribe their actions to ignorance, not malice.
I disagree. In this information age, it is not a pardonable sin to ignore the evidence and the Constitution, and to argue for gun control, which fails everywhere it is tried.
If I see the fake term “assault weapon” then I know right there I am dealing with an ideologue who wants me disarmed. That is immoral.
It’s simple: so long as there is some type of gun – any type of gun – that is legal to possess in some manner, they “aren’t taking guns away from people”.
If the law only allows you to have a single 20-gauge break-action single-barrel shotgun registered in our name and five rounds of birdshot that you must keep locked up separately (subject to unannounced random verification by the police) except when actually at the skeet range, then guns haven’t been banned or taken away from people, and we’re all just being bitter, clinging conspiracy theory hysterics pumping the “slippery slope” fallacy.
Maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDb3sTwD_vA explains it. It’s a great talk about why liberals ALWAYS reach the wrong conclusion. Interesting logic.
56 minutes (!) of an interesting insight.
Spoiler: Modern liberals reject all discrimination and with it goes an honest assessment of situations and this leads them always to side with evil or a failed policy.
To be fair, you can skip the first 7:30 if you don’t care about his introduction and just want to hear the talk.
48:30 minutes (!) of an interesting insight.
🙂