Quote of the day—Barry Macalkner

I have many concerns on the use of firearms in the city. It is really starting to become out of hand. These children need to be raised with a life without guns. We really need a full citywide ban on all firearms.

Barry Macalkner
February 27, 2017
Gun control should be a must for all cities
[And where does he draw the line? At the city limits? Check out the FBI crime statistics on Washington D.C. and Chicago compared to their neighboring cities when they had complete bans on guns.

The limits will never end at the city, county, state, or country level. They will always want it all.

Don’t ever let them get away with banning such things past the limits of their own private property. And don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Barry Macalkner

  1. A full citywide ban on guns, just like they had in DC and Chicago, right? I guess that worked very nicely, if you were a criminal.
    I wonder if he considers Vacaville to be a “city”.

    • He should move to San Francisco. They have, for all purposes, banned guns there already. And Vacaville is in the gun free PDRK.

  2. Another ignorant and/or evil moron who wants a talking point, not a solution.

    A fool at best, who think rules define reality.

    • Yup. We have rules against assault, robbery, rape and murder, so by his reasoning those things don’t exist. They’ve been banned and so they’re done and gone. Problem solved. QED.

  3. There’s nothing to this “gun control” business but the desire to protect fellow members of the criminal class.
    Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you any different.

  4. 1. The greatest hazard to people is other people.
    2. The greatest concentrations of other people are called cities.

    3. Perform the necessary logical operations.

  5. Pingback: New hottness: Complete civilian disarmament but 'only in cities'... - The Gun Feed

  6. Your great concern is noted, Mr. Macalkner. Now kindly f*ck off.

  7. If this were to become a law, I predict that just as Mapquest has caused every place in the US to have a street number, a great push would occur so that there were no areas in the country that were not considered part of a “city”. The exception would swallow the rule, so to speak.

    • I don’t think that was a Mapquest thing. I think it was a Federal Regulation, that required every place to get a street address.

      • You _really_ ought to think about that some more. And consider that “Thomas Guide” or “Rand McNally” could be substituted for “Mapquest” without changing the meaning one iota.

        • Oh, I don’t blame Mapquest or Rand McNally or the Thomas Brothers, I’m just saying that just as those entities hastened the push towards every place in the US having a number address, once some sort of totalitarian rule established San Francisco-type gun laws within city limits, it would take no time at all for the Federal government to find some pretext for pushing every square inch of the United States into some “City” or another.

  8. I think we should do as he asks, with the stipulation that we define “city” as the spherical region roughly 2m in radius centered on his belly button.

Comments are closed.