Quote of the day—Ralphdog

Sound suppressors as public health measure; I still can’t quite get my head around the lunacy of it. That’s like recommending sunglasses for arsonists so the flash from the exploding gasoline doesn’t harm their vision. Or airbags for suicide car bombers.

Ralphdog
November 5, 2007
A Democrat’s guide to why firearm sound suppressors (“silencers”) should be made easier to obtain.
[This is what they think of you. If you exercise your specific enumerate right to keep and bear arms you are the equivalent of an arsonist or suicide car bomber.

When they have this attitude it should be easy to see why it is extremely foolish to even discuss any sort of “compromise” with them.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ralphdog

  1. MikeTheLiberal
    Me?? Pro-Gun??
    I hate handguns.  Living near a city, I know that many murders happen due to handguns.
    However, your argument for the widespread use of sound suppressors is excellent; clear and cogent.
    And I’d love to give Republicans a stroke!  🙂
    Tipped and rec’d.

    jlseagull42 MikeTheLiberal
    Have you ever shot a handgun?
    If not, I would be willing to find a Democrat in your area to show you how to shoot.

    MikeTheLiberal jlseagull42
    Never
    I’ve shot rifles.  Never a handgun.

    jlseagull42 MikeTheLiberal
    Would you like to try?
    Depending on where you live, I can hook you up with an instructor.  I could pull some strings and you could get a free class, all you have to do is show up (and be a non-felon of course).  Interested?

    MikeTheLiberal jlseagull42
    Not really
    But thanks for the offer.
    I think my wife would divorce me if I went off to shoot guns.

    What a disgusting excuse for a “man”. What does he think will happen? Will he have a visible aura surrounding him, announcing his deviation from the proggie ideal? Will his wife be able to detect his sinful desire? Does he seek permission before leaving the house?

    Who would want to discuss anything with such a mewling pile of spaghetti?

    • According to a relationship counselor I know there were a lot of relationships put in serious stress, and even ended, because of who they voted for in the last presidential election. That amazes me.

      • Well, we understand that many on both sides of the aisle see Trump as Hitler/Genghis Khan/Torquemada/Attilla et al. rolled into one since he’s not just a *gasp* Republican, but he’s also probably going to turn over the bureaucrap apple cart and with it the .gov gravy train.

        The Z blogster has an interesting take :
        http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=9881#comments

        Yes, the article is about Euro immigration, but the underlying logic is that women should never have been given the franchise.

  2. When they have this attitude it should be easy to see why it is extremely foolish to even discuss any sort of “compromise” with them.

    Why should we compromise with them when we’re winning? Were they willing to compromise with us when they had the upper hand?

    Let them talk all they want, while one state after another contemplates constitutional carry.

    • And we are losing on “universal” background checks and, in many states, the magazine capacity issue.

      I might consider compromise of the nature, “Advocate for repealing all existing gun laws and we’ll take that into account during the sentencing phase of your conviction for conspiracy to violate our civil rights.”

Comments are closed.