Quote of the day—Jim Jefferies

I think we should get rid of waiting periods to buy guns. But… before you buy a gun, you have to prove that you had sexual intercourse with another person. Have you seen these shooter guys? Lonely looking bunch. If you can’t find someone to f— ya, then no gun! Guns don’t kill people — virgins do!

Jim Jefferies
May 2017
Jim Jefferies explains that ‘guns don’t kill people — virgins do’
[This got a smile out of me.

I suppose it makes as much sense as the waiting periods and background checks. Still, it is as pointless and unconstitutional as all of the other infringements they throw at us.—Joe]

10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jim Jefferies

  1. Then again, to turn around the insults, I remember a wonderful comment from one of the characters in “The Mitzvah” (Zelman & Smith), referring to victim disarmers like DeGette or Feinstein: “…. does this person look like someone who ever had an orgasm?”
    🙂

  2. Uncle Joe’s cure-all theory would be applicable, perfectly applicable, under the proposed rule changes. There really is NOTHING that sex can’t fix.

    • That’s Doctor Joe’s Cure for Everything.

      🙂

      But yes, it would appear you are correct.

  3. I think something similar should be applied to the First Amendment.
    Can Jim Jeffries defend this opinion with anything except vituperation, anger, abuse, and volume? If not, STFU, no license to speak for you! (/soup Nazi).

    • You beat me to it. No one should be allowed to exercise any human right, whether enumerated in the Bill of Rights or not, unless they can prove that they’re having sex with some other person at least x times per month. When you have sex, then, it would be vitally important to get a receipt.

      Under that system also, because having sex would be so much more important to one’s ability to function, the government would have to step in and provide sex partners for those having a difficult time finding them– If having sex is not only a right, but all your rights depend on the amount of sex you have, the surely there would have to be a government system in place to ensure that no one is left out of the sex party. This would also mean that you could, and should, be forced to have sex with people you find repulsive. Just as “income inequality” can only be resolved through coercion, so too must “sex inequality” be enforced. “Equality” and “Fairness” would demand it.

      “Economic Justice”, “Social Justice”, and now “Sex Justice”.

      That is where we appear to be going with this then; just as socialism is slavery wherein the government and its cronies are the slave masters, so too will it have to include sex slavery.

  4. Sounds like he is cruising for a piece of ass for himself.

    Sorry, when they are such a-holes, my immediate response is a counter insult.

  5. Of course the way to call his bluff is to point out that I’m married with a child, and I live in Massachusetts. Does this mean the state can get off my ass?

    The answer is “of course not!” Because antis are just looking for justification to their end goal of banning all guns.

    Hell, just look at his example of waiting periods. It first came about becausebackground checks were done with physical paper through the mail. They needed time for all that paper to travel around.

    When NICS came about the same process could be done while you waited, so no waiting period was needed.

    But the antis consider us “the enemy” and anything that might make life better for us, no matter how reasonable cannot be allowed.

    Overnight the idea of a “cooling off period” came about. Never mind that you’re buying a vintage. 22 target pistol and need to “cool off” in your home armory filled with modern rifles and pistols.

    They are NEVER genuine when they talk.

    • And as for the “Cooling Off Period”, that is more necessary for speech and writing than any other human right. Who, even among the anointed Leftists has not said something they regretted saying? Even President Harry S Truman let his correspondence cool for a day before sending it. The time he threatened/offered to kick a music critic in the balls for criticizing his daughter’s singing was because his substitute secretary did not know he should let the letters cool off for a day.
      Heck, maybe even Jim Jefferies would like a chance to reconsider things he’s said.

Comments are closed.