Quote of the day—Darren LaSorte

Every time I learn of another abused, desperately scared woman who uses a firearm effectively to defend her life and her children’s lives, I cannot help but wonder how the so-called “gun safety advocates” would have wanted things to turn out. Of course, they almost never admit it publicly, but most of them want a world without guns. For these at-risk women, it means a world without protection.

It’s not about gun safety for these anti-gun advocates. That is the NRA’s domain. Gun-ban advocates refuse to accept or acknowledge the simple and unavoidable fact that if their dangerous dream were ever realized, it would leave the weak helpless to the desires of the strong. The rules of the Stone Age would dominate once again.

Darren LaSorte
August 3, 2017
Would Gun-Banners Rather Nicole Carney Had Been Murdered?
[To answer the question of the title of the article, in a word, yes. Anti-gun people do not respect the rights of individuals. To them, the ”needs” of the many outweigh the rights of the few. It’s the old meme about two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner and finding a well armed sheep.

I have found examples of firearm empowered women are one of the most effective debate tools we have in our “toolset”. If they are anti-gun then they are, indirectly, anti-women. They may claim men need to be taught to “respect women” or “not to rape”. But the inescapable truth is that some men are very poor students and refuse to adhere to their lessons. Efficient and effective instruction is required and the women who are the most efficient and effective instructors at “teaching men not to rape” use well placed jacketed hollow points*.—Joe]


* This basic concept was stolen from John Fogh.

2 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Darren LaSorte

  1. A world without guns is a world in which strong young men can terrorize everyone else with impunity. Women are an obvious example, and to see what that means you can simply look at middle eastern countries. The elderly and handicapped are another example. Oleg Volk has many great images illustrating all these points.

    On the original question, this is why the term that needs to be used is “victim disarmament”. Neil Smith likes to quote a powerful comment attributed to T. D. Melrose: “Victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, who’d rather see a
    woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see
    her with a gun in her hand.”

  2. More from L. Neil Smith:
    People who object to weapons are begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men are always ‘right’ . . .
    Wear a gun to someone’s house, you’re saying, “I’ll defend this home as if it were my own.” When your guests see you carry a weapon, you’re saying, “I’ll defend you as if you were my own family.” Anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible: “I won’t trust you until you render yourself harmless.”
    Whenever personal arms fall out of fashion, society becomes something not worth defending. Individuals start to rot away, too. Disdaining to lift a finger in their own defence because it’s ‘beneath them’. They’re no longer fit to live and simply proving they know it.
    –L. Neil Smith, The Probability Broach

Comments are closed.