Quote of the day—John Feinblatt @JohnFeinblatt

As a package, “Fix NICS” would keep guns from domestic abusers — while “Concealed Carry Reciprocity” would force states to allow people to carry concealed guns in public even if they are domestic abusers, have other dangerous histories, or lack even the most basic safety training to carry concealed guns in public.

John Feinblatt @JohnFeinblatt
President of Everytown for Gun Safety
December 8, 2017
NRA hijacks first bipartisan gun bill in years. Now it’s too dangerous to pass.
[There is a reason no one ever says anti-gun people are smart.

Here we have one of these mental midgets apparently unable to avoid asserting two incompatible conclusions in the same sentence. If Fix NICS keeps guns from domestic abusers, because they are prohibited from firearms possession, then how can CCR force states to allow something Fix NICS prevented?

This sort of thing happens so frequently we have a name for it. It’s called Peterson Syndrome. Logical thought is beyond their capability.

I wish we could just laugh these idiots out of the political arena but unfortunately there are too many people with these type of mental issues.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—John Feinblatt @JohnFeinblatt

  1. Not only are they increasingly prevalent but they have the willing accomplices of the anti-Liberty propaganda machine to repeat their stupidity without being called to account.

    • I see a pattern of refusal to learn even the most basic parameters of firearm ownership and use. It is like it is toxic to them to know anything about the subject at hand. It is a badge of honor to be utterly ignorant.

      Thus we get stupid conflation of semi-automatic and automatic, ghost guns, smart guns, CCW reciprocity opposition, fear of 50 caliber guns, anti-hunting, bump stock nonsense, and my all time favorite, fear of sound suppressors because they saw, “Leon the Professional” movie.

      So, no, we cannot have a discussion with them. They are idiots.

  2. I just rediscovered the term “contempt prior to investigation”. It is one thing to have no concern for, or ability to distinguish, truth verses falsity. It is quite another to have a prejudice against truth and reason resulting from an allegiance to falsity.

    Feinblatt is president of an anti-human rights organization. Their founding premises are anti-rights, pro-authoritarian, which are in turn anti-reason, which means that, far from being indistinguishable to them, the truth is their enemy.

    What else can they do but lie? They know the truth very well. We know they do, because they repeatedly demonstrate the ability to single out the truth for opposition.

    One does not repeatedly and specifically target the truth for opposition without the ability to recognize the truth.

    One cannot be sent into fits of rage when hearing the truth, while loving and adhering to lies, if one has not the ability to distinguish truth from falsity, for the latter would leave a person accepting truth as easily as accepting falsity.

    So we know for certain that there’s a pre-existing prejudice against truth. A motive.

    Refer to their condition as Peterson Syndrome, or a criminal state of mind, or sociopathy, or emotionally-driven due to past trauma. Call them possessed, or brainwashed, or in a hypnotic state. Does it really matter? They are enemies of American principles and of Mankind, and if un-checked they are deadly. They must be defeated.

    They have no compunction against initiating force to get their way. They’re authoritarians. I say it’s the criminal mind.

    Until we can define some way to effectively deprogram them, to change their behavior (though I say it’s allegiance) by persuasion, to install or activate a brain function you say is non-existent or dormant in them (though I say it’s a matter of allegiance only), it comes to push verses shove, force against force. War. You’re saying they can’t be changed by persuasion because they’re literally incapable of receiving persuasion (other than brute force, I gather).

    So which way does this work?
    1. They have no compunction against initiating force. We do. They win.
    2. They have no compunction against initiating force. We do. We win.
    3. They have no compunction against initiating force. We do. The truth wins.

    Another, very similar but not exactly the same, three options could be said to be;
    1. War.
    2. Detaunte, or a never-ending series of ceasefires. A long-term stalemate, or stand-off, punctuated by outbursts of violence.
    3. A true shift in the allegiance, turning soulless authoritarians into real people.

    It’s that singular struggle of the ages, isn’t it?

  3. Dem recipe for success:

    1) Come up with a click-baity leftist conclusion based on feelings
    2) Manipulate or omit statistics to support the conclusion.
    3) Create a religious cult following of the conclusion by targeting propaganda toward youth. Convince everyone they’re victims of something.
    4) Restate the conclusion as many times as possible. Repetition makes the conclusion more factual.

    • I can’t think of a single leftist ideal where this strategy isn’t employed. Apocalyptic manmade global warming, “gun crime”, abortion “rights”, health care entitlements, well fare, socialism, communism, wilderness areas, recycling, illegal immigration, ordinances prohibiting bullet proof glass, worshiping of books, self determination of gender, the erosion of parental rights…….

Comments are closed.