Quote of the day—Divemedic

I became a teacher after I retired from over 20 years as a firefighter and paramedic, where I spent part of my career working with the SWAT team. I spent years as an IDPA competitor, and I am a military veteran. I have carried a concealed weapon for more than 25 years. A permit that has allowed me to carry a weapon into McDonald’s, Disney, public parks, streets and sidewalks. Not once have I used that weapon in a threatening or illegal manner.

I would, if necessary, lay down my life in defense of the children that have been placed in my care. Even in Kindergarten. Possibly YOUR children, if you are reading this.

Except the politicians have declared that I am not permitted to do so, because they don’t trust me with a firearm once I cross an imaginary line and enter school property, even though they trust me to carry one everywhere else. So instead, I must sit in the dark, unarmed, unable to protect those children, hiding and waiting for help that may not come, wait with your children to die at the hands of a madman who didn’t obey your laws or your signs.

Divemedic
January 8, 2018
Comment to Quote of the day—James Comer
[The foolishness of the “gun free zone” laws is so obvious one must conclude the politicians are incredible ignorant, stupid, and/or evil. As the data and bodies stack up I’m more and more inclined to place my bet on “they are evil”. More bodies gives them more opportunities to accumulate power.—Joe]

16 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Divemedic

  1. In the real world, you’re rewarded for success — with a good review, a raise, a better job, etc. In the messed up world of government, you get rewarded for failure. Failure is an excuse for a bigger budget, more minions, more regulations — because the intent was right but the means were inadequate. But success is to be avoided, because it might mean the agency is closed down as no longer needed.
    Elimination, or even reduction, of crime is no more a good thing for government than elimination or reduction of poverty.

  2. “The foolishness of the “gun free zone” laws is so obvious one must conclude the politicians are incredible ignorant, stupid, and/or evil. As the data and bodies stack up I’m more and more inclined to place my bet on “they are evil”. More bodies gives them more opportunities to accumulate power.”

    Remember the cliché: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

    The key word is “adequately”. With that in mind, go read this:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-27/daniel-greenfield-guns-are-how-civil-war-ends-politics-how-it-starts

    Bet on a combination of malice and stupidity. At its core, it’s malice.

    • Malice and stupidity being alternates of “perpetrators and dupes”. Of course anyone in the authoritarian alliance would say the same things about us– To each side the other side is stupid and/or evil (heretical).

      The solutions are reason, truce, overthrow by force, or surrender. Neither side recognizes any reason in the other, so that’s out. That leaves the other three.

      Or does it? I left out slow corruption, which works only against the libertarians (authoritarians being, by definition, already corrupt).

      The Progressive Movement is quite brilliant in that it has been successfully achieving our slow, generation-by-generation surrender. Impossible as it may be to flip you over to the dark side, they have your children to “educate” and “enlighten”, or as Woodrow Wilson put it, while he was president of a Princeton University more than a hundred years ago; “The object of public education is to make the son as unlike the father as possible.” (I now see a double entendre in there too, especially for the Catholics, who invented Progressivism)

  3. DJ’s link to Mr. Greenfield’s speech prompted me to go have a read. And it was disappointing. Apparently this is now a civil war, and anyone who isn’t a conservative is the enemy.

    “The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to the left, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate.
    The attacks on Trump show that elections don’t matter to the left.
    Republicans can win an election, but they have a major flaw. They’re not leftists.
    That’s what the leftist dictatorship looks like.”

    This kind of broad rhetoric is a large part of the reason any “civil war” we have will start…the belief that 1) there’s an “other side” and 2) they are the enemy. Rather than being precise and careful and fact-based, Mr. Greenfield throws some rhetorical hand grenades and panders to his audience. Is this really the kind of “argument” you want to make, DJ? Because it’s not an argument, it’s agitprop.

    • Gun ownership is about FREEDOM and LIBERTY and the very ideal upon which our nation is based. We have freedoms and liberties, and anyone who would take those away for an ideal Utopian idea that we can prevent murder, an ideal that can never be reached, is against the very foundation of this nation, and is a person with whom I have no hope of ever having a common ground or rational discourse, for we each view the world though a fundamentally different lens.

      I refuse to agree that it is OK for someone to demand that I give up my freedoms, so that we can agree to disagree. You see, what they are wanting to do is NOT agree to disagree. If they get their way, a law will be passed that REQUIRES that I do things their way, on penalty of imprisonment or death, should I refuse to obey.

      My argument? No. I refuse to submit. Not one more inch.
      Advocating to pass laws that would strip me of my liberties with a threat of prison or death makes them the “other side” and I will resist them and their ideas to the limits of my ability. They are the enemy of liberty, and thus are my enemy.

      http://street-pharmacy.blogspot.com/2015/10/agree-to-disagree-id-rather-not.html

      • Who are “they,” exactly? Whenever I read this sort of thing I can only imagine someone haunted by demons lurking in every shadow. Are you referring to only people who want more gun legislation, or to anyone who isn’t a conservative in general? It’s hard to argue with abstractions.

        • Reading comprehension, it’s a thing:

          We have freedoms and liberties, and anyone who would take those away for an ideal Utopian idea that we can prevent murder, an ideal that can never be reached, is against the very foundation of this nation, and is a person with whom I have no hope of ever having a common ground or rational discourse, for we each view the world though a fundamentally different lens.

          • Yes yes, my reading comprehension is fine, thanks. Your statement is a generalization. Are there actual real people in large numbers who meet your criteria, and if so who are they? Because I haven’t met them. Sure, there are a few crank hippies who don’t have 4 brain cells who will argue laws prevent murder, but most people understand that’s not how it works. Is there some population of real people you’re concerned with, or are you just super concerned about the leftover hippie population?

            Wrt not having rational discourse with someone who views the world through a different lens, that’s a choice, not an inevitability.

          • Are there actually people in large numbers like that? Why, sure. You find piles of them in legislatures. Most Democratic members, and a distressingly large percentage of Republican members, are in that category. If it votes against “shall issue” CC permits, it’s in that category. If it votes for an “assault weapons ban”, or a magazine size limit, or a tax on ammunition, or a gun owner registry, it’s in that category. If it argues for confiscation of privately owned guns, it is most emphatically in that category.
            As for “only a few hippies argue that laws prevent murder” — not even close. What about all those who claim that laws limiting good people’s right to be armed will reduce crime, shouting “but it’s for the children”? They say that in spite of all evidence that the opposite is true, never mind the objection that a criminal’s misuse of a tool cannot justify denying that tool to an honest man?
            You can also just check Joe’s category “http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/gun-rights/no-one-wants-to-take-your-guns/” for a long list of examples.

          • “It?”

            Are you intentionally trying to de-humanize your opponents? I’m having a hard time getting past that.

          • No, I just happened to pick that because I don’t like writing he/she. Usually I write “he”. Does that help you get to the substance of what I wrote?

          • That’s much better, thanks. For a minute there I thought you were going all Final Solution on me, and that’d be…not good.

        • John,
          you show the thinking of the typical product of our lousy schools. You appear to have no grasp of human nature and history. They don’t teach students how to think, and certainly don’t present history in a truthful and useful manner. If you don’t have a factual baseline for history, you have no reference to make judgements regarding current events. That is very deliberate on the schools part. The dumbing down of America has been ongoing since the late 1800’s, to the point that it can be hard to converse with teens.

          It is hard to talk to a leftist. They do most of their “thinking” with their emotions. They generally don’t like dealing with facts, and most all of the ones they will discuss are fake in some manner.

          “Intentions” are their driving force. What they intend, and what they do, are never the same. They are sure they can change mankind. The “breakage” of their attempts in just the last 100 years runs near 200 million people. That’s reality. THAT is why we take these idiots seriously, and consider them to be the “other”, the enemy. Because they are.

          • Well, with a water tight argument like that, I guess I’ll just concede. Been fun.

    • “Is this really the kind of “argument” you want to make, DJ? Because it’s not an argument, it’s agitprop.”

      Well, consider your statement:

      “This kind of broad rhetoric is a large part of the reason any “civil war” we have will start…the belief that 1) there’s an “other side” and 2) they are the enemy.”

      That there is an “other side” is an observable fact, and that I view them as the “enemy” is another. The author’s observation is that the “civil war” has already started. If you learn the truth only by reading about it in history books, then it has passed you by, and it’s too late to do anything about it.

      I presented this as a wake-up call, the idea being to open your mind to the idea that the motives of your opponents may be quite different from what your opponents tell you they are. When I think about such, I can’t help but think of Winston Churchill’s years in the wilderness.

  4. Politicians don’t send their own kids to gun-free schools. They send their own kids to private, well-guarded schools.

Comments are closed.