Lies and deception

Senator Dianne Feinstein is still lying in her efforts to achieve her goal of completely disarming the population:

The falsehood that is most frustrating, however, is that Democrats have no ideas to counter this violence. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

The first is getting military-style assault weapons such as the AR-15 off the streets.

These weapons fire much faster than typical hunting rifles. They fire rounds that are also deadlier than those fired from a hunting rifle. A Parkland radiologist noted that an AR-15 round may leave an exit wound “the size of an orange.” These weapons are designed to kill people, not animals.

There are other lies and deceptions in the article but this serves as a good example.

If you follow her “deadlier” link you find it doesn’t compare the ammo typically used in AR-15s to ammunition used in hunting deer, elk, moose, etc. She is giving the impression that she has supporting evidence for her lie but no such evidence exists and is absurd that such evidence can exist. If it were true then most hunters would never purchase the more expensive ammo used to bring down a 1000 pound moose. And if hunting ammo can kill a 1000 pound moose then you have to realize it can easily take down a 150 pound human.

And this analysis doesn’t even take into account the unspoken premise that killing people is something to be prevent. Murdering people is illegal and rightly so. Killing a violent criminal in the act of causing permanent injury or death to an innocent person is not only justified it is frequently praiseworthy. So, if someone insists on accepting Feinstein’s false claim, tell them, “Then that is justification for private citizens to own these types of firearms. We need the best tools available to defend ourselves from criminal attacks. Why would anyone demand we have inferior tools to defend our lives and the lives of our children?”

7 thoughts on “Lies and deception

  1. Screw Boston Globe for requiring a paid subscription to troll their fascist liberal commenters.

  2. “Why would anyone demand we have inferior tools to defend our lives and the lives of our children?”

    Because of the demand that you have NO tools to defend yourself against the gubmint.

  3. If life is worth defending, then surely it is worth defending with the best means available. This says nothing of human rights, though, pre se. In the minds of Progressives, some lives aren’t worth defending. Some lives are “Deplorable”, and the concept of rights gets in the way of dealing with them.

    If we have the RIGHT to defend our own lives, then the conversation is different. Above is mentioned “worthiness”, whereas the proper metric is rights. Progressives wish to determine, by their own standards, the worthiness of other people’s lives.

    Progressives (incremental authoritarians) aren’t known for being pro-life, so we’re looking at a totally different goal set there. Quite the opposite, they tell us that the “sustainable” (they love that word) carrying capacity of the Earth is billions of people fewer than exist alive today. The global population is a problem to them, and that problem needs a solution. From their anti-human, anti-American point of view then, they’re absolutely correct, and justified, in wanting a disarmed and dependent global society to play with as they please. Disarmament would better enable them to “Get Things Done”. As Obama put it, those who cling to the old American principles are “Gumming up the Works”.

    Another part of the global Progressive plan is to get enough people irritated, angry, feeling like victims of some other group, afraid enough of disarmament that they buy lots of guns and ammo. Simultaneously we’re being implanted with thoughts and images of violence at every turn, while the economic circumstances are being de-stabilized, and that could end up in a violent eruption that has us de-populating ourselves and each other. Either way works (they eliminate us or we eliminate ourselves), or both together.

    So it is that a person’s opinion on “gun control” laws is directly tied to one’s respect for the lives and rights of other people. “Pro-life” and “pro-liberty” then are just different ways of saying the same thing. Don’t let anyone fool you into believing they’re in favor of protecting lives when they want government to use its assumed coercive power to restrict gun ownership.

  4. She’s full of it, but she has her hands on the levers of power, so she’s more dangerous than the entire NRA.

    When the Dems talk about “gun violence”, they remove the moral agency from the person using the gun. They do not talk about “hammer violence” in the cases where blunt instruments are used to commit crimes, nor do they talk about “knife violence”*, “car violence” or even “alcohol violence”. Analogous to the Stalinist’s solutions for “gun violence” is the installation of breathalyzer interlocks on everyone’s car because some drive drunk, and some of those are in accidents that kill someone.

    “Then that is justification for private citizens to own these types of firearms. We need the best tools available to defend ourselves from criminal attacks. Why would anyone demand we have inferior tools to defend our lives and the lives of our children?” Another excellent point, Joe. Right up there with the “Jews in the Attic Test” and the “Name a time when

    *Except in the United Kingdom, where there are now knife buyback programs and talk about “knife culture”.

Comments are closed.