Quote of the day—Gabrielle Blair

Now, the days of gun ownership are numbered. We are going to vote to take your guns. All of them.

I always love these circular arguments of “what about ..” This is exactly why I support a ban. Of course we can’t solve this when there is no logic or intellectual component to the debate. So there is only one possible solution: take all the guns.

Gabrielle Blair
February 18, 2018
It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.
[Don’t ever let someone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Gabrielle Blair

  1. Just who is this “we” of whom you speak, Gabrielle? Are you going door to door? No, I’m pretty you mean “they.” They will be taking your guns. STFU and STFD.

  2. I liked this part:

    Making heroin and meth illegal hasn’t worked, why would it work with guns?

    That feels like a silly talking point. Are guns addictive? Can high-speed, high capacity assault rifles be grown in backyards and fields like drugs? With no high level machining, manufacturing knowledge, and capital?

    Well, actually, the answer is yes. Read the famous Luty website. Study the work of third world backyard gunsmiths. Or the Israelis who made Uzis with just a few basic machine tools. Note that things like lathes and mills can be made by hand quite easily: David Gingery wrote a series of excellent books about that.

    For that matter, if the goal is to ban all guns, the question isn’t whether an AR15 can be made in a back yard. The question is whether a useable firearm of some kind can be made there. And the answer is obviously yes.

    • Drugs, other than marijuana, are not simply “grown.” Making methamphetamine is technically more difficult than manufacturing firearms.

  3. Note that the entire post is an intellectual circle jerk, where they are deleting any comment that does not align with their own viewpoint. Of course everyone they know supports their position, no one else is permitted to speak.

    • Based on your first sentence, could THAT be what the author means by “Circular Argument”? The amount of training in reason and logic as evidenced by their erroneous use of terms commonly used in logic, but which do not mean what they think they mean (“Begging the Question” springs immediately to the front of the line, and as used here, “Circular Argument” demonstrate that they wasted their money in both secondary AND post-secondary education, where they should have learned the rudiments of logic, at least to the level of syllogisms and the Square of Opposition, which has been in use but not as a diagram, since Aristotle.

  4. “We are going to vote to take away your guns”

    Gabrielle Blair, apparently having rejected the concept of a constitutional republic founded on the assertion of unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, prefers instead the ideal of tyranny of the majority, in which no one’s rights are safe from the shifting whims of public opinion.

    Actually I’ll call it “public tantrum”.

    No one has any rights but the right to vote. If there were any other right, that right could get in the way of the will of the majority and so in a democracy THERE CAN BE NO RIGHT but the right to vote. And if the majority wants me to stop voting, then obviously I don’t even have the right to vote.

    Obviously the public should be allowed to carry out its tantrums without such stupid bullshit as “unalienable rights” getting in the way.

    The idea of unalienable rights was invented by old dead white men anyway, so on that basis alone it should be thrown out like last week’s garbage without a moment’s consideration.

    And OF COURSE no one should be able to defend themselves. Not against anything and not in any way. Ever. We need the most utterly defenseless population achievable, or this will never work.

    If my rights get in the way of the fulfillment of the shifting whims of public tantrum, then for sure they were never rights to begin with, right? Because right and wrong can ONLY be determined by the number of angry people who SAY what’s right and wrong on a given day. I mean, obviously. Because democracy.

    If there were such a thing as ultimate, unchanging truth and a perfect law of liberty there would have to be a source of that truth apart from ourselves, and well, OF COURSE we can’t go there, can we? So truth can only be that with which the majority of pissed off, young, frightened, emotionalized and easily manipulated people agree. On any given day.

    We can’t consult older people because they’ll just be trying to protect their interests.

    Therefor truth and falsity, right and wrong, rights and responsibilities, should all be subject to change according to a daily, global vote, the results of which should be imposed on everyone in the world with maximum force.

    Borders, by the way, are as fake as unalienable rights.

    And THAT is how you solve all problems, ever. End of discussion. Shut up or else.

    Gabrielle; have I got this right or have I missed something horrible that you’d like to add?

  5. I must say, I hate it when someone claims that the argument is already over.

    No it isn’t. And you haven’t won merely because you claim you have. You win by winning… and the gun laws in the United States have, for well over a decade, been moving in the direction of less regulation, not more.

    Molon Labe.

  6. I can’t believe that person is a lawyer. She seems to think that if a law is passed or the Constitution is amended, we’ll all just hand ’em in (bizarrely asserting that shutting down access to Internet porn will enforce compliance with wholesale gun confiscation within 45 minutes). Is she not aware of the multiple SCOTUS decisions declaring that the 2nd Amendment enumerates a pre-existing right, and is not dependant on the Constitution (or porno websites)?

Comments are closed.