Quote of the day—Sign43 @Sign431

It’s stupid. You do not need a gun period. Self defense isn’t something that floats away if your gun is at home. I have fists, I have a pocket knife. A gun is not a necessity. I stand with New York’s laws. We need to get guns out of our cities, not in.

Sign43 @Sign431
Tweeted on January 22, 2019
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you, “No one wants to take your guns”.—Joe]

25 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sign43 @Sign431

  1. Brain was left at home too. Bad guy has a gun, hmmmm, isn’t there an old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight? Interesting too that he does not eschew violence in the effort of self protection. He agrees that self defense might sometimes be needed but seeks to deny use of the most effective means? This guy really needs a good psychiatrist.

  2. If we could achieve the Liberal wet dream of waving a magic wand and making all non-military and non-cop firearms disappear, Mr. (Mrs, Ms, Xe?) Sign43 would be at the mercy of thugs with bigger fists, and who would attack in packs. BTW that “pocket knife” he is so proud of is also likely illegal in New York, unless it’s totally useless for anything other than trimming his (Her, its?) nails.

  3. Yeah, the whine of the liberal – “Me Me Me, I I I” – “I” don’t need so you can’t have it either.

  4. When fists and knives come up against the great equalizer, the adherents to fists and knives will be naturally inclined to lobby for the elimination of the equalizer. Thus Sign43@Sign431 is making one of the primary arguments in support of the principles behind the second amendment.

    “You do not need a gun period”

    As one communicates more with fists and knives, I suppose that articulate speech becomes less important. Like the expression of redundant DNA, it becomes suppressed.

    A “gun period”. That’s a new one. I’m not sure whether I have gun periods. Is that like to a “waiting period”, or is it some form of misogynist language, or what? Maybe it refers to range time. “See you later, Honey; I’m taking the rest of the day as a gun period.”

    With worldwide, instant access to information, I thought that the general state of literacy would improve. So; was pre-internet literacy far worse than I had imagined, and yet is improving, or is it that my assumption was wrong? Is it that, before we become literate, we must first be inculcated with the desire, or at least have some inkling of what it means?

    My son tells me that in Missoula the homeless, during the cold weather, have taken residence in the public library. The irony is painful. This is like a pack of starving people taking over a farm and continuing to starve because they don’t know how to pick corn.

    People are surrounded by more and better, readily accessible information than ever in human history. Is it for naught? Are we so busy seeking a coercive advantage over one another that we’ve forgotten about knowledge and marketable skills?

    • People are surrounded by more and better, readily accessible information than ever in human history. Is it for naught? Are we so busy seeking a coercive advantage over one another that we’ve forgotten about knowledge and marketable skills?

      In a word: Yes.

      In a sentence: This appears to be true, at least among the people who live their lives and push their politics via social media.

      Further elaboration: Our young people today have no idea the amount of work that went into researching a topic — any topic — when we were kids. Before the Internet became common and easily accessible. We learned things from books, which we either bought ourselves (at enormous personal expense, if we had to purchase very many), or borrowed from a strange, book-filled building called a “library”. If we were very lucky, the library had an electronic filing system; you could search a topic on a computer and get a neatly-printed list of the library’s available books regarding it. If we were not so lucky (or of a certain age), we had to search a hand-made paper “card catalog” to find the books we needed and write down (as in, pencil and paper) the titles and locations.

      Or develop a working knowledge of the “Dewey Decimal System”.

      Today’s youth have all the information in the world — the entire combined knowledge of the human race — at their fingertips, accessible in seconds. The mobile devices in their pockets are a hundred million times more powerful than the room-sized computers NASA used to put a man on the moon! These kids could learn anything about anything! They could fact-check themselves and make their arguments stronger, or learn that they were wrong and start campaigning for truth! They could do this for free most of the time!

      Or they could use the Internet to shout ill-formed and ill-informed opinions at each other. And share cat pictures.

      Here’s my working hypothesis: When research and learning were work, we valued the knowledge we gained; we earned it. Now that information and knowledge are easy to obtain and don’t have to be earned, it’s become cheap almost to the point of worthlessness. And because it’s cheap and common — not flashy or modern — the younger folks aren’t interested.

      Honestly, for many reasons including this hypothesis, I fear for this up-and-coming generation. The slap in the face reality will someday give them will truly be staggering.

      • There are times – like now – when I wish this blog had a “like” button. Well articulated comment.

        I too, am still amazed with how easy it is to track down background, facts, and opinion on virtually any topic, almost instantly, from my phone. Of course, you still need deductive reasoning skills to separate fact from otherwise, which isn’t always easy these days.

  5. Great. You have fists, and a pocket knife.
    I have a gun and I want your wallet and watch. If you try to pull that knife, or swing a punch at me, I will shoot you. Repeatedly. Then I will take your wallet and watch, while you twitch.

    Your move.
    Signed,
    A mugger

  6. Question: Was this posted in response to the NYSRPA v. NYC case that was recently granted certiorari to the Supreme Court?

    Because that last line — “We need to get guns out of our cities, not in.” — is part of the case. You can’t legally transport a firearm out of the City under the current laws! If you have a “premises” license, you can have your gun at home, or en route to/from six or seven licensed ranges in the city, and nowhere else. It is literally illegal to take a lawfully-owned and licensed firearm to a second home, range, or gunsmith outside the city.

    But then, intelligence and consistency have never been the antis’ strong suits.

    • It is positively Kaffka-esque.

      But of course it is… I’m sure you are not naive enough to believe it was made that way just by accident.

      • Oh, heck no.

        The whole point of such laws is to entrap “undesirables” trying to obey them.

        Like “safe storage” and “mandatory theft reporting” laws. They’re “commonsense, reasonable laws”, we’re told. But if your gun is stolen and you report it, you’ll be in trouble for failing to secure it (it doesn’t matter one whit HOW it was secured; if a bad guy got it, it wasn’t secured ENOUGH). Alternatively, if your gun is stolen and you DON’T report it — to avoid trouble from “not securing” it — NOW you’ll be in trouble for failing to report it. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

        The only way to avoid that situation entirely is to NOT own a gun.

        And that’s the true purpose: to discourage private gun ownership. It’s not a “bug”, it’s a feature.

        • I worry about that with I-1639. It does not specify what safe storage means only that you must safely store your guns.

          What if you have a safe and forgot to lock it (that happen from time to time when I worked in a secure facility)? How do you prove that it was securely stored if it has been stolen? In the classified environment, heads would roll when anything got misplaced or horror of horrors stolen. You would have ot have a strong case if it was your safe or else.

          For I-1639, I suspect that it is up to the sheriff or prosecutor to make that call so you better hope that they are sympathetic, but I sure don’t want to be in that position to find out.

    • “…intelligence and consistency have never been the antis’ strong suits.”

      Oh, they’re very intelligent, and consistent. Remember; they run most of the world and so far we’ve been pathetic in our efforts to stop them. It’s just that they have very, very different standards and objectives than you or I, and no morals that we’d recognize as such.

      It’s Cain verses Able, or Solieri verses Mozart. It’s king Herod when he heard about the coming Messiah. The less intuitive (but greedy, power-hungry and status-hungry) sees the more intuitive in his midst, recognizes him as such, and kills him. Now the murderer is the king of the hill. See; he’s the “smarter” one now. He just “proved it”. Or, say, the evil person gets with others of like mind to set up a system of taxation and “redistribution”. It’s the same process but with a different execution style, and probably a lot “smarter” in terms of sustainability and benefit for the criminal class.

      That is the mindset which rules the world. It sees capable, intelligent people doing things greater than it sees itself capable of doing, it sees satisfied people benefitting from their hard work and dedication, and benefitting others in a way that it cannot (or believes it cannot – take your pick – it works the same either way), and can not STAND for it! That mind WILL react, and try to “do something” about it, one way or another, and will not stop. It’s axiomatic.

      So it is with rank-and-file anti-gunners, and so it is with all those of the criminal mind, who, I say again, now run the world. The mover and shakers are perfectly intelligent people, but with a VERY different set of motivations and objectives. We may call that “stupid”, and from our point of view it is very stupid, but don’t knock it; it works!

  7. Pingback: Gun Bits … | Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  8. The old “real men don’t need guns, because they have fists” fallacy. This fallacy is caused by Hollywood action movies. In every movie, the good guy somehow gets disarmed, and then they have a good, old fashioned martial arts battle, which the good guy always wins. People see this so much that they believe it.

    In real life, the bad guy doesn’t need a gun for this to be a stupid comment. In real life, the streets belong to the strongest and most ruthless. An 18 year old high school athlete is going to beat the average 50 year old man senseless, no gun required, much less a frail, 70 year old retired woman.

    As far as knives go, the statement that all you need is a knife for defense is only made by someone who has never been in a knife fight. Whenever some one tells me something that dumb, I challenge them to a sharpie fight. At some point, I usually wind up holding them down and drawing a penis on their face.

    • Heck, even if you don’t “win,” I’m quite certain the other guy would have a bunch of … what’s your preferred Sharpie color? … marks on him.

      At least, if what I’ve been told about knife fights is true (everyone gets cut). I’ve never been in one and, knock on wood, never want to be.

      • As a 20 year paramedic and EMT, I have seen a few knife fights. One that I remember in particular was a fight in a grocery store between two stock boys, who were fighting for the attention of one of the female cashiers.

        The amount of blood on the floor was amazing.

  9. Brain was left at home too. Bad guy has a gun, hmmmm, isn’t there an old saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight? Interesting too that he does not eschew violence in the effort of self protection. He agrees that self defense might sometimes be needed but seeks to deny use of the most effective means? This guy really needs a good psychiatrist.

  10. If he has a pocketknife, he’s probably committing a felony under New York’s knife laws (particularly NYC’s). But he probably knows and cares nothing about that, because guns are bad.

  11. These comments of anti-freedom and anti-rights people always leave me wishing for some poetic justice to be visited upon them in the form of some armed mugger shooting them before they deploy their pocket knife or fists.

Comments are closed.