Quote of the day—David Southern

I can think of no reason for a resident of this country to own a handgun or an assault rifle, as these firearms are only used to shoot at other humans. Therefore, the tougher the laws for these types of weapons, the safer we all are.

David Southern
April 30, 2019
LETTER: Tough gun control laws create a safer society
[Even if we were to accept Southern’s faulty claim that the named firearm types are only used to shoot at humans he has remarkably deficient thinking abilities. He apparently cannot envision that some humans need to be shot and need to be shot in a hurry. This is convincing proof he has crap for brains.—Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Southern

  1. Either that, or he plans to put in place policies that can’t be pulled off if the citizens are able to resist.

  2. One is entitled to one’s own opinions, not one’s own facts.

    Plus, his (self-admitted and -acknowledged) mental limitations should not be binding on those not suffering under them. If humans always had to work at the level of the lowest common denominators of intellect, imagination and ability we’d never have gotten out of the trees.

    • Yes, or as I’ve put it; “Your lack of imagination is evidence of nothing but your lack of imagination.”

      Certainly those who drafted and signed the Bill of Rights could think of lots of reasons to have the ownership of (and by extension the manufacture and trade in) “all the terrible implements of war” protected against government interference and therefore placed outside of government jurisdiction. They could think of such important reasons for this right that they incorporated it into the Supreme Law of The Land.

      No; I refuse to believe that David Southern is so stupid and/or ignorant as to be truly unable to think of a single reason to be armed. I’ll give him credit for intelligence, and for at least some rudimentary grasp of history, and thereby conclude that he’s merely pretending to be stupid and ignorant.

      Of course one explanation makes him a pitiable victim, and the other an indictable perpetrator. Typically, we in the pro liberty camp are in our rhetoric letting them off as pitiable victims. We’re granting them the defense of extenuating circumstances.

      So the next question becomes; why do we so often favor the pitiable victim explanation, as opposed to the willful perpetrator explanation? Is this a flaw in our character as a movement? Looking the authoritarian juggernaut in the face, do we seek to imagine it as pathetic and small so as to alleviate our terror?

      Or are we so truly naive that we cannot think of any reasons, or historical lessons, why so many people would lie and pretend, and teach others to lie, on such a grand scale for the purpose of reaching some purely treacherous and destructive goal? Maybe we’re the ones who lack both imagination and rudimentary grasp of history then. Or is it that, although we see these things in history, we are too incredulous to see that they’re happening in our very own present? Is it a form of willful denial then?

      So which is worse; the actual inability to think or see history, or the thinking and seeing yet willfully denying history’s active residence in our present and future? I don’t know which is worse, but surely both sides in this fight are guilty of the latter.

      That would lead to yet another question; If both sides are active participants in self denial, one denying the validity of the notion of self defense, and the other denying the blatant evil intent behind the intervention in that right, are they truly on opposite sides, or are we all engaged in a dialectic methodology, using different rationalizations but working toward a common goal of mutual destruction?

      For although it is true that it takes two to make a fight, and often it is one perpetrator and one defender, it is certainly possible and even probable that both “sides” will be operating in the absence of fundamental truth.

      If neither side in a conflict is serving fundamental truth, then surely they both serve the father of confusion and error, however self-assuredly.

      And what a grand prize our knowledge, skills, intelligence, means, connections and self-confidence would make for the dark side if it could co opt us and use our assets for its own purposes, all the while making us believe we are working for our own interests!

      Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV);
      12 “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”

  3. This is where I came in: the Peterson Syndrome experience all over again.

  4. You’ll note the use of “resident” instead of the much more applicable “citizen”. Perhaps he meant “subject” but just couldn’t be honest about it.

  5. He’s an effing Canadian. They have an unusually high preponderance of sheep. Eff him and eff them.

  6. “…some humans need to be shot and need to be shot in a hurry.”

    Add “and shot a lot.” There’s no way to predict a human’s resistance to immediately stopping activity when shot which is the basic argument against limiting magazine capacity, along with “it may also be multiple humans who need to be shot.”

    • An example is in the recent Handgunner Mag where Ayoob is reviewing a book by a retired NYPD officer who had one of the highest gunfight counts in that city. In multiple incidents, he had to resort to a backup revolver to end it after running his primary revolver dry. He wasn’t missing COM shots, either. This included his partner also shooting those BGs!

      I’ve also heard some horror stories from Bay Area cops about incredible hit counts required to stop some BGs. Sure, those are outliers, but then again, gunfights themselves are outliers in human interactions, mostly.
      When the smelly stuff is impacting the air stirrer and the music from The Twilight Zone starts playing in the background, I want the decision of how much ammo my gun holds to be mine, not some stupid or malevolent politicians’ idea.

Comments are closed.