Quote of the day—Ahmad Ibsais

The NRA often accuses Democrats of trying to abridge Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Nevertheless, Democrats should be united on a comprehensive plan to remove semiautomatic weapons from the streets.

Ahmad Ibsais
March 14, 2020
What we need to hear from Biden and Sanders on guns
[No thought is given to the obvious infringement of the rights of 100 million or more people.

The politicians and their supporters who work to implement such policies need to be prosecuted.—Joe]

14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ahmad Ibsais

    • It’s what he’s been indoctrinated with.
      Ahmad, apparently in his Freshman year in college, so maybe 18-19 years old, knows nothing more than the propaganda that’s been poured into his skull by the panegyrists of progressive social justice.
      When he graduates, he’ll be no more, or less than just another leftist radical in the mold of Sandy Occasional Cortex, but with less probability of getting a cushy seat on the .gov gravy train.

      From the prose of the article, and from the current appalling state of secondary education in writing, it’s likely that his submission has been heavily edited using the standard list of stepper talking points to refashion near incomprehensible word salad (the usual product of modern “schooling”) into something worthy of the controller movement.

      However, that’s no excuse to cut him slack. He should be held as culpable for his crimes against the People and the Constitution as the editors that published that swill.

  1. They already have united behind a policy. Look up Duncan S. Lemp. The constitution is dead. Already. That’s what their united behind.
    Gunned down by a SWAT team for a crime they don’t have to discuss with us. Until they feel like it.
    This one is starting to sound more pathetic than watching the drunk in Mesa, AZ. crawling on his hands and knees begging for his life!

  2. Like the quote above, so many articles I see that are blatantly anti-gun/unconstitutional are penned by authors with very… ethnic names.

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it now, and I’ll say it a million more times: Non-Americans do not get a say in our way of life.
    (And just because a piece of paper says “American” on it, doesn’t make you one. There is a distinctly American spirit that crosses over all boundaries and, honey, if you ain’t got it, you ain’t one.)

    • Be careful now. Some immigrants don’t appreciate the Constitution. A whole bunch of natural born citizens don’t, either.
      Conversely, a lot of immigrants appreciate the Constitution more than most, because they have direct experience of other countries without such constitutions. I’m one of these.

      • That, I believe, is exactly the point which Dead J is making.

        Why “be careful” about that when it is true? “Be careful what you say” is something I hear often when I’m attempting to speak truth. It’s as though truth is something we should be hesitant to speak, whereas the standard, common, popular lies are just fine for public consumption and not controversial at all. Let us put it thusly;

        “Be careful that what you say is truth, then speak it, come what may.”

        Some will love it and some will hate it and even attack you personally, with lies. That’s where we get the term, “the sword of truth”. The truth is double-edged (it cuts both ways), and it does the separating of the two alliances on Earth.

        Let the truth do the cutting. Let it separate the one camp from the other, clearly and distinctly. One side may be uncomfortable with it, but tolerates it, is reproved and convicted by it, changed by it, and ends up loving it. The other side hates it, is pained by it, threatened by it, and lashes out with a vengeance against it.

        The opposite of that important concept (the opposite of “let the truth do the cutting”) is the globalist/ecumenical movement. It says, “Let us forget our doctrinal differences and come together on those things we can agree on”. Sounds beautiful, doesn’t it? Its proponents call these the “points of contact” which can “bring us together in Unity“. The globalist, ecumenical movement is thus opposed to the very concept of truth.

        Truth is its deadly enemy. That makes you and me its deadly enemies too, and that is how it should be, for if one loves truth then one is the enemy of lies and does not seek to join in ecumenical “fraternity” with liars, power-mongers and ideological whores.

        “…have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.” Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:11

        But I must point out that America as founded is not a “spirit” but rather a set of clearly, openly defined concepts and principles, loosely based in (but, unfortunately, not solidly and openly founded upon) Biblical precepts. A proper America is not to be confused with “the spirit of rebellion” which was the downfall in Heaven and will result in nothing but destruction on Earth. The two may often appear to be alike, for evil is a mockery of the good, just as the papacy may appear to be “Christian”, or a socialist may appear to be “compassionate”, while they are in fact the polar opposites to their public faces– The most effective poison will appear as wholesome food.

        So this is the lie. It comes first in the form a question, so as to pull you in; “You don’t HATE wholesome food, DO you…..? Hmmm?”
        “No, but this is laced with poison.”
        “Slander! So you’re opposed to good nutrition….for the children…? Are you sure you don’t want to recant?”

        And then of course come the threats, from those “peace-loving” and “compassionate” who believe in “Unity”. And that’s life on Earth at the moment.

        • Sorry, I gave a bad link. Here it is; “Unity

          I wrote that some 20 years ago, before I understood the full gravity of its meaning and implementation.

          If “Unity” is “Peace” and if the simple truth threatens the “Unity” movement, then truth is “Violence against Unity”, or simply “Violence” (the left is already floating the idea that “speech is violence”), and it will be dealt with accordingly. Speaking the truth therefore makes you both a “Separatist”, and a “Fundamentalist” who, by merely speaking, is committing “Violence”.

          Keep and bear arms, AND speak the truth, and now you’re a “Violent, Armed, Fundamentalist Separatist”! Be perfectly peaceable and law-abiding, and now you’re also “Hiding behind the law”!

          We must be perfectly clear as to where we stand, so the “Unity”, “Peace” and “Global Fraternity” (ecumenical) movement knows exactly who to murder first.

        • What I meant by “be careful” is not what you thought. I meant “be careful not to paint with too broad a brush”.

          I can’t tell what J meant by “non-Americans”. And in any case, being an American citizen (whether by birth or by naturalization) does not imply you have a proper understanding of American Constitutional values. Conversely, not being a citizen (perhaps “not yet”) doesn’t exclude you from understanding these things. I developed my understanding of the merits of the American Constitution and American liberty well before I was able to become a “full member of the team”, an American citizen.

          • Some Americans were born here, others were not and have had to remedy the situation. Many Anti-Americans were born here, many have emigrated here, and getting those last two groups to leave of their own accord is seemingly impossible.

  3. “No thought is given to the obvious infringement of the rights of 100 million or more people”

    Your mistake here is you think that they actually view us as people. And not an infestation in need of extermination. Not only do they want to infringe upon the rights of over 100 million people. They want to exterminate that 100 million people.

  4. I went and checked the street out from of my house. All clear. No AR-14s or other assault weapons on MY street, no siree! My part is done. 🙂

    Seriously, though… Can he explain the text, origin, or intent of the 2nd Amendment, or any of the similar state constitutional provisions? Can he explain the psych effects of proper gun ownership on an individual and society? Can he explain what the militia is, either in common usage or under Title 10, section 311? Can he explain Cruikshank, US v Miller, US v Haynes, US v Lopez, US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, US v Lopez, US v Heller, or any other related case? Can he explain how murder stats are different in different countries so they are not directly comparable, or how self-defense doesn’t equal a dead body, or how Lott’s book “more guns less crime” examines the incentives involved, or how dependency breeds tyranny, and vice-versa? Can he explain the anti-gun Jim Crow laws, the Sullivan laws, NFA ’34, CGA ’68, FOPA ’86, AWB ’94, or any of the other major gun laws and their effects?

    And if he cannot explain the history, the principles, the legislative events, court cases, or underlying psychology of the right to keep and bare arms, why should anyone put any credence in his opinion on the subject any more than we would any other howling cur with a burr in his fur?

    • Really, Rolf, I take offense to comparing this alleged human to a ‘howling cur’. A dog has his flaws, but pluck the burr from him and care for him and he will be far more loyal than any ‘activist’.

Comments are closed.