Quote of the Day
Why is the lack of use of assault-style weapons in Washington state a point of argument against the ban?
It is just a matter of time when it happens. Better safe than sorry.
Gayle Sørlien
May 25, 2023
Comment to Group of local residents take legal action to stop Grant County sheriff from enforcing assault weapons ban
With logic like that:
- All men should be imprisoned so they don’t rape women
- All women should be put in chastity belts and the key held by their father until they are married and the key is given to their husband.
- All high capacity fire starting devices should be banned to prevent arson.
- Only the police should have vehicles which are capable of going over 40 MPH or traveling more than 10 miles without refueling.
Sørlien obviously doesn’t know and/or doesn’t care about rights. They only think in terms of government granted privileges.
Why is the application of duct tape to the mouths of persons like Ms. Sorlien such a difficult concept to understand? Just because something idiotic isn’t coming out of her mouth right now is no guarantee that it won’t inevitably happen soon.
It’s quite the phenomenon to watch the lies go beyond just dumb, to ignorant, moronic, then straight down into twisted crap for brains hell think. And now we find ourselves in communist cerebral monster territory.
Put a flashlight to the back of Gayle’s head, it would shine out of her eyes, communist territory.
To me the real question is: How do we repair a society so lost? How does one conceive of a new live and let live place with Gayle in it?
I mean someone so unabashed politically they could say such a thing. Or someone so low enough to actually believe it?
Tough choices ahead.
Dear Gayle,
As long as we’re thinking along those lines, it occurs to us: why do we even let you vote? Not just you, but all the other tax-payers. If you vote, you could vote wrong. Then we have to either go through all the effort and expense of having another election until enough of you vote right, or we do what we want anyway but we have to factor in a 20% surcharge to cover it up.
It occurs to us that we should only hold elections for things that don’t matter, like legislative offices. In all other regards, we’ll just have our experts do what’s in the best interest of our stakeholders.
Thanks for the inspiration.
Your Local Party Member
To them all gun owners should be rounded up and exterminated because to them literally every single solitary gun owner and by extension every single person in a home with a gun is also a mass murderer in waiting the killing over 50% of the entire population including killing every single child in every school who parents have a gun in the home of the United States is acceptable to stop future shootings. Sure 150 million plus are dead soon to be more as the democrats start killing tens of millions more to keep and stay in power but there are no more gun or gun owners. No more people being killed by gun violence as the government has killed hundreds of millions to achieve gun free utopia.
To them the ends justify the means. They also hate gun owners and want them as well as everyone in a home with a gun as well as every non gun owner against that dead anyway.
I do not understand why it is so hard for people to realize the democrats, far left, the vast majority of the courts, judges and military leadership want all guns banned and at minimum every gun owner dead. They want the genocide of gun owners. If you don’t already realize that Either you’re not paying attention to what they are saying, or whistling past the graveyard. And that is to say nothing of people in gun owning households like spouses and children as well as non gun owners that may oppose or resist. Because the Democrats and far left literally despise everyone that is not them or opposes, or resist them in any way, shape or form and wants everyone not them dead.
It can’t happen now. But give a couple more election cycles where The Democrat will always win everywhere ending up with super majorities in the house and senate as well as every single state, except maybe Florida I easily see the first nukes being dropped by 2026 at the earliest and 2028 at the latest. could I be wrong? Yes. I hope I am. But given the direction of United States and what the people in charge of it seem to think of your average person, especially your average gun owner, I don’t think I am.
“in the land of the free. . .
better safe than sorry.”
I see two phenomena going on in Ms. Sorlien’s head.
First, the notion that prior restraints — restrictions because of what might happen sometime in the future — are OK. I’m sure she’d respond with, “You can’t yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater,” but that argument from the Left always leaves out important context: A. You CAN (and SHOULD) yell “Fire” if there’s a fire; and B. More important for this discussion, we do not duct tape people’s mouths when they enter theaters on the off-chance they might yell “Fire”.
Yes, that means someone will eventually (again) yell “Fire” and cause an undue panic, and the ensuing stampede will eventually (again) injure or kill someone. And that person will face criminal consequences because yelling “Fire” when there is no fire, as a practical joke and/or to cause a panic, is not protected speech under the First Amendment (which is all that SCOTUS decision really says; not “you can’t”, but “the First Amendment won’t protect you if you do”). But we still don’t physically prevent people from doing it just because they can and might.
Second, her inordinate fear of death-by-firearm in general, death-by-“assault-weapon” in particular. It’s as if she believes people are somehow “more dead” if killed with an AR-15 than if they die by any other means. This apparent belief seems to be common among the Left, and I’ve never quite been sure what the reasoning is behind it (or if there is any reasoning at all).
———
“It is just a matter of time when it happens. Better safe than sorry.”
Irrelevant. It’s just a matter of time until you or someone you love is in a traffic accident [*knocks wood*], but that doesn’t mean we ban all motorized vehicles. Among the other problems with that “solution”, where does that leave us?
Public transport? Buses and trains aren’t infallible; just like any other vehicle, they are only as “safe” as the people operating them. Buses and trains do crash, and people do get hit by them, and because of the increased mass it usually doesn’t end well.
Bicycles? Well, it’s only a matter of time until you or someone you love crashes their bike, so we should ban them, too. (Even if we do bolt helmets permanently onto their skulls on the off-chance they choose to ride.)
Walking? It’s only a matter of time until someone trips and breaks their ankle, and with no cars or bikes, good luck getting medical treatment. How’s that “better safe than sorry” working out now?
Where does the “prior restraint” slippery slope end, Ms. Sorlien? What individual choice would you not take away because “it’s only a matter of time” and “better safe than sorry”? (These last questions are intended to be rhetorical. We know the answers.)
I had an anti-gun person, literally, tell me they would rather be killed by a knife than a gun. It was totally mindboggling to me. Her using a gun to defend herself was unthinkable, as it should be to all right-thinking people. And hence they are almost always used for criminal purposes.
Facts are not part of their reality.
“Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong. You have an
absolute and perfect right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater —
and to accept responsibility for the consequences.” – Neil Smith & Aaron Zelman, in “Hope”.