Quote of the day—kiplingsburdens

Schumer is a criminal put in power by russian mobsters and israeli criminals. What better way to further the interests of criminals than to see that those they prey upon are absolutely defenseless?

What better way to condition a population into victim-hood and perpetual oppression than to have them used to being perpetual victims without any ability to defend themselves?

June 25, 2011
Comment to Do We Need Gun Control?
[I don’t know about the “Russian mobster and Israeli criminals” but something similar has been at least joked about in regards to Chuck Schumer for many years. And it is claimed the original intent of the Sullivan Act, a New York State gun control law, was to protect criminals.—Joe]


14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—kiplingsburdens

  1. Victimhood is one of the holy sacraments of the left. No matter who holds it, it is a source of vindication and power. It is no wonder then, that they seek it, look for it in every action and transaction, and that they actively promote it with such fervor.

    That explains why those of us who promote self reliance are treated with such spitting contempt. We’re infidels, guilty of one of the most egregious forms of heresy.

  2. Miles; You mean cops are human too. Our nation’s founders were well aware of it, but I suppose some people need reminding.

  3. That quote makes no sense to me.

    Substitute “Italian Mafia” for “Russian mobsters and Israeli criminals” (since they all do similar crimes) and explain to me how gun rights and/or gun control affects most Americans when dealing with the Italian mafia. Has your right to CCW helped/not helped you deal with the Italian mafia?

    Bernie Madoff is a fine example of a connected crook. Did anyone’s gun rights even come into play with his scam?

    The Russian mobsters ran a scam over gasoline taxes for years. How did guns benefit anyone aside from the criminals (who use the guns for protection)?

    You can find better quotes than this.

  4. I see, ubu. Guns can’t bring the crime rate down to zero, so we should violently disarm gun owners and incinerate them, along with their children, if they resist. How about we turn that around, then? Democrats like Bill Maher love hanging out in sleazy meet market night clubs looking for skanky pickups. Since not every last person who enters a night club gets laid, why don’t we burn them all down with everyone inside? If anyone protests, we can always say they had it coming, since they had such small dicks.

  5. For all the humor-impaired, I intended my last post to be sarcastic. I don’t actually support the mass murder of innocent people, unlike the anti-rights people.

  6. “Substitute “Italian Mafia” for “Russian mobsters and Israeli criminals” (since they all do similar crimes) and explain to me how gun rights and/or gun control affects most Americans when dealing with the Italian mafia. Has your right to CCW helped/not helped you deal with the Italian mafia?”

    The Italian Mafia isn’t so much of a problem anymore, but we still have problems with gangs. Should we be left defenseless from those who wish to murder us, simply because the old gangs, to the extent that they still exist, prefer to non-violent crime over violent crime?

    I don’t think many people have claimed that legalized guns prevent non-violent crime. If anything, statistics show just the opposite.

    In the meantime, your post, Ubu, still ignores a major reason why the Sullivan Law was passed in the first place: violent criminals wanted their victims to be defenseless, so that they could be more easily robbed. That doesn’t put a good light on gun control, does it?

    But then, neither does New York City’s record on violence, since the Sullivan Law was passed, for that matter.

  7. It’s a classic straw-man argument, as if anyone ever claimed that second amendment rights will put an end to all crime and all corruption forever. ubu is one of the smarter-than-thou, more-caring-and-more-intellectual-than-thou types and this is what we get. That, plus we get the dishonesty as icing on the cake– she’s being coy when she claims not to get it.

    That’s the way it always has to work though, isn’t it? When you’re campaigning against human rights, you have to use deception and/or brute force. There’s no other way. It continues because deceivers, being smarter than everyone else (as they see it) figure we won’t notice in time.

    It’s a situation born of arrogance, isn’t it? The left starts with the premise that people are generally too stupid and/or too evil to make their own decisions, which leads to the use of tactics that rely on general stupidity. Make note that they control public education, and so they’re working the stupid/ignorant angle pro-actively.

    Where they’re beginning to fail and fail hard though, is in their willful inability to see anything but stupidity and evil in their intended victims. They’ve convinced themselves of those things they’ve been trying to fool everyone else into believing. It would be utterly comical if they didn’t have so much power and funding right now.

  8. @ubu52, The point is that whenever criminals use force to commit crimes they are benefited if their victims are unarmed. Hence they are better represented by politicians that pass laws which restrict the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. By this metric Schumer, Daley, et. al. can be said to be the friend of the violent criminal.

  9. Joe,

    I know that is the point that the quote is trying to make — but it misses it’s mark by using “Russian mobsters and Israeli criminals” who operate like organized crime groups. For example, on the FBI Ten Most Wanted list, there is a “SEMION MOGILEVICH.” http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/semion-mogilevich

    The poster should have chosen violent criminals (serial killers, street gangs, etc.) instead of Russian mobsters. Of course, then you have the problem: Do street gangs and individual violent criminals have any political power?

  10. I would surmise that their very presence is used as a fear factor by idiots like Schumer to keep people dependent on government for their protection rather than rely on themselves.

  11. Some of the safest neighborhoods to live in are the ones where the organized criminals live. They don’t commit crimes where they live (to keep the police away) and the street gangs are afraid of them because they are not nice people if you push them.

  12. “Some of the safest neighborhoods to live in are the ones where the organized criminals live.”

    To the extent that this is true, it does not justify the banning of guns. Indeed, it is the side effect of outlaws owning guns (or other methods of “persuasion”) more than anything else.

    And while I’m well aware of this alleged effect, living near an alleged drug house, I wouldn’t depend on this effect alone for safety.

Comments are closed.