Quote of the day—Citizen1787

No one needs to own a semi-automatic rifle for hunting or self-defense. No one. I have never heard a convincing argument why a civilian needs a semi-auto rifle. In nearly every mass shooting there is a common weapon: a semi-auto rifle. They should be banned.

February 26, 2016
Comment to Kansas gunman served with restraining order just before shooting spree, police say
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


13 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Citizen1787

  1. Great display of logic.
    No one needs a semi-auto for self defense.
    Nearly every mass shooting involves a semi-auto.

    So, I guess when self-defending against a mass-shooter, we should fall back to our reliable flintlocks?

  2. In nearly every mass shooting there is a common scenario: a group of disarmed people and one person willing to break the law. Thus gun control empowers the criminal over the law-abiding.

    It has long been my assertion that such is the one and only motivation for infringements against the right to bear arms. It’s easy to excuse the ignorant, who have simply been fooled into accepting the false premise which says legal restrictions on guns target criminals (when in fact they target the law-abiding). If we stop there however, we are ignoring those who actually know better and who press on for more restrictions anyway– this is where we get the mangling of logic we find in quotes such as from Citizen1787.

    In either case (the merely fooled or the willfully evil) we must never allow ourselves to entertain their insanity. They should be dismissed out of hand. Anyone who claims to care, if they’re being honest, would already have figured out that a disarmed population is nothing but an invitation for predators to sweep in and take over. It then becomes obvious that the anti gun rights movement is inspired, funded, directed and maintained by predators.

    It is a simple fact then, that we are up against the criminal element attempting to be seen as legitimate. To view it as anything other than a criminal movement therefore is to fall for the ruse.

    The only power the anti human rights movement has ever had over us comes from it’s ability to infiltrate and hide among the legitimate, and from our inability or unwillingness to see the difference.

  3. Once again, it is not “The Bill of Needs”. It is “The Bill of Rights”. You don’t “need” your cat, Corvette or clown collection but you have legally acquired those possessions as I have mine. I don’t care about yours, kindly leave mine alone.

  4. In the event you’re ever in a mass shooting, stand up and reason with the shooter as to why he shouldn’t have a weapon using it against unarmed people. Let us know how that works out.

  5. I love it when these self-appointed experts in everything proclaim what someone “needs.” I believe I’ll decide what I need, sir, and you can go piss up a rope.

    Meh. Replace, “semi-automatic rifle,” with, “large screen, high definition TV.” Or, “large-engine, multi-seat SUV.” What an absurd thing to say.

  6. No one needs a semi-auto for self defense? So, uh, then why do cops carry them? Are they on offense, or do you want them to revert to revolvers, too?

    Good luck with that.

    • I would view double action revolvers as “semi auto” too. It makes sense if you use as the definition: any weapon that fires once per trigger pull (requiring no other action between trigger pulls). You could even apply the same to double barrel shotguns. 🙂

      • Ha! My first thought was “Don’t give them any ideas”, but then it occurred to me they’ve already thought of that and just need to get their foot in the door a little bit more…

        We POTG (people of the gun) have a glaring weakness the anti-gunners exploit. We are self sufficient “individuals” and, outside of small groups (like competitions), we are not organized. We just want to be left alone. Thus we are easily marginalized and picked off one by one. The six o’clock news starts off with “The right wing extremist…etc.”. A hundred million organized gun owners would be a group not messed with. Even the five million member milquetoast NRA causes congresscritters to cringe in fear of a primary challenge.
        Pity the poor NRA, I consider them milquetoast (at best) in defending our gun rights, but the lefty talking heads screech “Extreeeeemmeiistt gun lobby”. Sometimes you can’t win. lol

    • My thought is if the police carry weapon X or cool tactical toy Y then I should be able to get it, too. The police are not military. They are just like us as civilians. So, if they get select-fire weapons and short barrels and standard (aka high) capacity magazines so should I. Where is the equal protection clause of the Constitution on this?

      No more police exemptions! They need to not be separate from us.

      Remember, the Second Amendment is there for us to defend ourselves from aggressors and that is to include a jack-boot thug from the government. Thus, we need all the firepower we can afford.

      • You’re right but you only made half the argument. The other half is that clearly the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the people have the right to keep military grade arms. The Miller decision acknowledges that explicitly.
        So yes, having what the police has is a good first step, but only a first step.

  7. Rolf: yup. As I typically say to people who want to ban this or that type of firearm: let’s try it out first among police forces… because the exact same logic applies to them!

  8. Pingback: Quote of the day—Lyle | The View From North Central Idaho

  9. This comment clearly comes from someone who thinks that what he wants will never be subservient to what someone else says he needs. When that day comes, who will be able to help him? Who will want to? Who will dare to?

Comments are closed.