We need guns to defend ourselves from Democrats

As Scott Adams has said:

Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats.

And I have given many examples of the violent nature of the political left. Today we have a very public example of this:

Republican Rep. Matt Rinaldi came over and said: “This is BS. That’s why I called ICE.”

In a subsequent Facebook statement, Rinaldi admitted saying he had called federal authorities and threatened to shoot Nevárez — but said his life was in danger, not the other way around.

“Nevárez threatened my life on the House floor after I called ICE on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery which said ‘I am illegal and here to stay,’ ” Rinaldi wrote. He said Democrats were encouraging protesters to ignore police instructions and, “When I told the Democrats I called ICE, Representative Ramon Romero physically assaulted me, and other Democrats were held back by colleagues.”

Rinaldi said Nevárez later “told me that he would ‘get me on the way to my car.’ ” Rinaldi said he responded by making it clear “I would shoot him in self-defense,” adding that he is currently under Texas Department of Public Safety protection.

And what does the media say about this? As you might guess the media is against the person, Republican, saying they will defend themselves:

Protest sparks Texas lawmaker threats of gun violence

As usual, there is no distinction between protective violence and criminal violence. That means they have crap of brains and/or they are evil.


7 thoughts on “We need guns to defend ourselves from Democrats

  1. friends:

    this reminds me very much of the political atmosphere just prior to the civil war, when attacks by members of congress upon other members were quite common, the most famous being a viscous caning in the senate cloak room.

    and, do not forgot, that duels were common political fodder.

    passions run high in such matters.

    it is not unrealistic to anticipate civil war and civil unrest.

    nor do i think it unreasonable to consider the prospect that we and our political opponents may come to combat in the streets. if you are prudent, you will prepare for it. and, part of that preparation is to prepare mentally and emotionally for civil war, and to consider your political enemies precisely that …. your deadly enemies.

    buy guns. buy ammo. become proficient in their use. and, do not shy away from the prospect of open warfare, but, prepare for it. it is as simple as that.

    i intend to survive it, and i intend that those who have declared themselves my enemy do not.

    john jay
    milton freewater, oregon

    • South Carolina Democrat representative Preston Brooks beating Massachusetts Republican Senator Charles Sumner in 1856 until his cane shattered comes to mind.

      And the Democrat “elite” and their lickspittle lackeys in the media again and as usual show their inability to tell the difference between pushing little old ladies in front of trains and pushing them out of the paths of trains as William F. Buckley once said.

  2. The only thing that the “historical precedents” cited here can offer is that it’s quite easy to let hot heads complicate the issues.

    I understand that a lot of immigre’s feel entitled to work the jobs which are unfilled in the U.S., because they are invited. They are angry because Conservatives resist their entry, against the laws of the land.

    I also understand that a lot of “natural born Americans” are upset that this so-called road to naturalization will probably result in an influx of democrat-leaning new citizens who will vote AGAINST the conservative values than many of us fear will be overturned by the (illegal) entry of grateful new Democratic voters in the not-so-far future.

    The only fair resolution is that the President apply the existing laws.
    Agricultural magnates will regret the loss of cheap labor.
    Senators and Representatives from agricultural areas will fight to restore the current laisez faire situation … that’s what they were hired for.

    But the border states cannot stand against the rest of the Continental 48.

    Those of us who see this incursion as a political rather than a cultural or economic situation are taking the long view, and we feel that our national discourse will be skewed by this influx of new non-citizens who owe more to the Democratic Party, which made their illegal immigration possible, than they owe to the health of this nation.

    I understand the neediness of the illegal immigrants, and I understand the fiscal imperatives which encourage American citizens to import illegal laborers.

    Frankly, I would rather pay twice as much for a bottle of wine, because we cannot find a legal citizen who is willing to pick grapes.

    What I’m NOT willing to do, is to allow an influx of illegal immigrants to follow the path to citizenship, when they are quite clear that only one political party is an accessory to their criminality … and if they sway the next election, they WILL “get away with” their crimes.

    Is this what we really want?

  3. Sorry. In my sophistry, I forgot to include the most important point:

    This is not a war. This is discourse. We may find that our arguments prevail against our opponents, or not.

    We don’t profane our 2nd Amendment rights to start a civil war. America tried that once, and it didn’t settle anything. We just realized that we were sick of killing our brothers.

    How about … this time, we choose ballots instead of bullets?

    we may not win the dialogue, but this country has survived worse challenges than the introduction across our borders of born-again Democrats.

    The next generation will see that the conservative approach to politics is superior to the current political philosophy.

    And if they do not?

    Well, then they were right, and we were wrong. Conservatives will have to review their priorities. Liberals will gloat.

    We will establish a new round of political controversy, and in the meantime America will evolve to the next step … or rediscover that it was wrong about the whole “Progressive” thing, and back up to the whole “Conservative” thing.

    Take the long-term vision. We don’t have to win every battle.

    We only have to win the last dialogue.. whether we’re Conservative or Liberal.
    We just want that which proves to be the healthiest national system for the majority of us. And since when did we not welcome new blood, new thoughts, ne philosophy, and somebody new that we can argue with?

    • Your analysis works fine if both sides are basically of good will and able to accept disagreement. But that isn’t the case for progressives.

    • “We don’t profane our 2nd Amendment rights to start a civil war. America tried that once, and it didn’t settle anything. We just realized that we were sick of killing our brothers.”

      It pretty much settled whether slavery was going to be a legal institution in North America. That counts as something.

      Did you say something after that? I don’t know. The ahistorical nonsense told me it was time to tune out.

      • It also settled that the USA was going to have a central government running almost everything, and a heavy tax burden to pay for it. Taxes were the original motive for that war, after all.

Comments are closed.