Quote of the day—Insipid‏ @insipid42

Anyone who wants an AR15 is too crazy to own a gun. And yes, I do want to take your guns. But I know that’s unrealistic.  However outlawing future sales of Assault rifles is extremely reasonable- even for Scalia.  The ones being unreasonable and tyrannical are the gun nuts.

Insipid‏ @insipid42
Tweeted on May 12, 2018
[I would be more likely to agree with the first sentence if the words “who wants” were replaced with “who doesn’t want”.

What a stereotype. If you read just a little bit of the Twitter threat linked about you will find Insipid is hitting on all three of the SJWs laws:

1. They always lie
2. They always double down when confronted with their lies
3. They always project

And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you, “No one wants to take your guns”.—Joe]


20 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Insipid‏ @insipid42

  1. Yes, that’s right. Nobody sane would ever want or need an accurate, reliable, low-recoil, modifiable, customizable, ergonomic, adjustable, reasonably priced, extensively field tested, inexpensive-to-operate, effective rifle. I mean, that’s just crazy-talk to want something like that!

  2. Heller V. DC
          (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

        • Well, maybe he thinks in some irrational way that Heller has been overturned. Or perhaps he sees it as I tend to, that Heller etc are valid and binding only so long as affected parties agree to play by the rules. From stop signs to SCOTUS decisions, if enough people disregard them, they’re essentially null and void.

          • Ok. By the latter definition, the entire Constitution has been null and void since around 1790.

  3. Whew, I guess I’m OK. My Clinton era non-“assault weapon” almost AR-15 makes me not too crazy to own a gun. Of course, I did ditch the 10 round “franken-mag” that came with it, and upgraded to normal capacity mags as soon as possible. I don’t even miss the bayonet lug or the flash hider. (sarcasm mode off)

  4. Given the current violent and aggressive cultural Marxist climate, I would think it would be quite reasonable to own three or four AR15s!

  5. “Unreasonable and tyrannical” says the man who wants to tear up the Bill of Rights.

    Again; naturally, from the perspective of an evil person, the Bill of Rights represents “oppression” or “tyranny” because it places hard limits on what his adopted confederacy can get away with. Again and again; Obama and his ilk refer to the constitution as a “Charter of Negative Rights” for the same reason. Given their perspective, they are entirely correct.

    I would go so far (and have) as to say that this goes beyond mere projection, into criminal insanity. When it becomes an advocacy movement, with the openly-stated goal of wholesale rights violation, and has real influence, then it becomes sedition and treason.

    So no; in case anyone were tempted think it, this is not a matter upon which we can “agree to disagree” or be “open to both sides” or remain “open-minded” or “have a dialog so as to come to a compromise” because one side wants to tear down Western Civilization and do away with rights protections. That crosses the line from political discussion into war. The only question left is how to most quickly, efficiently and effectively crush the enemy to the point of unconditional surrender and then keep them in perpetual awe or begging for mercy and forgiveness while swearing to change their ways and to advocate for liberty henceforth, to the end of time, and that’s not an easy question to answer.
    (By the way, that’s what victory looks like, and the world hasn’t seen anything resembling it since the end of W.W. II)

  6. Here’s a question;
    Where was this Insipid person “educated” and who paid for it?

  7. Lovely logic.

    1. Crazy people must not be allowed to own guns.
    2. If you want to own a gun, you are crazy.

    • 1. Crazy people must not be allowed political power.
      2. If anyone wants political power, they’re crazy.

    • I wonder what they’d say if you asked them to sign up on a list that would prohibit themselves from ever owning a gun, and allowing their residence to be randomly searched to ensure compliance?

  8. A classic response needs to be modified:

    “You can have my gun when you can take it with your cold dead hands”.

Comments are closed.