Quote of the day—vash01

They don’t need to prepare . Just ban guns for civilians. Prevention is always better than control. No guns means no mass shootings. Why is it so hard to understand?

May 22, 2018
Comment to Texas school had a shooting plan, armed officers and practice. And still 10 people died.
[vash01 skipped some important steps. For example, before banning guns it would be a requirement to eliminate the Second Amendment. And between banning guns for civilians and there being no guns. There are many others as well.

It appears “understanding” isn’t their greatest strength. In fact, it’s clear vash01 has crap for brains.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no wants to take your guns.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—vash01

  1. Gun crime is almost always committed by Democrats.

    Let’s just get rid of all the Democrats, and then then there is no more gun crime!

  2. “No guns means no mass shootings. Why is it so hard to understand?”

    It’s easy to understand. It’s impossible to achieve.

    Attempting to achieve “no guns” means attempting to confiscate all guns, which would fail, and would almost certainly lead to a civil war and a massive number of shootings. Why is it so hard to understand?

  3. Isn’t it an interesting piece of cognitive dissonance that the left routinely pushes that a ban on abortion would lead to unwilling mothers risking death in back alley abortion procedures, yet they firmly hold that a prohibition on firearm ownership would see widespread compliance, with now disarmed violent criminals abiding by golden peace?

  4. “They don’t need to prepare. Just ban guns for civilians. Prevention is always better than control. No guns means no mass shootings. Why is it so hard to understand? Lay down your arms, you damned rebels!”

    – Major Pitcairn

  5. If you start with the belief that government is all-powerful (just say it and it SHALL be done), then it isn’t a stretch to arrive at “ban guns, and all gun violence disappears”.

    Even believing THAT particular bit of total insanity though, one must still consider the deadly violent crime that can be (and has been) achieved without guns, and the fact that weaker people are now, without guns, unable to defend themselves against stronger people. Soon you go to banning knives, eventually to sharp sticks, to banning strong people as a “prevention” measure.

    But then you soon realize that strength is relative, and so you have to keep exterminating the strongest of the remaining population until there’s no one left but a single quadriplegic on life-support. NOW there’s no more crime, AT ALL!

    And ALL OF THAT assumes there are no such things as individual rights, and no such people as would risk their lives to defend such rights and bring justice to the violators.

    So yeah; “they” want war. No question. They long for it. Hate does not think beyond the desire for rampage in the spreading of pain. Hate is like drinking poison and hoping it kills the other guy.

    “Crap for brains”? Maybe. That or a hypnotic state, which is the simpler, more specific explanation. “Crap” of course is a metaphor, and so it is a metaphor for…what? I am sure that you’re not suggesting that such people have actual excrement where their brains should be. What you’re saying then is that some people have had their actual brains co-opted through manipulation of the emotions (the non-rational aspects of brain activity), thus hypnotism. So do you blame the hypnotized or the hypnotist, but then maybe the hypnotist is himself hypnotized, and if that’s valid observation then who is the Master Hypnotist?

    Forgive them; they truly, literally, do not know what they do. When the mass violence and mass destruction comes, and worse horrors still, they’ll be among the most perplexed as to how it could ever have come to that.

  6. I assume that those on the Left hate those on the Right (and likely vice versa).

    So, if only the government has all the guns (and a monopoly on violence and force) and the government is controlled by one side…wouldn’t that lead to the slaughter of the side not in power?

    Why is it so hard to understand?

    • I thought it was The Sanctified Church of the Temporary Mortal Condition that had a monopoly on Force and Violence.

      (Sorry, but I couldn’t resist the chance to make an MHI reference.)

Comments are closed.