Quote of the day—Amanda Marcotte

So there’s a great deal of talk now about what can be done to stem the rising tide of pro-terrorism sentiment in the country, from individuals trying to “deprogram” QAnon family members to the Department of Justice, under newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland, prioritizing anti-terrorism initiatives. But this Atlanta shooting, which so far has all the hallmarks of a self-radicalized “lone wolf” attack, is a reminder that the single best way to combat domestic terrorism is with a policy that’s both mundane and yet politically loaded: gun control.

Amanda Marcotte
March 17, 2021
The best tool for fighting terrorism
[Uhh…. wow! It is almost difficult to comprehend the level of her cluelessness. Has she any sense of history? Or reality for that matter.

If she begins to show signs of being connected to reality I would like to suggest she start her study of history with gun control in Lexington and Concord in April of 1775.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Amanda Marcotte

  1. Has she any sense of history? Or reality for that matter.

    I’ll take “Questions with ‘No’ for the answer” for $500.

    These types are noted for gloating of their willful ignorance and living in a fantasy world where intentions, not results, matter most to them.

  2. Stop giving people who want you dead the benefit of the doubt. She’s already proven to be a liar, why would you think she’s “not connected to reality” and not just an evil traitor?

    • Good point. As criminal intent, and criminal negligence, carry the same penalty. Ignorance of the law not being an excuse and all.
      And just as Joe points out. No one at Concord Green was discussing the right or wrong of the matter.
      The history of gun control in America carries the death penalty.
      And no one has immunity.
      The winner gets to tale the tale of right or wrong.

      • Gun Control is the fertilizer that makes the trees grow strange fruit.

  3. It is a good thing (for Ms. Marcotte’s stated goal) that nobody, ever, considered blocking exits, applying an accelerant of choice and applying fire, in order to kill numbers of folks.

    Uh, what? Say WHAT? Really? It *HAS* been done?

    Whatever are we to do to accomplish Ms. Marcotte’s utopian nirvana?

    I vote for “LMTFA”

  4. Every problem for our leftist friends has a solution that is quick, simple and WRONG! This is a prime example of that. Going back to the question of a few days back about there ever being a time when those who banned and/or burned books were the good guys; this is right there with the same question. So, name one time when gun control did not result in the significant loss of life and loss of liberty for everyone. Leftists in America would be wise to take a pass on this one. It will not end as they think. In the 1960s, Mao promoted The Cultural Revolution in China. Really just a brutal purge of anyone that was not totally submissive to the communist ways and even then, that was not necessarily a protection. I can remember reading of the hundreds of bodies that floated down the Chinese rivers and routinely washed up on the shores of Hong Kong and elsewhere. Do you think that any of those victims could defend themselves? No need to answer, it was a rhetorical question. I don’t think that an effort in that same vein in this country will produce the utopian results that the leftists think they would get.

  5. It’s amazing to me that the murderer clearly stated his motive, and everyone is ignoring that statement and trying to turn this into a hate crime, a terrorist attack, a racist massacre, or whatever fits their goals.
    Even the WSJ is jumping onto that bandwagon. (Then again, it seems that their newsroom is drifting rapidly leftward. Fortunately, their editorial pages are actually separate and not following the lemmings.)

    • Well, the “peaceful, inclusive, accommodating” Leftists know better than the murderer what caused him to get up off the couch and shoot people dead. He said it was due to his sex addiction as a dog whistle to those who know better than him. The Leftist Running Dogs hear the dog whistles, no matter why people say they do things. .

  6. “It is almost difficult to comprehend the level of her cluelessness.”

    I submit that it’s easy once you’ve reconnoitered the tactical landscape and understand the objectives of the wrong side in this war;
    1. She has given allegiance to the wrong side, that side being the alliance of the authoritarian, or criminal, mind which seeks power solely for power’s sake.
    2. She knows what that sector wants and will offer it up as a gesture of her loyal allegiance, in the same way that an infantryman will do what’s necessary to destroy the enemy. With or without actual marching orders, she knows the enemy, she knows what the alliance wants, and will attack at will against targets of opportunity.

    If all you’re trying to understand is why someone would say something so apparently dumb, or obviously false, there’s your full explanation.

    Once again, Dan Rather clearly referred to this sort of dishonesty as “Courage”, and from a certain point of view he was correct– It does take a kind of courage to lie openly, commit fraud to the whole world, or to speak bitter nonsense in public. Knowing that your comrades-in-arms have your back is however sufficiently reassuring, and thus all manner of atrocities have been, and are being, committed.

    Make no mistake about it– We’re seeing tactical dishonesty rather than stupidity, even if the bottom-tier, relatively ignorant perpetrator has become so committed to her alliance that she actually starts to believe some of the lies and false premises. Remember that she too is being deceived.

    The dead giveaway of the willful intent to lie is found in the fact that they so often contradict themselves, abandoning one deeply-held standard and switching to another, often even seconds later. It takes real cognition to pull that off. It takes commitment to a certain cause, and the willingness to stand behind it no matter what. The attitude is, “Truth be damned– This is about winning”. It’s the behavior of the guilty, trying to worm their way out of a conviction, or of a military trying to defeat an enemy in any and all ways possible. “All’s fair in love and war” and all that. We even look up to, admire, commend and reward a good liar in the latter case, so long as he’s on the winning side.

    The one thing we may take as reassurance is that they still feel the need to deceive us. As a criminal sees the need to hide and to lie, is he not recognizing that we still hold to the greater authority? They still go to great lengths to portray themselves as good, even loving, compassionate and devout people. Some are masters at it too, and will deceive practically all of us, but the point there is that the deception is still necessary! That should give us some hope. At some point they’ll not need the layers of masterfully crafted deception anymore, and will openly and blatantly rob, rape and murder.

    In short; your answer is found in one simple word; allegiance.

    Without understanding both sides in this war however, we have absolutely no chance, even when we think we’re “winning”. Most of us are far too distracted by the Dialectic Method (a masterfully executed deception), believing we’re firmly on the right side, calling the wrong side “idiots” while we’re either doing nothing or benefiting the wrong side.

Comments are closed.