Quote of the day—Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36

OK…silent generation? Whatever the hell you were. Thanks for all the impotent killers you trained

Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36
Tweeted on June 14, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!

The quoted tweet was in response to someone saying they were a CCW instructor.

This claim takes some contemplation to even begin to respond to it:

It is not possible to manufacture, distribute or sell an AR-15 safely. We have decades of evidence. Its only use is to kill civilians and children. Its very existence creates a market for murder.

He apparently lives in a alternate universe from the one I am familiar with. In my universe tens of millions of AR-15s are safely in the hands of millions of citizens and are used to fire hundreds of millions of rounds each year. Yet blunt objects are used more frequently to murder people than are killed using an AR-15. And sharp objects such as knives are used far more often than blunt objects. Either all those 100s of millions of rounds malfunctioned or they are being used for something other than to “kill civilians and children”. Hence this guy is delusional and/or an evil liar.

This law expert is also well know for:

Saying an AR-15 is protected by #2A is like saying child pornography is protected by #1A

This one tells you all you need to know about him:

Ashli Babbitt? Love her. I love her so much, I think next time they should make a few dozen just like her

This removes all doubt:

Why are we pretending these #2A scum are human beings?

And this was directly to me before I was blocked:

It’s just a never-ending abyss of moral and intellectual failure with, for want of a better term, “people” like you I don’t care if the vast majority of mass shooters are Whigs. As long as these weapons are legal, children will die. It can’t be any more clear.

This is what he thinks of people who don’t agree with him. He dehumanize them and wants them dead. For more examples see here.

It was an interesting exchange. Links to SCOTUS decisions, criminology facts, and pointing out the errors of his ways were responded to with insults and additional bad legal takes. I had to wonder if he is paid to be a troll. He was clearly way in over his head and just kept going long after I left to go to the range.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Nicholas Roske needs to learn to apply himself @DanLoney36

  1. I guess it doesn’t count as violence for him if it’s done with ‘personal weapons’ (i.e. hands and feet), sporting gear, kitchen gadgetry, or the large selection of gardening or construction implements from the local home improvement store.

    The tool is in the hand. The weapon is in the mind.

  2. Maybe you should start a Mark Twain Monday? “Never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level. And beat you with experience.”
    (Your just exhaust you.)
    This post being example #1,896,463 of that law in action. (Examples I personally witnessed. Actual count much higher.)
    One can only marvel at how well moral subversion works. Them commies were crafty bastards! Give’em that.
    Anyone ask it how it’s going to take 20,000,000 of them nasty AR’s away from people who own them?
    Nothing like dead pets, and flash bangs in baby cribs to stop all the hate, and save the children, right?

    • Carl, the only problem with citing Miller is that it’s one of many SCOTUS rulings in which the court made stuff up out of thin air. While it’s nice to say they held the 2nd Amendment specifically protects “weapons of war” there is no textual justification for that dictum. So, just as a later court may now be reconsidering another “thin air” notion (the “penumbras” thing), they could easily decide that the Miller decision was wrong to make up that “principle” out of thin air.
      The more solid ground is to point to the text, which says “shall not be infringed” without qualification, limitation, or intended application.

      • Exactly. Thank you. We should never even allow the court or government in general to consider the 2A a right granted in any shape, form, or fashion.
        As you say, “Shall not be infringed”.
        It is a prohibition on government. Nothing else to see.
        Everything else in the 2A is preamble to that conclusion.

        • Neil Smith pointed out that “Bill of Prohibitions” would have been a more accurate and more helpful name.
          On the 2nd Amendment, Tench Coxe got it right:
          the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” — Tench Coxe, 1789.
          Note “confirmed”, not “granted”.

Comments are closed.