"When one child hits another with a rock, the answer isn't to give every child a rock."
And, if that were the whole story, it might be true. But it isn't.
The truth of the matter is, that when you know there's a bully out there who intends to hit an innocent kid with a rock (or his fist, or a hammer, or a "law"), and you frisk the intended victim to make sure he has no rocks in his pocket, and then you threaten him with severe punishment if he dares to try to defend himself- well, then you are the bully's accomplice. You are a friend to the villain and an enemy to all that is good.
The answer may not be to "give" every child a rock (they can find them on their own just fine- just like the bully did and will continue to do), but that would still be a better answer than the anti-liberty bigot tactic of trying to disarm all the decent folk. The worst possible thing you can do is to try to take away the rocks the good kids have. Or punish those who fight back. When you do, you are only rewarding the bad guys and making it easier (and safer) to be a bad guy.
Anti-liberty bigots expose the festering evil in their hearts everytime they think they have come up with a clever new slogan.
I'll give my daughter some rocks, and expect her to abide by the ZAP. Count on it.
(*I apologize that I forgot where I saw this quote. I copied it, but neglected to copy the source.)
I hope, when the shit hits the fan, you libertarian-types will wear a sign of some sort so we who are denied our rights to keep and bear arms, based on some silly law (with big ol' teeth), can know who not to kill to get a gun.
ReplyDeleteYou all should start an "Adopt a Former Felon" program to arm us when the time comes so we too can realize the safety guns afford, and be [natural]law abiding citizens too.
@Anonymous- What the F#@k are you talking about? "You ~libertarian~ types" in regards to denying gun rights? Do you mean ~liberal~ types? There's a ~huge~ difference, and if you look, this is a libertarian blog, unmistakably speaking out ~against~ disarmament. On second thought (and read), however, it's pretty clear that your post makes no sense whatsoever, so I guess I'm wasting my time commenting.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 2-
ReplyDeleteI didn't read "Anonymous 1" in that way.
I took him to mean that he wanted to know who had been on his side during his imposed ("legal") disarmament due to "former felon" status. He did say "so we ... can know who not to kill".
Maybe I am wrong as to what he meant, and maybe he will come back and clarify.