We've been swamped by it.
One of the duller local lights, the democratian's Greg Jayne, asks the typically stupid leftist question:
I mean, you could still write if you went back to the quill and ink days, and use parchment.
You see, so-called "journalists" are the fist to bitch and whine and moan about censorship whenever anyone holds them accountable for their lies, exaggerations, and half-truths.
They'll break out the First Amendment at the speed of light in vacuum.
And what, precisely, does that Amendment say?
That's his privilege, of course: no one is suggesting otherwise.
Just like it's an American's privilege to own an AR 15.
After the First Amendment comes this pesky Second:
Let's take a look at the word "infringed" and what it means.
That's an infringement of our rights.
Not allowed to use a bumpstock, or even possess one?
Not allowed to own or use an automatic weapon?
Not allowed to have or use a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity?
Not allowed to give your son, daughter, cousin, father, mother, grandfather or grandmother a rifle or hand gun without reporting it?
ALL of those restrictions are, in fact, "infringement" of our rights. And the irony is that criminals routinely ignore those restrictions while those of us who follow the law typically don't.
So, let me take this opportunity to answer your question, Greg:
I own an AR 15 variant because I can. I don't need to justify it to you any more than you need to justify your ownership or use of a laptop computer to me.
As a leftist, "discussion" is a codeword for "further infringing my rights."
Just out of curiosity, Greg, how often should we discuss infringing YOUR rights?
The additional irony is that there's nothing new we can talk about.
The problem of mass shootings hasn't changed, although there are a wide variety of ways it COULD have changed if you leftists would only listen.
For example, I can't even begin to wrap my head around the idea that it was perfectly OK to guard Obama's kids at Sidwell Friends with armed guards carrying automatic weapons, but at the same time, leftists lose their minds over the idea of having that same thing in public schools to provide security and to harden those soft targets that are simply not protected by a "gun free zone" sign as well as they might have hoped.
Arming teachers would be a cheaper, much more immediate alternative, which could be implemented quite quickly.
But when was the last time any leftist indicated they'd even consider that as a viable alternative?
The problem... as is the case with so many issues... is that leftists generally offer up zero viable solutions to the resolve this situation.
The ask the stupid question like Greg did, as if we need to justify our decisions concerning why we buy what we buy while they, correspondingly, have no such responsibility in return for anything THEY may purchase. But when presented with alternatives that would WORK?
Nobody's home.
So, generally, the conversations involving anti-gunners are resolutely one-sided and mono-directional.
They CLAIM (some of them, anyway) that gun confiscation is NOT their goal. But the problem is that far too many of them actually DO have that as a goal.
They see the removal of weapons from this country (that pesky little Second Amendment aside) as some sort of utopian vision that would make everything sweetness and light.
They lie, and even Greg admits they make up numbers to support their position. So why, for example, hold a conversation with liars?
The classic infringements to owning a weapon are those of Chicago, where slaughter goes on every day without peep one from these same people (Tell me, Greg... when was the last time you demanded some sort of "conversation" about Chicago, where 650 people were slaughtered last year?) because CLEARLY, "what we're doing now is not working THERE," either; and, of course, California... where all of THEIR problems... like all of OUR problems... are solved with an "assault weapons" ban, magazines that cannot exceed 10 rounds of capacity, a "5 year firearm safety certificate," passing a written test, registered to owners the state keeps track of (and what invader wouldn't love to get their hands on that? Or what out-of-control government?) the ending of new models of hand gun sales, private firearms sales forced to go through licensed dealers, a 10 day waiting period, a "may issue" state, with "no issue" locations like LA and San Francisco and so on.
Right?
Well, maybe not. But it makes them FEEL better... unless one of their kids is in the classroom in question.
THAT is the kind of conversation leftists generally and those on the fringes here in Washington State want to have.
Because, you know, those laws are VERY effective. After all, there haven't been any terrorist attacks or school shootings or police getting shot in California... has there?
I mean, except for the ones where all those people got killed?
And in all of this, let's never lose sight that the FBI has been warned REPEATEDLY about mass killers, including this one, and they've REPEATEDLY dropped the ball... just like they did in Florida.
New... or additional... gun laws are NOT going to work if the ones we have now are not enforced and if we don't even follow up when those involved in this sort of thing are served up on a silver platter... BEFORE they attack.
The problem is massive. All we can do is the best we can but let's face it, it's like a giant whack-a-mole game.
If we turned every school into a fortress, that wouldn't eliminate the threat. It would reduce it, but not eliminate it, particularly if more than one person was involved.
We've already had other soft targets hit: movie theaters, shopping centers, clubs, concerts, churches... the ability to provide security... meaningful security on those targets... will be expensive, exacting, frustrating and most anti-American, inconvenient.
But that is what it's going to take.
Greg and his ilk are very big on the zealous defense of their First Amendment rights, no matter how much they may lie, exaggerate, attack or use the rag as a cudgel to beat people into submission, like they have on more than one occasion attempted to beat ME.
It's just a damned shame they're not nearly as concerned about ALL of the Bill of Rights, INCLUDING the Second Amendment, as they are their little corner of it.
So, by all means... have a conversation. And wake me up when you come up with something new.
One of the duller local lights, the democratian's Greg Jayne, asks the typically stupid leftist question:
A couple of years ago, following one mass shooting or another, I asked a friend of mine why he owns an AR-15.I dunno, Greg. Why do you use a word processor?
I mean, you could still write if you went back to the quill and ink days, and use parchment.
You see, so-called "journalists" are the fist to bitch and whine and moan about censorship whenever anyone holds them accountable for their lies, exaggerations, and half-truths.
They'll break out the First Amendment at the speed of light in vacuum.
And what, precisely, does that Amendment say?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.So, as a result, not only does Greg say what he wants, he uses modern equipment... computers and the like to say it.
That's his privilege, of course: no one is suggesting otherwise.
Just like it's an American's privilege to own an AR 15.
After the First Amendment comes this pesky Second:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.Those rights ARE "infringed," every day.
Let's take a look at the word "infringed" and what it means.
•act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:Need a permit to carry a concealed weapon?
"his legal rights were being infringed" ·
That's an infringement of our rights.
Not allowed to use a bumpstock, or even possess one?
Not allowed to own or use an automatic weapon?
Not allowed to have or use a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity?
Not allowed to give your son, daughter, cousin, father, mother, grandfather or grandmother a rifle or hand gun without reporting it?
ALL of those restrictions are, in fact, "infringement" of our rights. And the irony is that criminals routinely ignore those restrictions while those of us who follow the law typically don't.
So, let me take this opportunity to answer your question, Greg:
I own an AR 15 variant because I can. I don't need to justify it to you any more than you need to justify your ownership or use of a laptop computer to me.
As a leftist, "discussion" is a codeword for "further infringing my rights."
Just out of curiosity, Greg, how often should we discuss infringing YOUR rights?
The additional irony is that there's nothing new we can talk about.
The problem of mass shootings hasn't changed, although there are a wide variety of ways it COULD have changed if you leftists would only listen.
For example, I can't even begin to wrap my head around the idea that it was perfectly OK to guard Obama's kids at Sidwell Friends with armed guards carrying automatic weapons, but at the same time, leftists lose their minds over the idea of having that same thing in public schools to provide security and to harden those soft targets that are simply not protected by a "gun free zone" sign as well as they might have hoped.
Arming teachers would be a cheaper, much more immediate alternative, which could be implemented quite quickly.
But when was the last time any leftist indicated they'd even consider that as a viable alternative?
The problem... as is the case with so many issues... is that leftists generally offer up zero viable solutions to the resolve this situation.
The ask the stupid question like Greg did, as if we need to justify our decisions concerning why we buy what we buy while they, correspondingly, have no such responsibility in return for anything THEY may purchase. But when presented with alternatives that would WORK?
Nobody's home.
So, generally, the conversations involving anti-gunners are resolutely one-sided and mono-directional.
They CLAIM (some of them, anyway) that gun confiscation is NOT their goal. But the problem is that far too many of them actually DO have that as a goal.
They see the removal of weapons from this country (that pesky little Second Amendment aside) as some sort of utopian vision that would make everything sweetness and light.
They lie, and even Greg admits they make up numbers to support their position. So why, for example, hold a conversation with liars?
The classic infringements to owning a weapon are those of Chicago, where slaughter goes on every day without peep one from these same people (Tell me, Greg... when was the last time you demanded some sort of "conversation" about Chicago, where 650 people were slaughtered last year?) because CLEARLY, "what we're doing now is not working THERE," either; and, of course, California... where all of THEIR problems... like all of OUR problems... are solved with an "assault weapons" ban, magazines that cannot exceed 10 rounds of capacity, a "5 year firearm safety certificate," passing a written test, registered to owners the state keeps track of (and what invader wouldn't love to get their hands on that? Or what out-of-control government?) the ending of new models of hand gun sales, private firearms sales forced to go through licensed dealers, a 10 day waiting period, a "may issue" state, with "no issue" locations like LA and San Francisco and so on.
Right?
Well, maybe not. But it makes them FEEL better... unless one of their kids is in the classroom in question.
THAT is the kind of conversation leftists generally and those on the fringes here in Washington State want to have.
Because, you know, those laws are VERY effective. After all, there haven't been any terrorist attacks or school shootings or police getting shot in California... has there?
I mean, except for the ones where all those people got killed?
And in all of this, let's never lose sight that the FBI has been warned REPEATEDLY about mass killers, including this one, and they've REPEATEDLY dropped the ball... just like they did in Florida.
New... or additional... gun laws are NOT going to work if the ones we have now are not enforced and if we don't even follow up when those involved in this sort of thing are served up on a silver platter... BEFORE they attack.
The problem is massive. All we can do is the best we can but let's face it, it's like a giant whack-a-mole game.
If we turned every school into a fortress, that wouldn't eliminate the threat. It would reduce it, but not eliminate it, particularly if more than one person was involved.
We've already had other soft targets hit: movie theaters, shopping centers, clubs, concerts, churches... the ability to provide security... meaningful security on those targets... will be expensive, exacting, frustrating and most anti-American, inconvenient.
But that is what it's going to take.
Greg and his ilk are very big on the zealous defense of their First Amendment rights, no matter how much they may lie, exaggerate, attack or use the rag as a cudgel to beat people into submission, like they have on more than one occasion attempted to beat ME.
It's just a damned shame they're not nearly as concerned about ALL of the Bill of Rights, INCLUDING the Second Amendment, as they are their little corner of it.
So, by all means... have a conversation. And wake me up when you come up with something new.
