Skip to comments.But the State will protect you!
Posted on 02/20/2014 8:58:13 AM PST by rktman
Huffington Post writer Monica Bauer claims that she has A New Argument for Gun Control, but sounds like the same old worn-out lies to me.
(Excerpt) Read more at bearingarms.com ...
Liberal Statist Control Freaks: Begging not for the boot to be taken off their throats, but for a different boot to be placed on their throats, maybe one that has a tread pattern that isn’t quite as uncomfortable as the current one....at least only for them...
Tell the Lakotas at Wounded Knee about state protection.
Or the Branch Davidians at Waco.
It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.
This is an excellent time to remind everyone that Jim Robinson is not a “gnome.”
Her argument all suggests that simply having a firearm tempts you to commit murder.
who is going to protect me from the STATE???
that is what the 2nd is all about...not hunting or target shooting...
you did the right thing. found the article somewhere else.
Huffington Post is not wanted for good reason.
WHY DO THEY WANT OUR GUNS?
Of course the government already has this right and there are already many, many laws on the books regulating access to firearms. What the author really means is, "shouldn't the government have the right to ban private ownership of guns". She just doesn't have the guts to say it.
It is a primary function of the state to protect people. If the State fails, for any reason, in meeting that obligation then the people must intervene. To organize the necessary intervention Vigilance Committees are formed. Such committees are not nice, warm, fuzzy and cuddly but they can be effective. See San Francisco in the 1850’s.
Same old same old. Yawn.
The Brady crowd do love to keep on trying.
They should all move to Connecticut.
I guess having rocks would, too.
"Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn't allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians." -Alexander Hope, from the novel 'Hope' by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman
LOL! At least I didn’t call him an anti 1st amendment nazi.
Roger that. You need a proximity indicator that measures the increase in your desire to act out when near a firearm.
LOL! Yeah, did you check her bio and creds? Typical nut case. She should be prohibited from ever even writing about guns.
Thanks for that reference ping.
A few weeks back I actually had someone from the Commie left dispute that and it much easier to obliterate their silly talking point when you have the information at your fingertips.
...ready access to guns is, in the terminology of Catholic dogma (but logical to anybody who can think) an occasion of sin. If you want to avoid committing a sin, stay away from the immediate temptation
No it is NOT logical. It is an example of projecting her own evil intentions on the rest of us. What is this "temptation" of which she speaks? The fact that SHE would apparently be constantly tempted to commit murder if she had a gun readily available to her does not mean everyone is so tempted.
I have NEVER felt the slightest temptation to shoot someone simply because I was carrying a gun. Even on the two occasions in my life when I found it necessary to brandish a firearm in order to assure my self-protection (neither of which ultimately involved the necessity of firing the weapon) I STILL felt no temptation, nor inclination, to shoot the perpetrator unless it became absolutely necessary.
Are you 100% certain of this?
Many of us have never actually seen or met Jim Robinson; but we are regularly made aware he exists by the small gifts he leaves lying around FR for us.
You have to admit, that is VERY gnome-like behavior.
No, it should not. And, in fact, it does not, and CAN not have such a right -- because government does not HAVE "rights", government has POWERS.
But, it shouldn't have the POWER to do it either - and, by a strict reading of our Constitution, it does NOT have that power.
And he does not have a (g)nome de plume.
You can find him Here until the task at hand is completed.