Commonsense Discussion on Guns

Commonsense Discussion on Guns

Commonsense Discussion on Guns

The liberals always assure us that all they want is a commonsense discussion on guns, and that they really don’t want to take our guns away.

Of course, their actions have belied their claims, especially after Robert Francis O’Dumbass admitted the Democrats’ agenda publicly and proudly – yes, they want to take your guns, and yes, they are willing to go door to door to confiscate them if needed. There’s your commonsense discussion.

No, the Democrats don’t want a commonsense discussion on guns. A commonsense discussion requires both sides to listen and learn. The Democrats have shown no willingness to do so. In Virginia, as soon as these fascist pigs seized control of the legislature, they shat upon the floor of the Commonwealth’s government every anti-freedom scheme to grab as many guns as humanly possible. And despite, civilized conversations in Richmond about gun control during Lobby Day last week, the Democrats showed that they refuse to listen or even consider the other side of the conversation. The day after peaceably engaging with activists, they rammed through their onerous agenda without another thought, showing that a commonsense discussion is only so much bullshit lip service they pay.

And frankly, commonsense discussion cannot happen when one side twists the truth, denigrates its interlocutors as Nazis and white supremacists, and refuses to acknowledge simple facts.

I point you once again to Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas’ speech from two years ago about why we cannot have an honest debate on gun control.

The Democrats don’t want an honest conversation. They don’t want a commonsense discussion. They are willing to spread the dumbest propaganda about gun rights advocates and abuse their power to ensure they jam their anti-freedom agenda with the help of the great unwashed ignorami who know nothing about the issue, but are stirred emotionally to infringe on our rights “for the children” or something.

You cannot have a commonsense discussion with people who use the media to twist the truth about tragic shootings to support their political agenda. You can’t have a commonsense discussion about guns when news outlets mischaracterize everything from criminal histories to gun laws to push a political agenda, as CNN did in a recent Kansas City, MO shooting incident.

Police identified 29-year-old Jahron Swift as the shooter who killed one woman and injured 15 before he was killed by an armed guard January 19. CNN published a report Wednesday saying Swift likely would have gone to prison over a weapons charge if not for the state’s 2017 permitless carry law. However, the report obfuscated the date of Swift’s charge to suggest the law let him off the hook for it.

All of Swift’s prior arrests and weapons charges came before Missouri’s gun law went into effect. Even after it was enacted on Jan. 1, 2017, the permitless carry law would not have nullified Swift’s pending unlawful use of weapons charges. But regardless of the permitless carry law, Swift was convicted of two felonies and therefore could not have legally carried a gun.

You cannot have a commonsense discussion with people who know fuckall about guns, but are using government force – the very authority entrusted to them by those who elected them – to disarm not only those who put them in power (those shitguzzlers are begging to be flogged and choked by the petty tyrants they elect like quivering worms paying a dominatrix – only not as fun) but people who have forgotten more about the subject matter than these elected officials knew in their lifetimes.

As proof, I present to you Alexandria, VA Delegate Mark Levine trying to explain the difference between a hunting rifle and an “assault” weapon he’s been trying to ban for years.

Note the difference between the passionate eloquence of Nick Freitas, who very quickly dismantled many of the arguments his anti-freedom opponents toss as justification for their gun-grabbing policies, and this unhinged ignoramus.

Courtesy of sfbaywalk on Flickr; CC 2.0

This authoritarian twatmold did everything but scream “PEW! PEW! PEW!” at his audience, and you can hear snickers from those listening to him squeal. Everything he knows about shooting – which is precisely dick – he learned from Bugs Bunny cartoons. And yet, he’s trying not only to explain to his constituents the difference between the guns he’s trying to ban and common hunting rifles, but claiming that hunters don’t like the kinds of firearms he’s trying to ban!

Can you have a commonsense discussion with a gun grabber who smears his feces on the wall and calls it “commonsense gun legislation?”

Can you have a commonsense discussion with legislators who abuse the powers of their offices to shut down legitimate businesses merely because they sell a (perfectly legal) product that they do not like?

Can you have a commonsense discussion with people who claim that because you value your rights and want to preserve them against infringements by uninformed, ignorant petty tyrants, you have a small penis?

Can you have a commonsense discussion about guns with people who accuse you of white supremacist leanings while twisting events to suit their need to denigrate you for standing up for your rights?

You cannot. There’s no commonsense discussion with these fuckweasels. They either know the facts and ignore them, or they’re too stupid to understand the facts and you’d be wasting your time teaching a pig to sing, which wastes your time and annoys the pig.

 

Featured photo: Photoshop by Darleen Click.

Written by

Marta Hernandez is an immigrant, writer, editor, science fiction fan (especially military sci-fi), and a lover of freedom, her children, her husband and her pets. She loves to shoot, and range time is sacred, as is her hiking obsession, especially if we’re talking the European Alps. She is an avid caffeine and TWD addict, and wants to own otters, sloths, wallabies, koalas, and wombats when she grows up.

10 Comments
  • Tom Bowler says:

    The Second Amendment is the kill switch to the Constitution. And the Democrats came so close. Just imagine if Hillary had won. We would never have found out how thoroughly weaponized against American people our federal agencies had become.

    Look what the Obama administration has accomplished towards negating the Fourth Amendment with its illegal surveillance of Trump campaign personnel, surveillance of journalists, hacking into Sharyl Attkisson’s computer. And don’t get me started on hate speech and IRS targeting to gut the First Amendment.

    But the Second Amendment is the big enchilada. Flip that switch and rest of our constitutional protections are gone in no time flat. There is no good faith on the part of Democrats, on this or any other issue.

    Good article. Right on the money.

  • Reasonable. Commonsense. These are subjective terms and when someone uses them they are trying to create a consensus with their own opinions without regard at all for others people’s take on what ever issues are at hand.

    The entire anti-gun lobby uses inflated statistics and poll tested talking point ‘code words’ when they promote their agenda. The real question I have when dealing with the anti-gun lobby is what is it exactly that they seek?

    The answer always given is ‘to save innocent lives’ but we could argue that guns save lives and be just as correct statistically. No no no, they say, those are anomalies of numbers and ‘what about the children?’. On and on this dance of emotions versus facts and contrary emotions goes.

    We are taught as children to compromise with others. This is the downfall of the pro-gun side because when you are a kid and you compromise it is never about issues that have life long consequences. In the gun debate, decisions made do have life long consequences and sometimes life ending consequences. No, we should forget our social training when we deal with the anti-gun activists.

    The facts are that law abiding citizens do not need to be regulated when it comes to guns. They do not need to be registered because they do not act in ways that would bring into question their ability to safely own a firearm. So, if this is true, what about gun crime?

    Well, people who seek to harm others or use the threat of harm in order to commit a crime use guns the same as they could use a large knife or any other dangerous implement. The universal feature of these people is that they seek to commit a crime which could harm someone. It is not because they have access to an instrument that could cause harm that puts these ideas that are criminal and immoral in their heads. No, they, the people themselves, make the choice to act in these dangerous manners.

    We are seeing in England the evolution of controls seeking to limit physical attacks with deadly weapons and to no avail I might add. The biggest statistic that is driving their current upward trend in attacks is the massive influx of immigrants from violent cultures. These immigrants make choices to harm others based on their social values and beliefs and no amount of restrictions on the availability of knives and sharp implements will curtail this. It is an education and heritage based problem and short of arming every potential victim (or assigning armed bodyguards to all citizens) this will continue either until the immigrants are expelled (doubtful) or assimilated into British society (also doubtful). I am saying that people act as they choose and to disarm an honest and otherwise intelligent and responsible good citizen is to make them more likely to be a victim.

    I close my remark by saying it is time to refuse to listen to the anti-gun crowd at least until they will recognize our facts and statistics and accept that you cannot stop someone who is a criminal in thought and intent because as in England they are finding ways to carry out their desired acts of violence despite strict bans and controls.

    We need to say no to new gun laws. We need to repeal existing restrictions and regulations. We need to stand for the Second Amendment and say no, we will not be forced to accept the anti gun lies any more.

    • GWB says:

      We are taught as children to compromise with others.
      Yes. Some of us learned, though, that some things are never to be compromised. We learned that principles were never to be compromised.

      Compromise always ends up halfway between A and B. If you are currently at A and it’s a position of goodness, then any compromise is NOT a good thing. Any compromise will move the Overton Window such that the next compromise will be further from the position of goodness.

      I’m okay with “registration” if it consists of “What?! You don’t have a 5.56 rifle? Are you a conscientious objector? No? Then get your butt down to Bubba’s Gun Shop and get one! It’s a militia requirement!”

    • — Reasonable. Commonsense. These are subjective terms and when someone uses them they are trying to create a consensus with their own opinions without regard at all for others people’s take on what ever issues are at hand. —

      They’re not just subjective terms; they’re also probes at the personality and character. When Smith says to Jones “Now let’s be reasonable,” what he’s really doing is seeking to discover whether Jones’s adverse convictions and character are weak enough that he can be flattered out of them. In effect, Smith is saying, “If you’re a reasonable man — and of course I think you are — you’ll agree with me.”

      “Commonsense” has a similar though more ominous cast: “How can you be against commonsense gun laws?” is another way of saying “Disagreeing with me is a declaration that you lack common sense about this issue.” Once again, your character is being tested: will you stand your ground when the conversation takes an insulting turn? (It can also be seen as an attempt to imply that you’re “out of touch.”)

      Most political discourse is an attempt to manipulate others’ emotions. “Reasonable” and “commonsense” deserve to be seen in that light, regardless of any claims to the contrary.

  • Anchovy says:

    Guns are icky. Many liberals take pride in knowing nothing about guns. It is a badge of honor. I remember a few years ago a large breasted blonde species of news reader referring to an incident in which a person used a “38 millimeter hand gun”.

    Most info babes know more about mascara than machine guns.

  • reverendken says:

    Common sense dictates it is none of the governments business what I own.

  • JOHN B THAYER says:

    If we can’t trust you with a loaded gun, then we can’t trust you without one, either!

  • Mark says:

    My iq dropped about 8 points watching the idiot explain/demonstrate why mass shooters don’t like long guns. How stupid does one have to think their audience is to spout that tripe? Forget the complete lack of knowledge of firearms, he thinks he’s talking to a roomful of kindergarteners. Maybe that crap flies in nyc since they have no clue, but Virginia?

  • Paul Bonneau says:

    In my life (I’m 70) I have convinced 2 people of the wrongness of gun control. One was an intelligent man who was simply ignorant; all it took was some basic research on his part, and some comments from me, to turn him around. The other was a Quaker woman; she was easily turned simply by pointing out that gun control is the opposite of non-violent, and in fact would probably lead to war.

    There are probably a few others I’m not aware of. I think convincing people is better done by a flank attack than a frontal charge. If you just act like a normal decent person, and then people discover you are a gun owner, it probably starts to gnaw at the brain.

    From my quotes file:
    “When, in the course of studying a long series of military campaigns, I first came to perceive the superiority of the indirect over the direct approach, I was looking merely for light upon strategy. With deepened reflection, however I began to realize that the indirect approach had a much wider application – that it was a law of life in all spheres: a truth of philosophy. Its fulfillment was seen to be the key to practical achievement in dealing with any problem where the human factor predominates, and a conflict of wills tends to spring from an underlying concern for interests. In all such cases, the direct assault of new ideas provokes a stubborn resistance, this intensifying the difficulty of producing a change in outlook. Conversion is achieved more easily and rapidly by unsuspected infiltration of a different idea or by an argument that turns the flank of instinctive opposition. The indirect approach is as fundamental to the realm of politics as to the realm of sex. In commerce, the suggestion that there is a bargain to be secured is far more potent than any direct appeal to buy. And in any sphere it is proverbial that the surest way of gaining a superior’s acceptance of a new idea is to persuade him that it is his idea! As in war, the aim is to weaken resistance before attempting to overcome it; and the effect is best attained by drawing the other party out of his defenses.” — B.H. Liddel Hart, “Strategy”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram