Here’s the deal – everything the liberals say about guns is a lie. Every. Single. Thing.
Oh, it ain’t just guns, boyo. You coulda just left “about guns” right out of there.
It’s a lie when they scream that you can hit the Guns-2-Go drive-thru and buy yourself a fully semi-automatic assault machine gun with high-powered 5.56 mm rounds, because glorified 5.56 mm rounds are “high-powered” on their planet, faster and quicker than you can call an Uber.
It’s a lie when they say an armed citizenry would be powerless in the face of a leftist government equipped with tanks and artillery and bombers – though their assumption that a leftist government would use tanks and artillery and bombers on the American people seems like a pretty good reason for having an armed citizenry.
It’s a lie when they say they only want to have a “conversation” and seek only “bipartisan compromise.” Foamy Marco Rubio got suckered into that grift just like Chuck Schemer suckered him into pushing amnesty, and they’ve been ritually disemboweling him ever since.
Which brings us round to one of the best lines on the topic I’ve seen yet. Bold mine, because it merits the emphasis:
Liberals constantly sneer that we are “insecure about our masculinity” and “need guns to feel like men.” Leaving aside the millions of gun-owning women out there who don’t seem to fit within that stupid paradigm, and the irony of leftist doors opining on manhood, liberals miss the point.
We don’t need guns to be men. We need guns to be free men.
And that right there is what really drives them nuts.
Update! Who you gonna believe, us or your lying ears?
Did you hear? They’re talking about repealing the Second Amendment. It started with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley. And it sure does seem like those calls prompted skeptics of American gun culture to echo their remarks. Turley and Stevens were joined this week by op-ed writers in the pages of Esquire and the Seattle Times. Democratic candidates for federal office have even enlisted in the ranks of those calling for an amendment to curtail the freedoms in the Bill of Rights. Of course, this is just the most mainstream invocation of anti-Second Amendment themes that have been expressed unashamedly for years, from liberal activists like Michael Moore to conservative opinion writers at the New York Times. Those calling for the repeal of the right to bear arms today are only echoing similar calls made years ago in venues ranging from Rolling Stone, MSNBC, and Vanity Fair to the Jesuit publication America Magazine.
Are you sitting down? You might be surprised to learn that none of this occurred. It’s only your vivid or, some might go so far as to say, fevered imagination. Rest assured, CNN host Chris Cuomo insists that “no one” is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. And even if they are, as Justice Stevens most certainly is, he’s a “boogeyman” who commands no influence or respect. Apparently, to suggest that anyone is calling for such extremist measures, and not universally beloved “common-sense” restrictions on firearms ownership, amounts to swatting at phantoms. Cuomo retreated into a familiar, well-fortified rhetorical trench—a place where other liberals can be found whenever basic firearm-ownership rights are called into question. Essentially, his contention boils down to this: You didn’t hear what you thought you heard.
You might also have heard conservatives complain about a double standard applied to students who survived the Parkland shooting and emerged as prominent gun-control activists. Those conservatives claim that when they take these students seriously and engage with their ideas or criticize them for unfairly smearing their opponents, they are accused of issuing personal assaults on the character of near-defenseless children. Well, you’ll be happy to learn that this, too, is a figment of conservative imaginations.
It is a “straw-man argument,” suggested the New Republic editor Jeet Heer, to claim that liberals have reacted with anything other than friendly disagreement when student activists are criticized. The left’s only visceral objections arise when figures on the right accuse these students of fabricating their identity or experience—which, unfortunately, has occurred. The mere suggestion that the left has done anything other than welcome respectful and legitimate criticism of the Parkland students amounts to “conspiracy theories,” according to Rewire New editor-in-chief Jodi Jacobson. Anyone saying otherwise is “scared” or peddling a “weak case.”
That’s good to know. I was concerned for a while there that liberals had deliberately conflated substantive disagreement with personal attacks on the Parkland activists.
Don’t worry, folks; if you don’t like any of those lies, they have plenty of others.
Turtles lies, all the way down.
For baseball players, it’s “Keep your eye on the ball.”
For fighter pilots, it’s “Lose sight, lose the fight.”
Different ways of saying the same thing:
History’s gut pile is assembled from the body parts of the witless and clueless.
At its root, the Parkland shooting, except for the dozen-and-a-half unfortunate victims, was nothing surprising or newly dreadful, and nothing functionally different than any of the other mass shootings enabled by the concentrated stupidity of Gun Free Victim Zones. It’s what happens when you ring the dinner bell, chum the water, and push tourists into the pool with predators created by the Left, sharing the same amoral outlook as hungry carnivorous sharks.
FFS, that’s been the entire point of the exercise, indeed the very raison d’etre for the Evil Party to enact it: precisely to keep up a steady supply of outrageous acts, to feed their Political Hate Machine with a never-ending supply of still-warm victim’s blood, for their faithful party hacks to always be dancing in, until they achieve their goal:
the total disarmament of anyone who would oppose their totalitarian control of the population.
Whoot, there it is. Plenty more at the link, of which you should read the all.