And Here I Thought I Couldn't Find MORE Reasons To Hate Slick Willie
But he should be regarded as culpable for the deaths of 14 folks at Fort Hood.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz139.html
Stupid fucking Gun-Fearing PUSSIES.
UPDATE:
Prof. Hale posts:
As a man wiser than me said, "Responsibility is not a zero-sum game."
One can hold those responsible for the results of disarming law-abiding citizens. Namely, the amount of suffering inflicted by criminals on the general population.
It is immoral to disarm free men. The idea that gun bans work should be absurd to any individual currently not retarded or illiterate. You don't have to like guns to admit that legal gun bans do little to deter gun violence.
In fact, the opposite is quite easily proven. Localities enacting gun bans invite violence. It is a statistical fact. DC, Chicago, NYC... how much more proof do you need? To put a finer point on it: How many innocent victims' corpses would it take for anti-gun folks to admit they're wrong?
Gun banners and their supporters cause innocent, law-abiding citizens to die. PERIOD. Crooks ain't stupid. They look for the easy prey. Gun wielders are not typically considered easy prey.
Just like it's better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man languish in prison, it's better 100 scumbags get shot dead by the non-criminals than one decent person die because they're helpless in the face of evil.
And then there's that annoying 2nd amendment thing...
In all candor I DO despise Clinton. There's no shortage of my loathing of the bastard and his dyke and I hope to urinate on his grave someday. (Watch Hillary get his ass cremated just to piss me off.)
(Of course, the same applies to every other President I can think of except MAYBE for JFK and only because it looks likely he was whacked for being anti-war establishment.)
But after the good Professor's post, I must confess to being at least partially historically ignorant. I wouldn't have thought such utter lunacy would go back very far, though it probably goes back to at least Civil War days the more I think of it.
But even after all that it's STILL all Clinton's fault.
Because it's my blog and I say so.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz139.html
Stupid fucking Gun-Fearing PUSSIES.
UPDATE:
Prof. Hale posts:
I wish to point out that the dis-arming of the Army has been going on for a very long time. Military barracks used to stack rifles in the center isle. Senior military commanders were banning guns on post long before Clinton. Ft Know, 1987 was one such place. We were told at the time it was in response to a shooting at the local Burger King. By this logic, the prevention we are likely to see more of at Fort Hood is increased gun-phobic regulations, and metal detectors at all future departure ceremonies.John-O posts:
Increasing personal freedom is the last thing that would occur to military leaders.
Well, I may be nuts. That's probably up for debate. As for no soldiers being armed, that you can maybe pin on Clinton, but not whatever caused Hasan to pull the trigger in the first place. Pinning 14 dead soldiers on Clinton only demonstrates an arbitrary anti-Clinton bias, not a valid argument.I say:
As a man wiser than me said, "Responsibility is not a zero-sum game."
One can hold those responsible for the results of disarming law-abiding citizens. Namely, the amount of suffering inflicted by criminals on the general population.
It is immoral to disarm free men. The idea that gun bans work should be absurd to any individual currently not retarded or illiterate. You don't have to like guns to admit that legal gun bans do little to deter gun violence.
In fact, the opposite is quite easily proven. Localities enacting gun bans invite violence. It is a statistical fact. DC, Chicago, NYC... how much more proof do you need? To put a finer point on it: How many innocent victims' corpses would it take for anti-gun folks to admit they're wrong?
Gun banners and their supporters cause innocent, law-abiding citizens to die. PERIOD. Crooks ain't stupid. They look for the easy prey. Gun wielders are not typically considered easy prey.
Just like it's better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man languish in prison, it's better 100 scumbags get shot dead by the non-criminals than one decent person die because they're helpless in the face of evil.
And then there's that annoying 2nd amendment thing...
In all candor I DO despise Clinton. There's no shortage of my loathing of the bastard and his dyke and I hope to urinate on his grave someday. (Watch Hillary get his ass cremated just to piss me off.)
(Of course, the same applies to every other President I can think of except MAYBE for JFK and only because it looks likely he was whacked for being anti-war establishment.)
But after the good Professor's post, I must confess to being at least partially historically ignorant. I wouldn't have thought such utter lunacy would go back very far, though it probably goes back to at least Civil War days the more I think of it.
But even after all that it's STILL all Clinton's fault.
Because it's my blog and I say so.
Labels: guns, liberal douchebags, Slick Willie, stupid people
posted by mmaier2112 at 12:56 AM
5 Comments:
Incorrect, but likely to be believed by lots of morons who exchange reason for a tiny little plastic cup of grape juice every Sunday morning. Hasan alone is culpable. Lew Rockwell and The Washington Times exist only to whip frightened conservatives into frenzies of verbal diarrhea. What conservatives like second-best (after fellating their made-up Christ) is ignoring context in order to keep their retarded sheep in line.
If you really think no soldiers would have been armed in that situation were it not for that ban, you're very simply nuts.
But, please! What specifically is incorrect?
And you have far less sense than hair if you think LRC is "conservative".
Well, I may be nuts. That's probably up for debate. As for no soldiers being armed, that you can maybe pin on Clinton, but not whatever caused Hasan to pull the trigger in the first place. Pinning 14 dead soldiers on Clinton only demonstrates an arbitrary anti-Clinton bias, not a valid argument.
I tend to lump libertarians in with conservatives because 1) every libertarian I've ever met is also conservative, and 2) I've not encountered any evidence of liberal libertarians. That evidence may well exist, probably out there on the magic Internets somewhere. I just haven't seen it.
I wish to point out that the dis-arming of the Army has been going on for a very long time. Military barracks used to stack rifles in the center isle. Senior military commanders were banning guns on post long before Clinton. Ft Know, 1987 was one such place. We were told at the time it was in response to a shooting at the local Burger King. By this logic, the prevention we are likely to see more of at Fort Hood is increased gun-phobic regulations, and metal detectors at all future departure ceremonies.
Increasing personal freedom is the last thing that would occur to military leaders.
Post a Comment
<< Home