Archive

Monthly Archives: June 2016

Marko Kloos

meme-why-do-you-need-an-assault-rifle

With the exception of those societies where the average citizen is armed as a matter of course, or societies where the bullies (state-sponsored or freelance) have a monopoly on personal weaponry while denying it to potential opponents and the average guy on the street. This thoughtful analysis simplifies the gun grabber debate and I recommend you give it a read then share the link. The teachable moment comes when you realize that there is no real difference between the gun grabbers of today (the progressive left and other cowards) and yesterdays most notorious bad guys.

Like Mao said, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” In a repressive totalitarian system, the folks who hold power always make sure that they’re the only ones who can bear arms. They do this so they don’t have to bother with reason when convincing everyone to get along with the program, skipping straight to force. (People who don’t have reason on their side always favor force, of course. Sound like any group you know?)

That’s probably a big subconscious factor in why so many Leftists are against guns in the hands of the citizenry (and not a small number of right-wingers as well, although they tend to deny the RTBA to specific undesirable groups, not everyone.)

Read On!

15-0614-Gun-Grabbers

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

cb100515dAPR20151005084615
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

5b48c2fcd57fa8c977e7fecb214550ae
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat— it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

liberal logic
Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

ggbg
When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By  |  June 13, 2016, 08:39am  |  @lifeofgrace224

“ALL THE MUSLIM NEWS..IS A DECEPTION..TO KEEP YOUR EYES OFF THE BOLSHEVIKS IN YOUR GOV!!”

101eb91bfce0cd57e2468e18ced084f7

The false narrative emerging from the media seeks to make a few points, all of which are red herrings and straw men designed to take attention from the truth.

  • The shooter, Omar Mateen, was homophobic because he hated gays.
  • Mateen was unstable because he was mean and beat his wife
  • Mateen had too much unfettered access to guns
  • Mateen was not religiously motivated

Story after story references these points, and they quote each other liberally (take the pun as you wish). Fox News quoted a coworker at security firm G4S who called him “toxic” and “unhinged.” The Times of London quoted CNN, about his first wife, “He was mentally unstable and mentally ill.” Anti-gun New York Daily News quoted NBC News, who spoke to Mateen’s father Seddique Matteen, who insisted the rampage had nothing to do with religion.

aylan_kurdi_syrian_death_isis_us_uk_saudi_turkey_qatar_uae_rothschild_zionist_fault

The Washington Post also did a story on Seddique Mateen defending his son.

“He had a child and a wife, and was very dignified, meaning he had respect for his parents,” Seddique Mateen wrote, standing in front of the flag of his apparent birthplace, Afghanistan. “I don’t know what caused him to shoot last night.”

The shooter’s father has close connections with his native Afghanistan, and has traveled back there as recently as 2014, even interviewing Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul, according to the Washington Post. He made a series of Youtube videos praising the Taliban and railing against the U.S.

The Boston Globe appears to be at a complete loss as to Mateen’s motive for the killings, because there’s no actual proof (besides the killer’s own words pledging allegiance is ISIS) he was tied to any jihadist causes.

Al-Quaeda-is-CIA-108040349356

While Mateen claimed allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, no evidence had emerged by late Sunday pointing to actual ties to terrorist groups or a significant association with jihadist causes.

Yes, they actually wrote that. Apparently a confession isn’t evidence to them.

We can either accept the media narrative, that some unknown complex mix of motives drove this mentally ill man to buy readily available assault weapons and kill people he simply hated for no reason, or we can apply Occam’s Razor–the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Story Continues Here (Click)

The Media Is Spinning A False Narrative

The Car Guyz

Auto Industry Experts Playing for the Other Team ...You!

FOXNews.com

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The Rush Limbaugh Show

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Breitbart News

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Drudge Retort

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

Fathers' Rights Blog

by Jeffery M. Leving

therightwingextremist

Stomping out Liberal Lunacy Whereever it's Found ...Which lately has been like playing Whack -A- Mole

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: