Yes, it is.
Gun control is unacceptable because it actively degrades defensive capabilities of non-violent people. They view a peaceful person with a pistol as a bigger problem than a violent person with bare hands or a shank, while the opposite is true. Degrading or eliminating the ability to protect self and family from human or animal predators is an utterly evil purpose. By design – not as an accidental side effect – gun control makes people helpless, fearful and dependent on the authorities who promise safety but cannot deliver it. The only way a person could be kept mostly safe by authorities is with the level of protection afforded to the president. Strange that the politicians enjoy their armed bodyguards instead of dismissing them to “reduce gun violence”.
and another truth the progzis don't like mentioned:
The intent isn’t just to ban “especially dangerous guns” but to disarm
the population the way prisoners are disarmed, totally and with vicious enforcement.
In many countries, possession of even a single shot .22 is punished
more viciously than forcible rape, mainly because one subject raping
another is no threat to the authorities, while any weapon is perceived
as such.
With the excuse almost always being "Oh no! We're protecting you and the other com- er, people from those nasty weapons!"
The hell they are.
Found thanks to CEG
1 comment:
Would that they believed their own drivel and acted on that belief. If all the progs disarmed, including our POTUS, and had all their minions disarm (like, for example, the Secret Service, because guns are bad) I might believe that they were sincere in their beliefs.
With politicians and celebrities calling for the public to disarm while they are protected by armed security details only shows their hypocrisy.
They want to talk the talk, but they're not willing to walk the walk.
Post a Comment