Screw in the Ass in_Michigan wrote:
partisan asshole .... GOP leadership is using violent rhetoric to stir up its base. GOP leadership is advocating violence without implicating themselves in it. That's a fact. Open a fucking newspaper for once in your life and learn how to read between the fucking lines. "The government is going to take my kids away if I don't get them vaccinated." Yeah, nothing there. "2nd amendment solutions." Yep, very peaceful.
Go fuck yourselves, tards.
Open up a fucking newspaper and you don't have to read between the lines to understand that the liberals openly are advocating for complete gun control and the repeal of all 2nd Amendment rights. See Nicholas Kristoff's column in the New York Times, or any of the other liberal pablum spewing faggots that come out of the woods when they can spout their anti gun rhetoric to any body who will listen...
very interesting take on the 2nd ammendment. Maybe this is
> one of the thoughts the founding fathers had in mind.
>
> "The Gun Is Civilization"
>
> by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
>
> 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.
>
> 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 drunk guys with baseball bats
> The gun removes the disparity in physical strength,
> size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a
> defender.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
