From AntiJenX

Someone posted this “article” [See indented area below] to Facebook last week, and several of us took exception. We’re very, very tired, of the hoplophobic left fabricating this hysterical nonsense and attributing it to those of us who believe that we have a fundamental human right to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

That criminals don’t follow laws is, in fact, a legitimate argument against further restrictions on the rights of law abiding citizens. Stricter gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and everything to punish people who have never broken a law in their lives. If prohibitive laws worked, Prohibition itself would have been a raging success. Instead it led to more than a decade of increased violence and law breaking. The bad guys and dirty politicians got rich, while the innocent, upright citizens got the shaft, and sometimes dead in the crossfire.

The “really passionately angry” author of this piece of pap says himself that the definition of a criminal is “someone who breaks the law and commits crime”. When he suggests that those of us who are pro-gun rights don’t think there should be any laws at all is sheer fantasy on his part. We believe in the necessity of a free society to have rules to help govern civilization. What we do not believe in is the already massively bloated government stepping in, not to enforce the laws that are already on the books, but to create further restrictions that will affect no one but the people who already follow the laws. The new restrictions being proposed by various and sundry aren’t even based in any semblance of  reality. (The term “assault weapon” is entirely a political construct designed to scare people into thinking these rifles are somehow SO MUCH WORSE than an “ordinary” hunting rifle. Wake up, people.)

And then he wrote this sentence: “The deaths of innocents is acceptable collateral damage to these people; why are we listening to them? “ And that’s when I got angry. This is the real leftist fantasy right here. If there is a person among those of us who are anti-gun control who considers the deaths of innocents as acceptable collateral damage, we would be the first to stand up and condemn him or her. Sandy Hook was a great tragedy to all of us, but no more so than the deaths of innocents any where else in this country.

Read more good stuff.

Why Using The “Criminals Don’t Follow Laws Anyway!” Argument Makes You An Idiot

(The Political Garbage Chute) – You know what argument I’m sick of? The anti-gun regulation crowd’s argument that since criminals don’t follow laws, we can’t create any new gun regulations. I’m sure I’m not the only one to commit a few hundred words to the subject, but over the last couple of days I’ve been bombarded with it to the point that I either need to scream or write something about it. So I’m choosing the latter.

…The deaths of innocents is acceptable collateral damage to these people; why are we listening to them?

[About the Author] James Schlarmann:  James is in his thirties and gets really passionately angry about politics. Sometimes that anger foments into diatribes, and sometimes those diatribes are comical. Other times, they are not.

3 thoughts on “I’m with “stupid”…”
  1. One would be hard pressed to find a more aptly named site than The Political Garbage Chute. Ugh. Great job, Jennifer Townsend.

  2. Here is why he’s “sick of” the argument. He cannot dispel its merit.
    It’s just like arguing that government isn’t empowered to require me to put a bible in my pocket or make me get permission to carry it. It’s my RIGHT. Antis get”sick of” that argument as well – and for the same reason. They cannot defeat its merit.

    This is the mentality of those who would regulate the RTKB out of existance.
    It’s time to stand firm. No more deals. No more inches. No NEW regulations. No to permission slips.

  3. The ones who truely use “…The deaths of innocents as (is) acceptable collateral damage to these people;” are the “National Socialist” polit-o-crats pushing their agenda to ban “scarey-looking guns”, to infringe upon the Constitutional Rights of those law-abiding citizens, NOT those fighting them. James Schlaman should reflect on the truth, instead of blathering about things he cannot fathom.


Comments are closed.