Saturday, March 16, 2013
What would George do?
Do you believe that George Washington would have ever agreed to a law limiting the number of musket balls or powder you could carry?
Why can a criminal carry, with no fear of being stopped, a pistol with a greater capacity than I am?
If three thugs with guns try to rob or harm me or my family, why should I be limited to seven bullets?
Will the American people continue to support the idiots in office that want to strip them of the ability to protect themselves, yet tell them to pee or puke on their attackers, blow a whistle, shout loudly and wait for the police?
Will they?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hopefully come the 2014 elections a lot of politicians on both the state and the national level will find themselves unemployed for supporting anti-gun legislation, much like what happened back in the 90's during the Clinton era.
ReplyDeletewell, if they can't limit us, they COULD just buy it all up, right? As they ARE NOW??!!!
ReplyDeleteDiamond Dave is right...HOPEFULLY, that will work.
I watched CPAC all morning and was so energized by the YOUNG PEOPLE who are not willing to cave to the Left...I felt hope for the first time in a LONG time. I don't believe those young (23, 25 years old) state office holders will give up guns!
I though that too, Z.
DeleteBut they're buying hollow point. I can't figure where the ball nose is going.
I liked what Sarah Palin said about background checks:
Shoulda done one on Obama.
Do you believe that George Washington would have ever agreed to a law limiting the number of musket balls or powder you could carry?
ReplyDelete-----
Do you believe anyone but right winder would compare a muzzle loader to a semi automatic?
If you can't get the job done with three, you ain't gonna get it done.
The whole argument s moot.
If no one but a "right winger" can see the equivalence of contemporary weaponry, its not our fault.
DeleteAnd three bullets per assailant, and up to ten assailants makes a thirty round capacity. OK.
The problem is we have let the political conversation become one of "need". This is the insidious force behind socialism and today's modern Democrat/progressive/whatever.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need that much money. You don't need that'assault rifle", you don't need that...
They will ignore the notion the poor welfare queen does not 'need' a cellphone. Or that semiautomatic black plastic rifles are rarely used in crimes. After all, in Washington's time one needed a rifle to hunt and protect ones-self from the wilderness and savages. Now we have the police, so you do not 'need' a gun.
It won't be long before big pickup trucks are questioned. After all,you don't haul stuff,why do you 'need' that gas hog?
Once the public has learned to focus on 'needs' you are finally close to reaching the goal --each according to his ability/each according to his needs.
Like Ducky says I only need three bullets (I knew they wouldn't stop at seven).
DeleteHow does he know my need ahead of time?
The problem is we have let the political conversation become one of "need". This is the insidious force behind socialism and today's modern Democrat/progressive/whatever.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need that much money. You don't need that'assault rifle", you don't need that...
They will ignore the notion the poor welfare queen does not 'need' a cellphone. Or that semiautomatic black plastic rifles are rarely used in crimes. After all, in Washington's time one needed a rifle to hunt and protect ones-self from the wilderness and savages. Now we have the police, so you do not 'need' a gun.
It won't be long before big pickup trucks are questioned. After all,you don't haul stuff,why do you 'need' that gas hog?
Once the public has learned to focus on 'needs' you are finally close to reaching the goal --each according to his ability/each according to his needs.