Sean Sorrentino found this one:
One thing you come to realize as you explore the darker corners of the pro-gun movement is how cowardly and soulless many of these men are. They are so terrified of having a simple physical confrontation (i.e., shoving match, fistfight)–and so bitter about what it might do to their pride and reputation if they come out on the losing side of the equation–that they would rather shoot and kill another human being than stand up and face that situation (which frequently is of their own making). It’s a philosophy so devoid of dignity, honor, courage, and value for human life that every American of conscience must speak against it, loudly.
I had warned earlier in the year that Gun Control groups would start to ratchet up the rhetoric because they were feeling not only not advancing but actually losing ground in great swaths. Here is a great example of that.
Cowardly, soulless, terrified, bitter, devoid of dignity, honor, courage and value for human life.
Could they lay it any thicker? But dehumanizing the target of your attacks is a well-known and traditional method of political attack, so it should not surprise us: If you are perceived as less than human, the act of killing you becomes more palatable and easier to accept by your followers.
They are no longer humans like you but Jews. They don’t feel love because they are Tutsi. They don’t worry about the same every day things because they are Armenians. They don’t feel pain because they are Croats. And because of all of the above, they all were killed without remorse.
I think it is Donna who chides me for paying too much attention to CSGV, but I do believe they are ounce per ounce the most dangerous Gun Control organization out there. And I don’t mean it in the political-power sense but that they are deranged enough to pull some seriously idiotic stunt that would get people killed (like their latest call for SAWTting people legally carrying guns) and then try to validate their belief system. Yes, belief system because I am not kidding when I call them a Cult.
.And for the “They are so terrified of having a simple physical confrontation,” there is no such thing in real life. Only in the movies.
Thanks to Sean for letting me run with this latest stupidity from the Cult Coalition to Stop Gun Rights Violence.
“Cowardly, soulless, terrified, bitter, devoid of dignity, honor, courage and value for human life.”
This, coming from people who view a man jovially conversing and laughing as a threat to human decency just because he has a gun on his hip, who got a black man and a single mother killed on false accusations and then laughed about it, who would actually cross the street to stay away from a black man with a gun vs. a white man with a gun, and who ask when they’re “allowed” to shoot an armed person.
Hello Pot, this is Kettle.
The kettle with the pastel floral design.
Wow, I did not know I was so depraved because I want to protect my family. I’m glad that CSGV could clarify that for me. I would counter that they are cowards if they refuse to protect the innocent because they have not taken any steps to do so. I would say they do not value human life by failing to have an effective response to protect innocent life. Sounds like a huge amount of projection.
Let’s say this sweeping generalization was even remotely true. Wouldn’t most gun owners have resorted to shooting any nuisance and ended up convicted for an unjustified homicide? It is the same idea we have expressed before that if we are indeed so violent as they depict, then there would not be any (mouth) breathing anti-gunners left.
Hm.
More people die from fists and feet than knives, blunt objects, or guns.
But I’m not supposed to worry about “a simple beat down”.
Take it! Take it like a man!
What rubbish. The CSGV would be laughable if they weren’t serious. What’s the first thing any one of their members would do if they thought for a moment they were about to be attacked with fists and feet? They’d call 911 and ask the operator to send men with guns to defend them from the attack! Hypocrites, each and every one of them.
Saw this the other day on the ISRA FB page. They had two words.
Mary Shepard
You can’t use lethal force against a non-lethal threat, nor can you unlawfully create circumstances (like starting a fight) and then lawfully employ lethal force to put an end to the situation you created. They’re actually talking about murderers, and not the 100 million+ American firearms owners who killed no one yesterday, none of whom think the scenarios described by the CSGV are OK.
[…] Second Amendment advocates “cowardly” and “soulless” according to anti-gun g…. Even the media can’t understand that a person can both have sympathy for victims of a mass shooter, while also believing in a strong and robust Second Amendment. […]
Miguel,
Forgive me for not knowing the latest acronyms. “…they are deranged enough to pull some seriously idiotic stunt that would get people killed (like their latest call for SAWTting people legally carrying guns…” What is the definition of SAWTing? I have had no luck searching for it. Since I regularly carry, I’d like to know what these nutjob cult members are calling for.
thanks!
SWATing is the practice of targeting an innocent person (often a political or ideological opponent) by phoning 911 with a false or exaggerated report of such a nature as to provoke the police to respond with a SWAT team or other potentially lethal action. (For instance, a person openly carrying a firearm is reported as “brandishing a weapon and verbally threatening passers-by” when the report of the person’s conduct is intentionally false.) The purpose is, at least, to frighten the target, or, at worst, to have the target killed by the responding officers. It is a form of punishment for having the temerity to stand in opposition to, or to act contrary to the beliefs of, a person or organization that is politically or ideologically opposed to the victim’s beliefs or actions and is a type of terrorism. SWATing is dangerous to not only the innocent targets of the practice, but also to the police who respond to the false alarms.
Here is a case where somebody pulled a SWATting and a Sheriff got shot.
http://newsok.com/court-document-reveals-more-about-sentinel-ok-bomb-threat/article/5386857
The first time I heard that meme from a gun-banner was back in the days of newslists and Commodore C64’s. The following response applied then and it applies now — and you would believe how many asshole shut up and leave the board after reading it:
“I have never met a pro-active gun-banner yet who didn’t harbor a secret desire to beat someone senseless with their fists and their feet, or perhaps with a baseball bat, for being … “difficult”. For not doing as they are told. For not agreeing with whatever nonsense they wish to blather. For not worshipping the ground they walk on. Gun-banners hate gun owners because gun owners don’t have to put up with their crap. It must be terribly frustrating, poor things.”
Why should I be willing to take a beating? I’ve done nothing to deserve it, and it could leave me dead or permanently damaged. Besides, I’m out of shape and NOT an experienced fighter — why should that require I bow to bullies and strong men?
Why should my elderly parents be expected to take a beating? It would almost certainly kill them, and their lives are more valuable and productive than that of anyone who would attack them.
Why should a 5′, 100lb woman take a beating? Isn’t her right to live without being crippled, raped, murdered a stronger claim than any thug has to beat her?
The cretins who use the “take it like a man” line terrify me more than all the concealed and open carriers in the country. It always sounds more like they want to beat people, abuse people, but can’t fulfill their dreams because they know there’s a chance they’ll attack an armed man.
(And as far as I’m concerned, being able to defend yourself, being prepared for bad things to happen, is much more manly than beating the tar out of someone.)