You guys remember this beauty from yesterday:
I was amazed to see that I had not been banned from Everytown (yet) so I decided to do some “commenting” of my own. Mostly to point out the lies of the meme they were worshiping. Another Pro 2A posted this Politifact article from 2012 when the Brady Campaign tried to pull a similar stunt and was declared false and I decided to seed that link in as many interesting comments as I could. Most of them never replied back, a couple made a feeble effort, but Ms. Ann Telford got down for the fight…unarmed as usually happens with the kind.
I waited several hours but never responded back. I loved the way she kept changing what she already stated and claiming it was her original position till she painted herself in a corner and pleaded ignorance on why Everytown did what it did but still faithfully supporting them. It is like that old line told to naive girlfriends:”Who are you gonna believe? Me or your cheating eyes?”
Did I convince her? Of course not, you never will. But they make for fantastic lessons to be displayed to others that may not be infected with the virus of gun control fanaticism.
10 thoughts on “Everytown Fans: Moving goalposts is their sport and not good at it.”
Moving the Goalposts seems to also be a bit of Schrödinger’s “Progressive”
If they present a new topic the MOMENT you refute their claimed statement, and ignore their initial claim, did you ever really refute them?
They also love the false argument. “Do you support Terrorists Buying Guns at gun Shows?” or “Do you support keeping 100 round clips legal?”
Well I don’t happen to support known terrorists buying anything (as in being alive enough to exchange currency for anything….or exchange CO2 for Oxygen for that matter), but no, I don’t support this super secret list that is filled with people who are certainly NOT terrorists, nor people who may be ACTUAL terrorists but have not been confirmed and vetted as a real-deal terrorist denying people their rights.
Yes I do, but why are we even talking about this? Antis want to ban magazines that hold 11! or even 8 rounds….100 is completely irrelevant.
While I don’t support gun bans of any sort, I do suspect that a bill making it illegal to own/sell a magazine that holds more than 99 rounds might be a tough battle to fight simply because those big drum mags are little more than finicky range toys.
[…] This “Debate” goes on this way until one side becomes exhausted. You can see a real-world example of this over at Miguel’s: […]
You showed how a calm reasonable effort at discussing the issue is done. And at the same time, you have shown why I can’t engage the anti’s. I would wind up doing more harm than good just from my attitude(bad), never mind what I might actually say(probably profane). My job in this is to refer or link to others that can carry on a civil conversation and keep my mouth shut and my keyboard quiet. So while I don’t advance the pro side very well, at least I’m not hurting it. Like some people here in Texas.
And what about the violation done to our Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unwarranted search and seizure in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct, Miguel? What other fundamental Constitutionally-guaranteed right requires an interrogation under penalty of perjury, and a search of otherwise private records on government databases, before receiving (or being denied) permission to exercise it? What about the violation done to our fifth Amendment right to be secure from being deprived of our rights without due process? What about our Tenth Amendment right to be secure from the exercise of federal government authority not delegated to the federal government, and State authority prohibited to the States?
The transfer of a firearm, whether by purchase or casually, is not probable cause of criminal conduct, and compelling a violation of rights as a precondition to allowing the exercise of a right is not due process, Miguel.
It’s time we reject the narrow view that background checks are a threat to our Second Amendment right and notice that background checks are a threat to ALL our rights and, specifically, to the Rule of Law our nation was founded to establish as our fundamental liberty. It needs to be pointed out to Ms Ann Telford and others of her ilk that what she thinks she does or does not “need” is irrelevant to the issue: Our right to keep and bear arms preserves our right to liberty under the rule of law, and her self-serving “need” compels no specific performance on our part. Background checks are designed to destroy all our rights, and will do so if we embrace them in some misguided guilty conscience about what criminals may or may not do.
It’s time we reject the narrow view that background checks are a threat to our Second Amendment right and notice that background checks are a threat to ALL our rights and, specifically, to the Rule of Law our nation was founded to establish as our fundamental liberty.
Tell me of one single Legislature where I can bring this to tomorrow, have it approved soonest and signed by the Governor the next day.
I’ve traveled all over this country, in fact I have moved several times across this country and I’ve always felt it was necessary to carry a gun on me. My pickup and a u-Haul trailer filled with all of my worldly possessions, including a few dozen guns and several thousand rounds of ammo, a motorcycle, and cash. It would be stupid of me to travel that way without a loaded gun at the ready. I’ve spent more than one night on the road asleep in the front seat at a rest stop. No reason so spend nearly $100 for a few hours rest in a hotel just to keep driving the next day.
Being able to travel like that and not have to worry that I am in violation of one state’s laws while passing through would be a blessing.
“Are these the people you want walking around …”
Yes? Because if _they_ can then so can I.
[…] Despite our opponents best efforts to lie this meme into existence basic research, even ten minutes on Google, would have shown this to be complete nonsense peddled […]
“Did I convince her? Of course not, you never will.”
Which is why she should never be allowed to vote.
You know the only difference between talking to one of these Anti’s and talking to a wall is the pores of the wood MIGHT absorb a little bit of what you are saying.
Comments are closed.
Login or register to comment.