Sunday, April 10

Liberals are idiots, part 8,465

A Nevada college student walking through a campus parking lot after class was accosted and raped.

She'd been a gun owner for years and had a concealed-carry permit. But because her university--like virtually all universities--had declared the campus a "gun-free zone," she was forced leave her gun in her car to attend class.

She's now a very vocal advocate for allowing qualified students to carry weapons on campus. And as you can guess, professors--virtually all of whom are liberals--are howling with outrage. "How dare we allow women the capability to defend themselves?! After all, by banning guns on campus we've ensured that an attacker won't have a gun either. We've established a "gun-free zone," see? Levelled the playing field, so to speak. What more could anyone want?"

The utter idiocy of this argument should be self-evident.

Oh, just FYI: her attacker had a gun. So much for academics passing rules to supposedly ensure a gun-free campus.

Idiots. Morons. Fools. Pompous, posing pencil-necks. "I am King Croesus, and I command the tide not to come in!"

How many demonstrations do these morons need to finally realize that criminals and thugs and rapists and sociopaths cheerfully ignore signs saying "This is a gun-free zone"?

But for the full effect of liberal stupidity you need to go here and read the comments.

Note how many commenters are viscerally opposed to allowing people to defend themselves.

One wonders: If their daughter was attacked and raped, would they get the message, or would they continue to insist that signs and decals will cause criminals to go elsewhere instead of attacking women they know are unarmed?

The notion that criminals will comply with signs is wishful thinking at its worst--and from what I've seen, all too typical of liberal thinking. "We'll make a rule/pass a law, and that will solve the problem."

How's that working out for ya, morons? Yeah, didn't think so. And yet you persist.

Oh, that's right: Y'all are so much smarter than the rest of us.

4 Comments:

Blogger cherylmas said...

I consider myself a non-idiot liberal and tho I agree that those awesome signs that say "no guns allowed" are beyond stupid, I do have to say that I still find the gun laws inadequate. No law abiding citizen is going to violate them and anyone who is a criminal will.

That being said I don't agree that people should be able to carry guns wherever they want to. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. There are surely people out there who need help mentally, but that should not be used an excuse for gun rights advocates to say that all public places should be open to guns.

Gun ownership isn't a right I want to take away but I do believe in strict gun laws. What the government needs to focus on is the illegal gun owners.

1:32 PM  
Blogger sf said...

First, thanks for taking the time to comment, Cheryl. And I'll quickly add that I don't consider *all* liberals idiots (having 5 in my family)--though I do marvel at how many libs endorse policies that seem guaranteed to produce bad outcomes.

For example, from reading a very short sample of your writing you seem to be pretty competent. And I'm honestly baffled as to how a competent person could favor disarming law-abiding citizens in certain places.

You already agree that criminals and the mentally ill will do what they please, regardless of the law. And I'm pretty sure you agree that law-abiding folks with weapons don't constitute a threat to other law-abiding citizens.

I like your idea that govt should "focus on the illegal gun owners." But do you truly believe the IGO's will simply shrug and turn in their weapons if you say pretty-please? And if that won't happen, why in the world would you suggest such a tactic?

I get the impression that like most liberals, you have a very good heart and don't want innocent critters harmed. The "solution" you advocate--banning guns in many places--is superficially logical but strikes me as setting up an infinite line of tragedies (like the girl in the post).

But please feel free to elaborate on exactly how you think this will help. I'm willing to be persuaded!

4:28 PM  
Blogger cherylmas said...

Thanks for your reply Steve.

First of all, most school violence occurs because of alienation and persecution. Columbine is a great example of that and close to my heart because it occured on my birthday. Thing is, the 2 young men who committed the awful crime there couldn't have done it if someone hadn't "legally" obtained the guns which they, in turn, obtained illegally.

The breakdown occured at the parental level and the school level to be sure, but the person who obtained the guns for them should have been held liable also. Gun shows where there are no background checks done should be illegal.

Drug enforcement also plays a huge part in this because if drug laws were enforced better there would be less illegal guns on the street.

College and other gun violence occur because legally obtained guns are used in ways not intended when they were purchsed. The heat of the moment has a whole lot to do with this. I envision a party at a college where a disagreement goes horribly wrong and one party has a gun obtained and carried legally....

Violence creates a demand for guns but guns don't necessarily create violence.

I would advocate for women to arm themselves by learning martial arts rather than arming themselves with guns. The average criminal isn't versed in this would be my guess,and you have a better chance than you would if the attacker could use force to take your gun from you and use it against you.

As for "innocent criiters" being harmed? I have no problem with a hunter killing a "critter" as long as he/she is going to eat that critter. I do draw the line at endanged critters though regardless of if it will be eaten or not! In this web of life on earth there is only one species who relies on all other species to live....humans.

6:33 PM  
Blogger sf said...

By "innocent critters" I primarily meant people--but now that you mention it....

If becoming proficient in martial arts was enough to take out at attacking 250-pound male, why would the police--who have all the time they need to practice and maintain the proficiency needed--need guns?

They have guns because martial arts aren't always enough to let even the cops prevail. Yet you want to ban a 110-pound girl from carrying, and insist that she rely on martial arts??

Hmmm....

5:19 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home