Stupid liberal ideas, part gazillion
Some ideas sound so beguiling, so convincing, so plausible, that 90 percent of people are convinced they must work. But sometimes one can construct a hypothetical that allows "everyone" to see that some ideas are inherently ludicrous--that no one in their right mind could ever actually believe they would work.
Example: "Gun-free zones." Libs believe guns are inherently bad, and kill people with no human intervention. Ergo, if you want to make a library or mall or city hall or school safe from gun violence, simply put a sign on the door declaring that the place is "gun-free."
The fundamental assumption in this theory is that criminals and the mentally deranged will obey the order posted on the door and not bring a gun into the place.
Democratic political leaders loathe the idea of armed citizens. They claim the Founders never intended the second amendment to allow individual citizens to own guns, but intended that right to apply only to members of an official (thus government-run?) militia. And finally, they claim to believe that decreeing that a place is a "gun-free zone" will make those in the zone safe.
But of course these same politicians--and in the case of the president, his children too--are protected by Secret Service agents armed not just with semi-automatic handguns, but fully-automatic machineguns.
So to Democrats: Since your leaders supposedly believe that simply *declaring* a place gun-free is enough to keep your children safe, we could save a lot of money by eliminating Secret Service protection for politicians, and simply declaring the area around them Gun Free Zones.
Since they claim to believe that's enough to keep your kids safe, that kind of simple, elegant declaration should be good enough for them too, right?
But of course, politicians are different. They're better than you, and their kids are more important than yours.
Much more important. Which is why they need armed protection more than your kids do...because...because...LOOK! SQUIRREL!
Try asking them why they claim you don't need guns to protect your family, but they need armed guards to protect their magnificence from bad people.
But you don't. Just ask them.
Example: "Gun-free zones." Libs believe guns are inherently bad, and kill people with no human intervention. Ergo, if you want to make a library or mall or city hall or school safe from gun violence, simply put a sign on the door declaring that the place is "gun-free."
The fundamental assumption in this theory is that criminals and the mentally deranged will obey the order posted on the door and not bring a gun into the place.
Democratic political leaders loathe the idea of armed citizens. They claim the Founders never intended the second amendment to allow individual citizens to own guns, but intended that right to apply only to members of an official (thus government-run?) militia. And finally, they claim to believe that decreeing that a place is a "gun-free zone" will make those in the zone safe.
But of course these same politicians--and in the case of the president, his children too--are protected by Secret Service agents armed not just with semi-automatic handguns, but fully-automatic machineguns.
So to Democrats: Since your leaders supposedly believe that simply *declaring* a place gun-free is enough to keep your children safe, we could save a lot of money by eliminating Secret Service protection for politicians, and simply declaring the area around them Gun Free Zones.
Since they claim to believe that's enough to keep your kids safe, that kind of simple, elegant declaration should be good enough for them too, right?
But of course, politicians are different. They're better than you, and their kids are more important than yours.
Much more important. Which is why they need armed protection more than your kids do...because...because...LOOK! SQUIRREL!
Try asking them why they claim you don't need guns to protect your family, but they need armed guards to protect their magnificence from bad people.
But you don't. Just ask them.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home