17 thoughts on “Abe Lincoln Had a Saying …”

  1. Wow. We didn’t have the National Guard when the Constitution was written? We didn’t have any law enforcement whatsoever until the modern day?
    The Guard has been here since 1636. And we had sheriffs, constables, and marshals when we were colonies.
    Oh, and I’m over 20 – by just a couple of years – and guns have been an issue for my entire life. What rock has this woman been living under?

    1. 1636? Where does that number come from? Last time I checked, the National Guard was formed in 1903 (which would make that the sole valid fact in that lady’s rambling diatribe).

      1. Militia groups of varying kinds date back pretty far in America.

        I seem to remember William Bradford wrote that the people of Plymouth kept a weekly militia practice, starting sometime in 1620.

        However, the modern National Guard was created by the same set of laws that assigned all males (ages 18-45, and not ministers, judges, or other exempt gov’t officials) to the Unorganized Militia.

        These laws were passed in 1903.

        1. comes from NationalGuard.mil. That’s where we consider ourselves to start

  2. Was this letter written by a 7 year old? WTF. I cannot believe a paper actually picked such an inane piece of drivel to publish. We should thank them because this exposes the pure derangement and denial of the typical hardcore anti.

  3. The InspectorGadget blog is illuminating – he is a police officer in England, where the police don’t get to carry guns. Anyone who thinks a complete gun ban is a good idea should read a few years of his posts.

  4. Everybody has to realize that this is what we have to deal with in NJ.

    And on another note, google is your friend;

    Hooray for Arizona
    Approximately 70 percent of Arizona’s citizens agree with the state’s tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants. I am sick of hearing the words “unconstitutional,” “criminal” and racist” in the debates over the law.

    The illegal immigrants are not protected by the U.S. Constituion. We do not owe them anything. And it is neither criminal nor racist for citizens to protect their own country. No other country would put up with this stealth invasion, and I don’t know why we do.
    Susan M. Kloepfer, Linden


  5. Susan M. Kloepfer is an idiot. What is wrong with New Jersey? It used to be all the idiots were in New York.

    And I think that saying is Mark Twain’s, not Abe Lincoln’s. But it works regardless who said it first.

    1. I think it’s part of the “trickle down” theory, NYC is just above northern NJ, and most of the libtards are up there…….

  6. I googled her name and “NJ” and the first article up is one from 2010 describing how a person of the same name from the same town hit with her car a policeman who was directing traffic – apparently because she was not using her window wipers in the rain….

    Ms. Kloepfer is a real gem, and NJ should keep her right where she is. And not let her get out of NJ, if at all possible.

  7. “All guns should be outlawed, except for those belonging to police — and it would be nice if they didn’t shoot unless they saw a gun first.”

    This phrase in particular makes blood shoot out of my eyes. Is she trying to make the claim that a police officer’s life is only in danger if they could see a gun? As if knives, bats, and even fists and feet can never be used to kill anyone!

    That, and “There weren’t any police departments, sheriffs or National Guard. The head of the family was all of those.” In times of crisis, police departments, sheriffs, and even National Guardsmen are *still* minutes away when seconds count–hence, the need of the heads of household (and anyone who can carry a gun, really) to have a gun.

    Or make that two: every person should have at least a rifle and a pistol.

    1. Come to think of it: what does this tell us about the Star-Ledger editorial board, that they were willing to publish such a misinformed letter to the editor? The most charitable explanation was that they felt it important to allow such a letter to be published, however misinformed. The only other possibilities I can think of is that they either agree with the sentiments, and couldn’t see anything wrong with the letter, or they are completely for the removal of all gun laws, and this letter furthers their cause.

      Of course, looking at comments from BantheNRA who tried to belittle the pro-gun people for calling her on her alleged facts, I think that the editors are so pro-letter-sentiment that they couldn’t see anything wrong with it!

Comments are closed.