And Here I Thought they Promoted Peace and Non-Violence

More evidence that’s just a sham. Not that we really need more evidence that the whole “gun violence” and “peace” facade is a fraud designed to cover the fact that they just hate guns and the Second Amendment, but here you go anyway. Looks like yet another case of pacifist-agressive.

13 thoughts on “And Here I Thought they Promoted Peace and Non-Violence”

  1. I like how the raving sycophants in the comments are made even less intelligible by “reasoned discourse.”

    It’s hard to follow responses if the comments being responded to are summarily deleted.

    On the other hand, there’s not much worth following in those responses when the person they’re holding up as a great thinker believes that the only right the military swears to defend is the right to vote.

  2. They do support peace and non-violence. They’re willing to kill as many people as is necessary to achieve it.

  3. The irony in the original comments is amazing. Does she not realize the government she cherishes uses force, almost daily? Has she missed the reports of Obama’s drone strikes or assassination of Americans? Typical leftwing nutter hypocrisy.

  4. They’ve been trying to “evolve” the antigun movement to include “peace”, “non-violence”, “social justice”, etc. for awhile. I think it is because the hardcore antigunners are so few in numbers they’re trying to puff themselves up to seem more relevant.

  5. I’ve never been able to understand the Thought Process where one comes to the Conclusion that to make a Peaceful Society, one has to send in People with Guns to go after People with Guns.

    Makes as much sense as filling the Fire Department’s Hydrants with Gasoline.

  6. I love that underneath that pose much of the comments keep towing the “you are all paranoid crazies. We do not want to ban all guns just “assault rifles”.” Then they go on to clarify that people should be able to defend themselves with revolvers or .22 rifles (i assume not fully auto??). So… I’m left to conclude that pistols are assault rifles?

    What? You know… I don’t own any guns but I’ve gone out of my way to parse the terminology of the equipment and items involved. It’s not that difficult. I did this to understand the arguments, laws, proposed laws, and to make my time at the range and any future purchases go a bit smoother. ;)

    The side effect has been that it’s clear as to what many of the rabid anti-gun folks want done. it’s also pretty clear that they tend to have no clue what they are talking about and that they think overblown emotional rhetoric won’t backfire on them.

  7. Did you note this in the comments: What possible legitimate use can anyone have for an assault weapon or jacketed bullets?
    So they’re after anything except cast bullets, too. Except they want to ban those because of that evil Pb, so…

  8. Ok, I was curious as to whether someone would actually reply, so I asked
    How are you defining ‘assault weapon’ and
    Since most bullets sold for ALL purposes are jacketed, what do you suggest be used?
    Took maybe five minutes for them to see it and delete it. Wonderful people, aren’t they?

  9. Kirk Parker and Motor-T, Yep, and the “Security of the Slave”. Their saint, JFK would be a dangerous radical conservative today, and would have his sexual history examined more closely than the slide for a Wasserman.
    Firehand, what it does say is that while now they say the 2nd Amendment is old fashioned, outdated, and not needed in modern society, the First Amendment will get the same treatment, only in astonishingly quick fashion once the liberty lovers are disarmed.

Comments are closed.