Dan Slott meets an interesting challenger to his gun control visions
He began another thread of garble about the 2nd Amendment. First, here's the starting tweet:
What's this supposed to be, an assault on the wealthy? Not all police operatives eat at fancy diners. Some do, others don't make a big enough salary to enjoy it on a regular basis. Then, there's this yawn-inducer:
Even if that were the case, it wouldn't reduce the number of knifings and automobile attacks.
And how did he conclude it ever was? In fact, did he ever take a look at what some jihadists collect?
Has he ever paid attention to what the PLO and Hamas have? This proves he's not well informed, for somebody who accuses others of anti-semitism, as though a Jew couldn't possibly commit an act of evil too, like Charles Enderlin did.
Now, here's the amazing challenger to his leftist nonsense:
Yes, this time, a Jewish supporter of self-defense stood up to him. And I agree; Slott obviously didn't get the best of education. All he could think to say in response was:
Don't "personal" freedoms also include right to self-defense, and other innocents? It's just like Slott to call the guy challenging his balderdash a "tool".
A better query would be why Slott doesn't care if the PLO, Hamas, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and Iran's dictatorship have stockpiles of firearms to wage jihad with? And did he have any of the same complaints when Nidal Hasan butchered fellow soldiers at Fort Hood 5 years ago?
So asks the same man who I don't recall ever speaking out against the Boko Haram for kidnapping children in Africa.
So this time, Slott's met his match in a Jewish 2nd Amendment supporter who's more a realist than he is. And he's also proven he just can't keep from spluttering away about these divisive issues, always boomeranging back when it just doesn't help. Maybe he should just quit Twitter while he's still got a chance, and just concentrate on writing, as dreadful as he happens to be at scriptwriting.
It's clearly there in the 2nd Amendment: Well regulated militias get to eat at Chili's, Chipotle & Jack In The Box. #LikeTheFoundersIntended
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 4, 2014
What's this supposed to be, an assault on the wealthy? Not all police operatives eat at fancy diners. Some do, others don't make a big enough salary to enjoy it on a regular basis. Then, there's this yawn-inducer:
3 words: Less mass shootings. RT @increpar Times change, but why does this amendment have to change your way instead of gun supporters' way?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 4, 2014
Even if that were the case, it wouldn't reduce the number of knifings and automobile attacks.
.@increpar It's not about changing an amendment. It's about understanding it was NEVER intended as the freedom 2 stockpile personal arsenals
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 4, 2014
And how did he conclude it ever was? In fact, did he ever take a look at what some jihadists collect?
@EdventureTime @increpar I believe the REST of the world does not have the easy accessibility to LARGE personal stockpiles. And THEY don't--
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 4, 2014
@EdventureTime @increpar --have the crazy number of mass shootings that we do here in America.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 4, 2014
Has he ever paid attention to what the PLO and Hamas have? This proves he's not well informed, for somebody who accuses others of anti-semitism, as though a Jew couldn't possibly commit an act of evil too, like Charles Enderlin did.
Now, here's the amazing challenger to his leftist nonsense:
@DanSlott US Constitution constrains *government* powers, not citizens. Shame on your high school civics teacher.
— Jewish Marksman (@Jewish_Marksman) June 5, 2014
Yes, this time, a Jewish supporter of self-defense stood up to him. And I agree; Slott obviously didn't get the best of education. All he could think to say in response was:
@Jewish_Marksman The Bill of Rights defines the guarantees of our PERSONAL freedoms. Shame on you for parroting NRA talking points.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 5, 2014
Don't "personal" freedoms also include right to self-defense, and other innocents? It's just like Slott to call the guy challenging his balderdash a "tool".
@Jewish_Marksman Why do you want the families of the Adam Lanzas of the world to have access to LARGE stockpiles of weapons? Seriously. Why?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 5, 2014
A better query would be why Slott doesn't care if the PLO, Hamas, Boko Haram, Hezbollah and Iran's dictatorship have stockpiles of firearms to wage jihad with? And did he have any of the same complaints when Nidal Hasan butchered fellow soldiers at Fort Hood 5 years ago?
@Jewish_Marksman How many mass shootings must we have a YEAR? How many more than other countries? Why do you love guns more than children?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 5, 2014
So asks the same man who I don't recall ever speaking out against the Boko Haram for kidnapping children in Africa.
So this time, Slott's met his match in a Jewish 2nd Amendment supporter who's more a realist than he is. And he's also proven he just can't keep from spluttering away about these divisive issues, always boomeranging back when it just doesn't help. Maybe he should just quit Twitter while he's still got a chance, and just concentrate on writing, as dreadful as he happens to be at scriptwriting.
Labels: islam and jihad, moonbat writers, politics, terrorism, violence
Slott wants you to believe that we have a "crazy number" of mass shootings in the US. In fact, such incidents are (thankfully) rare. They seem more common than they are, because of the publicity that they receive.
More people die in traffic accidents than in shootings. More children drown in swimming pools than get shot. But you don't hear constant whining about Americans loving their cars or pools more than their children. And you don't see Slott calling for bans on cars or pools. Or even for "common sense laws" and "reasonable limits" regulating them.
The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the government, not on citizens. And it does not grant rights; it acknowledges and codifies the rights with which we were born. Further, the Ninth Amendment states that our rights include, but are not limited to, those listed in the Constitution.
Every mass shooting spree in the US in the past fifty years took place in a "gun-free zone." Every one of them ended when it encountered armed resistance. Of course, that usually meant waiting for the police to arrive, which took time. If school staff or security guards already at the scene had been armed, the rampages could have been stopped sooner, with fewer casualties.
That is not just speculation. After the Maalot massacre, Israel adopted a program in which qualified volunteers serve as armed guards in schools. (Similar policies in Peru and Philippines have also been successful.) The only massacre of Israeli school children since then took place during a field trip to a park on the Jordanian border, when the chaperons were not allowed to carry their weapons.
If Slott and other libprogs really wanted to protect children, they would advocate policies (like armed guards in schools) that have been known to work, instead of measures (like anti-gun laws) that have always failed.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:40 PM
To be fair to Slott, his number of "mass shootings" (if like most of the leftist reckonings) is largely made up of professional criminals - especially drug dealers - shooting other criminals. And usually in cities where guns are the most heavily regulated, often in "gun free zones."
He is to be excused for his racism if he somehow is more afraid of rural white law-abiding types having several legal guns than he is of inner-city minority criminals having illegal automatics. He is also to be excused if he misses that every single factor that causes these scenarios is the result of left-wing policies.
Posted by
Anonymous |
12:28 PM