Quote of the Day – 2013-02-24

From Roberta X:

Defending yourself is not a matter of “punishment.”  You’re not out to correct your assailant’s behavior, you’re wanting to stop it, as quickly and effectively as possible, with the least collateral damage.  Whatever does that is what you should do.

This is the only proper response to anyone that says that self-defence  is “taking the law into one’s own hands” or something similar.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-02-05

From an anonymous comment at No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money:

It’s not about the DEER, it’s about the BOXCARS !

Also, take a moment to watch the video in the original post. It’s one of the most angry public meetings I’ve seen that didn’t end with somebody being hauled off in handcuffs.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-02-01

From Joe Huffman:

Background checks to prevent some people from gaining access to firearms is like checking ID to prevent underage drinking and smoking.

How long does it take your average high school dropout to find a way to light up while drinking a beer?

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2013-01-30

From Roberta X:

And I’m done listening to calls for “compromise.”  The antis don’t really want compromise.  They want whatever they can get now and they’ll be back later for the rest of your firearms rights later — followed by the rest of the Bill of Rights, already plenty nibbled-at.

It’s well past time to say “enough” — and to keep on saying it, by whatever means it takes to get ‘em to hear.

This. A thousand times, this. They keep wanting more and more of our cake, and we’ve “compromised” again and again for so long that all we have left is half a slice and some crumbs. Now they want that half-slice. No more. It’s beyond time that we tell the Anti-Rights cultists to go bugger themselves.

By whatever means are required to make them listen.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2012-11-27

From Terry Pratchett’s Discworld character Commander Samuel Vimes.

It always embarrassed Samuel Vimes when civilians tried to speak to him in what they thought was “policeman.”  If it came to that, he hated thinking of them as civilians.  What was a policeman, if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge?  But they tended to use the term these days as a way of describing people who were not policemen.  It was a dangerous habit: once policemen stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers.

- Terry Pratchett, Snuff

Emphasis mine. I don’t have much to add, it’s a pretty plain and straightforward warning.

END OF LINE

(h/t Firehand)

Quote of the Day – 2012-10-15

From an article at United Liberty by Doug Mataconis.

On the whole, the conservative argument to libertarians regarding the 2012 election has been dismissive, insulting, and based more on the false assumption that we want to be loyal Republicans.

This is, in a vast majority of the cases I’ve seen or experienced so far, unarguably true – libertarians who complain about Romney and talk about the possibility of voting for Gary Johnson are met with insults and ridicule, and occasionally even outright hostility.

Food for thought. And while you’re digesting that, think about the possibility that, if everyone who thought that “A vote for [$LIBERTARIAN] is a vote for [$LEAST_DESIRED_CANDIDATE]” stopped accepting that fear-mongering self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe the Libertarian candidate would actually have a chance of winning.

Don’t accept the FUD. Vote for the candidate you want, because voting for the lesser of two evils again and again only results in more and more evil.

END OF LINE

(h/t PostLibertarian by way of Borepatch)

Quote of the Day – 2012-09-18

From the reigning mistress of snark, Tam.

Actually, “Islamophobia” may not be an accurate term at all, since “-phobia” describes fear that is irrational or out of proportion, when it has been shown over and over that a fear of Muslims losing their collective $#!+ in an orgy of burning, looting, and killing in response to “insults” that might not even be sufficient do draw more than a “Yeah? So’s your mom!” in response on any civilized elementary school playground is grounded in, not just historic example, but a clear-headed grasp of current events.

Not much I can add to that.

END OF LINE

Quote of the Day – 2012-06-06

From DaddyBear:

[A] healthy distrust of those who would like to hold power is a good thing.

We elect people to positions of power, in the hopes that they will work in our best interests and the best interests of the country as a whole. But they are only human, and they are humans who have deliberately sought power, whatever their reasons may be. History has shown us again and again that those who seek out power are very frequently not worthy of the trust and responsibility that goes with that power.

But for them to do their jobs, some trust is necessary. So, to that extent, I say “Trust but verify.” And if they break that trust, be absolutely and totally unforgiving. Kick ‘em out, make sure the whole world knows why you’re kicking them out, and do it as soon as possible.

Nothing else will let us maintain what liberty we have left, or regain the liberty we have lost.

END OF LINE

An April 16 victim’s mother speaks out… in support of guns on campus.

Holly Adams, mother of Leslie Adams, one of the 32 victims of the Virginia Tech massacre, speaks out against the likes of Colin Goddard and other anti-Rights activists. I received this on Monday – the fifth anniversary of the shootings – by email from VCDL, and I will reproduce her entire statement here.

On April 16, 2007, my child, Leslie Sherman, was killed by Seung-Hui Cho during the Virginia Tech massacre.  Today is the fifth anniversary of her death.  Always in my memories, every day I wish that this tragedy was a nightmare and I could wake up to hold my daughter even if it is just one more time.  That opportunity might have been possible if someone been able to defend and protect my daughter in her classroom before Cho took 30 precious lives.

There is an unfortunate drive for more gun control and the continuation of preventing guns on campus by parents whose children lived or survived during that fatal day.  Several family members of those victims have actively voiced their support for increased gun control measures.  As result, it has been assumed that they speak for all families of the Virginia Tech victims.  I am writing this to make it clear that this is not the case.  They do not represent me and my views.

Speaking for myself, I would give anything if someone on campus; a professor, one of the trained military or guardsman taking classes or another student could have saved my daughter by shooting Cho before he killed our loved ones.  Because professors, staff and students are precluded from protecting themselves on campus, Cho, a student at Virginia Tech himself, was able to simply walk on campus and go on a killing rampage with no worry that anyone would stop him.

I ask a simple question:  Would the other parents of victims be forever thankful if a professor or student was allowed to carry a firearm and could have stopped Seung-Hui Cho before their loved one was injured or killed?  I would be. I also suspect that the tragedy may not have occurred at all if Cho knew that either faculty members or students were permitted to carry their own weapons on campus.  Cho took his own life before campus police were able to reach him and put a stop to his killing spree.

A sad testament to this anniversary date is the number of similar killings in schools and public places that have taken place afterwards as if nothing has changed to help prevent such needless and heartbreaking events.  That is why I fully support the VCDL in their outstanding efforts to help prevent this type of tragedy and loss from occurring in the future.

Holly Adams

Given who is making the statement, and in order to keep it a faithful reproduction, I will make an exception to my normal policy of redacting the killer’s name.

This statement stands on its own. It is, in it’s entirety, today’s quote of the day. I can add nothing, except to note that you won’t see the mainstream media printing this, or even acknowledging its existence.

END OF LINE

(h/t to SayUncle and Robb Allen for reminding me about this.

Quote of the Day – 2012-03-15

From Robb:

[N]obody seems to listen to those of us who constantly harp on why limiting government is so important. [...] You want to stop the government from doing things you don’t like, stop giving them the power to do it. [...] Because each time you tell a misrepresentative that yes, you would like them to be able to control the other side, eventually that other side gets their turn on The Levers of Making You Do Shit.

Exactly. If you want to mandate that the non-promiscuous must provide free birth control to the people who can’t keep it in their pants or can’t stop spreading their legs at the drop of a hat, don’t be surprised if, when it’s their turn at the reins of power, they mandate that everybody must wear a chastity belt and the government gets to control access to the keys (in order to keep costs down, of course). If you mandate that the government must provide “free” health care to everyone, don’t be surprised when the other side uses that to say you can’t drink coffee or smoke weed because the effects on your health make providing that “free” health care cost more. If you open the door, don’t be surprised when the person next to you steps through it.

In other words, as many of us have been saying for years, consider every proposed law as if it will be enforced by your worst enemy – because eventually it will be.

END OF LINE

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: