Liberal “Logic”…Such as It Is…

January 29, 2013 at 10:44 AM

gunbancartoonThis one-panel cartoon has been circulating on the ‘Net for a bit and I thought it was a perfect caption to the point I am going to make today so I am including it here with this article.  Please note that I did not create the cartoon and have no idea who did.  If I knew, I would certainly give them credit for it.  You can click on the image to enlarge it for easier viewing.

The truth of the matter is that what liberals do not seem to understand at all is that criminals – and even those who tend to like to ignore the law – do not obey signs like the one posted on the door in that cartoon.  Now granted, signs like that do not have the force of law.  They simply point out a policy that the owners of that building have adopted.  If someone walks into that building with a gun stashed in their pocket, there’s nothing that the owners of that building can do simply because they would not know that the gun was there.  If that person who waltzed into the building with a hidden gun decides to take it out and start shooting randomly, by then it is too late for anyone to do anything about it.

Law-abiding citizens will walk up to that door, see the sign, and if they are legally carrying concealed will either return to their car and leave their weapon there, or will leave altogether.  Law-abiding citizens will not disobey the stated policy of that sign.  It’s what we do by obeying laws and respecting the rights of others.

With criminals or loons, such is not the case.  Obviously, we would not really see the situation in the cartoon played out like that, would we?  No, we would see a repeat of Columbine or Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech.  Someone who is intending on creating mayhem has already placed themselves above the law anyway.  There is no hope of them laying down their weapons because a sign tells them that their weapons are not allowed.

To the liberal though, this type of thinking that essentially says “let’s make more laws because eventually we believe that criminals will start obeying them” is completely asinine and devoid of any logical bearing.  But liberals are prepared to shout you down to make their illogical point.

I was listening to the Sean Hannity radio show the other day and during part of it, he had two women on – one a liberal and the other a conservative – to debate the gun-control issue.  I felt for Sean and the conservative woman because the liberal (by the name of Tamara) made no sense at all, but I’m sure every liberal (including Tamara) would disagree with me on that.

Tamara kept referring to the fact that criminals do not obey the laws now (good, I agree), but then went and stated (like Biden) that we need more laws to catch criminals who are lying on the gun application paperwork.  She then also admitted that many criminals buy guns directly on the streets from other criminals.  As she spoke, her intensity grew as if becoming more intense meant she was being logical.

She admits that criminals buy guns illegally on the street, so if we follow that statement through logically, then we can also conclude that by doing so, they do not fill out any paperwork at all.  Yet, Tamara is in favor of a universal background check because it will supposedly go further in finding these criminals that lie on the paperwork.  Again, it makes no sense.

When you buy a gun from a licensed gun dealer, you must fill out paperwork.  Beyond this, in most states, if you do not have a concealed weapons permit, you are also subjected to a background check before you can buy that weapon.  If you possess a concealed carry permit, you avoid this last step.  Why?  Because you had an extensive background check (including fingerprinting) when you applied for your concealed carry permit, which takes anywhere from two to eight weeks before you receive your concealed carry permit.  The federal government is the one that does the background check for concealed carry permit holders.

After passing this and receiving your permit to carry concealed, you are free to purchase guns without having a background check.  But each time you buy a gun, you must still fill out all the paperwork and answer all the questions and sign on the dotted line.  They also look at your state driver’s license as well as your concealed carry permit at the store where you purchase your gun.  It takes a while.  After they are done, another person from that same store comes over and checks all the paperwork against the credentials you provided to ensure that things are accurate.

Can the people in the store verify whether or not I have lied on the application?  No, but that is not their job.  That is the job of the particular department of the federal government that receives the paperwork – the ATF.

Biden claims that there are not enough hours in a day or people working in the ATF to verify the information on all the paperwork they receive.  His solution?  Add yet more laws to the books as if those laws will solve the problem.  They won’t.

I really wish that liberals would be able to see that criminals do not obey the law.  Since many criminals and gangbangers buy their guns illegally on the street, tougher laws will not make a dent in what they do.

Do stop signs force people to stop?  Do red lights do the same?  For most people, thank goodness, but those people are law-abiding citizens.  That stop sign or red light has no ability to force anyone to do anything.  It simply allows law-enforcement to note when a person disobeys a sign or red light, which allows the officer to cite that person for breaking a law.  We all know that, don’t we?

Yet, people apparently believe that by simply placing a sign on a door that says “No guns allowed,” no one will dare enter carrying a weapon!  This is so illogical, it’s pitiful, but this is what people obviously believe.

Not long ago, I went to a pawn shop that sells guns and ammo.  As I approached the door, I saw a sign that read “No loaded firearms allowed.”  That of course, stopped me.  I stood in the parking lot and called the shop.  I told them I had a concealed carry permit and was wondering whether that sign applied to me or not.  I was told I was fine as long as I did not take my gun out of its concealed position.  I had no intention of it, so I thanked the employee and went inside.

Do you think a criminal would have done that?  First of all, had they opted to go in with the intention of robbing the place, they would have been met with lethal force because every employee was legally carrying openly inside that store.  Secondly, a criminal would have to be an absolute moron to try to rob a gun shop during open hours.  Then again, there are some really stupid criminals out and about.

On the same Hannity show I previously mentioned, during another segment, two other guests were on the show.  One was a Sheriff from Wisconsin who put out a 30-second PSA telling those in his community that he needed their involvement in their own safety.  Due to budget cuts resulting in personnel layoffs, this Sheriff told people that he needed them in the game.  They needed to learn how to handle a weapon to help defend themselves in an emergency while they waited for police to arrive after calling 911.

As you can guess, this Sheriff is being condemned by others because they accuse him of telling people to take the law into their own hands.  Excuse me?  Exactly what law are they supposedly taking into their own hands?

Wisconsin is a state that has the Castle Doctrine in place.  This essentially means that in your home, business, or car, you can use lethal force to save your life against someone who is threatening harm to you or your family.  It’s that simple and it’s effective.  Many states have this law in place.

The Sheriff is essentially saying that people do not have to be victims.  They can legally arm themselves and learn how to use a weapon to ward off an attack.  There is nothing wrong with what the Sheriff is advocating; nothing at all.  Yet, people are accusing this Sheriff of vigilantism.  How asinine is that?

I watched another video featuring Piers Morgan interviewing Dana Loesch.  In it, he asked what she thought could be done to curb gun violence.  Her answer was that the government needs to stop trying to disarm law-abiding citizens.  Morgan wasn’t satisfied with that and asked “aside from that” what could be done.  She reiterated that it was the most important aspect of gun rights.  Second to that was the fact that laws need to be harsher for those criminals who break the law by lying on gun paperwork and those who use a gun in the commission of a crime.

But see, the liberals don’t want that.  They just want to remove guns from society, trying to make us believe that by doing so, this will include taking away guns from criminals.  Sen. Feinstein essentially said this very thing with her desire to ban “assault” weapons.  She said that by banning those types of weapons, they will eventually “dry up” in society.  Really?  Who says?  Just because the government decides to ban something does not mean they will stop being made.

Beyond this, as I’ve mentioned numerous times before, how has the war on drugs made drugs any less available?  Short answer:  NOPE.  The government has not been successful in its war on drugs, just like it was not successful in its war on alcohol during Prohibition.

Yet, ironically, those on the Left – completely ignoring the lessons of history – state the opposite; that this time, if a ban is placed on “assault” weapons, it will cause these guns to dry up.  Right.  I’m sure they’ll never find their way into the hands of gangbangers or criminals if any ban is put in place.

If they are successful in banning “assault” rifles, a few years down the road, the Left will come up with all sorts of statistics to try to prove they were right.  History and actual facts will tell a different story.

Look, criminals do not obey the law.  That’s a known given.  It is beyond dispute.  Law-abiding citizens are called law-abiding for a reason and yet, more and more, the Left wants to place these two groups into one large section.  They want to make the line that separates the two groups disappear.

The desire to have a universal background check will lead to only one thing:  a national gun registry database.  That is the purpose, whether the Left is willing to admit it or not.  Why should they admit it?  They would rather allow us to think that they respect the 2nd Amendment and do not want to take guns away from people.

Hitler did the very same thing, folks and that happened only about what – 50 years or so ago?  How soon we forget, don’t we?  Hitler’s regime essentially stated the same thing the Obama regime is stating.  We don’t need guns in society.  Let’s start getting rid of them.  We – the government – will keep you safe.  For Hitler, it eventually became “give us your guns voluntarily.”  Then, it was “tell us which of your neighbors have guns.”  Then it became mandatory to turn in all guns.

Once the populace was disarmed, Hitler knew he had no resistance and he moved forward from that point.  This is what the Left wants to do because they so much hate the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.  They want to change the very core of America to something it was never meant to be.  They cannot do that if the average citizen has access to guns.

The 2nd Amendment ends with the words “shall not be infringed,” yet every time a new law is put in place that further restricts the right to own and bear weapons, it is infringed.  This does not bother the Left at all because they disagree with the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

I would rather be in a room or building filled with people who are legally carrying concealed than a building where guns are not allowed.  In either environment, criminals might be there.  In which scenario do you think that the criminal will not do something stupid, or risk their own death?

People like to think of the “wild west” as if what we have read in the romantic books and movies accurately portray the west.  People believe that shootouts took place on every street in every major town of the wild west on a daily basis.  They believe that gunslingers came to tow for the sole purpose of shooting it up and its citizenry.

Yes, there were towns like that and Deadwood is probably the most notorious, largely because it was outside the then established borders of the westward movement.  In essence, for places like Deadwood, the law that existed was the law won by the individual’s ability to outgun the next person.  But this was actually very rare.

In most towns, everyone carried a gun, whether a sidearm, rifle, or scattergun (shotgun).  It was simply what a person did, like wearing a hat.  It was part of how you dressed in the morning.  You wore a gun not because you were looking for trouble, but because you wanted to avoid it.  It also came in handy when you needed to find food for the day or kill a rattlesnake that slithered past you.

Guns are preemptive.  I carry because I want to have the means to protect myself should the occasion ever arise.  I pray that it does not.  The last thing I want to do is be forced to shoot another human being to save my life or a members of my family’s life.  I do not want to be in that position.

Unfortunately, criminals today have no qualms about kicking in people’s doors and attacking home owners.  Criminals have no problem carjacking people, or raping people, or mugging them for the last dollar they have on them.  Criminals do not care about the law.  They only care about what they believe they need and they will do what they can to fulfill their need.

People today have options.  Those who are opposed to guns have the option of not carrying them, not owning them, and not even learning to shoot them.  That’s their right.  The other side of that is that I have the right to carry a gun, to own them, and to become well-versed in shooting them.  Whether I’m simply enjoying a day of target practicing with my family, or being prepared to defend my life when faced with lethal force from the criminal element, I have that right to defend myself.

People say that people like me are paranoid; that I live in fear.  That’s garbage.  I fear nothing and I am always prepared because I am always thinking ahead.  Far from that being paranoid, it simply makes sense.

It’s funny that when a person drives defensively to avoid problems on the road, that person is often rewarded with lower insurance rates.  They are called good or excellent drivers because they have learned to think of the possibilities that could happen on the road so that they will avoid them.  They are, in essence, given high fives for that.

However, someone like myself who is also prepared for the reality of the criminal element is called paranoid for it.  I recognize that criminals exists and you never know when one will cross your path.  Because of that, I am prepared for that possibility but I do not go through life being afraid of that.  In that case, I am referred to as someone who is paranoid.  It makes no sense at all.

I do not live in fear.  I do not look for trouble.  I am simply prepared if trouble comes my way, the same way that I am prepared to avoid accidents if something out of the ordinary should happen while I’m driving.  Being prepared is not the same as being paranoid.

Being paranoid means that someone worries that something might happen when the chances are just about nil that it would occur.  Being prepared means that I recognize the possibilities that could happen in society and I am prepared for those eventualities; nothing more and nothing less.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Shadow Government, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , .

Imaginary Gun-Free Zones Even MORE Liberal “Logic” Comes to the Fore


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,213 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 724,327 hits

%d bloggers like this: