Yesterday, I finally published a piece replete with pro-gun and pro-liberty quotations. I've worked on it off and on for a week, finished it and published it last night (sunday, January 9, 2011), the day after Representative Gifford was shot by the psychopathic devil worshipping nut job who would want me to mention his name here. From 5 minutes after the shooting, people have been using this event as an excuse to demand stricter gun-control laws, bash the TEA Party, Sarah Palin, pro-gun people, the 2nd Amendment, and talk radio. They claimed it was a right-wing tea-bagging Palin supporter who listened to Rush Limbaugh before the powder smoke was dissipated. These same people said we couldn't possibly rush to judgement over the Ft Hood shootings, because, after all, just because the shooter was a Muslim, in contact with radical terrorist Muslims, it didn't mean he did it for Allah. No, he was just a lone deranged individual, no possible terrorist connections. Rushing to judgement was bad. When it turned out that the evidence DID point to radical Islamic terrorist activity, the story quickly went into hiding. But rushing to judgement HERE was a righteous and proper course of action. Yeah, right!
The automatic assumption was that since the victim was a Democratic lawmaker, the shooter simply HAD to be a right wing nut-job was, according to the press, the local (Democrat) sheriff, and most of the (Democrat) lawmakers in Washington, the only possible answer. We STILL haven't had a single one of these sources issue an apology for jumping to conclusions. Even though there is photographic evidence of the nut-job's Satanic altar (NOT a TEA Party prop- they are mostly vehemently God loving people). Even though the nut-job has been stalking her for months, apparently obsessing on her. Even though his parents say he was apparently displeased with her actions after he voted for her (NOTE- she's not a TEA Party candidate.) Even though she is that rarity- a hard-core pro-gun Democrat. Nope, Musta been right-wing TEA Party Palin lovers who listen to Rush Limbaugh who did it.
So, since the left-wing gun-grabbing Victim dis-arming politicos have no compunction about using this horrible event as an excuse to advance their agenda, I apparently pissed people off by publishing a pro-gun and pro-liberty article. Because the article was to be a collection of quotations, famous and not so famous, and even not-famous-at-all. Here is a link to the latest publication of this article, if YOU have a good quote to add; After a few people derailed the article, a little, I requested that people refrain from comments that weren't quotes. Hell, I'll even accept quotes purporting to oppose gun rights or liberty. But what this article is about is simpler- when is it not appropriate to defend the 2nd Amendment? In my opinion, there is NO bad time. Even this tragedy does not require us to meekly stand aside and let these victim dis-armament people rant and rave about EEVIILL guns. The device used has NO bearing upon the deaths the nut-job accomplished. I guarantee that if he wanted to kill these people and DID NOT have access to a gun, the bomb would probably killed a LOT more people. Hell, McVeigh used diesel fuel and fertilizer to kill several hundred people and destroy a building nearly the size of a city block.
So, I say there is never a bad time to defend the 2nd Amendment (or any other Amendment). What say you?
In light of yesterday's Connecticut shootings, I felt it was time to resurrect this one, AND the quotes article.