Jim Porter, who was named NRA president in March, is ready to wage war in court over gun rights and hopes to fight new rules after Sandy Hook massacre.
The Daily News
The new president of the NRA is a good ol’ Southern boy, who sounds even crazier than the group’s gun-nut mouthpiece Wayne LaPierre.
Alabama lawyer Jim Porter has called U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder “rabidly un-American” and proudly spews the Confederate line on the Civil War.
In a June speech, Porter noted the NRA was “started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the ‘War of Northern Aggression.’ ”
“Now y’all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the ‘War of Northern Aggression’ down South,” Porter said to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.
Does anyone find it a bit hypocritical that so many of these men talk about needing guns for personal safety, yet by their eating habits and lifestyle they risk heart disease and diabetes? Isn't that a gross mix-up of priorities? Shouldn't they be more concerned with cutting back on those whopping portions at mealtimes than they are of multiple home invaders kicking in the door at night?
Another question is this: does being in such poor physical condition render one less capable in gun handling? If someone can't easily bend over and pick something up off the floor, or quickly turn around to see what's approaching from the rear, or even run a short distance, doesn't that impact on their ability to successfully deal with a dangerous situation?
One other observation about the portly Mr. Porter is this: isn't persisting in Confederacy-pride talk foolish at best and treasonous at worst?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Where's William Tecumseh Sherman when we really need him?
ReplyDeleteMaybe a few nukes will shut them up.
And thank you Laci for once again showing us your true colors: you desire to kill an entire group of people simply because they want to be left alone.
DeleteThis is the elitist, Progressive vision. It is a capital crime if you want to be free to live your life on your terms.
- TruthBeTold
Pooch: making it perfectly clear he is not opposed to violence or the murdering of civilian men, women and children.
Deleteorlin sellers
Laci,
DeleteI realize that your statement is mostly intended to be humorous or something, but considering the glowing reference to a past war crime (a war crime in support of a noble goal is still a war crime) and the jocular suggestion of genocide, all I have to say to you is that I hope you catch leprosy or the plague.
The use of intermediate range delivery platforms to deploy neutron bombs over insubordinate regions may be an acceptable response to a potential or actual insurrection against Federal or International authorities. The use of strategic non-conventional arms would preferably be limited to Neutron Bombs, as such inflict little structural damage and do not present a persisting radiation footprint, while inflicting the desired affect of widespread population reduction. Such a described strike, coordinated by a domestic or International Strategic Command, ought to be authorized by the domestic authorities, and shall exclusively utilize domestically produced arms.
DeleteHowever the use of a Cheget (Football) rests solely as a endgame strategy, as it would, as a obvious side affect of the terminal depopulation of an area as a means of quelling an insurrection, remove valuable human resources who have been the beneficiary of countless billions of dollars of State recourses in the form of education, infrastructure, and other expenditures related to the keeping of livestock.
It would be beneficial to those who frequent this blog to refrain from criticizing an appropriate response to civil unrest, in order to ensure that you don't take your rightful place on the other side of the high fence, with your ragged clothes, and gaunt and filthy faces, in the line leading to the showers or the fields where you will dig holes and be greeted by young men with poles.
In response to Orlin, Tennessean, and quite possibly Greg, if he may comment before this is uploaded:
Human "suffering" is merely data transmitted upon a neurochemical server. You have no place to make disingenuous comments that the nature of such data supersedes the desires of the prevailing authorities.
The bigoted commentator "Laci the Dog", I presume was intent on demonstrating its intellectual superiority (which exists entirely as a figment of her imagination) to these "primitives", the "rednecks" who comprise of the majority of Americans, in a rather simian attempt at mental chest-beating. This broadcast serves as yet another example of the common leftist ploy to falsely present one's intellectual superiority over a carefully chosen idiot, and therefore construct a "Potemkin Village" in place of a factual argument, based on the common assumption that verbal eloquence is a proper metric of intelligence, thus "correctness".
DeleteIt is rather humorous that our Laci, as he is the object of much bemusement at his difficulty in understanding the full ramifications of our Norman legal heritage, and is thusly incapable of understanding how a fundamental right to arms is implicit in common law, has added to his previous dogmatic bigotry by branding those who he happens to disagree with as unworthy of human dignity and life.
The main issue is that by controlling access to firearms, the State establishes a Democratic Caste system, where certain classes of person MAY be intrusted with the machinery to defend one's life, family, and liberty. Who are the "criminals" or "drug users" in question? We now trade liberty for a Democratic Apartheid, in which all but the liberal elite is a slave of the welfare State.
How one justify the continued existence (much less the creation) of a society whose only justification for it's continued existence is the threat of force.
Thus, I reiterate my previous demand for a moratorium on the passage of criminal statutes, and the legislative and judicial review of such machinery of tyranny.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteLife is 100% fatal. It is just a matter of when and how you will die. Mr. Porter has apparently taken measures to improve his personal security while failing to improve his physical health. Other people choose to improve their physical health while failing to improve their personal security. Others improve both. And still others fail to improve either.
That is how a free country works.
- TruthBeTold
Absolutely, it's a free country. Hypocrisy and fanaticism are allowed.
DeleteYour comments show what a prejudiced bigot you are. You have no moral high ground to stand upon while criticizing someone else.
ReplyDeleteWhat we have to look forward to if the control freaks win, diet control.
ReplyDeletebtw, I suppose if King George had been victorious he would have called it a civil war, too.
orlin sellers
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYour constant arguments involving the weight and condition of gun owners become more tired and obnoxious with each passing day. If you want to hire yourself to these men as a life coach and try to get them more fit, pointing out to them that a healthy body makes more sense according to their philosophy, go for it. However, your points about their weight and personal choices are relevant to just that--their weight and Personal choices--not to our public policy debate.
As for your comments regarding their ability to defend oneself, don't you imagine that poor physical condition makes these people even more vulnerable to attack, and less able to defend themselves without a gun? Sure, they're not going to be Rambo with the gun, but the gun puts fat people, weak people, old people, and disabled people on the same playing field as their attackers rather than leaving them at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are.
Finally, if you want some type of discussion of the merits of the war between the states, we can go there, but I doubt you're wanting such a discussion--you just want another thing to insult Porter over and want to suggest that anyone who differs from your feeling on the issue may be committing treason, so I'll just give a simple answer to your question.
"Isn't persisting in Confederacy-pride talk foolish at best and treasonous at worst?"
Depending on the person and what argument they're making, it could be foolishnes, it could be based on racism, or it could be a clear eyed difference of opinion that recognizes the good things in the Confederacy along with the evil of Slavery. In none of these incarnations is a difference of opinion treasonous.
MikeB: “Does anyone find it a bit hypocritical that so many of these men talk about needing guns for personal safety, yet by their eating habits and lifestyle they risk heart disease and diabetes? Isn't that a gross mix-up of priorities?”
ReplyDeleteIsn’t it a mix up of your priorities that you are more concerned about this nation’s gun ownership than their eating habits? You are kind of calling yourself a hypocrite at the same time, right?
MikeB: “Another question is this: does being in such poor physical condition render one less capable in gun handling?”
Marginally, yes. Guns are pretty easy to use though. Poor physical condition would make them even less capable of running away, punching, kicking, using nunchaku, mace, or tasers. So what would you have them do, just die?
Obese people are not being killed left and right for the lack of a gun. But many of the obese gun owners are responsible for accidents and unnecessary shootings.
DeleteI may have to amend my list of proper gun control laws to include a physical fittness test. But, I did cover it in the "may issue" provision for gun ownership licensing.
Is there any point in asking you to support your claim with evidence?
DeleteAmerica has a problem with obesity. But there's no evidence to suggest that a person's weight affects the person's ability to operate a firearm. You also have no evidence to support the idea that gun owners are more obese than the general population.
I realize that requiring evidence is a pain in the pet beliefs, but that's how it goes.
Am I to understand that you want to add a physical fitness test to your already required gun handling test? So even if someone passes the gun handling portion (inspite of being overweight), you would still disqualify them for not being able to do 10 chin ups, or run a 40 yard dash in under 5 secs (or whatever limits you come up with)?
DeleteJust more proof that every attempt at gun control should be frustrated to prevent people like Mike from getting closer to their final goals.
DeleteExactly, Tennessean. Because the gun control freaks refuse to be reasonable, nothing can be done with them. Any compromise will only further their goal of total civilian disarmament.
Delete