These Are The Progressives We Are Up Against

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to These Are The Progressives We Are Up Against

  1. Gator says:

    Leftists have always supported genocide, as long it supports their agenda.

    • Former95B says:

      I would support an assault weapons ban (whoops…banned by NFA of 1930) if the leftists didn’t have such vicious, fascistic, totalitarian tendencies.

      As such, I support repel of the NFA of 1930!

      To them, there is no such thing as mass murder/genocide as longs as it’s done by government.

  2. Andy says:

    For Rwanda perhaps a couple of counterpoints that you may or may not agree with

    1. The international community should have stopped the genocide but didn’t.
    2. The slaughter may have been worse if the Hutu were armed with assault rifles rather than clubs etc.

    Interestingly, there is a slight connection here where the international community did not do anything to stop Hitler increasing power either before WW2 until it was too late. Look at the genocide in the former Yugoslavia as well, international community did not do enough.

    Not sure if any of those countries however compare to the USA, which does not have an extreme government and is based on democracy, no need to have arms to protect yourself from the government. It would not get that far, the democratic setup is too far advanced. Some would say it stops things getting done !!

    The above twitter argument seems to have drifted away from the point, which is the difference between the assault rifle, which was a battlefield derived weapon and normal handguns, hunting rifles etc. Are other battlefield weapons such as grenades, flamethrowers and chemical weapons allowed in the USA for citizens and the 2nd amendment? If not then I wonder why assault rifles are allowed? Or allowed again, banned again, seems to be going in circles.

    It is up to you all over there though to work out what is best for you though .

    • Gator says:

      Andy Andy, Tony was referring to arming the victims, not the killers. How stupid are you?

      And the international community loves genocide, as long as it furthers their agenda.

      • Andy says:


        I know what he was referring to, but if Rwanda had same gun control laws before the genocide as the USA then both sides would have had assault rifles, not just the victims…. so when the genocide started the Hutu’s would have used assault rifles rather than clubs.

        You seem to think half the population, the victims /good guys, would have them and not the other which is some sort of fantasy land you live in. Living in the USA you must realise assault rifles are not just used by one side.

        Read it again. Like I said, this is a red herring. The argument is about assault rifles not guns per se and is about the USA, not Rwanda. Genocide as an argument against removing assault rifles is not relevant because assault rifles are not a necessity to stop genocides. Especially in the USA which is what Bill Clinton is talking about.

        Steve just changed the argument into something non-relevant to the point in hand, like people do on here when we are talking about sea ice extent and the satellite record and then someone decides to bore us all to death again with the Holocene just so they can get an erection.

        • Gator says:

          If Rwanda had same gun control laws before the genocide as the USA, there would have been no genocide.

          No need for any further hand waving.

          • Andy says:

            “If Rwanda had same gun control laws before the genocide as the USA, there would have been no genocide.”

            Say both were heavily armed, what would happen then Gator? What happened in Syria with both sides heavily armed?

            So genocide or mass civil war, neither is as appealing as the international community stopping it.

          • Gator says:

            Ever heard of mutually assured destruction?

            No hand waving required.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “Ever heard of mutually assured destruction?”

            Ayup. From my college poli-sci classes. Acronym: MAD – Because armaments on both sides assured complete annihilation of both sides, that was a deterrent from either party from starting a conflict.

          • Squidly says:

            Hey Andy, can you explain to me the difference between getting killed by an “assault” rifle (which doesn’t exist) and a machete?

            If the “victims” would have had firearms, at least they would have been able to exercise their God Given Right to defend themselves.

            The FACT is, the victims in Rwanda didn’t have the machette’s either! .. they were completely defenseless people, and were slaughtered in one of the most gruesome of manners.

            Your stupidity on this subject is incredible.

            Cite one example in human history where the defenseless wasn’t slaughtered. Give us just one example in the past 20,000 years where this was true.

        • Former95B says:

          Andy seems to align with the mass murderers “thought” process.

          Not even a BB-gun for him.

    • czechlist says:

      ” The slaughter MAY HAVE been worse”. Where do I hear such qualification so often?
      When citizens are armed they do not have to rely on the ” international community”. Preventing a totalitarian government , like those you cite, is the objective. Those governments always confiscate citizen’s arms and render them defenseless. Why would I willingly surrender my freedoms?

      “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We do not allow our enemies to have guns, why would we allow them to have ideas?” .

      • Andy says:


        You said

        “When citizens are armed they do not have to rely on the ” international community””

        But the citizens in Rwanda were armed. A genocide took place.

        You also said

        “Preventing a totalitarian government , like those you cite, is the objective. Those governments always confiscate citizen’s arms and render them defenseless. Why would I willingly surrender my freedoms?”

        1. Do you live in a totalitarian country so need your weapon? If you live in the USA do not need to worry about this as I pointed out above.
        2. What’s this got to banning assault weapons in the USA? People in the USA will still have arms including guns and are not therefore defenceless.
        3. In the USA there is no such absolute freedom when it comes to weapons. As mentioned you cannot own a lot of battlefield weapons legally already.

        In summary, this is about the USA and a type of weapon, not genocide in general, it is a false argument in this case in my view.

        Getting back to the point, I think Bill is pissing in the wind at the moment, I am not sure why he raised it now. People seem happy with the status quo currently.

        • RAH says:

          The left must disarm the general citizenry before they can achieve the total control of the people by the government. That is why Clinton brought it up! They went after “Saturday night specials” first, and then handguns in general, before they started on their “assault rifle” BS.

        • Squidly says:

          But the citizens in Rwanda were armed.

          Umm, no … you had better check the facts on this subject again Andy. You are FOS.

          • Disillusioned says:

            “Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not.”

            -Robert F. Kennedy

    • tonyheller says:

      Weapons are a deterrent to aggression. Unarmed populations are an invitation to aggressors. Andy might prefer being defenseless, but I don’t.

      • mopar440 says:

        The “International Community”, whatever that is, doesn’t do anything useful. Barry Soetoro tried to give our energy freedom away to the “International Community” along with $200 Billion US dollars over 10 years in that Paris climate scam. Thanks to Trump for saving us! I’ll keep my guns, thanks. Our open borders are allowing a lot of bad people in.

  3. RAH says:

    Besides that the “assault weapon” ban didn’t ban any “assault weapons”. Bayonet stud, elevated sights, and detachable high capacity magazine, an assault weapon does not make. It is full automatic or burst capability which makes a rifle a modern “assault rifle”.

    Name the general issue military rifle for the regular infantry of any developed nation today that does not have full automatic or burst capability.

    • Squidly says:

      I beg to differ with you … there is no such thing as an “assault” rifle.

      Any animate or inanimate object used to “assault” is by its very definition an “assault” [object]. I could assault you with a booger, and by very definition that would be an “assault booger”.

      Quit letting the leftists redefine our language!

  4. steve case says:

    Some recent additions to my file of tag lines, smart remarks and quotes:

    The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time – – Ayn Rand

    There is no difference between communism & socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the Difference between murder & suicide. Ayn Rand

  5. steve case says:

    Some recent additions to my file of tag lines, smart remarks and quotes:

    The difference between a welfare state and a totalitarian state is a matter of time – – Ayn Rand

    There is no difference between communism & socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: Communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the Difference between murder & suicide. Ayn Rand

  6. GW Smith says:

    Note when you revealed to Allison that her argument was groundless she, like all lefties, turned and attacked you personally. Cornered, the idiot labels the truth teller an idiot, then runs away. Every time. Still they never catch on.

  7. Jason Calley says:

    Giving average citizens easy access to assault rifles, grenade launchers and other military weapons is a certain guarantee of mass murder and genocide. That is why Switzerland is a barren desert, devoid of human population.

    As a corollary concerning the absence of such technology, we can be sure that the Empires of Atilla the Hun and of Gengis Khan were times and locations renowned for their peace, and for the singing of Kumbaya.


  8. establ says:

    There is no such thing as an “assault rifle”. The term was created by the left to conflate civilian rifles with military rifles. Which one of these photos is an “assault rifle”?

    • RAH says:

      While it is correct there is no such term in the DoD dictionary nor is the term even unofficially in general use in the military; Hitler used the term “Assault Rifle” (strumgewehr) to describe the StG 44 which is the progenitor of all that came later.

      • wizzum says:

        That is a selective fire weapon, not a semi auto.

        • RAH says:

          Your point?

          Selective fire means one can select between semi automatic and automatic or a burst capability.
          The StG 44, like those that came after such as the AK-47, are all gas operated, have selective fire, elevated sights, and a large capacity detachable magazine. Obviously the civilian versions are semi-auto only thus the distinguishing difference in the basic weapons between civil and military version is the full auto or in the case of the M-16 A2, three round burst capability

          What the left terms an “assault rifle” or “assault weapon” does not have full automatic capability which is a characteristic common to all the followers of the StG 44.

          The StG 44 used a tilting bolt system while weapons like the M-16 and almost all other types of the genre use a rotating bolt and that is the only other significant difference in mechanical operation.

      • Squidly says:


        I don’t give a rat’s ass what “Hitler” termed anything. You recall that his regime was very artful in the deceit with language, right? .. Your Hitler reference just further supports the fact that there is no such things as an “assault” anything.

        If you hit me, are you an “assault person”?? … if you hit me with a baseball bat, is that now an “assault bat”??

        To term something an “assault” anything is a bastardization of the English language and completely nonsensical.

        • RAH says:

          No matter what you want the term describes a genre of modern firearms. You can say there is not such thing but you know EXACTLY what is being referred to when the term is used. Your denial of the general use of the term is not going to mitigate or clarify a thing. My point was that the defining characteristic of the type is full automatic capability. The left constantly seeks to confuse the public about that.

          You will notice that I put “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” in quotations when I wrote the above. Why do you think I did that?

          By the way the M-14 was described in it’s original nomenclature at the “Main Battle Rifle”. But all firearms can be used in battle and a huge number of other rifles before it made in huge numbers were standard issue to soldiers for battle. So is there such a thing as an MBR?

          An automatic hand gun does not have full automatic or burst capability. Is it an automatic?

          You aren’t going to get that toothpaste back in the tube just as you aren’t going to get the general public to stop referring to homosexuals as “gay”.

          • Squidly says:

            That is some of the dumbest bunch of drivel I think I have ever heard.

            Are you really this stupid?

          • Squidly says:

            You also realize that when the 2nd Amendment was penned, the muskete was the most advanced firearm on the planet .. right?

            Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment didn’t exclude anything, including cannon’s (which were common, and commonly privately owned) and any other firearm available. There were no restrictions placed on your right as a private citizen to own every single kind of “arm” (which includes all arms) that the government does. This would include rocket launchers, tanks, ICBM’s … all of it!

            They specifically rejected (if you read the federalist papers and other memo’s an letters by the founders) the idea of restricting anything with full knowledge and awareness that the future would bring many other sophisticated weapons. In fact their own thoughts and unknowns about what the future would bring is precisely why they did not restrict anything.

            And once again .. no, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon” .. that is an oxymoron .. you moron. Just as is an “assault rifle” or any other “assault” anything.

            I will battle you or anyone else who attempts to drive the meaning of language to things other than as designed and intended. I don’t know what your politics are, but you are playing the same leftist game to try and drive your own narrative, devoid of any facts.

            I will not ever play into your game and I will fight you to the bitter end. You cannot make up your own language and get away with it.

          • RAH says:

            None so blind as those that will not see. I have read, no studied, the Federalists papers. At my desk here is that book along with the pocket versions of the US Constitution and the BOR from Hillsdale college, an institution I have taken several of their free courses from.

            I fully support the 2nd amendment and understand it is a key right critical to maintaining our liberty. There is no more fundamental God given right than that to protect yourself and your family and innocents.

            I also know it’s etiology from Colonial times through the Constitutional Convention. The broadsides and states which outlined the right in their own constitutions.

            I was taught how to shoot and hunt by my father and an uncle who was a national trap shooting champion. Never qualified less than expert in the Army. Spent 8 1/2 years of SF “A” teams and received training on and fired all kinds or firearms and conducted training on their uses and maintenance. Attended courses like the OPFOR weapons course at Aberdeen and in 1989 visited the H&K factory during training at the International LRRP course where we were free to fire any weapon they made as long as it wasn’t classified or in the development stage.

            Also qualified up to section leader for an 81 mm section taking the master gunnery exam. I was selected to be one of two snipers when my team attended SOT which was a course conducted on the back ranges of Ft. Bragg at which DELTA member trained SF and others in counter terrorist operations. How many times have you shot a target at 300 meters when the heads of two of your team member are in the scope sight picture?

            My gun safe is full of firearms of various types and I am a member of the Conservation Club a mile away so I can use their ranges.

            But I live in the real world and deal with it on it’s terms. The “Assault Rifle” and “Assault Weapon” terms are here to stay and neither your nor I can change that. Your rants and insults mean nothing to me. And you certainly aren’t going to convert many people using them.

    • Steven Parker says:

      Assault rifles do exist. Unfortunately, they are identical to defensive rifles, and that is the problem.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Assault rifles do exist.

        So do assault weapons.

        Boulder City Council unanimously passes ban on assault weapons.

        While working on the text of the ordinance, the City Attorney studied weaponry on the internet and divided weapons into an assault and non-assault category.

        Under the new ordinance only non-assault weapons are allowed in Boulder, e.g. guns, knives, swords, spears, tomahawks, pitchforks, canes, clubs, frying pans and other such weapons that cannot be used in the commission of an assault.

        Boulder is a very sophisticated town full of thoughtful and highly educated people.

    • establ says:

      I posted this photo to illustrate a point. The rifle on the right is what a leftist would call an “assault” rifle. It’s scary looking with the pistol grip stock and a bipod. Plus it’s black like an M-16. The rifle on the left is the same rifle – Remington 7400, .30-06 semi auto. The scary black one is the gun leftist would want to ban. Then why not the other one? They are mechanically the same. The Clinton gun ban was based on appearance and emotion.

  9. Another Ian says:

    Sort of reverse “logic”.

    A friend in this Australian state is having trouble getting his hand gun permit renewed but no trouble getting one for a semi-auto rifle

  10. Jb says:

    A possible response: Bill Ayers didn’t use a gun.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.