14 thoughts on “Every Liberal On Gun Control, Always And Forever

  1. This quote loses 95% of the effectiveness without the laugh. You have to hear the exchange to fully appreciate the quote in the context.

  2. Somehow the Beatles come in mind with the reference to Rangel and “Animal Farm”–using forks and knives to eat their bacon. He’s happy for his constituents to suffer and die as long as he gets his. Cannibal.

  3. Yes, yes, EVERY liberal is a coward and a hypocrite.

    Just like every conservative is a bigot, fat, and scared.

    No, no, Mitch, this post doesn’t make you a hypocrite, not at all.

  4. Also Mitch, a shred of intellectual honesty would go a mile for you here. You might have, just maybe, wanted to provide context for the quote. Rengel was being asked about CCW permits and issuance. He opposed and opposes broad CCW allowance. So, Mitch, do police officers routinely walk around carrying a concealed weapon verses an unconcealed one? No. Further, they are trained and, because of that training, armed. Rengel thinks doofuses who have no training, and even less culpability, than the police, have no need to walk around with guns in their waistbands. You don’t agree, that’s fine, but it IS different. The police are charged with protecting the capitol. Are you suggesting we should instead just have some untrained chuckle-heads who have nearly zero accountability doing the job? Seriously?

    Again, intellectual honesty Mitch, give it a whirl, ya’ know, for once.

  5. Just like every conservative is a bigot, fat, and scared.

    You mean, the way you and DG always, constantly, eternally portray them, without exception?

  6. Also Mitch, a shred of intellectual honesty would go a mile for you here.

    Well, we’ll see, won’t we?

    You might have, just maybe, wanted to provide context for the quote. Rengel was being asked about CCW permits and issuance. He opposed and opposes broad CCW allowance.

    OK. So in other words, the context makes the quote mean exactly what I thought, and said, it meant.

    So, Mitch, do police officers routinely walk around carrying a concealed weapon verses an unconcealed one? No.

    Yes, they routinely do. While there might be a police department out there that doesn’t require their officers to have a backup piece on duty, and to carry a piece concealed when off-duty – as one of my hometown’s cops put it in a presentation to civics class back in 1980, “even when I’m in the shower” – I’m not personally aware of them.

    Rengel thinks doofuses who have no training, and even less culpability, than the police, have no need to walk around with guns in their waistbands.

    Perhaps he does. Perhaps that was the context.

    Do you have any record, anywhere, of Rangel actually saying that in as many words? Or even close to it?

    By all means, show me. I’m willing to be convinced.

    He’ll still be wrong, but what the heck.

    The police are charged with protecting the capitol. Are you suggesting we should instead just have some untrained chuckle-heads who have nearly zero accountability doing the job? Seriously?

    You’ve got it almost completely backwards, Pen. Rangel HAS 24/7 protection; HIS life is worthy of protection. He merely thinks the rest of us should do without.

    Again, intellectual honesty Mitch, give it a whirl, ya’ know, for once.

    Why do you feel the need to throw in the gratuitous insult, when you really have not got the factual, much less ethical, basis to do so?

  7. Peev harrumphed: “So, Mitch, do police officers routinely walk around carrying a concealed weapon verses an unconcealed one? “

    Just from personal knowledge when I worked on contract to the police dept I can attest that all the officers I worked with carried concealed when off duty and only the uniforms open carried when on duty. Don’t believe me? just stop any cop in sunny south Bloomington and ask.

  8. Pen,

    A couple of other things:

    no training, and even less culpability

    “Culpability” means “guilt”. I don’t think that’s what you were, er, shooting for.

    If you were, er, shooting for “accountability?” The laws for civilians with guns are vastly more strict than for cops. I seriously don’t think you know what the laws actually are.

    It is, however, a fact that while the police shoot the wrong person 7-10% of the time in self-defense situations, with civilians (ALL civilians, not just ones with permits) it’s below 2%. That’s not largely a sign of police error or malice; they often come upon situations that are incredibly fluid and where they don’t have complete information (like the Clark shooting). With civilians, in situations where self-defense is legally tenable, the situations are almost never vague or ambiguous.

    All due respect, Pen, but neither you nor DG really know this topic all that well.

  9. Finally, Pen,

    So in writing to complain that I was being unfair to “all liberals” by comparing them to Rangel, you agreed with Rangel on every point (whether my post is “in context” or not!).

    Not sure what to do from here…

  10. Regarding whether we can treat liberals as monolithic, it occurs to me that Hilliary has always polled 40% or better vs. anybody despite the fact that she’s a crook.

    So yeah, liberals are getting to be pretty darned monolithic. Compare that with what happened when things went wrong for George W. Bush; his approval levels went down to 25%. Compare that with Obama’s numbers, which have never been less than about 35% despite obvious crimes in his administration like the IRS scandal.

    So yes, conservatives think for themselves in a way that liberals don’t.

  11. Mitch, one correction; those of us who are not the police are citizens, not civilians, because the police are NOT military. Yet at least.

  12. “Rengel thinks doofuses who have no training, and even less culpability, than the police, have no need to walk around with guns in their waistbands”
    Straight bigotry, my friends. Take a whiff by fanning the fumes towards your nose, like they taught you in chemistry class. It’s strong stuff.

Leave a Reply

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