Great Question ! ! ! !

nine fingers

New member
The following was included in a newsletter that I get. I think it is very profound.


"Let us, for a moment, take the sex-education pushers at their word: If you teach a child how to use a condom, you're promoting safety - not usage. Why, then, doesn't the same logic apply to guns?"- Columnist Michelle Malkin
 

Mr. James

New member
Because "logic" has never applied in the gun-grabbing debate. Only emotions. It's for the children.

The same "logic" applies even more aptly to swimming pools (no, I'm not claiming authorship here). Kids are drawn irresistably to water and to pools. Is our reaction to pour Ready-Mix into every pool? To ban ownership of waterfront property? Of course not. We teach kids to swim. By the same reasoning, kids, especially boy-type kids, are drawn irresistably toward firearms - unless some harridan or limp-wristed school-board nancy has brainwashed them into believeing they...are...eeeeevil. So, do we teach kids about firearms or try to ban them. Why, ban them, of course.
 

Mr. James

New member
Why, she's for it, of course. After all, the professionals at the NEA recommend it and (okay, all together now) "It's for the children."

:p
 

Gonzo_308

New member
Steve, that question almost makes sense BUT the devil is in the details. the Liberal mindset is that you can't ban sex so you must try to do something to prevent unwanted pregnancy/STD's.

HOWEVER, In their small minds it is possible to ban firearms and make everything safe for humanity.

The same train of thought is applied by these liberals "There's no need for education. Simply make it safer whatever the cost".

The cost in these cases are money for condoms and a higher teenage birthrate. And our freedoms for the sake of "the children."

P.S. we do have to get to the range soon
 
Top