Liberal Tolerance: A Continuing Series

Liberal Tolerance

If you are a member of the NRA, Dave Perry, editor of the Aurora Sentinel, knows where you belong:

No more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism. When the facts are so clearly before all Americans, for the whole world to see, why bother with this country’s odious and cumbersome system of justice? Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor.

No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that’s mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I’m talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association.

I’m not laughing. What the NRA did last week was no laughing matter. Aurora is a community that knows only too well the downside of prolific guns, of military weapons in the hands of crazy people, of a nation that’s gone so far off base when it comes to firearm regulations that common sense is beyond our reach.

Such rabid talk about tossing fellow citizens into camps for having the temerity to actually believe that the Second Amendment means what it says, is rather common on the Left in blogs on a whole host of issues.  Now we see it creeping out into newspapers, radio and television.  Liberals often talk about Hate Speech, and I freely concede their expertise in that area.  Engage in violent rhetoric about opponents long enough, and ultimately the violence will not be restricted to words and print.  Dangerous games are being played by too many people on the Left in this country in regard to vilification of political opponents and I hope that cooler heads prevail before we become a society so divided that a majority of people become convinced that force is an acceptable substitute for argument.

26 Responses to Liberal Tolerance: A Continuing Series

  • dominic1955 says:

    Its good to see that most of the comments over at the website are pro-NRA/anti-fascist.

    “Journalist” is becoming just a shorter word for shameless and ignorant propaganda hack.

  • Don the Kiwi says:

    “……..of military weapons in the hands of crazy people………….”

    The fool answers his own criticism – the NRA members are law abiding citizens, not crazy people who have no interest in or understanding of obeying the law.

  • T. Shaw says:

    LIberal Lie number 6,676, 672 (of total 109,903,874):

    Gun bans end violence.

    Great Britain bans all guns. The US gun ownership rate is 88,000 per 100,000 people.

    GB is Number One (2,034 per 100,000 people) on the Planet in violent crime. The US is far down the list at 466 per 100,000 people. Meaning if you get into (Why?) GB it’s about 467% more likely you will be assaulted, maimed or murdered than here in the US.

    Instapundit:

    “As with most lefty causes, the key driver is a craving for moral superiority, usually driven by oikophobia.” See WSJ Taranto Column, “Oikophobia, Why the Liberal Elite Finds Americans Revolting.”

    UPDATE: Prof. Stephen Clark writes: “This part of Snell’s column bears repeating: Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. Yes, they do. For that reason alone, I will not trust them. Period.”

  • J. Francis says:

    “Aurora is a community that knows only too well the downside of prolific guns, of military weapons in the hands of crazy people, of a nation that’s gone so far off base when it comes to firearm regulations that common sense is beyond our reach.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was my understanding that the James Holmes used a shotgun (because his semi-automatic weapon jammed). You’d think an Aurora newspaperman would know this, but I guess such details would interfere with his agenda. Typical liberal editing.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    T Shaw wrote “Great Britain bans all guns.”

    Great Britain effectively bans all hand-guns, not all guns. Shotgun certificates are easily obtainable, especially in rural areas, for weapons with a barrel length of at least 24″ and not capable of holding more than three cartridges in total. Similarly, a Firearms certificate for a manually loaded centre-fire cartridge rifle not exceeding .22 can be obtained without much difficulty, on cause shown.

  • T. Shaw says:

    The ignorant haters still think they can “cash in on” the Newtown murders.

    They 24/7 wave 20 tiny bloody shirts to push through a lying liberal wish-list bill that will do nothing to stop violence.

    When these people aren’t screaming for us to be shot, they are charging us with massacres of little children.

    Again, Great Britain effectively bans all guns in the people’s possession. In contrast, the Amercan people’s gun ownership rate is 88,000 per 100,000 people.

    GB is Number One (2,034 per 100,000 people) on the Planet in violent crime. The US is far down the list at 466 per 100,000 people. Meaning, if you get into (Why?) GB it’s about 436.48% more likely you will be assaulted, maimed or murdered than in the US.

    The sole purpose of a 24-inch, “scatter” gun is to shoot high-flying geese (Obama-worshiping idiots call them gooses) or other benign (not shooting at you) creatures, like partridges (not) in pear trees.

    If you can find a .22 cal. centre-fire cartridge I’ll eat my hat. They are rim-fires.

    When I was a kid we would be taken to Coney Island and sometimes shoot .22 cal. “short” rounds at moving tin ducks. The “backstop” was an old carpet.

    Many years ago, they banned shooting galleries, and the murder rates have skyrocketed. I know! Correlation is not causation. Just saying . . .

  • Dale Price says:

    The Left is slavering to have its opponents declared enemies of the state, and to treat with them accordingly.

    This will not end well.

  • Larry says:

    Agree with Don the Kiwi.

    “……..of military weapons in the hands of crazy people………….”

    The problem here is learning how to deal with the mentally unstable. And that is a very tough problem. So of course, rather than do the hard work, let’s be lazy and look for the quick fix (taking away guns from everyone, including law abiding citizens) , which ends up not being a fix at all – but makes Liberal consciences feel so much better.

  • Larry says:

    BTW, Mr. McClarey, correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the title of that poster you’re displaying up top actually an oxymoron?

    There really isn’t any such animal as a tolerant Liberal.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    Donald R McClarey

    By our law, any individual, who is murderously attacked by another, is justified in taking the assailant’s life upon the spot to save himself, if he cannot otherwise escape. In the case of a housebreaker, there must be a reasonable fear, not of an offence against property, but of serious bodily injury. It is personal danger, not danger of mere patrimonial loss, which justifies homicide.

    T Shaw

    24″ is the minimum length. I have a pair of 12 bores, with 29″ barrels.

    I inherited my grandfather’s Holland & Holland .22 rook rifle, with a single shot, dropping block action. It used centre-fire cartridges.

  • “In the case of a housebreaker, there must be a reasonable fear, not of an offence against property, but of serious bodily injury. It is personal danger, not danger of mere patrimonial loss, which justifies homicide.”

    Whenever anyone breaks into your home MPS, especially at night, you have good reason to fear for your life. As the law in the United Kingdom does not recognize that simple fact, then the law, to quote Dickens, is an ass in the UK in that area. The case I cited caused great outrage in the UK and well it should have.

  • Sanity may be beginning to break out in the UK in this area:

    “The comments were followed by those of the head of the English judiciary, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge, who made clear, “If your home is burgled and you’re in there, you have the right to get rid of the burglar.” The Lord Chief Justice added, “The householder is entitled to use reasonable force to get rid of the burglar… In measuring whether the force is reasonable or not, you’re not doing a paper exercise six months later… You’ve got to put yourself in the position of the man or woman who has reacted to the presence of a burglar and has reacted with fury, with anxiety, with fear and with all the various different emotions which have been generated and has no time for calm reflection.” And in a nod to England’s classical liberal past, the Lord Chief Justice cited Sir Edward Coke, stating, “A predecessor of mine 400 years ago… said, ‘Your home is your castle.’”

    http://www.nraila.org/247266

    “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter.”

    Pitt the Elder, 1763

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    Donald R McClarey

    In Scotland, according to the Institutional writers, in the case of housebreaking by night, the danger to the householder is presumed to be imminent. In the daytime more caution is requisite, but still the circumstances may be such as to make the homicide justifiable.

    This follows the Roman Law [Si nox furtum faxit sim aliquis occisit jure casus esto - XII Tables] and the Mosaic [If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood. Ex 22:2] in both of which our institutional writers were thoroughly versed and which they held in almost equal reverence.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour says:

    Sorry, I missed out the next verse from Exodus, “but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed”

  • c matt says:

    So let me get this straight – the same people who say we need to ban guns for the safety of “The Children” (the same children they do everything they can to avoid actually having) have no problem sticking scissors in their necks and slicing their spinal cord.

    One side in this debate is definitely insane.

  • MarylandBill says:

    T. Shaw, I am not supporting those who wish to ignore the Second Amendment, but I think the much higher rate of violent crime in the U.K. (actually England and Wales), is explained by the fact that they define violent crime more broadly than the United States. If we look at the murder rates, the United States has a far higher murder rate than the U.K. (Though to keep things in perspective, lots of countries with tougher gun laws than the United States have far higher murder rates than we do.).

  • Art Deco says:

    is explained by the fact that they define violent crime more broadly than the United States.

    I think you are speculating that the statistical index they are using draws on a wider array of crimes, not that ‘violent crime’ itself has a different definition.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Not mentioned in the following Wa Post story, or the federal study, is the fact that there are far more guns in private hands than ever.

    “Gun violence has dropped dramatically nationwide over the past two decades […] the Justice Department said in a report released Tuesday.

    “The report, by the department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, painted an encouraging picture of long-term trends at a time of divisive political debate over guns and legislation to regulate them. Firearms-related homicides declined 39 percent between 1993 and 2011, the report said, while nonfatal firearms crimes fell 69 percent during that period.

    […]

    “Although the rate of firearms homicides for African Americans declined by 51 percent over the past two decades, that rate was still 14.6 per 100,000 people in 2010 — compared to 1.9 for whites.”

  • JDP says:

    “tolerance” is a mushy word really. liberals just see pretty much every conservative position as the moral equivalent of [insert big bad historical evil here]. which, fine if you feel that way, but kinda makes dialogue pointless.

  • T. Shaw says:

    Liberats can be highly tolerant when it’s convenient to the agenda: the destruction of all that disgusts them – freedom and our way of life.

    Customarily, they wax civil while slipping the knife in the right’s collective back.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .