Part Three of Five
THE ANTI-LIBERAL LIST
Broken Down into Five Parts
Twenty Statements Each
 |
| Another face of liberalism |
[When first presented we recommend treating this as a TRUE and FALSE Quiz, then asked for elaboration on any point or points in particular. Now we’re revealing answers of our own to which you are invited to respond as fully and furiously as you like. ~ FT]
41. Liberals hide true violent crime statistics of unarmed population centers.
FT: False –– probably. They do seem to have the tendency to "soft pedal" such information, however.
42. Liberals hope one day to outlaw all hunting and fishing.
FT: False –– probably. Only animal rights extremists like PETA are undoubtedly hoping for that.
43. Liberals strongly disapprove of so-called "Preppers" and "Survivalists," because they would prefer to see EVERYONE assemble in miles-long columns waiting interminably to receive whatever crumbs FEMA chooses to hand out after disaster strikes.
FT: True –– or so it seems. Liberals would like to see as many people as possible helpless and totally dependent on the government.
44. Liberals would prefer the majority to behave like insect drones –– mindless, useless members of a Human Hive controlled by a liberal Queen Bee.
FT: True –– possibly. If not, their aims and objectives certainly give that impression to those of us who resist authoritarianism, even in it's supposedly more "benevolent" guises.
45. Liberals would like to classify any recognition and criticism of flawed behavior on the part of members of any particular race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, or identifiable minority as a Hate Crime.
FT: True.
46. Liberals feel more pity for the serial rapist with AIDS than for his victims.
FT: False! What hyperbolic nonsense!
47. Liberals are either absolute control freaks, or absolute wimps with no will, no spirit and no ideas of their own willing at all times to receive their marching orders from Big Brother or Big Nanny.
FT: False. A ridiculous overstatement, but I can understand why some might subscribe to such a view. Liberal generally do advocate mass conformity to THEIR dictates.
48. Liberals tend to regard mavericks –– those independent individuals with characteristics that set them apart from the herd –– as"persons of interest" and potential "Enemies of The State."
FT: True –– at least partially. Once again liberals want everyone to conform, unless of course you are Act Up or Code Pink, or OWS or PETA, etc. Liberals just don't want to see anyone oppose THEM.
49. Liberals want the country to function on the proceeds from the moral equivalent of ever-mounting credit card debt.
FT: True!
50. Liberals have managed to turn the process of transforming ourselves from a Creditor to a Debtor Nation into an Art.
FT: True! Remember that lots and lots of Republicans are fiscal liberals.
51. Liberals would rather have us buy cheap junk from the Red Chinese than high quality goods made in the U.S.A. Why? Because liberal policies towards greedy, thuggish Labor Unions have effectively priced American Labor and American-made products virtually out of existence.
FT: True and not so true. I doubt if liberals have thought far enough to realize their policies regarding Labor and their fiscal policies in general have simply made the Chinese Junk Epidemic an inevitability. However, the result is the same any way you slice it.
52. Liberals nickel and dime you to death.
FT: False! They're killing us with untold TRILLIONS of dollars worth of ever-increasing debt –– with far too much compliance and cooperation from Republicans.
53. Liberals tend to be dour, humorless, captious, deadly serious, highly volatile, and hyper-critical.
FT: True!
54. Liberals tend to feel thrilled at the prospect of abominations like; higher taxes, gun control, more restrictions, bigger government, and Barack Obama.
FT: True! I don't know about "thrilled," but they certainly do tend to support all of that with a semblance of enthusiasm.
55. Liberals are wonderful at censoring anything they don't like.
FT: False, They're not good at it yet, but they'd like to be, and they're getting better at it all the time.
56. Liberals would tax every breath of air you take, if they could find a way to do it.
FT: True! They'd tax our hair and fingernail clippings too –– and doubtless the contents of our dustbins too by weight and volume ––, if they could find a way to keep track of it all.
57. Liberals tend to be wet blankets; they take the fun out of everything.
FT: True. If not it certainly seems that way. To them every light-hearted quip demonstrates flippant disregard and insensitivity towards a serious matter.
58. Liberals raise their children to have no higher ambition than learning how to work the system to get as much support from welfare programs as they possibly can.
FT: False! They want their children to grow up to design and administer those programs.
59. Liberals favor two occupations: Trial Lawyers and Taxing Authorities.
FT: False. Many of them are college professors, working stiffs, entertainers and "artists."
60. Liberals have a very high opinion of themselves, carry themselves around with an insufferable air of moral superiority.
FT: True –– at least in far too many instances. However, many of them can be perfectly charming –– even adorable –– if you can prevent them from talking politics.
That Chinese "junk" you rail against is likely powering your ability to even write this blog, friend.
ReplyDeleteHi, Jack,
ReplyDeleteLet's get specific. Here's exactly what was said:
The numbered remarks -- some of which I agree with and many with which I do not -- did not originate with me. I've been using them as a springboard for discussion. The published responses I gave were intended more to stimulate than instruct.
51. Liberals would rather have us buy cheap junk from the Red Chinese than high quality goods made in the U.S.A. Why? Because liberal policies towards greedy, thuggish Labor Unions have effectively priced American Labor and American-made products virtually out of existence.
FT: True and not so true. I doubt if liberals have thought far enough to realize their policies regarding Labor and their fiscal policies in general have simply made the Chinese Junk Epidemic an inevitability. However, the result is the same any way you slice it.
The "cheap junk" I believed the author was referring to was the tidal wave of nick knacks, decorative gewgaws, poorly-made-but-fancy-looking furniture, sleazy, hastily, sloppily machine-stitched garments, counterfeit engine parts, pirated material, etc. -- all of which is believed to steal from and undermine the integrity of American industry.
42. Liberals hope one day to outlaw all hunting and fishing.
ReplyDeleteFT: False –– probably. Only animal rights extremists like PETA are undiubtedly hoping for that.
That could very well be true within the fevered minds of some quacks on the left.
But there is a newer term—"rewilding"— that describes a broader and more energetic agenda. It describes the action of reintroducing wild life particularly the carnivorous types of animals in closer proximity to populated areas. Part of the broader agenda of the United Nations, Agenda 21, to relocate populations into defined areas and leave greater space for animals of the four-legged variety to take back their land, while the two-legged variety will be herded into smaller areas for closer monitoring and control.
In this case the "liberal" may be the lesser beast to be aware of in the bigger jungle projected for our future.
Yes, Waylon.
ReplyDeleteWe most desperately need to give AGENDA 21 much wider exposure. It's an extremely unpleasant subject, and I admit I've shied away from it out of distaste -- a negligence of duty on my part.
Would YOU care to do an article on Agenda 21 for us?
I'd be glad to publish it under your name, if you'd allow me the usual editorial privilege.
Please give it some serious thought.
~ FT
Liberals strongly disapprove of so-called "Preppers" and "Survivalists," because they would prefer to see EVERYONE assemble in miles-long columns waiting interminably to receive whatever crumbs FEMA chooses to hand out after disaster strikes.
ReplyDeleteFT: True –– or so it seems. Liberals would like to see as many people as possible helpless and totally dependent on the government.
----------
Utter nonsense.
Certainly not my conception of an ideal government. Kind of begs the question of why anyone wold want people to be dependent.
Really, this is pathetic, FT.
Liberals want the country to function on the proceeds from the moral equivalent of ever-mounting credit card debt.
ReplyDeleteFT: True!
--------
Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.
--- Dick 'Skeletor' Cheney
Reagan taught us that deficits don't matter.
ReplyDeleteThey don't... when you have available and are willing to exercise the tools of "monitarism" that give "investors" confidence in the future strength and potential growth of the "economy" writ large.
But when you're on your third round of "quantitative easing" with ever diminishing results... confiscating 1/5 of the economy... and promising to confiscate ever increasing portions of private wealth, I suspect that the fifth straight budget busting deficit in a row DOES begin to matter.
For "Context" means a lot in even the worst written novel.
Keep goin.' You guys are doin' just fine.
ReplyDeleteIf you could mange to "buttonhole" a few more passersby into participating, so much the better.
"Martha Boneta’s plight and subsequent lawsuit stemmed from a planned birthday party for eight ten-year olds on her farm. County officials notified her that she should have obtained a prior permit for hosting this party and thus would be fined $5,000 for failing to abide by the local ordinance. She was charged with two additional violations of up to $5,000 each, one for advertising a pumpkin carving and another for operating a small shop on her property from which Martha sold her fresh produce and homemade crafts. The county made these allegations without ever setting foot on her farm. The Fauquier county board of zoning appeals upheld the zoning administrator’s decision that Boneta held “temporary and/or special events without the required county approvals.”
ReplyDeleteI have written about Martha’s plight in my book, “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy.” Martha purchased a ruined and abandoned farm under an agricultural conservation easement. Nothing in the bill of sale was mentioned that she could not farm. A lot of hard work, sweat, and tears went into breathing life into this property. She never dreamed that stumbling blocks would be placed in front of her along the way by the very Americans who are supposed to protect our freedoms.
She got a business license. She built an apiary, harvested hay, grew herbs, and rescued 165 animals, sold chicken, duck, turkey, emu eggs, candles made from beeswax, birdhouses, and fiber from llamas and alpacas.
First, she was told she could not cut grass on her property. Then she had to fence in 20 acres for two years because it was considered “hallowed ground,” although nobody died there during the Civil War, it was just an encampment area. By this rule, the whole state of Virginia should be cordoned off to any kind of use due to its many battlefields and movements of troops across the state. After two years, a “clerical error” was declared and Martha could use her land; no reimbursement for loss of property or revenue.
A trench was dug to prevent parking on her property because it might obscure the view shed. Then came the infamous pumpkin carving party that actually never took place, it was cancelled. Yet the harassment from the county and the moneyed environmentalists never stopped. These people prefer and define farming as penny-loafer farming, running a few horses on lush endless green grass fields, nothing to grow that people would need.
The battle did not stop with Martha. Thirteen vintners filed lawsuits against the same county for not being allowed to serve wine on their premises after 6 p.m., another Fauquier County restriction passed to please one vintner who chose to close early. Why leave things alone? Force everyone to do the same, control what everyone else does.
Americans are waking up when they run into legal battles at the state and local levels involving zoning issues driven by one ultimate goal, global governance. The U.N. Agenda 21 “soft law” document is not legally binding per se but morally obligatory. Unfortunately, so many of its 40 chapters of rules have already been written into law within other laws passed by Congress and they provide specific rules and regulations about local organizations and their practices, limiting everyone’s behavior and freedom, individuals and organizations alike. Add zoning ordinances passed by local and state governments and you have a recipe for disaster, total control of what you do with your own property."
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52188
FT: This is from an writer living in America. She writes a lot on Agenda 21 and there are other writers on that site who write about the topic as well.
It's a topic that needs more exposure since it isn't written about in the NYT unless it's a puff piece extolling the virtues of embracing global slavery under the ugly guise of "saving the planet".
“It’s rather odd that I’m the only farmer in the county having these issues,” Boneta said. “It’s customary to do these things. It’s done through on farms throughout Virginia to help farming and agriculture.”
ReplyDelete------
It certainly is odd. Now, you can look at this as someone just trying to end run various legitimate local boards or you can view a local county issue as the product of the blue helmet conspiracy chronicled in “U.N. Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy".
Never report a simple local matter when you can bring in the U.N. or the Illuminati.
You accusing me of taking a page out of your playbook, boy?
ReplyDeleteYou know, FT, I try to get some grasp on the world view of the far right and it evades me.
ReplyDeleteI imagine it is optimistic and even just as I know mine is despite nonsense like your current exercise.
On thing you worry about, authoritarianism, is also a critical concern of mine and many, many others on the left but that's for another time. Yes I will absolutely agree with you that extreme left movements produce it.
That said, I wonder what the Nietzschean dreams of the Libertarian children and the Calvinists produce. Certainly not freedom and justice in any broad sense.
No, I think the best portrayal of right wing world we've seen recently was the TV series "The Wire". Without question a work of absolute brilliance and on a very short list of the best ever brought to TV (no, FT, I wouldn't rate it higher than "Brideshead Revisited", no worries).
Never mind the production values which were there in spades, so to speak, it was the last man standing mentality at all levels of Baltimore culture that was the lasting thesis.
True, the suits were initially unsure and pushed it towards an emphasis on murder in the drug trade to play it safe and not tax the viewer to much, pity. But even that had an upside, Snoops death was a master scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHT-VOLVFzQ).
So everyone there at the bottom was either trying to stay out of the game or working to be the John Galt of the drug trade and the developers, politicians, police et. al. were milking it for all they could. No one much caring so long as they got their slice of freedom.
Some of us see it around us and some don't give a warm fart in hell so long as the don't see it. It's authoritarian rule at its worst and so long as everyone just keeps name calling back and forth it will continue.
"Hell, this ain't a war. Wars end."
Maybe I shouldn't see this as a right wing issue but I do know that the Nietzschean dilettantes and the Libertarian children are facilitators.
I try to get some grasp on the world view of the far right and it evades me.
ReplyDeleteDucky, since you live in a country that was deliberately founded upon different ideals than any other country in history, it never ceases to amaze me why far left quacks like you have a problem with your own country and its founding principles. You instead embrace the very alien ideas of the serf owning elitists that were imposed on humanity on this planet for most of its history.
-----
... authoritarianism, is also a critical concern of mine and many, many others on the left but that's for another time
---
If that was true, why would you continue to embrace "progressive" socialism which is only more progressively authoritarian as it "progresses" to the final state defined by Marx: Communism. How does an expanding power of the state not restrict the individual rights of every citizen, ultimately replacing it with the "withering away state" of Communism.
Name one country on which the miracles of socialism have not led to the destruction and enslavement of the individual to the "collective" and the enslavement of the "collective" to the elite or the elect controlling it.
lol! And Leftist authoritarian rule at its' "best" is who? Castro? Stalin? Chavez? Lula?
ReplyDeleteMy, my, my, how the "elite vanguards" have soured on authoritarianism of late...
Don't got a czar managing your SSN investments yet, duckman? An "auto czar" to sit with the "drug czar" is "too much"?
Please, the thought of the Left rejecting authoritarianism is like that of the Right rejecting corporatism. Ain't gonna happen.
Meanwhile, duckman longs for the day when Barack Obama and Don Vito Corleone can keep the drug trade "civilized" again... with an under 300 murder victim count for Baltimore instead of Chicago's 500. Did I mention, that both cities have been the Bluest of Blue for over a century now?
Who knew that the drug dealers in Baltimore were closet John Galt devotees? Certainly not me...
ReplyDeletebtw - the "myth of the administrators and myth of the government monopoly" have LONG been known to be myths. Give them up, duckman.
ReplyDeleteEROSION OF THE MYTH OF THE MONOPOLY OF COERCIVE FORCE
"In the past, those who no longer subscribed to the values of the dominant culture were held in check by the myth that the state possessed a monopoly on coercive force. This myth has undergone continual erosion since the end of World War II owing to the success of the strategy of guerrilla warfare, as first revealed to the French in Indochina, and later conclusively demonstrated in Algeria. Suffering as we do from what Senator Fulbright has called 'the arrogance of power,' we have been extremely slow to learn the lesson in Vietnam, although we now realize that war is political and cannot be won by military means. It is apparent that the myth of the monopoly of coercive force as it was first qualified in the civil rights conflict in the South, then in our urban ghettos, next on the streets of Chicago, and now on our college campuses has lost its hold over the minds of Americans. The technology of guerrilla warfare has made it evident that, while the state can win battles, it cannot win wars of values. Coercive force which is centered in the modern state cannot be sustained in the face of the active resistance of some 10 percent of the population unless the state is willing to embark on a deliberate policy of genocide directed against the value dissident groups. The factor that sustained the myth of coercive force in the past was the acceptance of a common value system. Whether the latter exists is questionable in the modern nation-state." [p.p. 59-60]
EROSION OF THE MYTH OF ADMINISTRATORS OF THE COMMONS
"Indeed, the process has been so widely commented upon that one writer postulated a common life cycle for all of the attempts to develop regulatory policies. The life cycle is launched by an outcry so widespread and demanding that it generates enough political force to bring about establishment of a regulatory agency to insure the equitable, just, and rational distribution of the advantages among all holders of interest in the commons. This phase is followed by the symbolic reassurance of the offended as the agency goes into operation, developing a period of political quiescence among the great majority of those who hold a general but unorganized interest in the commons. Once this political quiescence has developed, the highly organized and specifically interested groups who wish to make incursions into the commons bring sufficient pressure to bear through other political processes to convert the agency to the protection and furthering of their interests. In the last phase even staffing of the regulating agency is accomplished by drawing the agency administrators from the ranks of the regulated." [p.p. 60-61]
You instead embrace the very alien ideas of the serf owning elitists that were imposed on humanity on this planet for most of its history.
ReplyDelete------
Can you restate that, Waylon?
It makes absolutely no sense especially in your use of serf owners after praising the founding oligarchs.
Serf ownership was alien to Jefferson?
Let me know when you've moved beyond high school civics class.
You guys are wonderful! Please keep talking. At the rate things are going I hardly need to say anything at all. ;-)
ReplyDeleteWaylon,
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for the material in Agenda 21.
Alerting bloggers to this dire threat to our sovereignty is now high on my list of priorities.
I think it's downright comical the way Canardo yearns to see these issues as purely local when in fact BIG PLANS for GOVERNING the ENTIRE GLOBE as ONE WORLD COMMUNITY have been in the works for a very long time.
However, I readily admit that local politics can be every bit as vicious, stupid, corrosive and alienating as the larger versions. Just dealing with my homeowner's Association alone is proof enough of that. But, I'm sure our problems stem from having a preponderance of Democrats in our development.
AOW has told some hair-raising yarns too about dealing with County Officials -- and aggressively belligerent neighbors -- in her neck of the woods too.
Thanks again, Waylon. The contribution is much appreciated.
Ducky,
ReplyDelete"The List," which I am deliberately belaboring to elicit as much 'feedback" as possible, and the responses it has engendered so far give more than ample proof that there is something substantive to these assertions, many of which I have freely admitted are grotesque exaggerations, embarrassingly silly overstatements, childish distortions, and in a few instances simply inane. HOWEVER, each contains at least a grain of truth. If this were not the case, you wouldn't express so much irritation, nor would the list be stimulating so much interesting conversation.
Once of these days you are going to have to realize that flippant, dismissive, derisive, well worn shibboleths do not constitute an adequate response to conservative views.
Many of "us" are now wise to the Critical Theory Game, which renders "us" fairly well immune to endless badgering questions to which "you" would never find an acceptable answer. The Carnival of Contempt has lost its power to harm those armed with the desire to know and love Truth.
"each contains at least a grain of truth"
ReplyDeleteDisagree. Speaking for myself, I do not intend my responces to dignify it. I'm still at a loss as to what excites you about it.
HOWEVER, each contains at least a grain of truth.
ReplyDelete-------
The very idea that you think you can fit "liberal" to a universal set of descriptive variables is a chore, FT.
Trying to fit the term to that asinine list is a fools errand. In fact it's so infantile one has to wonder why you would want to waste your time rather than listening to Mozart.
Can you restate that, Waylon?
ReplyDeleteSurely. Only to accommodate you, Ducky. I know you need all the help you can get.
Maybe I should have specifically stated "aristocratic elite" since that may have been more accurate and less broad. Or wouldn't you consider British Royalty to fit that definition?
If you consider the American Founding Fathers to be aristocratic, I suppose you could make that case, since they were relatively successful in their lives even under the heel of the jackboot of British Royalty.
Funny you quibble over defining elitist when discussing figures who are not part of the Marxist pantheon of blood-lusting murderous thugs. You know Bolsheviks like Lenin-Trotsky-Stalin, your heroes.
Oh, go a little easy on the Marxist Muscovy, Waylon. I suspect he might be fonder of Beatrice Potter than the Bolsheviks -- at least I hope so.
ReplyDeleteSame goals -- different means. All these collectivist schemes lead to the same place -- failure, bankruptcy, poverty and misery.
41. in the UK, the Freedom of Information act was past in 2000 by the Blair government.
ReplyDelete42. false. (The Blair government banned fox-hunting with dogs: discuss.)
43. Perplexed by, not strongly disapprove.
44. False, we prefer the ant model.
45. False. Hate crimes are crimes motivated by the victim's membership of a protected group. (I think hate crime laws are unnecessary, since they were already crimes.)
46. I pity the person who wrote this list less than the poor sucker who's reading it, which right now is me.
47. Liberals are capable of recognising the value of expertise.
48. Liberals like McCarthy?
49. Credit card interest rates are beyond comparison with government bond rates. It's like comparing cocaine with tea -- they're both stimulants, but the difference in magnitude is truly profound.
50. Happened in 1988.
51. No matter how austere the American labour force becomes, you still won't be able to compete with the Chinese on price. You're doing the right thing, concentrating on the high end. People still lust after American guitars, don't cheapen the brand!
52. don't really understand that expression
53. This item offends me deeply. I expect a hand-written apology and a pound of your flesh to be couriered to my address forthwith.
54. I think we're thrilled that those options being released from their imprisonment as right wing taboos.
55. false.
56. false. We like taxes to be progressive.
57. you know, different people have different senses of humour. Don't assume that someone who doesn't share yours has none.
58. Ambition comes in many forms. My highest ambitions are to do with simply understanding more things.
59. don't forget Hollywood.
60. Can we think of any conservatives who qualify for membership of that club. ;) Maybe someone who comments here frequently? Or someone who operates and administers this blog? Hmmm? Please, just a tiny amount of self-knowledge is all I'm looking for here!
Here in the D.C. area, we have zoning-enforcement Nazis.
ReplyDeleteThe zoning regulations change so much that we residents cannot possibly keep up with all the changes!
BTW, FT, so that you know that I'm not ignoring this series of posts about liberalism...
I'm not making many blog rounds right now because of my schedule. I'm trying to catch up on grading papers -- a task I neglected while Tammy was visiting -- and tending to some personal matters as well. One of those personal matters: Amber's minor eye injury. I have to run her to ground to put the ointment in her eye. Talk about a time-consuming pursuit!
Maybe someone who comments here frequently?
ReplyDeleteI'm a strict tit-for-tat man! :)
42. false. (The Blair government banned fox-hunting with dogs: discuss.)
ReplyDeleteWhen you no longer have guns, what are you supposed to use? Oh, wait, I guess since you need to "license" your dogs in England as well. Never mind.
The tit, I agree with.
ReplyDelete(Traditional hunting with dogs used guns too.)
I know what a tit is, but does anyone have a good working definition for tat -- besides its use as verb meaning "to do needlwork?"
ReplyDeleteTraditional hunting with dogs used guns too...
ReplyDeleteGuns? In the UK before 1920, maybe...
100 years of pussywhipping can sure screw up a people's heads...
*shakes head*
Isn't a lot of this stuff awfully redundant, FT?
ReplyDeleteI think you would have done better to boil it down to basics. You could have dispensed with at least a third and had more impact.
---------> Katharine Heartburn
Interesting to see that you haven't let your total ignorance of hunting in the UK modify your tone in any way, Thersites. Worth keeping in mind.
ReplyDelete"Katharine": I intended to flag up the repetitions as I went through it, but I haven't been very consistent about it.
ReplyDeleteDoeS your total ignorance of American gun culture prevent youfrom commenting on the 2nd Amendment?
ReplyDeleteJust wondrin'...
Like I need a man from a country that restricts BB guns to lecture me about hunting and guns...
btw - How many deer and wild boar have you bagged?
ReplyDeleteps - Ever hunt wild boars with dogs and a knife? Me neither, but I had a lot of friends who did.
ReplyDeletei shot mine with a 30-30.
ReplyDelete"Just wondrin'..."
ReplyDeletewell why don't you stop wondrin' and check? Instead of casting your insinuations and innuendo on me, please present your issues with whatever I have or haven't said about the 2nd amendment directly.
Regardless of my behaviour (which is exemplary, of course), the fact is that you were completely wrong about hunting laws yet as mouthy as ever. I hope your future correspondents will be alert to this tendency of yours.
I was completely wrong about British Hunting Laws...??? Please present evidence. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAfter all... Instead of casting your insinuations and innuendo on me, please present your issues...
ReplyDeleteThe evidence is right here, there's nothing I could add to make it more stark.
ReplyDeleteSince you've only presented assertions, and not evidence, its' you who smell of stinky cheese.
ReplyDeleteThanks for playing!
btw - You've inspired me, I might actually GO hunting this weekend and practice an actual, vice theoretical, right. :)
ReplyDeleteHere you go, here's a first freaking clue for you. I didn't realise your search engine was broken.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy the trip!
So IF you so DESIRED, YOU )or a typically non-firearm owning Brit, could "literally" go hunting TODAY with a firearm?
ReplyDeleteIf so, I'll grant your point. If NOT, however, you must grant mine.
:)
...ps - every weapon I'll be shooting is unavailable to the non-gun owning British public. All of my weapons are "traditional" American hunting weapon (not "assault" weapons). Did I mention that self-defense is NOT a valid excuse for owning a firearm like mine in every part of the UK EXCEPT for Northern Ireland?
ReplyDeleteThanks for playing, AGAIN, jez. In "theory" every law-abiding Brit has the "right" to go hunting with a gun, PROVIDED he uses some single-shot "antique", and continually re-applies for and receives a LICENSE to keep it every five years.... but every American can go to a gun show, buy an unregistered, unlicensed weapon, ammunition, and go out into his back yard and shoot whatever's eating his corn... without ANY state involvement or breaking ANY law.
Did I mention, he can do it "literally" today or any day of the week.
ReplyDeleteSo we have the difference between "actual" rights of Americans and the "theoretical" rights of Britons.
PS - Now if an American wanted to purchase a fully automatic assault weapon and carry a "concealed" weapon everywhere, he's reduced to a silly "Brit", waiting for his "permits" and "licenses".
ReplyDelete"If so, I'll grant your point. If NOT, however, you must grant mine."
ReplyDeleteI hereby resign from whatever tedious parlour game you think we're playing.
Meanwhile, you continue to compound your original error. I claim no points for recognising this, I only point it out for the information of the other participants.
:)
ReplyDelete"Enjoy the trip!" -- I meant this, I really hope you have a good time.
ReplyDeleteThat's okay, snipe aren't in season, yet.
ReplyDeleteBoys! Don't you think It's time to stop wasting FT's precious bandwidth with pointless badinage?
ReplyDelete------> Katharine Heartburn