Pseudo Logic

What Penny fails to note, and likely doesn’t like to think about, was that the Aurora shooter INTENTIONALLY chose the theater with the policy most Amenable to the gun banners.

As a matter of fact almost all mass shooters do. Further I would argue that more liberal gun and carry laws leads to criminal electing to choose non-violent crime to make their livings, hence why we are at record low crime rates right now.

You’ll notice in these videos she’s speaking to a captive audience of like-minded people, she would NEVER speak where somebody could challenge her.

Better to LOOK smart, than BE smart!

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Pseudo Logic

  1. Jack/OH says:

    A blogger on another pro-rights site, I think, mentioned that the Second Amendment, like the First, is a package deal. You get consequences, both good and ill.

    Penny seems to be doing a sort of rough cost-benefit thing. It’s not clear from the video excerpt, but I guess the idea is to severely abridge or vacate currently lawful gun rights to save people currently killed in unlawful gun violence, suicides, NDs, and so on.

    She and like-minded folks ought to make their case for full-tilt repeal of the Second Amendment. Drop the pose that you’re only interested in regulatory measures. I’m pretty confident most people will recognize that repeal will mean a whole mess of property rights and civil liberties issues, legitimate fears of bureaucratic power grabbing, corruption, diversion of government resources to a “directorate of firearms confiscation , etc.

    As for good consequences? If Prohibition and our drug laws are any guide, there may be few good consequences, and possibly none at all.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      This is the Head of Ceasefire Oregon, and Jason “Baldr” Odinson’s Boss, and guest blogger on his anti-gun blog. So yeah, she sees NO reason for owning a gun, but is willing to lie saying she supports Hunting and “Self Defense” to get the camel’s nose under the tend.

      I should do a full post on it, but here’s where she “Supports” self defense

  2. Bob S. says:

    Ms. Okamoto makes the typical statist argument in her ‘pseudo logic’ appeal — that we have the right to decide for another human being whether or not to sacrifice their live. Sorry it doesn’t work that way. How would she feel if one showed up at her house saying “In order for others to live your (Son/Daughter/Mother/Father/Husband/Etc) must die today” ?

    I assume she would be a little upset and uncooperative, eh.

    I find this argument to be very hypocritical especially in light of the 2nd video you posted – deciding one live or 100 — isn’t that exactly what she complains about “being judge jury and executioner”?

    A second mistake is trying to make it tie the exercise of our rights to the misdeeds of others. Again a simple analogy would suffice “Ms. Okamota, because other women have (Killed their children/Husbands) you need to (take a psychological examine / be put in jail)” — sorry doesn’t work either does it.

  3. Jack/OH says:

    Weer’d, Yankee Marshal, Hickock45, other bloggers and You Tubers, readily point out the down side of the Second Amendment and gun culture. Bad gun practice, NDs, badly manufactured guns, gun violence, questionable shootings by police, questionable home defense and CCW shootings, etc.

    No such luck with the anti-rights folks. They’ve got a black-letter law magic potion for every perceived gun ill, and there’s no down side. No demoralizing regulatory harassment, no creeping demonization of guns and gun owners, no civic disempowerment, no political polarization, etc.

    Her “judge, jury, and executioner” characterization goes against reality. If you shoot someone in my area, you’re going to be under legal scrutiny that determines whether you acted lawfully or not.

Leave a Reply

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