Anti-Freedom, Pro-Criminal

From Joan:

If it’s found to be a legal case of self defense and the robber was armed and meant to kill them ( which we really can’t know) then that is what it is. We also can’t know how it would have turned out if the manager didn’t have a gun. That’s the problem with these situations. Perhaps it would have been an armed robbery and no one got hurt.

She’s of course talking about this shooting where she is doubling down on her stance.

Let there be NO doubt, Anti-Rights people hate freedom, they hate those who look out for themselves and others, and they have nothing but love and hope in their hearts for the most violent, murderous, and degenerates among us.

Their laws and policies do not promote safety, unless its the safety of their best beloved criminal class. Like Renfield in Dracula these pedestrian people have fallen in servitude to evil and have become beasts themselves.

Do not give them an inch, and Carry your guns, as their are enabled criminals about.

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

0 Responses to Anti-Freedom, Pro-Criminal

  1. Pyrotek85 says:

    What, so we’re supposed to wait until we’ve begun losing blood or something to fight back? She still hasn’t said why we should give the person who’s threatening someone’s life the benefit of the doubt. I don’t care if it turns out they had a fake weapon or no weapon or whatever, if you make a threat like that the rest of the world takes it seriously.

    She sure likes to downplay any non-gun violence as well. In one of her previous posts she was dismissing the woman who was injured from being pistol whipped as ‘just getting a scratch’.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      How they state it, you can only justify using deadly force AFTER the criminal kills you (Or best case scenario kills several other people before you).

      All lives taken will be marked as “Gun Deaths” and be used to justify more gun control laws (any non-gun murders will be ignored), and the fact that either some good people were killed before the killer, or the person with the gun was killed will be used to claim that lawful carry does no good and should be banned.

      The reason why Joan is defending this monster so much is because it shows EVERYTHING that is wrong with her world view, and she is too old, and too stupid to change her mind now.

  2. Eck! says:

    Those were hard to read without laughing till hurt.

    Three little sentences. The tortured English was bad enough but the convolution
    of logic trying to make an actual event seem more like a hypothetical was extreme.

    At this point its poor Joan, an intervention would do her well. She really needs to
    embrace reality for a change.


    • Weerd Beard says:

      If she embraced reality she’d have to come to terms with her own responsibility in her Sister’s death.

      For her its easier to blame the guns than admit she’s a flawed and twisted human being.

  3. The Jack says:

    Which side she’s on is clearly diagnosed by who she’s giving the benefit of the doubt too. The man willing to use violence to force others to bend to his will might have only been bluffing! While on the other hand the man who defended the victim from the criminal might have acted “better” if he were not armed.

    Look at what she considers the “ideal” situation. A robbery where “no one got hurt”. You see, she’s perfectly fine with theft and is okay with violence as long as its supporting the former.

    Right there is her mentality, the poor goblin only wanted to steal, it was that mean old store manager that called his bluff and forced the situation to escalate.

  4. Pingback: Gun Banners Shooting Themselves In The Foot | Weer'd World

  5. Pingback: An Afternoon Pick Me Up | The Minuteman

  6. Pingback: Gun Banners are Idiots | Weer'd World

  7. Pingback: Shoot First! | Weer'd World

Leave a Reply

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