Louder With Crowder
June 15, 2017
As is customary after shootings, the gun-control debate rages like a case of herpes at a frat party (see Surprise! Accidental Firearm Deaths Lowest in Years. No Gun Control Required… and Thanks Gun Control! Helpless Venezuelan SHOT by Socialist Militia…). The left is convinced all sticks that go “BANG” are dangerous, unnecessary, and lead to acne. False. The right to bear arms is constitutional, no matter the shade of red besmirching leftist faces. Fact: leftists beta males who love Battle Star Galactica but hate guns are wrong. Fracking wrong.
Well clear the decks, because Rep. Mo Brooks was asked his opinion on the presence of boom booms in Merica’. His answer is kick ass.
Rep. Mo Brooks was asked the inevitable gun control question. Here's what he said: pic.twitter.com/MKPw5HgXtL
— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) June 14, 2017
“Not with respect to the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment right to bear arms is to ensure that we always have a republic. And as with any constitutional provision in the Bill of Rights, there are adverse aspects to each of those rights that we enjoy as people. And what we just saw here is one of the bad sid effects of someone not exercising those rights properly. But we’re not going to get rid of freedom of speech becuase some people say some really ugly things that hurt other people’s feelings. We’re not going to get rid of Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights because it allows some criminals to go free who should be behind bars. These rights are there to protect Americans, and while each of them has a negative aspect to the, they are fundamental to our being the greatest nation in world history. So no, I’m not changing my position on any of the rights we enjoy as Americans. With respect to this particular shooter, I’d really like to know more about him–whether he was an ex-felon, by way of example, who should not have had possession of a firearm–I’d like to know other things about his background before I pass judgement.”
Brooks’ answer was articulate and hard to argue. And needs little commentary.
Opposing replies are mainly focused around skin pigmentation and whiny leftists who pretend they have read the constitution. Spoiler alert: not so much.
An intelligent answer to a political question. The NRA won't like it, but I would bet this is the sentiment of about 95% of Americans.
— Zach Perry (@ad1220) June 14, 2017
Actually, I think the NRA will like it. Because it’s rather accurate. But thanks for playing.
"I'd like to know other things about his background before I pass judgement" would be great if it applied when brown people shoot.
— Mike (@michaelcmgilb) June 14, 2017
It is. When it comes to Black Lives Matter causes/cases though, the background usually makes it worse. For the shooter who happened to also be brown. WATCH: Black Woman Disobeys Officer, Actively Resists Arrest. #BlackLivesMatter Still Claims Racism.
While a well thought out response, innocent bystanders don't usually die due to bad speech or unlawful searches/seizures.
— jazzmankyle (@jazzmankyle) June 14, 2017
Except of course when leftists malign their opposition as “nazis” deserved to be punched or killed. In which case, actually yes, “bad speech” might lead to harm.
Also, in older times, just the mere suspicion that one might be a dingbat could lead to one’s home being turned over and searched and/or seized. Rather a nice thing that proof and a warrant is needed nowadays, no? God bless the Bill of Rights.
In conclusion, liberals hate it when common sense is used to debunk their arguments. So rather than argue with logic, they change the subject entirely. Only to keep sounding like helium drunk gerbils.
This article was posted: Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 5:15 am