What The Leftists Really Want

GUNS

A friend of mine once told me to “Shoot for the moon. If you miss & hit a star, you’re still doing alright.” Fabian leftists understand this premise all too well. They’ve been using it for decades.

It’s one small step at a time until you wake up one day, stripped of all of your liberty, homeless & naked in the unrecognizable nation of your birth.

Where are they using this tactic now, you ask? In the anti-liberty, gun control debate. Not only are they using this tactic, but they are employing a form of the Hegelian Dialectic to the situation. To wit:

Thesis: “Guns are dangerous. We must ban most of them.”
Antithesis: “That’s freaking dumb. Not happening.”
Synthesis: “Well, we have to do something, let’s agree to these more sensible items.”

Then, down the road, they move another step further, until they have reached their objective of total disarmament.

Right now, they have a wish list on the table which would make American citizens vulnerable to immediate tyranny if passed and allowed by the citizenry to stand.

We, the loyal opposition, will demand that these items not even be considered.

Then, the democrats will come back with a request for the simple, “common sense” solutions of

1) Registration
2) Ban of online ammunition sales
3) Tax or fees on ammunition to make it’s purchase cost-prohibitive
4) Universal background checks for ALL sales (including ammo)
5) A ban of all large magazine to some arbitrary figure like 7 rounds

Each of these steps will only further erode our rights. Call you congresswhores tomorrow and DEMAND that they not give even one single inch! NOT. ONE. INCH.

Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to What The Leftists Really Want

  1. Rich says:

    Hey Nota:

    I’m stunned. I did not even know that a Hegelian Dialectic existed. When I first went to college I set out to study philosophy to learn the answers to life’s issues.

    Well, I soon found that such aspiration was a bust and that philosophy held no such answers. The killer was when I got to Kant. After trying to wade through that mess, I said, I Kant bear anymore of this crap! (Joke – but true). Talk about major mental masturbation. Ugh! (Hey, Immanuel, you need to get laid buddy!)

    So, anyway, Nota, this Hegelian Dialectic seems to be the philospohical conceptualization of the Southern Womens’ kill ‘em with kindness tactic. “Well bless your heart sweetie, we’d all like for that not to happen. But we outta do something, even if just a little bit right soon … right sweetie? Ah, well … okay, maybe how ’bout we try this instead … .

    And so evil gains an inch.

    And evil does this over and over. Kinda like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football.

    Nota is correct. NOW is the time to say NO … NO MORE.

    • notamobster says:

      Rich – funny that you mention Kant. Hegel never actually used the term or the dialectic. He actually ascribed it to Kant. Hegel used a similar 3-pronged approach of abstract-negative-concrete.

      I enjoy philosophy. I have an entire set of encyclopedias of philosophy that I bought at a used book sale. I had to teach myself.

      I first heard the term from a solid-core, died-in-the-wool marxist years ago when I was a conspiracy nut. I had to look it up and learn so I could defeat him.

      At the end of the day, the self must exist in-an-of-itself, and explore the greater meanings for self, and ah, hogwash. It’s all mental masturbation. Sartre is the absolute worst (see in and of itself). What a pretentious tool.

  2. Locke n Load says:

    If I hear one more leftist mouthpiece say “reasonable” on the radio I think my head is going to explode. Least. Reasonable. People. Ever.

  3. Rich says:

    Nota:

    Honestly philosophy is a weak spot in my life. There is, for my taste, just too much BS in it to be worth wading through to get to the worthwhile nuggets. Nonetheless, when I read what someone who is truly educated and skilled in philosophy writes, I am always amazed, and realize how inept I am. I am deeply happy that you are self taught in this difficult art. Nota, you strike me as a true renissance man. And I thank God for you, and those akin to you. God bless you sir, and please do keep on writing – you are skilled.

  4. Rich says:

    Nota:

    I could barely tolerate Kant. And you think Sarte was worse? Worse than Kant? Ugh!!!!!!!!! So if Kant is mental masturbation, then I expect Sarte is mental masturbation by the impotent – pre-Viagra of course.

    • notamobster says:

      Sartre is nearly unreadable. I imagine he’s like Vezzini from the Princess Bride.

      • Rockheim says:

        Which is PERFECT for describing 99% of the philosophizers and pushers of “advanced thought” out there. In the end.. Ultimately. It’s a con..

        “WHAT IN THE WORLD CAN THAT BE!?!”

        At which point you do the one thing no intellectual expects.. Smash their face with something heavy.

        Then jump up, scream and point.. “HA HA!! YOU FELL FOR ONE OF THE CLASSIC BLUNDERS!!”

        • notamobster says:

          “…one of the classic blunders…” being “Never run your mouth to someone who is entirely prepared & equipped to break your face!”

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>

Current ye@r *