"There Are None So Blind. . ." Pity the clueless collectivist. "He don't even know he are one."
"There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See" -- According to the ‘Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings’ this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’). In 1738 it was used by Jonathan Swift in his ‘Polite Conversation’ and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 ‘Works of Thomas Chalkley’. The full saying is: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’.
I once had a well-educated black friend who told me in an ironically accented ethnic dialect about a mutual acquaintance: "He be such a pathetic (dumbass), he don't even know he are one." I was reminded of that when I received Nicholson's "final reply" to "We will not forget those who solicited our deaths and the deaths of our families. We will not forget and history will not forgive." Well, I tried. I doubt that I will waste any more time on the moke. I guess when the shooting starts he will say, "Oh sh-t! THAT'S what he was talking about."
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Nicholson bobncolumn@gmail.com
To: georgemason1776@aol.com
Sent: Sat, Nov 21, 2015 9:24 am
Subject: Re: "We will not forget those who solicited our deaths and the deaths of our families. We will not forget and history will not forgive."
What is it with this collectivist nonsense? Yours is the second letter with that charge in it. I'm a businessperson who has never relied on the government, a capitalist who believes in the profit motive.
I am a gun owner who wants to find the right balance between protecting our Second Amendment rights and arming criminals (something you have proposed nothing to stop). That's all.
No one knows how our founding fathers would have treated background checks. Both communications technology and arms technology have developed in ways they could not imagine, so do don't claim their legacy.
Your paragraph about the military actually proved my point. You nor I could stand up to them. Yes they are our sons and daughters. And they will obey lawful orders and are duty bound to disobey illegal ones.
Finally - civil war? Really? Over putting criminal gun dealers out of business? Over catching straw sellers? Over background checks? I don't think so.
I beleive (sic) that thothing (sic) I supported infringes on rights. You disagree. Fine we will leave it there. You don't need to write again and I won't respond if you do.
Bob
11 comments:
I've said it many times before; you can beat these morons over the head with truth, facts, statistics, The Constitution, and worst of all plain common sense, and they will simply NEVER understand. I believe it is because they look at everything emotionally, with their brains completely disengaged.
If it ever goes far enough for blood to spill, whether over forced gun confiscations or the loss of some other liberty, they will scratch their collective heads and ponder, "how could this have happened?"
We on the other hand, will know exactly why it happened.
In response to his last email I wrote: "Sadly, I very much doubt it even ruffled his hair as it flew over his head."
Looks like I called it. Your black friend hit the nail squarely on the head as well. The dumb barstid truly is such a monumentally pathetic dumbass he "don't even know he are one."
Think I'll email him m'self. Remind him that coalition forces have never (to the best of my knowledge) enjoyed less than 10-to-1 numerical superiority in either Iraq or Afghanistan and yet the insurgents have fought them to a standstill. This is despite having vastly inferior weapons and poor logistics. In any insurgency here the armed forces fighting for the government - even with every single one of them remaining loyal and willingly going after Grandpa and Uncle Billy - will easily face odds from 15 to possibly as much as 30 to 1 AGAINST them. When you factor in the fact that many insurgents would inevitably be veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan and thus well trained and knowledgeable in current doctrine and tactics the current armed forces do not appear all that invincible nor does resistance look to me to be at all futile.
He displayed his basic leftist bend when he disbelief that anyone would go to war over background checks and such. Clearly he does not even begin to understand the larger issues for which the insurgents WOULD be going to war. I shall endeavor to remind (advise?) him of the origin of the chant, "The people ... UNITED ... will never be defeated!" and what the outcome of that little set to was. If those folks could accomplish what they did DESPITE having been disarmed by the tyrant they ultimately overthrew, what more could an armed populace accomplish?
"You don't need to write again and I won't respond if you do."
Just me, but I always reply to a dismissal like that. And I calculate my insults to be impossible to leave alone.
Then again, while I'm old enough to not have the energy I once did, I've seen fewer years than you, and I'll defer to your experience if you don't want to bother sending him another message (though I can tell you that we would all enjoy reading it even if...no, especially if, Bob won't).
A pundit once suggested that there should be a competency test that must be passed before a person is allowed to vote. This guy makes the case.
Finally - civil war? Really? Over putting criminal gun dealers out of business? Over catching straw sellers? Over background checks? I don't think so.
Finally - civil war? Really? HELL YEA - Over incrementally losing our firearms rights to the point of now being inadequately armed - with no let up in controllers looking to take more - It is quite evident they will never stop. The line is already crossed - with semi-automatc rifles and standard capacity magazines outlawed - THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVELY REPEALED!
NOT ONE MORE INCH!
He doesn't understand that what he wants to do with HIS rights is not the same as doing something with MY rights, much less that he is doing that against my will. He doesn't understand collectivism because he doesn't examine any premise - he just assumes his is all that matters - regardless of how false it is.
He certainly doesn't get that HE is actually the criminal, that HE is using government in a criminal way.
The founders knew ALL about 'background checks". The red coats were there to tell them they didn't pass. And they found out what happens when a person uses false premise of unitary control over other people's rights. They end up saying ummmm NO, eventually.
All you can do is plant the seed and offer the professional courtesy of a warning of the consequences of their demands. After that, whatever happens, you can act with a clear conscience knowing that you used words and protest while those were still options.
You can't save everyone.
This guy is 100% clueless of/on 4G.
You'd think afghanistan would have enlightened some of them.
So be it
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence"
On the subject of "inalienable rights, it is important to understand that while an individual can chose not to exercise a right, that individual cannot choose to give it up, not can any authority take that right away. The right is intrinsic to the state of being a human, as we understand it.
For example, imagine someone in the USA decides to sell them self into slavery. As with the sale of any substantial asset, like a house, car, airplane or boat, there would likely be some form of signed sales agreement that would need to be recorded in some fashion.
How would any such contract be legally enforceable? If at any point the "slave" decided they had had enough and said so, how could the "slave owner" enforce a contract that was in such clear violation of the Constitution of the United States?
And so it is with Bob's choice to submit to background checks. The fact that he chooses to submit does not make his actions correct or validate the government's infringement of the right to keep and bear arms in any way. Whether or not background checks make it more or less likely that criminals will find it possible to acquire firearms is irrelevant. I believe the legal principle, also subject to frequent debate, is referred to as "fruit of the poisoned tree". Good intentions do not make any infringement or illegal act any less an infringement or any less illegal.
Of course it would make the government's job easier if they knew the names and whereabouts of each and every gun owner, and the location of each and every gun. But making the government's job easier is not the purpose of our constitution.
This guy is 100% clueless of/on 4G.
You'd think afghanistan would have enlightened some of them.
So be it
November 21, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Most of them never even heard of Afghanistan nor did they ever pay any attention to it when they finally did. Enlightened by the goings on there is an impossibility for them.
Dear Bob - "I" before "e", except after "c".. ..Journalist huh?
Post a Comment