Quote of the Day – Barry Snell (5/8/2012)

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.

Barry Snell – Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

May 3rd, 2013

[And that right there is the honest truth.  Those on the other side of the “debate” aren’t interested in debate.  The view us as the devil incarnate and that our rights don’t matter.  To them we aren’t human, we’re sub-human, merely because we own an inanimate object that many of us use for self-defense.

It’s why over time I have lost just about all patience with those who would take away our rights. –B]

*Article via email from Terry.

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

About TMM

TMM is the owner, editor, and principal author at The Minuteman, a competitive shooter, and staff member for Boomershoot. Even in his free time he’s merging his love and knowledge of computers and technology with his love of firearms. Many know his private name and information however due to the current political climate, many are distancing themselves due to the abandonment of Due Process.

2 Responses to Quote of the Day – Barry Snell (5/8/2012)

  1. Old NFO says:

    No debate and NO compromise, it’s their way or the highway…

  2. Lyle says:

    It applies to the whole right verses left debate. That reminds me of the Democrat who once “complimented” the Republican by saying he wasn’t a [racist, sexist, mean, homophobe or some such] like all the others on the right, and the Republican just said “Thank you”, thereby accepting the label. That’s also the genesis of the term “compassionate conservatism” (as though there were ever any other kind– as though liberty and compassion were some how at odds).