1 - 10 Next
In response to:

America's Coming Gun War

Argyraspide Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 1:44 AM
"And many Americans yet accept that in the last analysis it is a man's duty to be the defender and protector of his wife and children." Amen and amen, say I. I include defense of the weak and helpless in that duty. As a soldier for over twenty years I and my fellows felt it our duty to protect our fellow citizens from those who threatened us. As an armed military retiree, I and thousands like me continue to meet our duty to protect those we love and the weak and helpless around us. Duty, honor and country are the three most sublime words in the English vocabulary.
It is because of persons like you who might lose it and take up a weapon against me that I am armed. Until such time as all persons are perfect and never lose control, I chose to remain armed. It is my duty to protect myself, my loved ones and the weak and helpless. I did it as a soldier and now that I am retired, I continue to do it. I am not alone in this regard by far.
The same way the conservatives are not gun-toting violence lovers just itching to sling lead at the least provocation, especially at racial inferiors.
At the core of it all is the starry-eyed left's need to show revulsion towards violence in any form. It's a psychological need. Their sense of superiority to us armed Neanderthals is vital to their well-being and is part of their identity. Military and cops in any form are inferior persons because they will deal violence and carry the symbol of it: a gun. Another form of their lunacy is to punish a parent who spanks a kid that desperately needs it. It all ties together: Starry-eyed dreamers who would praise a moron handing a flower to the Jihadist who would cut his throat and blow up his kids without turning a hair.
When Obama stated "it is offensive..." he once again was speaking for himself and not the American people. "I am offended!" is the number one mantra of liberalism and is often a sure sign of an egotistical nature.
In response to:

Gridlock and Gun Control

Argyraspide Wrote: Aug 06, 2012 12:15 PM
I served in the armed forces during three wars in order to ensure our freedoms. The freedom to choose is not the question. I find choosing to not own a weapon, to not fight but let others do it for you, to certainly be legal and a right, but repugnant. In my mind it is in the very same category as those who will not help when an old lady is assaulted and beaten right in front of several men - legal but repugnant. To fear to fight and to fear weapons is, in my opinion, a form of moral cowardice. The emasculation of American manhood proceeds.
In response to:

The Week in Liberal Stupid

Argyraspide Wrote: Aug 05, 2012 12:17 PM
Liberals haven't come out of their hormone imbalanced ultra-emotional teenage years. Time for the adults to take over again.
I have raised four daughters and I have eight grandchildren. I am very familiar with modern virtual "games" and I am also a retired Army veteran. The kids who use the computer games are not physically inured to the smell of death, blood and feces; to pain, guts and suffering, as the "hands on" kids of yesteryear. If you haven't smelled it, tasted it, felt it - you don't really know. Today kids think they are in horrible paid from a paper cut. Who is more inured - hands on or virtual? I daresay hands on. Yesteryear, parties and dances were held during a hanging and at the chopping block. Kids through rocks and taunted criminals in the stocks and in the cart on the way to the hanging or worse. I can't agree with you.
I don't disagree with the author's premise, but I do take exception to this generation being pointed out as having a "culture of death" versus past generations in our history. I would point out that during most of our early history dueling, bear baiting, ratting, dog fighting, rough and tumble style fighting with eye-gouging and biting, whipping and other abuses of prisoners, children in virtual slavery in factories - I could go on and on - were common place. Freedom in those days meant much more than it does today. The founders would not have dreamed of imposing restrictions on that which was voluntarily done and without complaint by the participants. To know history is often to know truth.
In response to:

Some Real Men

Argyraspide Wrote: Jul 22, 2012 7:55 PM
During most of human history male members of the tribe were expected to defend the group and die fighting as may be necessary against raiders and predatory beasts. They were all warriors, even as on a daily basis they labored as farmers, herdsmen, potters, smiths, etc. In our frontier days men dropped their plows, grabbed their rifles and ran to face the evil that had struck. Again, it was expected of them and they killed those who tried to harm their families and the group as a whole. Today we live in "protected" societies and the warrior obligation has been relegated to others. A mistake. I am armed and will do my duty. Shouldn't you?
1 - 10 Next