Saturday, December 15, 2012

Jourrrrnalists, so objective and unbiased ... libiots

Here you have Nancy Cordes and Scott Pelley (60 minutes) telling you what you ought to be thinking providing a "news report." Notice how objective and unbiased they are.

Listen, this whole "news report" is just one big lecture about how we need more gun control. I posted it just to show how biased these jourrrnalists are and so you can recognize the brainwashing you are undergoing as they tell you what to think and then tell you how smart you are for agreeing with them.  And if everyone agrees, well then, that give us the right to do as we please, right?  Majority rules, right?

Skip ahead to the 1:45 mark where uber genius Scott Pelley (one of your intellectual betters) comes on and then very "objectively" says " ... one wonders whether the nature of this crime, and the age of the victims, might create the debate in Washington that could push legislation along."

Then Nancy comes on to express her disbelief that the government isn't busily writing more rules ... because, as libiots know, if only we had more rules from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, this mass murder by a psycho would have been prevented.

I'm not even going to GET INTO the fact the libiots don't want to punish psycho murderers, it's rules for the rest of they want, more control over all of us.

Never mind the following obvious, reasonable, and logical facts:
1 - CRIMINALS DISREGARD GUN LAWS
2 - LEGAL GUNS CAN ALSO BE USED IN CRIMES

Which explains why places with the most restrictive gun laws always seem to be the places with the highest incidence of gun crime.

Look at "school shootings."  Shooters know they can go in there and find defenseless citizens.  And if the libiots get their way, we'll ALL be defenseless citizens.

At the risk of pranging the brains of libiots, I present some gratuitous and graphic logic. 



How prescient were the founding fathers to give us the second amendment?  That's right, the framers understood that there would ALWAYS be libiots ... willing to trade their freedom for the promise of safety ... and worse, willing to trade yours too.

And so the framers tried to take it out of the hands of present and future libiots by enshrining that right in the constitution and thereby placing it out of reach of a "majority vote."

The problem is, libiots are actually convinced they can vote on your freedom.  And they often do ... chipping away, chipping away ... and every now and then a court overturns them. However, lately it seems the courts have been surrendering our freedom at an alarming rate.

As far as I'm concerned, when the federal government can FORCE you to enter into a binding contract against your will (Obamacare,) then your freedom is lost, period.  There is no longer ANY restrictions or limitations on the federal government.  That is called slavery.

No comments:

Post a Comment