Ravenwood - 11/11/04 06:15 AM
James Taranto notes that a message thread on Bill Maher's internet forum toys with the idea of rounding up Republicans for extermination. The message title is Shooting Republicans, ethical? Discuss and suggests that Bush supporters should be fair game.
At this point in time, would it be morally defensible to apply a "final solution" to republicans? [...]Liberals on the far left often suggest things like this, but they overlook one small detail. Conservatives have all the guns. Coming after Bush supporters like this guy, this guy, this guy, this guy, or (heaven forbid) myself, would be a HUGE mistake.Is it now morally excusable to organize midnight raids on republican groups in the red states and "terminate" them with extreme prejudice?
A midnight raid on Republican groups? Why would these Republican groups be meeting at that hour in the first place? They don't typically live together in hippie communes, they go home to their families.
However, should some angry, tormented liberals show up at my house some evening to kill me, presumably with their peace-sign medallions, I will gladly put them out of their misery. That is what we call a "win-win" situation. The only real loss is the $0.50 in 9mm ammunition, but I'm willing to overlook that.
Posted by: roger at November 11, 2004 7:12 AMThe moonbat Left has never been long on itelligence, have they.
Posted by: Ralph Gizzip at November 11, 2004 8:47 AMYou know, I've been kinda curious as to the terminal ballistics of the Hornady 75 grain BTHP round in the .223....
Posted by: Kevin Baker at November 11, 2004 8:55 AMDarn, the best combat weapon I've got is a Russian M44 bolt-action carbine. 5 shots and then it's the bayonet. But it's one hell of a bayonet (12"), I think it would even reach Michael Moore's heart, if he's got one...
Posted by: markm at November 11, 2004 11:43 AMRemember John Brown? 150 years ago the liberals were Republicans and abolitionists - and some of them tried to affect the vote in Kansas by killing off the other side.
Posted by: markm at November 11, 2004 11:45 AMmarkm
you must be a liberal as you dont know what words mean.
john brown tried to start a slave rebelion. he did NOT go out and shoot people becasue of their political beliefs. and look what happened to him...........
Posted by: silly man at November 12, 2004 1:04 PMBelieve me, if they ever get their wish and disarm the populace, the roundups will follow.
Posted by: Brett at November 13, 2004 7:12 PMSilly: And you don't know your history. Before his idiotic attempt to start a slave rebellion in Harper's Ferry, Brown led a group of nightriders in Kansas, where it was expected that eventually the settlers would vote on whether to become a free or slave state. Brown's group would go to an area settled by southerners, stop at each house, and kill all the men.
Now, it wasn't just an attempt to swing the vote by eliminating the other sides voters. It was also revenge for a number of free-staters that had been murdered in Kansas, often in town in broad daylight with no one willing to testify against the killers. But I'm under the impression that before Brown switched from persuasion and underground railroad activities to violence, the murders were individual and rather random. Brown conducted mass murder like a military operation. (And sooner or later the other side did too - the southern side in Kansas produced Quantrill's Raiders, a so-called irregular cavalry unit that wiped out whole towns during the Civil War and supported itself by banditry.)
Posted by: markm at November 13, 2004 9:54 PMMaybe they should have called it "Bleeding Kansas".
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 14, 2004 7:50 AMOh Boy! Add me to the list of those guys which it would be a HUGE mistake to come after!
Bill Maher is a scrotum head and winter is almost here (brain constriction is apparent).
Well what do you expect when your mother names you rimfire.
Posted by: Ravenwood at November 16, 2004 9:25 PM(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014