Notes to note

I don't do GDPR, because your personal data is not kept on this site unless you enter your email address while making a comment. I wouldn't do anything with it except email you back if necessary. I don't use cookies to track you or keep your login data (because no one but me can log into here).

Please Like and Share my FB page. As long as you aren't a spammer, your respectful comments will be posted. Fair warning, you want to go Godwin's Law on me, the Ban Hammer comes down.

Comment rules:

1. All comments are reviewed before publishing.

2. I will happily and passionately discuss the issues of the post. You want to attack me (or another poster) personally, see #1.

2a. Example: "Your idea/position is stupid and irrational" == OK. "You are stupid and irrational" == Banned.

3. I will admit when I'm wrong. Show me with non-distorted and/or non-parsed facts and I might even change my mind.

User Rating: 0 / 5

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

Like Matt Damon cares, but I for one will never, ever again patronize a movie he makes where his character is armed. Why? Because he seems to be a typical Hypocritical Liberal Elite like Liam Neeson. ‘Jason Bourne’ star Matt Damon calls for U.S. to ban guns ‘in one fell swoop.’

These people insist that citizens not have the right to defend themselves, yet think it's perfectly acceptable to have armed security to protect them.

And just so all y'all know how the Australians regard personal security, I present this section of an ad from their buy back program after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996:

 

Australian view of firearms

 

"Under the latest gun laws, personal and property protection are not longer considered acceptable reasons to possess any type of firearm..."

So, in Australia and Great Britain, you do not have the right or legal ability to defend yourself against any kind of aggressor. I don't think that concept will fly too well in the United States.

 

Comments powered by CComment