Quote of the Day: Tell That to the Mexican Drug Cartels Edition

“I don’t think anybody needs a weapon of war on the streets of Arizona.” Arizona State Sen. Linda Lopez quoted in Senator: Outlaw big clips for ammo [via azstarnet.com]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

42 Responses to Quote of the Day: Tell That to the Mexican Drug Cartels Edition

  1. avatarBrad says:

    Ha ha ha! She said that, in Arizona, a border state in a defacto war zone.

    • avatarRoll says:

      I’m embarrassed that stupid woman is representing my proud state, I WANT HER OUT.

      • avatarHal says:

        Imagine looking down between your legs and seeing THAT looking back at you. Yikes… ideologically corrupt AND such a looker to boot…

  2. avatarRydak says:

    In AZ of all places. Good lord. Why can’t there people do the smallest amount of research and educate themselves before they speak. She prob did do some research, watched CNN and learned all she needed to…

  3. avatarpk in AZ says:

    All I had to read was “Democrat” from Tucson to know everything I needed (gag) to know about this pinhead asshat.

    Anyone wanting to let her know how you feel?

    Phone Number: (602) 926-4089
    Fax Number: (602) 417-3029

    Email Address: llopez@azleg.gov

    I’m going to ask her what she has done on a “state level” to get much needed answers to Fast and Furious!

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      Exactly. Tucson has become tragically liberal. It’s a shame too. I was born there and grew up by Davis Monthan watching the A-10′s. 30 years now in Glendale and I love it.

  4. avatarPaul says:

    Of course she doesn’t think that. It’s because she doesn’t THINK in the first place, which is the problem with most lib anti-gun freaks.

  5. avatarPascal says:

    See, they are doing the marketing spin again ““I don’t think anybody needs a weapon of war” — those inflamatory emotional words needs to be crushed.

    We do a crap job changing the conversation. I am happy that TTAG is at least using Citizen Disarmament.

    This is a propoganda war and we better sell our cause as the next best cereal on the market because the anti-gun crowd is going use very emotionally charged words to win the public.

    The anti-gun legislatures and the fence sitters do not give a damn about the 2nd admendment. They get people who come up to them with crocodile tears yelling “think of the children” — they are not going to care about a qoute about some OFWG. The anti-gun crowd needs a moral dilemma “Think of the children” — well “think of the women who about to be raped and was able to defend herself to live — is her life less than those of the children” — emotions vs emotions.

    Logic is lost on these people — it is like trying to reason with an insane person – his mental reality is different than yours. They need a moral dilemma.

    The govt wants Citizen Disarmament and wishes to eliminate our choice to defend ourselves, eliminate our choice of sports and eliminate our ability to hunt instead of concentrating on how to prevent the criminally ill from obtaining semi-automatic rifles — see what I did there? I am sure there is better but I am not a marketing spin doctor or wordsmith. The words we use MATTER.

    Also, it is the “anti-gun” – “anti-freedom” – “anti-choice” – “anti-self defense” crowd because we are too general when we say liberals and democrates

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      I agree 1000% Pascal. I have presented civilian disarmament proponents with rock solid facts and they didn’t care even after acknowledging that the facts were correct.

      I agree that the best moral/emotional argument to put forth is the vulnerability of women to rape and to blast stories of armed women who prevailed over their rapists.

    • avatarBobby says:

      No one NEEDS a sportbike. No one NEEDS a Corvette. No one NEEDS a boob job. But we pride ourselves on freedom and law abiding folks are free to get most anything they want. Liberals don’t need Acura TLs, OBX stickers, and Boca burgers but they’re allowed to have them. So I’ll have my AR15 and they can mind their own business.

    • avatarEugene says:

      I had that conversation about a rape victim before. The claim is that it wouldn’t have mattered since it’s a close range crime and it’s too late.

      Funny how sensitivity can be selective that way.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I knew “weapon of war” was the new catchphrase within a split-second of reading it in a news article quoting a politician.

      And I 100% agree that overall we are behind the curve on both owning the terms (look how “assault rifle” & “weapon of war” got defined for us) AND on deploying effective emotional/intuitive arguments.

      This is particularly disappointing because, in my experience opposing the GOP on other issues, the conservative noise machine is usually unmatched at defining terms and forcing them down the opposition’s throat through message discipline. I keep hoping that some of that magical define-the-terms-and-own-the-debate mojo will show up now that I’m siding with (mostly) conservatives in the 2A battle…

  6. avatarUSMCVeteran says:

    Lopez, like most parasite politicians, needs to grow a brain.

  7. avatarduke nukem says:

    shes just using flammabe languaje (weapons of war) to aid in her anti gun fight. hey dumbass, a knife could be a weapon of war, a small revolver could be a weapon of war, hell a bat could be a weapon of war too. her logic… her logic… wait she has no logic!!!!

  8. avatarST says:

    Need eh?

    OK. Lets go there ma’am. Since we make laws based on need now, lets just get down to business. First, no high capacity spoons. In this healthcare crisis, who needs a full tablespoon of anything?

    Next up, to combat sweatshop labor we need to reign in pointless shoe collections.A 1 pair of shoes per month limit is a reasonable measure we can use to reduce child labor!

    To ensure public health is preserved, a 60 day waiting period and govt. physical is required before taking home any baked item made with sugar. We are paying too damn much in healthcare costs and our kids are getting fatter by the year. No one needs 1 gallon of ice cream.

    In order to reduce the spread of conflict diamonds, all diamonds should be banned for civil consumption. How do we know a woman isn’t wearing an African conflict artifact on her ring finger?

    I think these common sense proposals are only reasonable. I mean, who needs a real diamond wedding ring or 1000 pairs of shoes?

    • avatarMark says:

      Golf. No one needs to play golf. There are dangrous clubs involved and someone could be injured by an errant ball.

    • avatarMark says:

      Golf. No one needs to play golf. There are dangerous clubs involved and the threat of personal injury and property damage from an errant ball.

  9. avatarDan says:

    Trivia question: Is she a communist or really that stupid?

  10. avatarDucky says:

    I just emailed her at llopez@azleg.gov the following

    State Senator Lopez,
    I’m assuming that your position on guns is based on your desire to keep Americans safer, and NOT to push an agenda of giving the government a monopoly on force.

    Your quote in the Arizona Daily Star shows a level of ignorance on the fundamentals of gun ownership, but more specifically ignorance of the border situation that the federal government has created.

    1. Weapons of War, Assault Weapons, etc… Are so far out of the reach of common citizens because their cost is in excess of $10,000, requires government registration (since 1934), and can’t have been manufactured after 1986. The Civilian versions, while looking similar, are fundamentally different, and instead of being in an assault weapon category, they are functionally the same as hunting rifles and competition shooting rifles, NOT weapons of war.

    2. The border situation that the federal government has been feeding for more than 30 years with its misguided “War on drugs” is now spilling into Arizona. I grew up in Rio Rico Arizona, which is 3 miles north of Nogales Arizona. My house was specifically 8 miles from Mexico as the crow flies. I lived less than a half mile from the Coronado National Forest, which was unsafe to hike, hunt, camp, and other recreational activities anywhere near due to the highly hot drug corridor that it became. I regularly would see drug smugglers coming over the hill from my front yard. They would travel in groups of 3. Two with fully automatic weapons of war (later discovered to be provided by the US Federal Government), and one with a large satchel of drugs.

    Any laws restricting civilian ownership of semi automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines do nothing to make Arizona safer, and indeed deprive the law abiding citizen of their natural born right to self defense and unnecessarily limit how much they can defend themselves, while doing nothing to restrict the criminal from their illegal activities.

    What have you done on a state level to find out why the federal government is arming the Mexican cartels against American citizens? What have you done as a state legislator to make my hometown safe from REAL weapons of war in the hands of non-American citizens to whom the laws of the land are deemed irrelevant?

    Thank you for your time, and vote against any restrictions on our civil liberties, because once they are gone they can never be regained without bloodshed.

    Robert Duke,
    Arizona Citizen

  11. avatarAharon says:

    If government reduces its operating size, power, and budget to one-tenth its current capacity then I promise never to even consider buying a modern sporting rifle and high capacity magazines.

  12. avatarDerek says:

    I don’t think you need quite so many calories. See how that works? My opinion isn’t law and doesn’t have any binding impact on your freedom, nor should it. You however, are trying to legislate your opinion onto me and others like me.

  13. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    If “weapon of war” is what they’re after, then it is clear that they are after every single firearm. There isn’t one single firearm that either wasn’t used by military forces or wasn’t an adaptation or modification of some military weapon. That classic bolt-action hunting rifle is based on an innovative military rifle. That revolver was based on a gun that was developed for military use. That shotgun is a result of the evolution of the blunderbus. No weapon is safe from these people. Do not let them divide us and conquer us based on which is your weapon of choice. Make no mistake, they want all of our guns. The goal is clearly “civilian disarmament”.

  14. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Also, on the issue of “need”…

    Since there are excellent videogames out there for various hunting scenarios and there are target shooting options that don’t involve actual projectiles, who really “needs” a hunting rifle or a target pistol. Come on guys, turn them in. It’s for the children!

  15. avatarRockThisTown says:

    Flood Sen. Lopez’s email inbox with messages requesting that the 2nd Amendment be upheld. Ducky’s letter above is good. I would mention in any communication to Sen. Lopez the tragic and unnecessary death of U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry, at the hands of the very government that is now trying to disarm law-abiding citiziens.

  16. avataruncommon_sense says:

    “I don’t think anybody needs a weapon of war on the streets of Arizona.” Arizona State Sen. Linda Lopez

    First, what a politician “thinks” is irrelevant when it comes to a person’s rights.

    Second, while some may firmly “think” that no one needs a “weapon of war” on the streets of Arizona TODAY, that could all change TOMORROW. And then it is too late.

    Finally, they are rights, not needs!

    • avatarHerb says:

      No, senator, we citizens need weapons of war to defend our HOMES!

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        I strongly recommend against letting the opposition define the key terms of the discussion.

        Full-auto M4/M16 class rifles are weapons of war in the hands of US servicemembers.

        Semi-auto AR-class rifles are defensive tools in the hands of loyal US citizens defending themselves and their families.

        See what I did there?

  17. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    So what happens if we have a so called weapon of war. Why, we could hurt somebody, right? Is that the elderly lady walking down the sidewalk? A couple going to the theater? Someone jogging in the park? Is it possibly the people that have been told its ok to riot & hurt innocents when you don’t get what you want? I didn’t think so, Randy

  18. avatarBobtheGrape says:

    Senator, we need weapons of war to defend ourselves from you and your kind:
    our legislators. That was what the Second Amendment was designed for.

  19. avatarSilver says:

    I don’t think anyone needs a Ferarri on the streets of Arizona. It’s their choice, and for gun owners, it’s their right. FOAD.

    Goes to prove that even in the glorious state of Arizona, we have our loathsome traitors.

  20. avatarSammy says:

    Amazing the sense of security armed bodyguards and the states LE can give a body. Too bad we all don’t get the level of protection (read defense) the political class gets.

  21. avatarRalph says:

    The left struggled and struggled to find the blather that would scare the crap out of people. The latest phraseology is “weapons of war,” which is even dumber and more meaningless than “assault weapon.” They were getting good traction with AW, so I don’t know why they dropped it. Then again, I didn’t understand the reason for “New Coke.”

    Whatever the reason, there’s an upside for us. Whenever anyone utters the “WoW” phrase in reference to an AR or Mini-14, they are self-identifying as sheer and utter @ssh0les who either have a room temperature IQ or think that we do. Which includes this beyotch and POTUS too. By the idiotic drivel that they utter shall we know them.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Yep. It’s an effective use of “define the terms and own the debate” that has worked exceptionally well for conservatives over the last 20+ years.

      They were getting good traction with AW, so I don’t know why they dropped it.

      I’m here as your double agent to report that “WoW” was scientifically tested in messaging against “AW” and came out ahead on two key metrics:
      * producing the desired emotional fear/protective response in the target audience
      * redefining the debate terms in ways difficult to immediately argue against
      Once the Obama team got back the test results, which included watching for viral spread of the term when they seeded it into social media, it was clear they had a winner.

      As you note, terms like this are both a dog-whistle to supporters (who know that it means “ban ALL the guns”) and an unmistakable marker to the opposition. It does make it very safe to assume that anyone repeating that term is a grade-A jackhole.

  22. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    “…on the streets…”
    This kind of rhetoric shows just how insulated from reality these people are.
    As if the streets were littered with rifles and everyone had two slung across their chests….

  23. avatarCarl says:

    40 years ago when I was a college student in Arizona, it was a bastion of Constitutional Freedom. Barry Goldwater was not an atypical Arizonan.

    Today, Arizona is California-lite.

    It has gone the way of formerly conservative states like Oregon and Washington.

    The American west has been infested by the scurrying rats and cockroaches fleeing the sinking Kalifornia Republik. Sadly, the escaping vermin carry with them the pestilence of liberal socialism.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.