Poltroon: An ignoble or total coward; a dastard; a mean-spirited wretch.
Word Origin & History: poltroon “spiritless coward,” 1529, from M.Fr. poultron “rascal, coward,” from It. poltrone “lazy fellow, coward,” apparently from *poltro “couch, bed” (cf. Milanese polter, Venetian poltrona “couch”), perhaps from a Gmc. source (cf. O.H.G. polstar “pillow,” see bolster).
We are blessed to live in an age where for the first time in history the poltroons are running ALL government and media channels and the progressive narrative is poured over us 24/7, world without end, amen.
When faced with evil we are confronting a binary choice – do something about it, or don’t do something about it. Doing something about it requires guts, brains, courage, grit, self sacrifice, willingness to speak truth to power, the list is endless. All of the above qualities and talents are utterly lacking in government and the media.
Therefore we get the second option – don’t do anything about it. But that creates a quandary for management because; by every definition “leaders” have to be seen to be “doing something”. So the question becomes “How do we do nothing while appearing to be doing something?”
The answer is “Hell! Let’s focus on the implements of destruction!” Because we all know the proles are just scared know-nothings who will believe that all crimes of violence are actually committed by “Autonomous Self Propelled Seeker Drones” called “Assault Rifles”.
WHOOOO! The modern bogyman we can use to push our agenda on all the innocent because we are too weak to actually do something about the guilty evil actors. Because if we ever once acknowledged evil we would logically have to include ourselves in that category and we sure don’t want to do anything to hurt ourselves, right?”
Except where noted, the rest of this I lifted wholesale from here. Please go to the site and read the whole piece. The author makes perfect sense, not that that has ever had any impact whatsoever on the Progressive Brights who have the knee jerk “Ban Guns” response every time the media start frothing about the latest (and rare) murder committed with guns.
****Tactical Style .22 rimfire “Assault Rifles”. A .22 cal Àssault Rifle for assaulting gophers … OY!
” ... If the cosmetic features used to define an “assault weapon” in the 1994 law strike you as really stupid ways to define an “assault weapon,” it’s because the 1994 law was a stupid law with stupid definitions written by stupid people.
(Blog Note: and while we are on the topic, I have never heard anyone who knew anything at all about guns ever suggest that a .22 cal rimfire was a reasonable facsimile of an “Assault Weapon“, as in something one could use in an actual assault on a defended stronghold. We use .22 for varmint popping, it`s for children`s toys. In the real world the term assault rifle implies a caliber of at least 5.56 x 45 in and preferably 7.62 x 51 in an FN C2A2 or even possibly a civilian 308. But a .22 rimfire assault rifle – don`t make me laugh)
And not only was it a stupid law, it was a stupid law that didn’t even accomplish its stated goal. How do we know? Because today, more than a decade after the law’s expiration, the number of people murdered by rifles is 36 percent lower than it was during the last full year the assault weapons ban was in effect.
ISIS Islamic Warrior or member of NRA – GEE they all look the same to me. Quick! Better ban guns!
The law expired in September of 2004, making 2003 the last full calendar year in which the law was in effect.According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime statistics, 390 people were murdered with rifles in 2003, making rifles the weapon of choice in 2.7 percent of murders that year.
But in 2014, more than a decade after these vile weapons of war flooded American streets, the number of rifle murders surely skyrocketed, right? Not so much. Quite the opposite. In 2014, the most recent year for which detailed FBI data are available, rifles were used in 248 murders.
And not only are rifles used in far fewer murders over a decade following the expiration of the 1994 gun ban, they’re also used in a smaller percentage of homicides. In 2003, when the gun ban was in full effect, rifles were used in nearly 3 percent of murders. In 2014, they were used in barely 2 percent.
That’s the exact opposite of what gun banners said should happen. After the assault weapons ban, guns were supposed to flood the streets and just start killing people. Crime was supposed to skyrocket. But that’s not what happened. Yes, Americans bought a ton of rifles after the law expired, but rather than going up, the number of homicides in which rifles were used drastically fell. There were way more guns, but way less crime.
Are you ready for a mind-blowing statistic? In 2014, you were six times more likely to be murdered with a knife than you were with a rifle. Knives were the weapon of choice in 1,567 murders in 2014, according to the FBI. It gets crazier. You were also nearly three times more likely to be killed by someone’s fists or feet than you were to be murdered with a rifle. In 2014, 660 people were murdered with what the FBI calls “personal weapons”–hands, fists, feet–compared to 248 with rifles.
In the United States, knives are more deadly than rifles. So are fists. And feet. This is not my opinion. It is an incontrovertible fact. And it’s a fact that highlights a point that far too many people refuse to acknowledge: the human desire to kill is far more deadly than any weapon. Weapons do not of their own volition and agency decide to kill people. That requires human intervention. Humans hell-bent on death and destruction will get their hands on whatever tools they need to wreak their desired havoc. Restricting the use of those tools by innocent people who only want to protect themselves and their families is delusional madness.
This is apparently how 2016 is going to go. If a boy tells you he’s a girl, then he’s a girl. If an Islamic terrorist who pledges allegiance to ISIS tells you he’s killing for Allah, then he’s probably a Republican with a lifetime NRA membership. After all, Islamic terrorists don’t kill people; peaceful, law-abiding citizens who believe the Second Amendment means what it says kill people.
Collective leftist denial about the existential, radical Islamic threat facing America is not going to prevent Islamic terrorism. Gun bans that ban guns based on nothing more than scary-looking cosmetic features are not going to prevent radical jihadis from murdering innocent people. Pretending that Republicans and the NRA are the real villains is not going to prevent ISIS from killing more Americans. Ignoring the fact that these attacks seem to only happen in gun-free zones won’t prevent violent psychopaths from waltzing into those gun-free zones and gunning down the unarmed civilians who congregate there.
But all those things will make progressives feel better about themselves, and who are you to deny them that right?
We don`t let them have ideas, why would we let them have guns
But not one item of fact will have any affect on the decisions made by the Progressive Poltroons and talking heads calling for gun bans. Because they are most afraid of guns – in the hands 0f their own citizens! the Poltroons are most afraid of US! Their own law-abiding citizens
From where I sit, logic and facts have no place in the progressive narrative.