Only One?

(Note: this whole post was “triggered” by this article)

The open secret among us conservatives is the “one bullet” game in which you are asked, “If you had one shot you could take at someone, with a free pass, who would get the bullet?”

This causes a great deal of reflection among the more thoughtful of us, with much wailing and cursing because the Left offers us, shall we say, an absolute cornucopia of choices.  (And I sympathize:  I myself would need at least a case of 7.62x39mm to lance the various boils on our national and international polity.)

The choice is a tough one, especially where one is presented with a local option — e.g. one of the Soros prosecutors like that asshole in L.A. — or a national one, like Hillary Clinton, or even an international one like the aforementioned Soros, or Bill Gates.  Each of the three categories has much to recommend it, of course, but I would argue against the local option because it’s far too easy for the Left to find a similar, or even worse replacement.

No;  the way forward is a national or international target, provided that the international one is spreading his or her malignity into our own United States (which would exclude the perpetually-horrible Tony Blair, for instance, but make George Soros a front-runner).

Forgive me for being a tad parochial on that point, but given the disproportionate effect that our nation has on the world in general, I think it’s a defensible position.

And I’m not going to play this game here today — it’s far better played in person among friends and fellow conservatives, where spirited arguments can rage (and have done so, I suspect) in favor of each person’s nomination.  And please take note:  I’d rather that nobody played the game in my Comments section too, but I’m not in the business of telling people what they can and can’t write.

I should also point out that among conservatives, “One Bullet” is pretty much a game (albeit, perhaps, in questionable taste).  For the Left, however, the Enemy Elimination List is almost certainly lying in some DHS / FBI bureaucrat’s drawer somewhere, awaiting implementation.


  1. As requested, I won’t play here, but your last para is almost certainly true. The list is rapidly expanding, I’m sure.

  2. Yeah, that’s the kind of thing that is best played in person (if at all) with no video cameras or other way to memorialize it.

    I used to use email signature tag lines and one of them was something like, “Never put into writing, something you wouldn’t feel comfortable reading aloud in court.”

  3. But then there’s the question, how much difference would that make, really?

    I mean sure, if you could assassinate Hitler in his crib, great. But would that really stop WWII and the Holocaust? Or just alter some of the more lurid details without making much of a difference?

    And if Soros disappeared tomorrow, his money would still be here and still be distributed to horrid causes by all the various lizard people underlings that are currently handling his money.

    Hillary is way way past her prime and starting to stink, she has little to no power left anymore. Figuring out who would be the next Hillary is a long long list.

    Nope, not going to play the game cause in the end, pretty sure one bullet wouldn’t make any difference.

  4. One could point out that, with careful round selection and arrangement of targets, multiple problems could be solved with one shot. Especially if one pushes the definition of “bullet” to a certain extreme (155 mm perhaps? 2000 lb JDAM?).

    Mark D

  5. There’s an easy (but not necessarily agreeable) answer, but y’all are just going to have to wonder what it is.

Comments are closed.