Thursday, January 3, 2013

Ah, but here’s the problem, Don

You want to drag Boehner and McConnell behind a truck, repeal the Second Amendment (“it’s confusing”), make membership in the NRA illegal, and kill people who refuse to give up their weapons. But, you see, the people you’re targeting already have weapons, and, well, you and your ilk generally don’t (except for the monumental liberal hypocrites who own guns themselves, but don’t think the public, at large, should). So, what are you going to do, exactly? Overwhelm them with your high dudgeon? Intimidate them with your bristly little goatee? Oh, right: the state will do your dirty work. Millions of people – including current and former policemen, current and former military personnel, independent, self-reliant sons and daughters of the soil, and hard-bitten denizens of the cities who rebel at the notion of helpless victimhood – they’re all going to meekly hand their guns over to a government run by people whose sensibilities mirror your own. Is that it?

Not seeing it, Don. Just not seeing it.

Update: What right-wing, racist, pointy-hood-wearing Republican said this?
Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. … The right of the citizen to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.
Check Protein Wisdom for the answer.

Update: Efforts by Democrats in Illinois to ram through gun control probably violate the Constitution. But, hey, who cares about that old, yellow rag, anyway? Especially now that we’ve got a hipster lightworker who’s willing to down golf clubs whenever necessary in order to sweep that autopen over a steady stream of executive orders that are simply chockfull of hopey-changey, extra-constitutional, it’s-good-for-what-ails-ya secular commandments. Ain’t that right, Preshizzle?

"You said it, Pops!

Out: Dead and white.

In: Fly-by-night."


Yojimbo said...

I don't find the 2nd Amendment confusing. Should I be confused?

Spiny Norman said...

What? No hat tip for the Donald Kaul rant? (I kid! I kid!)

As I have posted at (at least) 6 or 7 other blogs, we do NOT have a gun problem in this country, we have a mental illness problem, and an urban street gang problem. There will never be solutions to those problems as long as political correctness, and the ACLU-bleeding-heart-liberalism that created it, hold sway.

rinardman said...

No, Yojimbo, the difference have a brain.

Spiny Norman said...

This is the most concise explanation of the 2nd Amendment I've yet read:

palaeomerus says:

A. reasoning for requirement + B requirement.

A. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

B. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

A is explaining the reason for B. B is actually forbidding legislators and the executive from having the authority to order something specific. That thing they are forbidden from doing is infringing the right of the people to keep an bear arms.

A could be changed without changing B, even absurdly.

Walruses being damned sexy, owing to their being hilariously cross eyed, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

The explanation has changed but the legislature and executive is still forbidden from doing something and that thing is STILL infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The explanation is not a condition. A does not limit B. B is what, and A is why.

rinardman said...

I was talking to the owner of a local gun shop yesterday about what would happen if any national gun confiscation were to take place. He said "They'll bring in U.N. troops to do it, not U.S. armed forces."

To which I said "Good, I might think twice about armed resistance against our guys, but those U.N. Blue-hatted wimps...not so much."

Spiny Norman said...

One more thing:

Illinois "ramming through" more gun control laws may end up being costly.


richard mcenroe said...

"You will find a rifle behind every blade of grass."

richard mcenroe said...

Box on the way, btw.

JeffS said...

Yeah, I figure the same, r-man. Our would-be tyrants wouldn't trust US forces to do the dirty work of grabbing guns. Not all of them, anyway, as I expect that some of the military would cooperate. But only a minority.

I see a lot of problems with such a scenario. Most of which would favor Americans, to some degree. Not least of which, shooting blue hats would be the duty of all Americans.

rinardman said...

But only a minority.

Most likely, the same with local law enforcement and even state police forces. I know if I were a cop, and they told me to start knocking on doors looking for firearms, I would not so politely tell them where to shove it!

That could also be very hazardous duty.

JeffS said...

Concur, rinardman.

Yojinbo said...

The cops in New Orleans had no trouble following through with that during Katrina. Most cops don't appreciate private citizens being armed.

JeffS said...

That was unexpected, Yojimbo, even for New Orleans. Plus. most of the city population was gone or in shock from the hurricane.

But I take your meaning to heart.

mojo said...

"Don't start none, won't be none."

As a small-L libertarian, I do not initiate violence. However, I have no problem responding to violence with violence.

richard mcenroe said...

"The cops in New Orleans had no trouble following through with that during Katrina. Most cops don't appreciate private citizens being armed."

Good Democrat cops, probably union. So what it proves is the Dems can definitely disarm their own prior to starting a fight with the rest of us.

Steve Skubinna said...

Municipal cops might be more inclined to move against the urban citizenry. Sheriff's Deputies, maybe not so much. It would be a lot more difficult to justify kicking in the door of the guy you go hunting with, or who buys a round at the VFW, or whose kids go to the same school as yours or whose wife is an EMT who responds to the same traffic accidents that you do.

Michael Lonie said...

I think a higher percentage of police than of the military or National Guard would acquiesce in such orders. Generally, police will beat up whomever their political masters tell them to beat up.

I'm not sure about the military. Many soldiers may refuse outright, perhaps saying something that sounds like "Nuremburg" when they do. The generals may try to get out of such distasteful duty by muttering "posse comitatus" to evade a task that might lead to mutiny or civil war. Of course, the libs might first ram through a law authorizing military participation in "law enforcement" operations (and if they can't ram it through, issue an executive order authorizing it), thus making such participation "legal" dontcherknow. But the Feds may have enough "law enforcement" assets already to do without the help of the military. Can you say "1.4 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition" boys and girls? I knew you could. When even the Department of Education maintains a SWAT unit, there are altogether too many "law enforcement" personnel available to the Feds.

Paco said...


I feel sorry for people who own guns. As I indicated previously, mine have all been stolen (including the two new ones I'm picking up tomorrow).

JeffS said...

What you say is valid, Michael, yet the sheer logistics involved will be staggering, even for the overstaffed and overarmed Federal LEOs.

So I expect our would-be masters to get creative. Things like rewards for weapons turned in, by anyone, with no questions asked on where they came from.

Various organizations would jump at the chance of lining their pockets while smacking down us troublesome proles. Unions, street gangs, political groups, the like. The Connecticut legislature is considering a bill to publish the names of gun owners in the state.

Wouldn't an on-line interactive map, thoughtfully provided by the government, be just thing for those sort of entrepreneurs?

I can think of other scenarios as well. Some even less pleasant.

So think ahead. This is something that I'll be telling the people I'll be selling my guns to over the INTERNET.

rinardman said...

I wonder what the final death toll would be. On both sides.

Anonymous said...

Deborah said ... Damn! The &#$#@%*&$ got your new ones! Too! Must have got the rounds too. Crying shame, Paco.