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."
ReplyDeleteI don't find the 2nd Amendment confusing. Should I be confused?
What? No hat tip for the Donald Kaul rant? (I kid! I kid!)
ReplyDeleteAs 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.
No, Yojimbo, the difference is...you have a brain.
ReplyDeleteThis is the most concise explanation of the 2nd Amendment I've yet read:
ReplyDeletepalaeomerus 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.
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."
ReplyDeleteTo which I said "Good, I might think twice about armed resistance against our guys, but those U.N. Blue-hatted wimps...not so much."
One more thing:
ReplyDeleteIllinois "ramming through" more gun control laws may end up being costly.
Ha!
"You will find a rifle behind every blade of grass."
ReplyDeleteBox on the way, btw.
ReplyDeleteYeah, 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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
But only a minority.
ReplyDeleteMost 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.
Concur, rinardman.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe cops in New Orleans had no trouble following through with that during Katrina. Most cops don't appreciate private citizens being armed.
That was unexpected, Yojimbo, even for New Orleans. Plus. most of the city population was gone or in shock from the hurricane.
ReplyDeleteBut I take your meaning to heart.
"Don't start none, won't be none."
ReplyDeleteAs a small-L libertarian, I do not initiate violence. However, I have no problem responding to violence with violence.
"The cops in New Orleans had no trouble following through with that during Katrina. Most cops don't appreciate private citizens being armed."
ReplyDeleteGood 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.
ReplyDeleteI'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.
Michael:
ReplyDeleteI 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).
What you say is valid, Michael, yet the sheer logistics involved will be staggering, even for the overstaffed and overarmed Federal LEOs.
ReplyDeleteSo 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.
I wonder what the final death toll would be. On both sides.
ReplyDeleteDeborah said ... Damn! The &#$#@%*&$ got your new ones! Too! Must have got the rounds too. Crying shame, Paco.
ReplyDelete