Collectivist tyrant wannabe, somewhat surprisingly, responds to my email.
Regarding my post and email here, a collectivist tyrant wannabe, somewhat surprisingly, responds.
From: BOB NICHOLSON bobncolumn@gmail.com
To: georgemason1776@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Nov 18, 2015 9:36 am
Subject: Re: When you get what you want, the NRA will be the least of your problems.
So how do you really feel about background checks?
Im (sic) always amazed at the hate some people have for their government. How did it come to that? If we really had a totalitarian government come to power, and the military was on their side do you really think that your small arms could hold off an armored attack? Rambo was fiction.
Why do you see tyranny in taking a few minutes to fill out a background check? Do you feel no responsibility to society at all? Or perhaps you have something to hide? If you could not pass a check I certainly understand your militancy.
Nothing in what support in that column would infringe upon your rights. When I have bought guns I went through a background check. Whey I got a carry permit I went through another check. I have my guns and I have my permit and no rights were harmed in the process.
Thank you for writing.
Bob
54 comments:
Such a nice, polite hive insect...
Answer: My obligation to society is to take full responsibility for my life, words and actions - never initiating force against others. Filling out paperwork and begging involuntary governments for "permission" for anything has only serves to discourage or block taking that responsibility as an individual.
Go back to the hive, mister. I think I hear your queen calling...
Well, this one made up my mind. He's not ignorant he really is stupid.
He's another one of these retards who thinks the U.S. military is some monolithic organization that will blithely follow any and all orders to fight against the very nation, the very people they swore to defend.
If you must beg permission from a higher power, which is what happens when you submit yourself to a "background check", you are not exercising your right. (See! See how compliant I am? I grovel before the state and then it endows its favor upon me!)
If you have to beg permission first, then pay for a permission slip, which is what happens you you get a "carry permit", you are not exercising your right. (See! See how I am favored! I have special dispensations to do special things that others may not do!)
Neither of the above facts matters to the collectivist, because Socialism is his religion and Government is his god. To him, Government is Daddy. Daddy tells you what you may do and what you may not do... and then spanks you when you're bad.
Get out of my way, you petulant child.
Since they could refuse to issue, by requiring a permit, the State infringed upon your right to keep and bear arms!
The more I see of our present day society, the less I care about it, not to mention "filling' out paperwork to defend myself from it. Please quote the paragraph in the Bill of Rights that states that I need permission from this government or this society to procure and have weapons....I must have missed that in my copy. Now go back and join your society; you're certainly one of them.
I bet the author opposes laws showing an ID to vote, supports mass immmigration and amnesty, supports sanctuary cities, supports obama bringing muslim refugees without bg checks from "Syria," supports obama admin policies suing companies mandating bg checks for employees, and would oppose bg checks on leftist political speech or churches.
Hey... He's convinced me. NOT!!!
Other than the obvious, hunka chunka between the severely mentally impaired, where do these nanny worshipping hermaphrodites come from???
MikeH.
A Geriatric Threeper Distrustful Of Nanny Statists
I had to Key in on one line, that we and our small arms could not stand against an armored attack and that Rambo was fiction. There's only one true statement in that entire line and that is Rambo was fiction. The collectivist are constantly saying that we have not won a war since World War II this is not true of course, honestly our politicians have not won a war since World War II we people on the ground have won all of them. But the people we have fought would be exactly the same people the government would fight during the second American revolution.
The anti-gunners are never happy. It's naive to think that they'll stop at universal background checks. If they are put in place, they'll cook up more restrictions, because the last ones didn't work.
A pertinent question for Bob would be this: Would you agree to an equivalent check for all prospective voters to insure only legally qualified individuals will be permitted to vote in our elections since "no rights would be hurt in the process"? I am confident I already know what his PC answer would be...
Why beat around the bush?
At what point does a representative government become a tyranical one? By the time such a change is well underway, government will be looking for the slightest excuse to deny or delay a background check. Like California, New York, and Illinois do today. Like the frog in the lukewarm pot of water on the stovetop, it may well be that the governed will recognize the tipping point only in retrospect, and perhaps to late to do very much constructive about it in the short term. The time to stop a tyrranical government is well before it has any say in the matter. Preferably by denying it the ability to form in the first place. Refusing to give the names and addresses of every gun owner in the U S A, which DOJ says would be required for universal background checks to work, would be one part of the denial process.
Also, given this country's history, one must recognize that the U S military establishment is likely to be of two minds when it comes to supporting such a government. The result is likely to be disintegration and chaos, not any co-ordinated action against anyone on either side of the issue. In the 1770's a good part of the colonial militias supported King George's cause and fought alongside British regulars. The battle of Kings Mountain is only one example. In the 1860's, many troops, officers, noncoms and enlisted alike, left Federal units and went south to join the Confederacy. Just look at the old photographs of the officer corps posed at the hanging of John Brown. You'll see the officer corps of both armies in the civil war to come.
My crystal ball is still in the shop. But it doesn't require a whole lot of soothsaying skill to point out that many in this country are doing a whole lot of wishful and short sighted thinking from both sides of the issue.
One final thought: WTF good is an armored division when your adversaries refuse to sit still and provide a target?
I don't know that it is worth it, but you could point out that "universal background checks" = registration, and that registration = confiscation. There are obvious examples.
"Im (sic) always amazed at the hate some people have for their government."
He has it wrong.
He is NOT our government, nor is anyone else who SERVES WITHIN it. The American government is a document, and people are elected, hired, contracted, etc to SERVE WITHIN it; to carry out the put-into-writing duties assigned to the Branch or specific-named position/office being allowed to use the authority of that branch or specific-named position/office.
Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”
They pervert the US Constitution, our legitimate governments - state and general (federal) with their corruptness and need to be REPLACED, arrested, prosecuted.
Seriously,
This person needs to be replied to with a certain eagerness as his interest IN replying suggests he has the POSSIBILITY of being cured of his misunderstandings.
For instance, one might tell him this:
When one obtains a Driver's License you are proving that you can operate a dangerous device publically on public roads. Once you have a license you can then operate the car wherever cars are allowed.
Sadly, background checks DO NOT necessarily allow one to carry (openly or concealed) the object they supposedly allow you to purchase and own. Worse, it would appear that, unlike with a car, you need to apply EACH time you wish to use or buy your firearm.
And here is a good question to infect him with:
Do you believe your rights come from your creator or from the government?
Begin there.
The Borg can be vanquished in this way: one unit at a time.
" If we really had a totalitarian government come to power, and the military was on their side do you really think that your small arms could hold off an armored attack? Rambo was fiction."
Perfect example of ZERO Critical Thinking AND OSI Analysis.
I'd say ..SADLY, the Cavemen AND Women are doing quite well..
Destroying Life as others once knew it.
They've No Air Force, Marines, Navy, CIA, NSA, DIA, Strike Aircraft, Missles, Drones, ETC ETC ETC ETC.
He FAILED!!!
If you got a permit, you got a privilege, not a right... many patriots don't seem to understand that you give up your birthright for a bowl of soup when you get a ccw.
Hi Mike,
First off, what "MamaLiberty" said.
Really, what a nice polite hive insect!! His verbiage is enough to make me want to puke!!! The guy, if you can call him that has to be "neutered!!" No Man with any "Balls" would say anything like that!!!
Time to 'Lock and Load.......OUTLAW!!!!!!,
III%,
skybill-out
Begging for another letter, I'd say....to correct the obvious mental defect that's led him to believe that a right "permitted" or requiring "approval" of the state is, in fact, NO RIGHT at all.
The ones gathering data and storing it in lists have proven they are a failure.
Those who would exploit the data have proven they CAN and WILL EXPLOIT IT.
My email completely encrypted and backed up since "the bbs days"
Enter .gov
VA lost my data.
Anthem Blue Cross lost my data.
OPM lost my data.
imo- The people running the show belong in Fort Leavenworth Kansas (government) and to be sued to the last drop (civillian/corporate business spies)
I am a electronics tech, and I have ran an ISP.
The PATTERN IS 100% CLEAR who the attack comes from.
I can answer this mook for you, Mike.
Background checks, especially NOT passing one, do nothing about criminals getting firearms. But it does give confiscators an address where they can come attempt a confiscation.
As far as that "totalitarian government" sending armor against us, consider this. We are numerous, in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 million. Probably a lot more than that. (I thought I'd give you the conservative number so you can still get some rest tonight).
We are indigenous to this land and are everywhere. So which way is this column of armor going to advance?
Some of us have 50BMG rifles. Do you consider that to be "small arms"?
The military your tyrant would send is made up of our sons and daughters. Do you really think they will fire on us?
Any idiot can build and plant an IED. Proof is the idiots in Afghanistan that do it all the time. You think farmers can't build a device that will flip an M1 Abrams on it's head? Boy, are you stupid!
Read your history, you jackass. Farmers, bankers and store keepers beat the crap out of the biggest, meanest army on earth in the late 18th century, and again in the early 19th century. Our attitude is still alive and strong.
Be advised. When the big one gets started and quickly finished with us as the victors, we will start to conduct a reset, rounding up everyone who had a hand in starting the civil war in the first place. I'll let you speculate what we will do with them.
A motor vehicle driven as a weapon can kill and horribly maim many victims - are car owners required to go through a back ground check? Bob is either a fool who believes that government is the answer or part of the problem in the first place if he believes everyone should be suspected as being guilty of wanting to commit mass murder events for wishing to own a firearm, and that only a back ground check can prove them innocent of such thoughts.
Typically, this moonbat is full of horse manure and easily refuted progressive socialist talking points.
In American jurisprudence, the government has to show a compelling need or societal benefit when the government seeks to restrain the exercise of unalienable rights in any fashion.
In other words, there has to be a proven benefit to the encroachment.
Time and time again mass shooters pass their background checks and career criminals steal or buy their weapons on an illicit market that circumvents any form of gun control including the background check system, making the entire thing an exercise in futility.
Ultimately, this makes gun control indefensible in regard to showing any benefit whatsoever for the societal greater good, when weighed against the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
As well, the nonsensical notion that having to pass a background check to exercise an unalienable right is "not an infringement" or "not a big deal" is nothing but a haughty "let them eat cake" sort of arrogance, which can be easily contrasted with the idea that if such is not an infringement on the right protected in the second amendment, then liberal columnists and journalists would not mind having to pass a background check before buying their next macbook with which to exercise their first amendment rights. After all, people use the internet to incite violence (like ISIL's well known social media campaign) and commit other crimes like libel and slander.
Let THEM be the ones to have to suffer ridiculous encroachments and curtailment of the rights they champion, and see how loudly they squeal about it.
As for the notion of how people "hate their government" enough to wish to be able to maintain a semblance of independence from it and a means to resist it should it become tyrannical, this is pure straw man balderdash that is constantly regurgitated by the anti- gun left.
It seems they do not even feel the need to come up with any original, thoughtful arguments of their own because their LIES have worked so well in the past.
This nation was founded by people who not only proved the asinine idiocy of how citizens cannot defeat a much larger and more powerful military to be completely WRONG (which still happens all the time even in today's world); but it was also founded by people who enshrined a lawful limit on the power of the federal government relating to our privately held arms.
It is the liberal anti-gun left that hates that form of government so much that they wish to abolish it, not the liberty loving patriotic American who understands history and the intent of the founders well enough to know when government has overstepped its bounds.
This moonbat isn't worth your time and effort, Mike.
All he's got are the same stupid played out talking points that thankfully, a growing majority of Americans are recognizing as just that.
He obviously hasn't seen "Blackhawk Down".
Ask Bob how he feels about a background check before he is allowed to write. oh and if he fails it (the background check "we" control, then he goes to JAIL.
He will sing a different toon. (See what I did there?)
It will be interesting seeing Mike answer his questions. Hilariously, this dude known not what he bit off and I submit he isn't going to be able to chew.
"BOB" Do you really understand the logic of the words you just typed?
B-4
If we only give them a little more control - they will allow us to be free ...
Oh! Wait a minute ... there is a flaw in that somewhere ...
III
Ah yes. The old "How you gonna fight a tank with your Glock" argument. I guess this moke has never heard of "4th-Generation Asymmetrical Warfare".
"You have nothing to fear, if you have nothing to hide."_Joseph Goebbels
'...small arms vs. armor?'
Guess numbnuts is ignorant of how the goatherders in sandals with radioshack walkietalkies, in the mountains, have stymied us with AKs for over a decade.
Dem: Paris a 'chilling reminder' we need tighter gun laws
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/260600-dem-paris-a-chilling-reminder-we-need-tighter-gun-laws
A Democratic lawmaker says the Paris attacks should motivate Congress to pass tighter gun laws.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) warned that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is encouraging sympathizers to purchase weapons in the U.S.
Shes a fucking communist
Communist Party USA and Rep. Jan Schakowsky March at Occupy Chicago (Video)
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/communist-party-usa-marches-with-rep-jan-schakowsky-at-occupy-chicago-video/
Hey Mr. Know-It-All:
Do you really think that your military (even though I concede it is the best in the world) under your hypothetical scenario, can be 100 million places at once to defeat the 100 million gun owners who will each pick a few targets a day or week and defeat you through attrition ? Or assuming a THREE PERCENT active participant scenario, can it be in THREE MILLION places at once ?
they will never understand what they are saying. "I have my PERMIT and NO RIGHTS were harmed in the process".
He's historically challenged.
Please may I share your answer on my facebook page MamaLiberty ? MEL
Exclusive: Donald Trump Says Concealed Carry Permit Holders ‘Have an Obligation to Carry’
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/18/exclusive-donald-trump-says-concealed-carry-permit-holders-obligation-carry-way-raise-serious-doubts-minds-might-considering-violence/
He wonders what we would do were the military on the government's side. To be honest and knowing the general composition of our military, I've never given the matter a moment's thought. I guess we'll have to see what happens when Daryl is ordered to nuke Uncle Gus and Aunt Mary. I wonder who Daryl will nuke?
EXCLUSIVE — REPORT: 8 Syrians Caught at Texas Border in Laredo
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/18/report-8-syrians-caught-at-texas-border-in-laredo/
The coward seeks to pay some of his neighbors to arm themselves for the purpose of taking the arms of his other neighbors.
He knows not God therefore he understands not His creation. Why would those hired to take the guns of somebody else need to be armed? Well, for self defense. Duh. If you are a believer in the LORD then you know from what quarter this man's plan comes to us. Tyranny is evil. The author of these plans has a name. Christ Jesus is the cure.
"Why do you see tyranny in taking a few minutes to fill out a background check?"
Because the key definition of "tyrant" is those who presume to make or enforce laws without having to obey them themselves (from Greek tyrannos, "absolute ruler unlimited by law or constitution"). If you make a law that obviously and directly contradicts the Constitution, without which you can not be considered to have any legal authority, then expect to be called a tyrant.
Your bullying righteousness is comical.
Any hindrance of the right to own guns, regardless of the protection it provides our society as a whole, is wrong, per the arguments here.
Yet, I never hear arguments here, against the hindrances provided by our state governments, especially red-state governments, toward other rights. Notably, hindrances provided against the rights of some folks to vote. Or circumventing rights to representation, via gross gerrymandering.
I think the right to vote and representation is at least as enshrined, as our 2nd amendment rights.
At least be consistent in your righteousness.
It's very simple. Ask him if he knows the difference between "innocent until proven guilty" and "guilty until proven innocent", and which model he thinks underlies the filling out of such forms...
Kurt
It is surprising that a collectivist does not remember the Hungarian revolution of 1956, in which dutiful Communists used armored force against a determined citizenry, who did not want their governance. All that in a closely secret-police-supervised country. It is an everlasting shame those brave people were let down.
Americans are not "Rambos", They just want their rights, and those of their families, protected from just these kind of threats from totalitarians.
That individual should stay home, quit bothering us, and enjoy his after dinner cocktail.
What makes him think the military would be on the side of the government?
Thanks, I used the email you posted and sent along this email to him... Hope he likes it :)
You comment and recent post on AL is nearly an exact copy of the German Gun Control Law in the 30s. We all know where that led.
I imagine that you have not read that law, I have. The British, our own government in the colonial period, sought to impose such controls and did in England during various reigns of their domestic tyrants.
Your remarks sent to another about hating my government is really naïve. The Constitution begins with : "We the People"... Obviously you are totally ignorant of what that means. Let me make it abundantly clear:
"The People-the People are the rightful masters of congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution but those men who pervert it."
Abraham Lincoln, 1859
Lincoln knew the difference between a lawful government and one that was being perverted by those in office. In short those in government does not constitute the government as you analogy presupposes. It is the Constitution that does that and it was ratified by the People as their government. No amendment no changing the Constitution... GET IT.
You comments and article announce to the world that you are as little informed as you are. That you discussions represent little more than appeals to emotion, popular sentiment and authority that are formal Logical Fallacies show that you are devoid of any attempt to be reasonable-please see the correct etymology of the word and not the new double speak so prevalent with so called "journalists" in this day and age. Speech can be a very exact science if you use it correctly otherwise it relegates itself to mere propaganda.
If you are so concerned about an attempt to overthrow those who pervert the Constitution why don't you move to England as you must object to the Framers efforts to overthrow the acts of a tyrant, I guess they hated their government too. See what your Concealed Carry Permit and background checks will do for you there. In England they acquiesced encroachments by those in government. Please note, however, that the Framers were incensed by their "Rights of Englishmen" being torn from them. That's right they asked no more than what the English People had won in several evolutions of struggling against tyranny. They knew their history and knew their problems was just another coming of the same old tired rationalization of tyrants who merely want to further their agenda.
NOTE:
It is advisable to attend a battle of wits armed with a least a hint of knowledge.
And there it is - the always present "it's a right not a privilege". I have become convinced that those saying such a thing are actually gun controllers posing as gun owners (just like bob here). Why? Because planting that talking point is now something elected controllers are doing regularly. The only other possibility is that someone saying such foolishness is just historically ignorant. We must expose the prior and educate the latter.
To say it is a right, not a permission is correct. Fact is, privilege does NOT mean permission!
Privileges and immunities are RIGHTS in both the positive AND negative senses. Privileges are what one can do BY RIGHT and immunities are what government CANNOT do to you because you do so.
Those who offer the idiocy prove they have not read and do not understand the 14th amendment. Government has the power of permission (privilege) but is prohibited from making and enforcing laws regarding privileges? Absolute idiocy!!! Nonsense!! Privilege cannot possibly mean permission!!!!
The right to keep and the right to bear ARE privileges! They are also immunities. So here is my message to the "it's a right not a privilege" people. STFU or wake the heck up - whichever truly applies.
Rights = privileges and immunities. Got it?
Read your Constitution!! Understand it! Live it.
Blogger melinwy said...
Please may I share your answer on my facebook page MamaLiberty ? MEL
November 18, 2015 at 6:57 PM
You certainly can, Melinwy. I looked at your blog page, but couldn't see any contact info. I don't do "Google" anything, so couldn't even join. You can reach me at my own blog: www.thepriceofliberty.org
Hey Mike - all you need to do to 'answer' this person is to forward these comments to him. If that doesn't wake him up, nothing will. ;-)
The People vs. Obama: It Is Time for Civil Disobedience
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2015/11/18/the-people-vs-obama-it-is-time-for-civil-disobedience/
Personally I never understood the argument that small arms would never do any good against a modern military. If anything that establishes that AT THE VERY LEAST we should have our small arms. AT THE VERY LEAST we should have AR-15s. At least give people a chance in hell before being dragged to the gas camps against their will.
"Your bullying righteousness is comical.
Any hindrance of the right to own guns, regardless of the protection it provides our society as a whole, is wrong, per the arguments here.
Yet, I never hear arguments here, against the hindrances provided by our state governments, especially red-state governments, toward other rights. Notably, hindrances provided against the rights of some folks to vote. Or circumventing rights to representation, via gross gerrymandering.
I think the right to vote and representation is at least as enshrined, as our 2nd amendment rights.
At least be consistent in your righteousness."
Says the self righteous bully.
First of all, gun control laws do not do jack nor squat to protect society as a whole, and this can be proven in not only the statistics as collected by various law enforcement agencies over the years, but by the COMMON SENSE observation that mass killers pass their background checks and go on to commit their deeds of infamy with an almost scary regularity in "gun free zones", while in "other advanced nations" that have all your pet "laws" in place, the maniacs STILL commit mass murders and use guns (as well as bombs, which are HIGHLY illegal to possess).
Your pet "laws" do NOTHING to stop evil, they only hinder the rights of the law abiding.
Lastly, go bully someone else with off topic rants about whatever your pet peeve is.
We aren't talking about that here, and attempting to hijack the conversation with diversionary tactics is internet trolling, a form of BULLYING.
Americans Rush To Buy Guns In Wake Of Paris Attacks
http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/americans-rush-to-buy-guns-in-wake-of-paris-attacks/146849#more-146849
Alabama reports that gun stores are struggling to keep up with the demand.
http://www.wsfa.com/story/30533150/spike-in-gun-permits-sales-post-paris-attack
Where the people fear the government you have
tyranny. Where the government fears the people you
have liberty. John Basil Barnhill: Debate on Socialism: 1914
So tell me BOB, what is more evident today? Does the government fear the people or do the people fear the government? Why do you NOT see Tyranny in nearly everything the government does around you. Is it because you are complicit in that tyranny? That is what I think.
Ah, the old "small arms and armored columns" argument.
I guess this guy doesn't understand that all armies require a logistical tail and the logistical tail is incredibly vulnerable to small unit warfare. Ask the Germans how their supply columns did against Russian Partisans.
Not to mention tank drivers have to get out of their tanks once in a while. Along with gas truck drivers, helicopter pilots, etc.
-Blake
I find it baffling that Bob thinks we'd waste a single shot on people in the military. What a horrid waste of time and ammo, engaging those who didn't cause the problem.
People like Bob, who sent them, however...
Post a Comment