Another collectivist self-appointed psychiatric expert weighs in on our "delusions."
Julius Streicher (before).
"Conservatives are Delusional About Facts on Guns." Well, there are "delusions" and then there are shure 'nuff delusions that can get you killed. Witness this statement:
The good news is there is a compromise available. The word "arms" in the constitution has not been specifically defined, which means it is open to interpretation. Instead of trying to outlaw guns, gun control advocates should simply outlaw the manufacture and sale of bullets. The second amendment would remain intact while gun deaths would fall dramatically. If legislators are uncomfortable with this option, the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the taxes on guns and bullets making them unaffordable for many of the mentally unstable individuals that commit these mass murders. Either way everyone wins.
Who's being delusional now? This guy wants to start a civil war that will probably end with him tried as an enemy of the Constitution, stood against a wall and shot. Hypothetically, of course. My comment is posted below:
"The good news is there is a compromise available. . . gun control advocates should simply outlaw the manufacture and sale of bullets. . . Either way everyone wins."
Talk about delusional. Starting a bloody civil war seems an odd way to "prevent gun violence." Especially when, hypothetically speaking, that civil war would likely end with the author being stood against a wall and shot as a dictatorship propagandist and domestic enemy of the Constitution. I think the line from Silverado applies here: "Son, we're going to give you a fair trial followed by a first class hanging." When, oh Lord, will tyrants and their apologists begin to understand that tyranny has personal consequences for the tyrants themselves? In the author's case, Julius Streicher is the example that springs to mind. Throughout history, when someone is served a warrant under the Law of Unintended Consequences, it usually comes as a distinct surprise to the violator who has delusions of invulnerability. Oops.
-- Mike Vanderboegh
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
Julius Streicher (after).
7 comments:
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449
The Huffpo writer forgot one of the other methods being used by the left to restrict-discourage gun ownership.
The California DOJ 'Approved' list adds extra expense and limits choice in handgun ownership. If a model is no longer made, it isn't on the list. The only way to buy one is to purchase it from another Californian through an FFL, and that generally means that if one IS available the price is higher (supply and demand). I haven't seen the particular model I'm interest in at a gun shop for years, although it's commonly seen online in stores out of state and can't be sold in California.
This is a completely separate issue from the ammunition limitations that the author dreams of (which is already here in 'lead-free' California).
The anti-Second Amendment crowd has many methods of discouraging gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, not the least of which is to create taxes, limit availability and raise costs through hidden taxes, such as the 'Approved' list.
They deleted your comment, Mike. Statists cannot ever handle the truth.
Tom 762
First, the "when" happens the instant the first second and third asshats are dealt with accordingly, right and proper, for all to see SO THAT all understand exactly why the asshats in question were dealt with. Unfortunately, it seems none among us are willing to hold anyone accountable, directly. Got Anthony? Sheesh, there isn't even ONE lawyer in this country who will step up to his full plate.
Second, Arms was the word chosen precisely BECAUSE it was well understood.
The "ban bullets" attitude cant stand up to their own created petard called "case law". It would equate to banning INK. Such malcontents ideas have already been dispensed with. See, these fools STILL attempt to operate under the false premise that The First and Second Amendments are somehow "different". When indeed, even SCOTUS has already been cornered into admitting that they are NO different.
As evidence, I point to the legislative changes happening around the country regarding blades. Many legislative bodies are choosing to reign in offending legislation rather than lose badly in the judicial arena AND bear the load of the COST after a loss. Why? Cuz ummmm ARMS has indeed been looooong "defined". But hey, lets go ahead and have that judicial battle. Lets see the court claim guns are protected but ammunition isn't. I dare em.
and banning the manufacture and sale of forks will end obesity.
remember the battle of concord that marked the start of the revolutionary war was fought to prevent the British from seizing a colonists store of....ammunition.
I just love the whole point about how stats show that gun ownership is falling. It apparantly never occurs to these really smart people that someone might not honestly answer a survey.
I don't think I know a single person dumb enough to tell an unknown and unsolicited caller or visiter that they have guns in the house.
My comment was blocked, here it is.
" Instead of trying to outlaw guns, gun control advocates should simply outlaw the manufacture and sale of bullets."
This end run around the constitutionally protected right of self defense won't fly. It's already been adjudicated in Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner. You can't outlaw, or tax, the supplies with which to exercise a right. Just as you can't apply a special tax upon, or ban, printer's ink or newsprint paper, you can't do that with guns and ammunition.
Give it up and move onto something else.
Post a Comment