Posts
Gun grabbers: How extreme?
If you’ve ever wondered how extreme the gun grabbers can get, here’s a nice little example:
The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities.
That’s obscene. Here, then, is my “madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore” program for ending gun violence in America:
• Repeal the Second Amendment, the part about guns anyway. It’s badly written, confusing and more trouble than it’s worth. It offers an absolute right to gun ownership, but it puts it in the context of the need for a “well-regulated militia.” We don’t make our militia bring their own guns to battles. And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.
• Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that “prying the guns from their cold, dead hands” thing works for me.
• Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.
And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise.
Yes friends, they are out there. I’m sure if asked this yahoo would tell you that much of this is simply venting. You know the new “civility “. What’s “obscene”, to use the writer’s language, is as profound and studied stupidity. Here’s a man who makes comparisons that are dubious at best, and if he weren’t so serious, would be laughable. But he’s serious about comparing the NRA to the Communist Party. He thinks he’s clever. He thinks he has an argument.
And he is certainly serious about repealing the Second Amendment. The Constitution continues to get in the way of gun grabbers like this. So a simple, “let’s revoke the right and outlaw the organization that guards it” is the sum total of his argument. And he claims that it is the NRA that is like the Communist Party?
Yes, we call this “projection”.
~McQ
Ah, the liberal left… so open minded, so willing to employ violence in their efforts to ‘persuade’.
�
�
�
*checks his ammo*
Well, they’re welcome to TRY, at least…
“Come and Take it” – Mr Kaul won’t do that himself, he might, after all, come to harm. When he talks bravely of prying from “cold dead hands” he expects one of the little people to perform that task at his behest.
He will soon find that while there are many of the little people who will do as he bids, he will at some point begin to run out of them…
The only confusions is when you attempt to distort the amendment to mean my right to a gun it tied only to participation in a militia.
If this down’t at least get them a call from the FBI, then we know you can make threats against officers of the United States without sanction.
Doesn’t this constitute ‘hate speech’ for the left?
That there are moonbats out there that will write this crap is no revelation.
How it got into the Des Moines Register…even their blog…is the real issue. Somebody needs to ask their advertisers if they approve.
Just so we know…
Ah, more of that ‘new civility’ I see.
FIFH
The thing missing from the debate so far is anger — anger that we live in a society where something like the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre can happen and our main concern is not offending the NRA’s sensibilities restricting media identification of the perpertrator so that he gets to have his big moment.
Substitute ‘freedom of the press’ for each time he uses ‘guns’ and 1st Amendment for the 2nd and require journalists have to register before they publish since ‘obviously’ granting attention to these types of killers has killed more people than the Communist Party of the USA ever did.
And if that didn’t work, I’d adopt radical measures. None of that is going to happen, of course. But I’ll bet gun sales will rise
>>> They’re trying really REALLY hard to provoke an incident they can use as a pretext to unleash the authorities aren’t they?
… but this is a 1st amendment question …
… “say ‘Hello’ to my little friend”
I thought private firearm ownership was illegal in NYC?
I could be wrong and I haven’t consulted the statues for the state of New York or the regions in and about Greenwich Village, but I’ll still wager manufacturing bombs is prohibited by law in them parts.
Anytime a reporter or journalist publishes anything that isn’t true, or makes a threat, they go to jail for a week. No questions asked, no way out. And then face a madatory million dollar fine to be paid tax free to their victim. That would improve their manners and their integrity. Right now they have neither.
Pingback: Gun grabbers: How extreme? | Liberal Whoppers
The left historically enters mass murder stage when getting what they want doesn’t end up with the desired results.
Well, yeah. If those darn recalcitrants won’t accept the perfect collectivist world of their own free will, then they deserve whatever the left can inflict on them. After all, if someone won’t accept perfection, you can’t reason with them. In that case, they’re no better than animals.
Wait, strike that. Even animals have more rights to the modern collectivist left than people who resist the collective.
Perhaps some lynchings too, to as the French say, encourage the others.
In any event, I’m SURE that being dragged around a parking lot behind a truck would be ‘for their own good’, don’t you know, until they’ve learned their place in society. Look at how well it worked for James Byrd Jr, who was also ‘guilty’ of….being incorrect.
�
Don Kaul, if by some strange and unusual chance you read this – you’re a monster, not for trying to grab guns, but for your proposal of how you’d go about managing it. Enlightened, open minded, liberal, for the children, left wing collectivist monster. If you don’t think so, go back and review your proposal for ‘convincing’ people your way is best.
�
This morning might be a good time to start the year by asking the Des Moines Register if they think Mr. Kaul’s ‘opinion’ was funny, enlightening, entertaining, helpful, or all of the above.
That guy needs to calm down, the second amendment is only a minor inconvenience. Once Obama gets to pack the court it will go away like the rest of the constitution.
I’m praying that he only replaces Ginsberg at most. Although he is picking 30 year minimum apparatchik nominees and the Republicans do nothing about it.
�
Unfortunately after checking I didn’t realize how old Scalia is. He seems relatively healthy (of mind anyway). The concern would be wild card Kennedy. If those two can make it another 4 years, the damage would be minimized.
Isn’t Kennedy set to retire? If so Obama will tilt the court sharply left. Elections, conseqenses, etc.
If that is true, game over.
�
That’s all I can say.
It wont make much difference, you could never rely on this court even with a majority of republican appointees to do the right thing.
Pingback: rumcrook
And surely the Founders couldn’t have envisioned weapons like those used in the Newtown shooting when they guaranteed gun rights
�
True, just privately owned artillery, which is still perfectly legal.
�
(As long, admittedly, as it’s muzzle-loading. But a muzzle-loading cannon would kill a room full of schoolchildren just as dead as a breech-loader, and somehow the Founders still thought it was exactly what should be protected…
For that matter, gunpowder bombs as a weapon of massacre were perfectly well known in the time of the Republic’s founding … and yet the “right to bear arms” was never thought to restrict the purchase of gunpowder, despite its immense utility, even then, for mayhem.)
�
Such ignorance would be funny if it wasn’t both sad and dangerous.
The Kentucky Long Rifle was the zenith of modern weaponry at the time of the Revolution, and drafting of the Constitution.
The British HATED it, and the men who used it to great advantage in the war, employing Indian fighting tactics to fullest effect.
“gunpowder bombs as a weapon of massacre were perfectly well known in the time of the Republic’s founding”
�
“Remember, Remember, the 5th of November”
Given the inflammable nature of black powder, there were public safety laws on how large quantities of gunpowder could be privately stored…
…Modern smokeless powders have no such flammability.
I’m not quite sure what you mean as the difference, given that modern smokeless powder is <I>very, very flammable</i> (I know, having lit it…).
(I’m sure there is a difference, and a meaningful one … but it’s not “flammability”.)
In any case, makes little difference to the overall thesis.
I mean based on my own experience with gun powders, if I dropped a cigarette (I don’t smoke), I’d expect the black powder to brew up near explosively. The smokeless powder, not so much, it may do nothing.
Raging psychosis, not institutionalized – and they wonder about Newtown!
But enough about Chris Matthews…
With the understanding that it is people who kill people and the more deranged they are, the more likely they will do so, someone should inform the authorities of the violent predilections and intentions of this DeMoines Register editorial author and get him/her the psychiatric care they so desperately need, before they hurt someone. And by all means, disarm them immediately.
If there is a waiting period to exercise our second amendment rights, this ‘editorial’ is the best argument for a waiting period to exercise the first.
I’ll support a ban on any gun that can break out of it’s container and shoot someone.