Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

This must be Greg Nickels’ desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure that he not survive the primary election last month. The proposal is blatantly illegal.

Alan Gottlieb
September 18, 2009
Mayor proposes gun ban at city-park facilities
[I would like to remind, soon to be, ex-mayor Greg Nickels of this post. I wish that Federal prosecutors would file charges for violation of 18 USC 242 the day after the signs go up.

See also Ry’s post and the Second Amendment Foundation news release.

I’m doubling the amount of money I donate to SAF each month through payroll deductions. That money is matched by Microsoft.–Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

  1. Joe, You know what it boils down to? I wrote about it today on my blog. Some of us don’t trust you gun owners, at least not all of you.

    About that contribution you make to the SAF, it made me think of something. If the right to bear arms is so inalienable and so natural like you guys say, why do you need gigantic lobbying efforts and powerful organizations to prevent it from being lost?

    I think the reason is because it’s not so inalienable and natural, or God-given, if you prefer. It’s an anachronistic distortion of what was originally intended. It has as little to do with our society today as quartering soldiers in our homes or denying the vote to blacks and women.

    It’s probably good that you’re pumping up the coffers because imagine if two or three more Justices need to be replaced during Obama’s presidency. Things could really change.

  2. Our rights do not require your trust. Furthermore, our rights are not predicated on your trust. If you choose not to trust someone to not put kiddie porn on the internet with their computer, should they then immediately lose their First-Amendment-protected rights? That is exactly what you are proposing, oh ye woman with the earrings.

    As for why we need lobbying organizations to protect, defend, and expand on our inviolate natural rights, “inalienable” does not mean that the government is physically incapable of legislating them out of existence. For example, I think you would agree that female sufferage was an “inalienable” right – what with people being created equally and all that. And yet the government legislated away a woman’s right to vote… which required substantial lobbying and efforts to correct. Likewise, I think you would agree that slavery is a violation of a very significant inalienable right, and yet that was perfectly acceptable under the American government for quite some time now, again requiring significant amounts of work to correct.

    By being a living, breathing, sentient human being, I have the inalienable right to self-defense – self-perpetuation, if you prefer that phrasing. As such, given the technological situation of the world around us, I have the right to avail myself of modern, up-to-date tools to defend myself, and keep myself on-par with those who would attack me. The government may make such activities illegal, and they may punish me for exercising such rights, but the right still exists, whether the government or other bigoted individuals (such as yourself) acknowledge it or not.

    “Inalienable” does not mean that a government, in its infinite stupidity, cannot make the right in question illegal… it simply means the right exists, regardless of whether the government makes it illegal or not.

    And again the woman with the earrings (to wit: MikeB) speaks in direct contradiction to the past, especialy when he refers to “what was originally intended” with the Second Amendment. Thankfully, though, the Founding Fathers made their opinions quite well known on such topics:

    “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
    – Noah Webster

    “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
    – Tenche Coxe

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
    – Patrick Henry

    “… of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
    – James Monroe

    “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
    – Zachariah Johnson

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;…”
    – Samuel Adams

    “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
    – Richard Henry Lee

    “The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.”
    – Thomas Jefferson

    As usual, facts trump feelings, something women with earrings will never understand.

  3. MikeB302000, Do you think the same of the ACLU, NAACP, and the ADL?

    There are lots of people that “don’t trust” blacks and Jews–or at least not all blacks and Jews. Does that justify the government severely restricting or exterminating them?

    I don’t trust the people in government–at least not all people in government. That is why I exercise my rights to political speech, vote, and to keep and bear arms. But I don’t try to shut down the government using force or exterminate government employees prior to them stepping out of line.

  4. Good old MikeB, completely ignoring the fact that what Nickels is doing is illegal.

    I guess criminal activity is perfectly OK as long as it’s to push for gun control. The ends justifies the means eh?

    “It has as little to do with our society today as quartering soldiers in our homes or denying the vote to blacks and women.”

    If Obama or the Democratic Congress decided they wanted to start quartering soldiers in your home you’d dust off the 3rd Amendment and say “NO, HELL NO!” It wouldn’t be so anachronistic then would it? And wouldn’t you want your rights under the 2nd Amendment as a means of emphasizing that “NO?”

    Is the 19th Amendment unimportant in today’s society? The 13th Amendment?

  5. Mike W.,

    I thought of the same thing later in the day when I was out running errands but you said it more clearly that I probably would have.

    Good job.

  6. Joe, I think you’re exaggerating what I said and what gun control people say in general. No one I know of is talking; about “exterminating” anyone. Only you talk in those terms. In fact your use of “severely restrict” is debatable. What you consider a severe restriction might be influenced by your bias, which as a passionate gun owner, you naturally have.

  7. … And the woman with the earrings refuses to acknowledge the facts that disproved his previous assertions, and furthermore refuses to answer the questions that were directly posed at him, instead deciding to complain about the funny way a person chose to speak at the party…

    Like I said over my way, “uncannily accurate”.

  8. Linoge,

    Yeah. I noticed too. It’s like his reality only occasionally intersects with ours.

    I figure there is very little point in putting in the effort to engage him. If I had him on the witness stand and could compel him to answer questions I’d be motivated. But as it is I just don’t see much point it putting in more than a minimal effort.

  9. Eh, at this point, I engage to disprove what he says (as I showed earlier, that is hardly difficult) and show how incompetent he is at presenting his arguments… but expecting an actual, honest, reasonable, on-topic response out of him is, indeed, a fool’s errand.

Comments are closed.