Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

I’ve had enough of the tacticians being all too careful not to piss off the opposition. It’s as useful as shunning pork and cutting down from whiskey to beer one day a week to keep the jihadists from hating you. That’s playing games when the enemy is serious. If they’re not trying to kill you, you’re doing something wrong anyway.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
March 31, 2010
In private email.
[The context was a discussion of politicians who claim they “stand up for the Second Amendment” but actually mean they are trying to play both sides of the fence well enough to get both sets of votes.

I agree with Lyle. As I have said many, many times we need to politically exterminate those who advocate infringement of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. When we finish that task we need to politically exterminate those who tolerate infringement of our rights. They need to be as politically viable as a leader of the KKK. If we were doing our job correctly they would be just as physically dangerous or just as politically impotent.–Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Lyle @ UltiMAK

  1. Anybody who’s handled NFA guns, as well as the wide scope of non-NFA guns knows what a stupid law it is. It of course is looked at by the 2A lightweights as some sort of 3rd rail.

    No we need to start getting people on record saying WHY they support such-and-such “Reasonable” and why in fact they deserve the branding of “Reasonable”

    Then we should relentelessly tear their stupidity limb-from-limb so that maybe someday, and someday soon, we stop wasting our time and resources going after things that aren’t actual problems, while the real problems happen out in the clear.

    Much like what’s happening here:

    “I know it doesn’t stop illegal transactions, but you are missing my point. Most people with private guns to sell aren’t going to venture into MS-13 or Crips territory to meet their local gangbanger to sell them a gun.”

    Just look at that. She’s openly supporting a law that she admits won’t stop what it’s proposed to do. On top of that they’re willing to look the other way at the fact that when you have our limited number of Police officers and resources patroling a gun show parking lot just to make sure I don’t sell a Hungarian Mosin Nagant to a collector that has 30 other similar rifles at home to complete his collection, and so I can have money to spend on other things without having to pay an FFL for his valuable time, or when they’re manning a “Gun Buy Back” table at the local PD to “buy back” rust buckets, and heirlooms that landed in the hands of yuppies too stupid or scared to sell them to the local gun shop for fair market value, there are people getting their limbs chopped off with machetes in MS-13 turf because to get 5 officers to patrol a gun show or man a “buy-back” table, you need to pull 5 officers off other beats…or pay overtime, or hire more officers with tax monies. All to enforce a law that does NOTHING, and everybody KNOWS it!

    This SHOULD be like shooting fish in a barrel, if we didn’t have the damn safety on. The bottom line is we need Common Sense gun laws, and those proposing them have NO sense, common or otherwise.

  2. WB; With the understanting that assault, robbery, murder, etc., by any method and regardless of the tools used, are already illegal, what would you consider to be a Common Sense gun law?

  3. uh, excuse me, but I think the extermination you speak of may need to be more physical than political, simply because I don’t think they will have it any way else. Damn shame that, but aggressors always set the rules of the conflict. To win one must play those rules or worse. There is no virtue in adhering to a morally superior but tacticly and strategically inferior Rule of Engagement in a fight for one’s life. Especially if the aggressor is the other guy.

  4. “WB; With the understanting that assault, robbery, murder, etc., by any method and regardless of the tools used, are already illegal, what would you consider to be a Common Sense gun law?”

    Yep, you hit the nail right on the head!

    Honestly I see something like the GCA ’68 (given that it is stripped down to JUST violent criminals, and people who have severe mental problems, and that there are concrete previsions where an individual can have their prior records sealed, and rights restored) should be more than enough to give law enforcement to prevent serious crime as much as humanly possible without deem infringement of rights.

    I would LOVE to live under the Libertarian Maxim “Those who can’t be trusted with a gun, can’t be trusted in public without a handler”, but I simply don’t think we have the infrastructure to actually bring that to fruition, given that we ALL know somebody who has an uncontrollable temper and a fairly healthy rap sheet of minor assaults, and a bunch of unreported attacks. Or somebody who’s an uncontrolled addict who regularly finds themselves in an irrational and altered state that can turn violent. I think we all agree that these people probably shouldn’t have guns at hand, and while maybe we’re not opposed to having them locked up or chaperoned, I think the resources to handle that volume are not realistic, as much as I hate to say that.

  5. straightarrow,

    The KKK wasn’t physically exterminated. Yes, some of them may have been executed after trial but that was done is a lawful manner.

  6. you are right Joe, but enough of them were exterminated to dissuade the rest of them. And until that happened they were not dissuaded.

    Just the prospect of it stopped them in some places. Google the Deacons of Defense. Extermination was on the agenda should the KKK not have stood down. Because as a whole, we are a less manly population than we were, the aggressors will not believe we will not be the ones to “stand down”

    Trust me, I hope I’m wrong, but history says I am not. It would be nice to see the dynamic broken. But it sure isn’t the way to bet.

Comments are closed.