Quote of the day—Chuck Norris

One thing he definitely got wrong, however, was his arrogant statement that he “expanded” the rights of gun owners. The Bill of Rights is guaranteed and can’t be “expanded” by government, as it contains fundamental natural rights. Those rights can, however, be restricted by illegitimate government fiat, which is why the clear language of the Second Amendment prohibits even “infringement” upon it. But infringement is clearly on the agenda despite Obama’s rhetorical vacillations.

Chuck Norris
March 28, 2011
Obama triangulates on gun control
[Although I agree with the point that fundamental natural rights can’t be “expanded” it’s generally not a good idea to “look a gift horse in the mouth”. The time to use the point about rights cannot be expanded, only infringed, is during debates with those wishing to continue restricting our rights. I think this meme can be used to great effect in many circumstances. I think it is an important mindset shift that we need to adopt now that we are on the offensive. But I don’t think it is appropriate in this context.

We won minor victories on the guns on trains and in National Parks issues under the Obama administration. To the best of my knowledge they didn’t even put up a fight. For this President Obama deserves some cautious praise and perhaps a gentle, private, reminder on the nature of rights, not a public slap in the face.—Joe]

4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Chuck Norris

  1. Norris’ language does indicate that he gets it. There were episodes of “Walker Texas Ranger” that were arguably quite anti gun– reinforcing the stereotype of the redneck, paranoid, out-of-control gun owner/gun runner. That was several years back, and minds can change, but one wonders what he thought about doing those episodes at the time.

    This quote of his does make sense, and it shows an understanding of fundamentals. As such I don’t believe it is something necessarily to be avoided.

    There are a lot of ways to look at the approach to this or that cause. I’m reminded of some of the attitudes toward human rights abuses in other countries. If dictator A is killing x number of innocent citizens and dictator B is killing 1/2 x innocent citizens, and next year dictator b hasn’t changed but dictator A is now killing only 1/2 x, we’ll give dictator A a Nobel Peace Prize for improving his human rights record or offer him a position on the UN human rights counsel.

  2. Perhaps, but what he does or does not deserve is irrelevant, Joe. What your kinship should actually give him is what will get you what you want from him.

    And in both my observation and personal experience, being nice to people like him — collectivists, victim-entitlement carpetbaggers, second-handers, etc. — only singles you out to them as a notable sucker to be further exploited. It does not get you what you want from them, unless what you want is more and greater demands for less and rarer recompense.

    They do understand reciprocity; they just don’t think it should apply to them. They believe they’re not required to give in return what they should, because they think — incorrectly — that they’re only taking back what should have been theirs ITFP.

  3. Remember. Do not believe ANYTHING the ‘one’ says. A communist can and will say anything necessary to move the agenda forward.

  4. The anti-rights folks will continue their campaign, accepting minor setbacks like guns in parks and guns on trains, in the belief that such tactical losses will become irrelevant when the final victory is attained.

    They should not be credited with a positive action when they fail to accomplish their short-term goals. They should not be applauded when they face a political reality and back down from their rights-infringing program, temporarily and without any change of heart or change of program.

    I say kick them when they are up, and kick them harder when they are down, until they stay down.

    The anti-rights bigots should attain the same level of social acceptability as an unrepentant Klan member, a supporter of National Socialism, or a believer that the Khmer Rouge were good for Cambodia.

Comments are closed.