We must repeal the Second Amendment, demand the peaceable surrender of all handguns, and hunt down and destroy all those who do not comply.
Philip Wilson
November 27, 2012
Comment to Gun Control, RIP.
[This is so you know the attitude of those who oppose freedom and the Bill of Rights.
And Wilson, you should take point on that hunt.—Joe]
Interesting how he demands peace but threatens violence. How liberal of him.
Yes, we’re the violent ones.
While it would be legal and technically Constitutional to follow his program (repeal the 2nd via a properly ratified amendment), then declare all firearms contraband, he’s missing a key point.
While what Parliment did to the Colonies up to 1776 was “legal” under British law, it had an unintended consequence.
Repealing any of the Bill of Rights would have similar consequences and, um, the people who would be most, um, vigorous in their dissent are by and large the ones with all the “scary” guns, “large stockpiles” of ammo, and the skills and experience with aspects of practical military engineering. . .
Hunt down and Destroy? How many Guns does he think that will take? And who will pull the Trigger? Him?
So it sounds to me like he’ll need some Guns to pull that off. But if Guns are Banned, how will he get a Gun to Kill those who have a Gun? Unless he wants to break the Law and have an Illegal Firearm, then I guess HE would have to be Hunted Down and Destroyed himself, because he has a Gun.
Bottom Line: He wants to Commit Murder against a Class of Citizens (Gun Owners) to me. Ain’t that a Hate Crime?
While what Parliment did to the Colonies up to 1776 was “legal” under British law, it had an unintended consequence.
Only much of it wasn’t. Many (not all, certainly, but many) of the actions of the British government were in breach of colonial charters. These were contracts with the British government, which gave sole taxation powers to the colonial governments. This was at least as much of an issue as anything else, and some–albeit by no means most–of the English, including William Pitt and some other members of Parliament, conceded publicly that we had a point.
Having said that, Parliament and, more importantly, the Exchequer, had a legitimate grievance in the sense that the arrangement had always been that the colonies would pay for their own defense (hence the various militias). The colonies had not exactly been innocent parties in the recently-concluded, long-running series of French and Indian wars, and they had been losing until they begged for and received regular troops from the mother country. All this of course cost an incredible amount of money, which was not getting repaid, and the political situation precluded raising taxes in England at the time (a recent attempt at taxing cider had resulted in massive rioting). A Stamp Act had been tried before in England, and worked very well because any legal document lacking a stamp was automatically declared null and void in court–making avoidance practically impossible. They probably did not account for the extent of the subsequent boycotts, smuggling, and other tax avoidance techniques.
Fundamentally, though, the argument was as much about how and whether the bills were going to get paid at least as much as the actual bite taken in the pocketbook.
Again, for the third time in as many days, the comments to a gun related post in a not-necessarily-gun-friendly venue have been very, very telling. The idjit you quoted stood alone in his assertions while many more self described liberals are of either the “Cold dead hands” or “Just don’t care” camp, both of which work to our favor.
There is a completely legitimate issue with America being more violent of a people than other countries. I believe (although I have not done the correct amount of research to prove this) that the numbers are exacerbated by inner cities – that if you were to exclude inner city violence, we’d actually be one of the least violent countries. I was glad to see someone understand that adding guns to the mix has effects only at the margins and has nothing to do with the core issue.
When sites like Huffington Post post anti-gun stories and their commenters are almost 100% pro-gun, you know we’re making great progress. Not that this can’t be wiped away with a well timed executive order or some other gov’t malfeasance, but it is good to know even political enemies will unite on that front. I do not wish to see that happen because that war would not care if it killed just those responsible or the families and children of those who opposed it.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a quote from an anti-liberty person go so quickly from peace and unicorn rainbows to “kill everyone who resists me in the least” in only one sentence — and not a particularly long one, either!
@Windy, It’s consistent with progressives that go back to at least Stalin. “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.” They are determined to achieve “peace” even if they have to kill to get there.
It’s part of their nature.
I’d pay particular attention to the target of “…all those who do not comply” which shows it is all about total control.
As a liberal, he will accept no dissent, no compromise, you have not choice; it is his way or else (backed up by violence).
As a firearms owner, I want to be left alone. I’m responsible. I’m minding my own business. I’m only a threat to criminals.
Their proposed solutions, laws, regulations, taxes and so only harm me and never the criminal, so to hell with all of them.
I don’t suppose that we could give this guy a break? Maybe ask him what part of the Bill of Rights he DOES support? Cretins like this rumpkin need to be understood too, since at his conception, the better part of his DNA ran down his uncle’s leg.
Another eloi heard from. Strange that this species is so violent in this one respect.
Given the British system of government, Parliment cannot be restrained by Parliment — “I am altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it any further.“. (Vader grokked the Westminster system very well. . . )
So, utterly legal. However, when you piss off Lando Calrissian enough by welching on your deals, well, don’t be surprised when he flies a frigate-armed smuggler’s ship right up the ass of your fully operational (but structurally incomplete) battlestation.
@Geodkyt:
It’s my understanding that no part of the original Bill of Rights can be removed. They were required to get ratification of the Constitution by the states, and would/should legally break up the Union. This might only apply to the original states, but I think a lot of those joining copied the basic legal format of the original ones.