Quote of the day—Forrest Sargente

I say we meet the democrats halfway on gun control by simply banning all democrats from owning guns. This way we also solve the problem of the mentally unstable and incompetent having access to firearms.

Forrest Sargente
April 30, 2013
Comment to Dems love guns. No, really. Stop laughing.
[H/T to Say Uncle.

I find it funny but I wouldn’t seriously advocate for the infringement of anyone’s specific enumerated rights. Even communists, socialists, or (I repeat myself) democrats.

Although the case could be made that people who self-identify as such are mentally unstable and/or incompetent that is the same argument used by the Soviet Union to send political dissidents to mental institutions. Hence, I think it’s history lesson we don’t need to repeat.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Forrest Sargente

  1. Another possibility would be something like this:
    1. No person holding any office under the United States, or any of them, may keep or bear any arms except those that may be borne by all law abiding competent adult citizens both in his place of residence and in the location of his office.

    2. No person holding any office under the United States, or any of them, may be protected by any personal arms he is barred from keeping under the previous article.


  2. I don’t know about mentally unstable… (well, I do, but it ruins the formula to say so), but in a republic, anyone who self-identifies as a democrat is operating ab initio with bad faith intent. Which, I suppose, in some venues, might be called treason, but I wouldn’t say so. (Well, I would, but it’s considered declasse.)


  3. “…anyone who self-identifies as a democrat is operating ab initio with bad faith intent.”

    OK, we forget the incompetency argument and go with the rights argument– Persons who actively seek to deny, or support those who actively seek to deny, basic rights have no legitimate claim to basic rights themselves. For example; how long do you think a local chapter of the KKK could openly recruit school children, run ads on local radio and TV, and hold a 501 C(3) status in your neighborhood while openly advocating and lobbying for a return to pre Civil War style slavery? Threatening to murder someone is another example– You’re advocating for the violation of the right to life, and so your rights are forfeit. It’s a crime.

    And can we drop the leftists’ language and dispense with the qualifiers “competent” and “law-abiding”, please? Some of you have been infected and it’s unbecoming. You’re not in control of yourselves. Don’t you realize how this works? Once we’ve accepted the qualifiers, THEY will be happy to be the ones defining them, i.e. if you want a gun and you’re one of those “crazy” teapartiers, or you are otherwise a political opponent, then you’re “incompetent”. See? How many times do we have to go through this?

    • Interesting point about “competent”. But in my comment, I used it simply to match how “shall issue” jurisdictions define the people to whom the must issue licenses.

      As for people who seek to deny rights, I keep hoping that some day/year/decade we might see a conviction under 18 USC 241 and 242 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241)

Comments are closed.