Random thought of the day

If a politician can’t be trusted to respect your 2nd Amendment rights how can they be trusted with any of your other rights?


8 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. I’ve said much the same in response to the hysteria about arming teachers.

    If I can’t trust a teacher with something as simple as a firearm, how the h*ll can I trust them with my children?

  2. There exists the very same attitude with arming pilots. Yikes, if a pilot feels homicidal it does not take much to crash a plane. If his sidearm makes you nervous, you had better just drive or take the train to be logical.

    I consider the Second Amendment a crucial litmus test. If a politician believes in my 2A rights, they MIGHT be acceptable. I have other criteria, but this one is my “evil detector”. If a politician does not honor my 2A rights, then they are my enemy and a sniveling little despot.

  3. The argument in the case of politicians is even stronger than the other two — which of course are also good ones. Politicians have more power to ruin lives on a large scale than either teachers or pilots.
    Years ago (8/23/1994) the WSJ printed a cartoon showing two guys in suits walking down the steps of the US Capitol. Caption: “Of course I favor a national antigun law. Who wants armed taxpayers?”
    It is of course about control. The reason the 2nd amendment has to be shredded is that it protect honest people from the dishonest — both from regular criminals and from the kind that acts under color of law.
    Some well known historical figures understood this quite well:
    “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” — Thomas Jefferson
    “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” – Isoroku Yamamoto
    “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” — Lenin
    “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” — Lenin
    “If the opposition disarms, all is well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” — Stalin

  4. I usually say that if a politician cannot be trusted to respect ALL of our rights, he can’t be trusted to respect any of them…

    It’s a pretty good way to open dialogue with somebody on the fence or nervous about guns.

  5. “If a politician can’t be trusted to respect your 2nd Amendment rights how can they be trusted with any of your other rights?”

    It depends on who you are asking. A communist would reject the premise of the question. “What do you mean by “your” rights”? he might reply, “Rights are collective, and as the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, so too the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few, and who really needs a gun anyway, so long as they are proper members of the collective doing their proper duty…”

    Another way of explaining it is to point out how many people join gangs or hook up with known criminals. Notorious murderers sometimes get flooded with marriage proposals for the same reason.

    I call it the “Pet Dragon Syndrome”. Sure, a dragon is the apex predator. It can level whole cities to rubble and reduce whole forests and farmlands to ash. It can split stone, crack wood, its armor is like no other, it is cunning and can mesmerize even the most stout-hearted. It loves to hoard gold even though gold is of no use to a dragon except as a symbol of its murderous conquest. All that is true, but THIS is MY DRAGON, mutherfucker!

    I refer to many of those who favor a giant, all encompassing government as having Pet Dragon Syndrome. The idea of having that much power ON THEIR SIDE is too much to resist, and is in fact very exciting. Looking into the eyes of that “dragon” they are utterly taken and mesmerized. They are its servants to the death. They know not what they do.

    • Of course, the communist’s rejection is a lie — the reason given isn’t the real reason. The real reason is that he rejects the notion of rights because he wants to wield dictatorial power.
      “Human Action” is a good book if you have a lot of time. If you don’t, Neil Smith’s essays also work. One good point he makes is that the starting axiom is the non-aggression principle (or zero-aggression principle) — the rest can be derived from that starting point. And the reason for the non-aggression principle is that “it is the only basis on which carnivores can safely interact”. Nice point.

Comments are closed.