Quote of the day—FightingIrish

Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative. We take their guns, and I assume yours, by taking away the cachet of gun ownership. We did that with cigarettes. We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present. We take their guns away by teaching our children that pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.

December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns away.—Joe]


17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—FightingIrish

  1. This theme has come up over and over again. It seems that this is the new anti-gun tactic: try to force gun owners back in the closet. See http://www.takeonthecode.com/ for an example of this. They HATE that gun owners have the moral high ground.

    • And why do that hate/fear that? Because it threatens the bubble of their view of reality. Successful self-defense with a gun, women and minorities with guns, people with black rifles that are not psychopathic killers give lie to their world view, like telling a five year old there is no Santa, and it’ mom that slips a quarter under the pillow for a lost tooth. They don’t WANT the world to be like that, so anything contrary must be shouted down and marginalized because they don’t want to face any other other scary truths, like they might be responsible for their own failure, or the world just isn’t “fair” for their arbitrary version of “fair,” or perhaps “evil exists.” Yet deep down, they still think that going after gun owners is safer that going after bad guys, and their magical thinking doesn’t want to recognize this bizarre logic as being bizarre.

      • Agreed. I just think it is interesting that they seem to be realizing en mass that the tide of public opinion is against them. And that they see it as a PR problem

    • “It seems that this is the new anti-gun tactic…”

      ’tain’t new, my friend. Some form of bigotry promotion has always preceded weapon restrictions. It pre-dates the firearm. Our NFA of 1934 was based on the premise that crime happens because of automatic weapons and short shotguns (i.e. a machinegun owner must therefore have something to answer for), and to the extent that the public ever knew anything about it, it seems to have worked.

      There’s always a lie to support any evil and there will always be those who fall for the lie, but there’s also a real motivation behind the lie and the action, and right there our efforts are best concentrated.

      It’s no mystery that in order to most easily control other people, those people should be weak, and so the would-be controller is always searching for weakness, and attempting to weaken and discourage others.

      The libertarian on the other hand is always searching for strength, and attempting to encourage and strengthen, and that makes him the greatest threat to the corrupt. As such, the out-spoken libertarian MUST be maligned, impugned, and attacked in every possible way. This is why Democrats, most unions, some religious organizations, many of the large corporations like GE, NBC, GM, Google, Citibank, Microsoft, and most Republicans, will work together against the teaparty type organizations whenever and wherever they appear.

      The quote in the OP is very much along the same lines, only it acknowledges that an open and honest debate is impossible (because it will surely result in the failure of the evil cause), and it calls for sneakiness, underhandedness and stealth as the only alternatives. Nothing new there at all– It’s as old as the hills.

  2. But if you say there might be as slippery slope to their incremental motivations then you’re a paranoid!

    They depend on otherizing the onwership of guns. That’s why one of their key goals is increasing the hurdles at the start of gun ownership: permits, training requirements, fees.

    The harder it is to start, the more people will just give up, even if they have an interest. And thus the fewer people will own guns, know people who own guns, and actually have personal experience.

    The antis depend on ignorance.

  3. First: “Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative.”

    And then: “We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present.”

    Does this idiot person not see the contradiction in those statements? They are only separated by two sentences.

    • “it’s not confiscation if we say it’s not confiscation!”

      By their logic herion isn’t really “banned” because the cops don’t go door to door searching for it. I mean there’s only “reasonable restrictions on what [drugs] are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present.”

      Show some imagination!

  4. “Pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.”
    No $hit.
    Using a fire extinguisher is not a valid form of expression.
    Having open-heart surgery is not a valid form of expression.
    AGNTSA. Only in Hollywood could those things be considered expression rather than something done from necessity or to otherwise preserve life.
    This is not just a scary quote, it’s a crazy quote.
    Even when you teach a child marksmanship and target shooting, it isn’t for expression, it is because self-control is the mark of a good man, and it is also the key to being a good marksman, just in a less abstract way.

  5. Gun ownership leads to people voting Republican. Therefore liberals malign gun owners and organizations to make guns less appealing to those who currently vote democrat. When polls started showing that youths and women (typical dem voting blocks) were fastest growing segment of gun owners democrats started their latest push to demonize guns. Make ‘me scared so they don’t start voting the wrong way!

    • Not necessarily Republican, but your central premise is mostly correct. Gun ownership – more than any other single factor I’ve seen – leads to people becoming empowered, causing them to take personal responsibility for themselves, which leads to independence and self-reliance, in which people tend to take care of themselves rather than rely on others.

      “Progressives” need the nanny state. People who take responsibility for themselves are antithetical to the nanny state; they have no need or desire for it. Therefore, “Progressives” need to destroy personal independence and self-reliance and end personal responsibility. Ending private gun ownership destroys possibly the biggest single cause of those things. “Democrat vs. Republican” has very little to do with it, other than the tendency for “Progressives” to be registered Democrats; there are plenty of “Progressives” in the Republican establishment, too.

  6. So how do we best marginalize hoplophobes. What language do we use to marginalize and diminish them?
    Do you plan on protecting yourself and loved ones by being dependent on 911?
    Are you mentally unfit to own a gun? Could you not pass a psych eval, and just trying to avoid the stigma you are claiming sour grapes?
    Are you all too aware of your lack of self-control, and project it onto others?
    You don’t think much of humans, do you? You wish to treat them all as children, unable to take care of themselves, as only the most condescending fool might do.
    Why so fearful of an inanimate object? Are you an animist that believes in deodands and other such mysticism?
    Why do you think you have such severe anger management issues?

    Any other good ideas?

    • I call them what they are: ignorant bigots. I have found that using their own language against them works well. “You don’t want women to be able to protect themselves. You’re a sexist.” “You don’t want black people to have guns. You’re a racist.” They are trying to marginalize us…I use their code words right back.

  7. China paid Obama $25 million in illegal campaign contributions, and all they asked what they he disarm Americans of their rifles, on the teensy tiny chance that China needs to invade America in the next 8 or 12 or 20 years. He couldn’t even do that for them. He’s useless.

  8. In reply to Fighting Irish, those that do not possess swords can still die upon them. You can die like a slave grovelling on the floor, I am going out as a sovereign individual and I am not going alone. If they come to bargain for our goods at Helm’s Gate they will pay a high price.

Comments are closed.