Quote of the day—jaxas4

… essentially a useless right that simply clutters up our Constitution and confuses people to no end because all it does is give violent right wing zealots a constitutional basis for inciting their emotional hyped up masses to form insurrections against enemies that do not exist, to promote idiotic gun laws that defy rational thinking and to quite literally turn our country into a seething cauldron of squabbling factions who have neither the intellect nor the patience for a civil discussion of the pros and cons of gun ownership. The most odious of these factions are the ones who hold to the lunacy that the right to own guns has the ultimate purpose of arming citizens against a tyrannical government, as if we do not have a professional military and law enforcement system to enforce the laws and keep order. What these factions want is what we had under the Articles of Confederation–mindless, lawless, anarchy in the streets.

February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[“Squabbling” is something to be suppressed in the name of law and order?

This is what they think of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment in particular. —Joe]


29 thoughts on “Quote of the day—jaxas4

  1. As a matter of fact, the conditions under The Articles of Confederation sound alot more appealing than the monstrosity we’re confronted with today.

    As for this clown, and his views on “squabbling”;

    “I’ll tell you what rules we observed, sir….. we observed *Rule 3 oh 3* sir… “

  2. This is not a bad response. It’s much better than many I’ve seen. You have to read it with the understand of how Marxism has been promoted for over a century. One of Marx’s plays in the short play book is;

    “Accuse others of what you do.”

    Jaxas4 likely has a college education, because that’s where Marxist tool and tactics are most actively advanced. That or he’s done an excellent job of absorbing the tactics on his own and then using his own iteration. Either way it’s a better-than-average attempt the smear, distraction, turn-about and deception that are the highlights of Marxism.

    • I’d say he’s just a “dumb as a box of rocks” kind of guy with a dictionary, but that would be generous. He’s more than one rock short.

      • Hmmm. That was supposed to go inline, not as a reply. More coffee is needed.

  3. Implicit in his tirade was that the “squabbling factions” have no intellect. It takes at least two factions to squabble, and we’ve certainly observed the lack of intellect and the appeal to emotional hype on the other side of the fence.

    I also liked the disconnect between the rejection of the “arming of citizens against a tyrannical government” because we have a professional army to keep order. Uh, isn’t that the tyrannical government/standing army part of the argument? “Uh oh – looks like the government is turning tyrannical. Better call in the army to keep order!” Like they do in Obam.. Banana republics.

    • I spent decades dealing with an emotion driven person. Rational argument is completely incomprehensible to them. They cannot distinguish between response and reason. For example (true case):

      Them: “It’s your fault I drove my car into the side of your car. You shouldn’t have parked there.”

      Me: “You told me to park there. Where should I have parked instead?”

      Them: “It’s just your fault.”

      Me: “But where should I park my car?”

      Them: “I told you. It’s your fault.”

      The point is that their response to a question doesn’t have to make sense in the context of the question. They only have to have a some sort of response that is relates in some way to the topic at hand.

      Another example loosely based on real life

      Antigun person: Gun need to be banned at schools to prevent another Sandy Hook.

      Us: How would a law prohibiting guns have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre?

      Them: Because we don’t want any more dead children.

      You could (and I have done this) ask/demand/scream at them to answer the question and they will answer a different question that was never asked. The question that you asked is rewritten in their minds into something else that they can answer. Asking/demanding they repeat the question back to you yields surprising results. They cannot remember and repeat even three or four words no matter how many times you repeat and coach them on your simple sentence. Remembering your actual words is, “Too complicated.” They will insist, “I know you and I know what you mean. I don’t have to know what you actually said.” This is even when what you said is completely different than what they believe your words to mean.

      As near as I can tell their brain is wired differently such that our reality, such as our words and actions, is morphed into their alternate reality. They then act in an appropriate manner for their alternate reality.

      This explains the “dog whistle” claims. It doesn’t matter what someone actually said. What matters is what they think it means. They “know you”. Your words and actions can only be interpreted with this “knowledge” of you.

      The “borderline” in Borderline Personality Disorder originally meant it was thought those affected were borderline psychotic. That may not be technically true but I can certain understand how people arrived at that conclusion.

      • Actually, there is logic behind the idea that, if guns were banned, Sandy Hook would never have happened. I doubt the Sandy Hook killer would have had the resources to get an illegal gun (if guns were banned).

        • You just did it. You addressed something different than the actual words used.

          The words were, “Gun need to be banned at schools to prevent another Sandy Hook.” Not a general ban.

        • Clarification: I’m not talking about “banned at school” but rather a general gun ban — like in England.

          • Oh course. But as I said, “You addressed something different than the actual words used.”

            I’m going to give you a pass on this one. “Not enough coffee…”? Maybe. But this is the exactly the same as what happens with our political opponents. I don’t think it is intentional. I think it is messed up brain “wiring”. The speed at which it happens and my direct experience with people who would have been very highly motivated to communicate with me insisted they could not remember more than two or three words long enough to repeat them back to me indicates something very wrong in their brain.

          • The effect of a general gun ban is that law abiding private citizens won’t have guns. That’s all it means, that’s all it can ever mean.
            General bans are in fact not general. They don’t affect officials, they don’t affect the privileged, and they don’t affect criminals. They never have, they never will.
            That’s exactly what they have in England. And that’s why a “general” gun ban won’t prevent another Sandy Hook.
            Yes, it might, perhaps, make it more difficult. Then again, a psychopath doesn’t need a gun to commit murder; a bomb, a can of gasoline, or a knife will do just fine. Just ask the people of China, where the law-abiding are disarmed by a government fearful of its subjects.

        • Actually, there is logic behind the idea that, if guns were banned, Sandy Hook would never have happened.

          With somewhere north of 300,000,000 – and probably closer to 350,000,000 – firearms in circulation today, that is about as classic an example of “magical thinking” as I could ever dream of.

  4. One of the very defining characteristics of the left is their never-ending effort to divide America into squabbling factions.

    • +100

      While the factions within the herd are busy squabbling, they don’t lift their eyes to the horizon to notice that the entire herd is being nudged toward the edge of the Buffalo Jump.

    • I’ve become convinced that this is the reason the Chief LEOs and their political superiors are pushing the “Us vs. Them” mentality. We civilians are becoming more distrustful of police as a group, and police as a group – not speaking for individuals – seem to be more distrustful of civilians.

      I’m convinced the powers-that-be push the “Us vs. Them” mentality because deep down, they’re very aware that “Us Plus Them” – i.e. rank-and-file police plus liberty-minded civilians – would be a political force to be reckoned with, if we could work together.

      • It is an old story. Will the Knights of the Realm (Legions of the Empire, Soldiers of the Republic) side with the King against the people, or will they side with the People against the King and his Court? Much depends on what caste/class the Knights/Legions/Soldiers come from. If they are peers of the realm in their own right, they’ll tend to side with the King. If they are commoners by root, they’ll tend to side with the people.

        In our own case, do the rank and file LEOs and GIs feel more of the people, or of the “elite”? Answer that question, and you can answer everything downstream.

  5. We could do away with the first amendment and that would go a long way towards ending those squabbling factions. Then the third, fourth and fifth amendment get repealed and our military and law enforcement would at last be set free to give use the kind of protection we deserve. Of course, only paranoids and terrorists fear the government because the government is us. Voter fraud is a fantasy of Fox News and deviation from the expressed will of the majority is never acceptable. In our brave new utopia, the government will keep us informed as to what is correct thought (at the moment) and we will have the comfort of knowing that wiser heads then our own are constantly looking out to correct our errors. Hope and Change!

    • I had to read the whole thing twice carefully in an attempt to discern if you were being sarcastic or just plain nuts.
      I’m leaning towards sarcastic and hoping I’m right.

      • No kidding. I’m still not sure…but reading it a third time will bring on the incipient migraine that the first two trips through have summoned.

  6. I just cannot get past the massive disconnect exhibited in Jaxas4’s second sentence. It is almost as if he does not comprehend that the “professional military” and “law enforcement system” are the organs of the very government private citizens have every reason and cause to worry about.

    • Well, he’s a right- thinking subject, so he’s clearly got no reason to worry.

  7. Jaxass(intended) please note the reason that the Second Amendment is pivotal to American Society’s ideals of Freedom and Liberty is the fact that we possess a “professional” military and a law enforcement system. Those that cannot be responsible for their own self preservation will not long endure, you live your life at the mercy of others. Also, those that do not possess swords can still die upon them. Surrendering ones sovereignty to others is a recipe for disaster. Time to pull your out of your @$$ !

Comments are closed.