Quote of the day—Rose City Rose

What I propose is the following:

  1. An act which creates a new class of organization, defined by violent ideology and/or a history of three or more ideologically-driven acts of violence, the members of which will be presumed to be a danger to the public safety and therefore prohibited from owning a firearm of any sort.
  2. An act which requires all persons promoting unambiguously violent ideologies, whether as members of an organization described above or as individuals, to surrender all firearms.
  3. A rapid, active, and decisive nationwide sweep, employing the military if necessary, to totally disarm all persons known to be hostile to the peaceful process of democracy.
  4. A national hotline to anonymously report firearm possession by persons who advocate ideologically-motivated violence.

Rose City Rose
July 2, 2014
A Completely Different Proposal for Gun Control
[Progressives would qualify. Perhaps even the Democrat Party by name. But I don’t think they are who she had in mind. It’s funny how that works, huh?

Beyond the Second Amendment issues there is the due process (5th and 14th Amendments as well as common law) issue, 1st Amendment (freedom of association if not freedom of expression) and 4th Amendment issues to address. And once she gets past those there is the little problem of finding the millions of guns, taking, and preventing their rearming even if they could disarm them once.

Molṑn labé Rose. Why don’t you take point?—Joe]

17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Rose City Rose

  1. “A rapid, active, and decisive nationwide sweep, employing the military if necessary, to totally disarm all persons known to be hostile to the peaceful process of democracy.”

    The fact that she went right to the MILITARY, not even local police, but soldiers who are specifically trained to kill the ENEMY, shows that she has a desire for the very ideological violence she’s allegedly preaching against.

    This is standard psychological projection. She wants people to be killed, and she sees the ends to her fantasy by projecting her own abhorrent violent nature onto others.

    And I say “abhorrent” because she obviously doesn’t like her own feelings hence how much she talks down about it, and how she wants OTHER PEOPLE to carry out the violence so her hands can stay clean, and she won’t have to deal with her own inner evil feelings.

    • There’s a LOT of projection on that side. But then, I guess most of us here already knew that.

  2. RE: Part 2; Statists (of all flavors) are clearly advocating a violent ideology. So we disarm any Proggies, disarn the military and po po. We’ll allow them access though, should a need arise. Their arms stay in an armory, with We The People holding the keys. This actually sounds like a good idea, Ms Rose!

  3. Yeah, the first qualifiers would be the Greens, followed by the black racist groups and the gangs of all sorts. The communists, anarchists, and that particular party that founded and protected the Klan for a century…

    Muslim churches? Violent ideology and history of violence? Just read the Koran and hadith– it’s there as examples of how the “perfect man” behaved.

    The people she likely thinks she’s targeting? Nope. Don’t qualify. Weird.

  4. I speculate that an internet search would reveal that Rose thinks all PIV is violent ideology, and such monsters should be disarmed.

  5. Once again, the comments are the best.
    I especially loved the one where someone described reloaded ammunition as “poorly made”. It boggles the mind that even in the case of someone attempting to sound like they know something about firearms they can be so far off. I wonder if they realize most long range shooters (myself included) roll their own, because there is no other way to extract that last little bit of precision?

    Overall though, I pity people of the ilk that both write and make head-noddingly sycophantic comments on articles like the one linked here.
    It would be funny if it weren’t sad how little these folks know about the constitution, and more to the point, (and especially on today, the 4th) why it was crafted in the way it was.

    Orwell must take pride in his ability to fortell.

    • It would be funny if it weren’t sad how little these folks know about the constitution, and more to the point, (and especially on today, the 4th) why it was crafted in the way it was.

      Ah, but to a collectivist, the US Constitution is “bug, not feature.”

  6. Where do you find these people, Joe? She’s so far to the left, she’s almost falling off the planet!

    • Funny, it seems pretty mainstream antigun to me.

      Joe manages to find these all the time. So do I, and I’m not even looking for them. Hell, I’ve had acquaintances on Facebook spout similar ideas, and they certainly think of themselves as “moderate” Democrats in good standing.

      How is this any more extreme than, “If I had 51 votes, I round up all of them,”?

  7. Anyone advocating #3 (deploying the military domestically against civilians) would be subject to #3 (hostile to the peaceful process of democracy). You’d think there’d be an inherent inner peace for someone who’s not intelligent enough to notice the cognitive dissonance needed to propose this.

    • What she is lacking makes it impossible for her to grasp that she is lacking something.

      There’s a lot of that going around these days, I notice.

  8. Perfect Rose, this would effectively negate government at all levels, that is an idea I can fully backup. The greatest threat to the American People and their way of life,freedom and liberty is our own government.

  9. I tried keeping track of the laws & Amendments Rose’s proposals would violate, but the list got longer than her initial post.

Comments are closed.