Quote of the day—Rex Haberman

There is no 2nd Amendment issue with making the gun owners register with the government and license their guns. There is no 2nd Amendment issue to completely disarm the country except for fully licensed and controlled guns. To be more specific, the only guns that should be allowed outside of highly controlled gun clubs are ones used for legal hunting and farmers protecting their livelihood. Yes, you can own a gun, but it must be licensed. No one can own an assault gun. No one can own a pistol.

Rex Haberman
July 2, 2014
Gun Control: Saving America From Itself
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

Haberman clearly hasn’t read the Heller decision. Pistols are in common use and clearly protected. Firearms for home defense are explicitly protected. This doesn’t even touch the issue of the “chilling effect” associated with registration and licensing.

One has wonder what color the sky is in Haberman’s universe.—Joe]


17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Rex Haberman

  1. Of course he hasn’t, Joe. It’s not like it would matter. Look at the title: ‘Saving America from itself’. This is about doing things regardless of how many people tell him ‘You’re making a mistake.’ The conceit of the anointed as Sowell would put it.

    I wonder why libs don’t try and tackle the case behind the case, though; by this I mean Warren vs DC — where the courts ruled the police do not have an obligation to protect you (the individual) versus ‘the public’ as a whole. That’s what reinforces Heller if I’m not mistaken; you can’t tell someone ‘the cops don’t have to protect you’ and then declare they can’t defend themselves. If they wanted to pick apart Heller I’d go after the Warren case first.

    Of course, that opens up an entirely new can of worms, but since when has foresight been a leftist trait?

    • Don’t give them any ideas. Here in Washington State, because the state’s constitution says it’s the State’s “paramount duty” to educate the children, the left keeps trying to equate that with “fund everything and anything,” rather than “fire or retire systems and people that DON’T work, and reward those that do.” It can create all the wrong sorts of incentives. It’s a government program, after all.

    • Ah, the core of Warren simply reinforces a physical fact — the cops CANNOT be in place to ensure each and every individual is kept free from criminal predation at all times.

      If Warren were reversed, any criminal victim could conceivably sue the police department, because they didn’t receive the protection that was their “right”.

      Of course, I think Warren went too far, and public safety agencies should be required to make a reasonable attempt to protect those individuals where they reasonably know there is an immenent, credible threat, and reasonable time to intervene.

    • No. I had not seen that.

      It doesn’t appear that it got much attention from even the major news sources. I had to search for it on Google News to find anything more on it.

      Are you certain it wasn’t a gun free zone? Just because it was in Texas doesn’t mean that there weren’t rules against it for the event. There could have even been metal detectors. Do you have any definitive information either way?

      • I dunno know, Joe. To me, that looks like shooting fish in a barrel. They were lucky no one got killed in the stampede to get out.

        • Yes. And yes. And your point is?

          We still don’t know if it was a “gun free zone” or not.

    • According to the website for the venue, this is a Gun Free Zone, where “weapons of any kind” are never permitted.

      • What is the URL for the website and can I see a picture of the “gun free zone” sign?

        • I got there through Google, it took a while to find it.

          I have no idea if there is a Texas suitable 30.06 sign, but they clearly state that in the list rules of conduct for ALL events there.

    • Interesting that you stereotype Texas as ‘guns everywhere’ when their laws are actually fairly restrictive compared to some other states.


  2. Here I thought I was going to be smart, and consult a thesaurus for synonyms and antonyms of the words ‘right’ and ‘privilege’ (as well as ‘license’ and ‘permit’) to show that Rex needed to brush up on his understanding of just what a *right* truly *is*.

    It seems Orwell’s ‘newspeak’ has infiltrated even our academic resources.

    (column 2, entry2, and column 4, entry 5)

    I haz a sad. 🙁

    • The word “infringe” is very important here. It refers to the outer-most reaches of the penumbra surrounding the right to keep and bear arms. If the Progressives were pushing for a right they liked, this term “shall not be infringed” would be the most important and wonderful thing in the universe.

      If I got pulled over for speeding, the excuse of, “I was on my way to the gun store to buy some cleaning patches for the rifle” would be considered a rock-solid second amendment defense, and the cop would be obliged to apologize on the spot and then escort me at high speed to and from the gun store. If I got caught jay-walking, all I’d have to do is say that I was “bearing” my gun across the street, and so no one can infringe on that, and it would be considered by the left to be a water-tight defense. And of course kids in school, regardless what their parents thought about it, would need to have tax payer funded guns and shooting activities, else the 2A would be considered violated.

  3. It is clear that Haberman has no concept of what the founders intended by the Second Amendment. Ignorance of the basic principles of our nations founding are totally unacceptable. Until you know what you are talking about please shut the f%#k up.

  4. Pingback: Licensing & Registration - Washington Arms Collectors

Comments are closed.