Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Sen. Kaine is joining a mob of gun prohibitionists who are trying every scheme imaginable to discourage people from lawfully buying and selling firearms. He apparently wants to prosecute people for being unable to see into the future, or look into the mind of a customer, and he wants us to believe this will help prevent future crimes. If we go by the standard of his bill, he should face prosecution when his measure doesn’t prevent a crime somewhere over the horizon.

Alan Gottlieb
September 9, 2015
CCRKBA BLASTS SEN. KAINE’S NEW GUN CONTROL MEASURE
[I wish we had a SCOTUS ruling saying all “rights and privileges” cannot be subject to a law which causes a “chilling effect” on the exercise of those rights and/or privileges. Then that was followed up aggressive enforcement of 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242.

But as my grandmother used to say, “If wishes were horses all beggars would ride.” We need to vote people into office who respect the constitution. And to do that we need to change the attitudes of the voters. That is no small task but it is a task that everyone can contribute to in their own way.—Joe]

6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

  1. Unfortunately, having the courts (or any other politicians) obey the Constitution is a concept that was thoroughly abandoned at least 100 years ago — by some arguments, it’s been more like 150 years. It’s certainly that Teddy Roosevelt did a lot of the demolition work, and Woody Wilson finished off what little of the Constitution was left.
    To do what you describe we’d have to start by impeaching and convicting (for perjuring their oaths of office) at least 7 of the current members of the Supreme Court, and a similar proportion of the rest of the judiciary. Follow up with a similar (probably even higher) proportion of the Executive branch, plus every person working in an “independent agency” [sic]. Finally, throw out all but maybe 2 or 3 congressmen.

  2. By Kaine’s standard automobile makers would be prosecuted for vehicular homicides committed by others, cutlery makers would be prosecuted for standings, and Bic and Zippo would be prosecuted for arsons involving cigarette lighters.

    When Lizzy Borden took an axe, and gave her mother forty whacks, the executives from the axe manufacturer would have been brought before Congress for questioning.

    So the question is; how insane can we get as a society? Is there a hard and fast limit, and if so, what, exactly, would lead to the creation of such a limit? I believe that there is no limit.

    When authoritarianism creeps in, as it always seems to do, eventually, stagnation, decline, wholesale murder and mass destruction become commonplace. It’s what happens when the coercive power of government is looked upon to “fix” things. Senator Tim Kaine (D, VA) is just one pathetic, minor example of how it happens.

    • Can we form a personal injury plaintiff’s bar association to file an Amicus brief or whatever it’s called at the legislative stage to add our support for this law and ask that it be immediately amended so as to be extended to autos and cutlery and bicycles and shoes and motorcycles and electricity and laws — and– and –.
      Because products liability would be a whole lot easier and way more lucrative if his law became the law of the land. Won’t anyone THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

      Someone is sure to think twice about enacting this law if it becomes obvious that it’s drawing support from the nuts on the internet.

      The second thing I thought about was the urban legend that in China if you save someone’s life you are liable for the harms that person may inflict in the future.

      • I think “…is sure to think twice” shows unwarranted optimism about the brainpower and integrity of politicians. The overwhelming evidence is that nearly all of them possess neither.

        • :-)) Well played Sir!

          I think (there it goes again!) that the basic problem is that people who value liberty imagine that there is more thinking about first principles and about consequences (other than those involving political maneuvers) going on in the minds of the anti-liberty leftists than there really is.

          You can always count on judges and justices voting against something if you can convince them that the “floodgates of litigation” will be opened if they decide against you. I fervently hope that adding such amendments expanding this statist scum’s proposal to include other devices that cause harm to individuals in society will cause judges to fear the opening of the floodgates of litigation.

Comments are closed.