Quote of the day—David Hardy

It’s just a ploy to pick up the pro-gun vote, with a promise that she’d support repeal of GCA 68 and enactment of 50-State constitutional carry, plus a $10,000 gift to each gun owner, so long as we self-verify that we have no plans to commit a crime.

David Hardy
October 9, 2015
Hillary compares dealing with NRA to negotiating with Iran
[I LOL’d.

But the reality is that Hillary is saying she regards the NRA and gun owners as terrorists and if she acquires the power she will treat us as such.—Joe]


3 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Hardy

  1. We know how the Clinton team treated gun owners in the 1990s.

    A couple of points about that Townhall article;
    ““The NRA tries to keep gun owners — the ones who are members — really upset all the time so they can keep collecting their money…”

    That is true, and it is something that has concerned me for many years. Every mailing you get from the NRA is a dire warning of immediate consequences and worse yet, an appeal to emotion. After receiving the thousandth “emergency” appeal for money, I’ve tuned out. They can only ramp it up so far, after which it becomes incredible. They passed that point long ago.

    “The NRA, not the anti-gun lobby which Clinton is a part of, has been responsible for getting mental health legislation passed in Congress and signed into law by previous presidents.”

    That will turn out to have been a gigantic mistake. We’re helping to build the Department of Pre-crime, which will have the express purpose of attacking conservatives and libertarians. If determining someone mentally unfit becomes the easiest way to violate his second amendment rights, then one day you’ll be shocked at how many people are deemed mentally unfit. Mark my words, Suckers.

    The left has been promoting and nurturing insanity for generations now. They have a federal department of “education” set up for that purpose. If you want to battle mental illness, then battle the very foundations of the Progressive thinking which stands in opposition to human liberty and is thus criminally insane by definition.

    “Clinton is running for President of the United States, which means she’s obligated to represent all Americans.”

    False. At best she’s obligated to represent enough of an ignorant majority, or enough large donors and other accomplices, to get her installed in office.

    Constitutionally, she is, or would be if such things really mattered, obligated to uphold, defend and protect the underlying principles of the constitution, but we all know she’s committed to destroying its effectiveness instead. By that measure alone she’s ineligible to hold public office, but we’ll argue about how fast we’re going to build a Department of Pre-crime instead.

    If our libertarian dream candidate. were to by some miracle get past the Parties’ wishes and become president, he or she would represent us very well by upholding the American Principles, but would be considered a mortal enemy by millions of Progressives, criminal organizations (but I repeat myself), and other authoritarians worldwide. That person would almost certainly be assassinated before having a chance to substantially dismantle the Progressive authoritarian infrastructure. No, Young Grasshopper; no one has ever represented all the People. It’s impossible.

  2. The danger in criminalizing either a small majority or a significant minority of the population, is that once you’re a criminal, why should you bother to follow other laws? If owning an evil “assault weapon” makes me a felon, why shouldn’t I just head out to the shop and start building machine guns to sell on the black market?

    The only two things that keep society’s laws from crumbling are strict enforcement and/or public respect for the institution of law. Once respect is lost, you’re only left with enforcement, and there’s only so many cops to go around.

    • A long while back, some blogger’s post was that if guns were outlawed what we’d see is garage made Sten SMGs and the mass smuggling of *real* selective fire AKs.

      The failure of The War On Drugs™ is proof that supply will meet demand.

Comments are closed.