Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

It is essential that we stop this sort of rampant assininity, and it proves the point that the neurotic gun haters will never be satisifed. Bans on full auto are not enough, bans on self-loading sporting rifles don’t sate them, bans on 1930s military collectibles are only a waystop.  We’ve reached the point where a 19TH CENTURY RELIC is an “assault weapon.”

DC has already ruled that a lead muzzle loader projectile, with neither rifle nor powder, is a felonious weapon.

We must fight the war with reason, rhetoric and the law now, or we will most certainly have to fight it later in the streets.

Michael Z. Williamson
December 15, 2015
The Slippery Slope of Definitions
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Michael Z. Williamson

  1. dear readers:

    we will ultimately have to fight this battle in the streets. prepare for this.

    this desire on the part of the lefties is not based on reason, if it were, they would want to ban knives and fists and blunt objects, as such “things” account for nearly the same number of homicides and murders on a yearly basis as firearms. nope, this lust to confiscate is born of ideological zeal, and no amount of argument and reason can counter that.

    again, prepare for the fight. as joe namath said, “practice, practice, practice.”

    john jay
    milton freewater, oregon

    • “…they would want to ban knives and fists and blunt objects…”

      I’m guessing they have enough logic to realize that guns have to go first. Look at England to see this exact progression. They have also made self-defense illegal, so why even have weapons at all? Defend your family from a home invasion, and you will go to prison, and be there longer than common criminals. Actually, criminals are a protected class in England. Mustn’t hurt them.

  2. Yes, well, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. What is this “war” we find ourselves in, exactly? The second amendment is only a part of it. That’s the first thing, and who can really define this war?

    Second is simple once you’ve answered the first; compromise of principle (appeasement) never satiates the enemy, but rather emboldens it. Give ground once, and it will be twice as hard to avoid giving ground the next time, for now you have proven yourself a pushover, easy prey. Giving ground proves that you are NOT standing on principle, but are only holding territory– You’re no longer in a ideological battle, as you’ve ceded that from the get-go. Now you’re just fighting to hold ground in your compromised condition. In the case of the second amendment, that was lost back in 1934 if not sooner. There has yet to be ANY significant push-back. No one, for example, is in prison for violating human rights under color of law.

    But as I say, and as you will recognize if you look at the big picture, the second amendment battle is only one front in a global war without borders, and until we can clearly define the war we’ll be left grasping at phantoms while the enemy doggedly fights on all fronts.

    • Probably well before 1934. Stephen Halbrook discusses the subject at length; I remember the Slaughterhouse Cases mentioned in there. That was 1873, and pretty much wiped out the 14th amendment for a century or so. That, along with the rather popular misreading of the 2nd amendment (pretending it didn’t bind the states from the start) meant that the right to bear arms has been at the tender mercies of state politicians for a very long time now.
      The same goes for other Constitutional rights and liberties, for that matter. The right of free speech is only occasionally protected, and even that occasional protection is a fairly recent creation. And remember that FDR got away with doing what Trump is (rightly) excoriated for proposing.

    • You’d *PROBABLY* be OK with lead balls in DC. There was a recent case where a guy was prosecuted for (among a couple other things) having some jacketed sabot bullets for a muzzleloader. It ended up being the only thing they convicted him for:


      Nevertheless Judge Morin said, “I’m persuaded these are bullets. They look like bullets. They are hollow point. They are not musket balls.” He then ruled that Mr. Witaschek had possessed “beyond a reasonable doubt” the metal pieces in D.C.

      Note how the judge distinguishes what are essentially .45 pistol bullets (but no powder, case, or primer) from his perception of what a muzzleloader should shoot. What if they were Minie balls, for example?

      Still, the judge was skeptical enough that he basically got away with the minimums at sentencing.

      Still, it’s a gamble I personally wouldn’t want to take.

      • Living in DC is a gamble I would not take. Nor MA, NY, NJ, or CA for the same reasons. I disapprove of constitution-free zones.

Comments are closed.