Quote of the day—Jennifer Baker

The fact is, the President’s gun control agenda will only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense.

Jennifer Baker
NRA spokeswoman
January 1, 2016
Gun Control Is Obama’s New Year’s Resolution
[Baker is correct.

Because gun control advocates don’t recognize the existence of or the legitimacy of self-defense they can convince themselves that any restriction on gun ownership is a good thing because it will make it harder for the bad guys to get guns. Any negative consequences of making it harder for good people to obtain or use guns is ignored and/or dismissed.

What is lost to many people is that restrictions on firearms ownership always affect the normally law abiding people far more than those who habitually disobey the law. Think of the illegal use of recreational drugs. How hard is it for someone to obtain and use them if they are willing to break the law? It’s trivially easy. But it is very difficult for someone to stay within the law and use those same drugs (they have to obtain and use them in a location outside the law such as in a different country or out at sea).

Making it difficult for the normally law-abiding to defend themselves is an extremely immoral act, a violation of our rights, and is, rightly so, a crime. These criminals should be arrested and prosecuted.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jennifer Baker

  1. A crime? Really?

    I think you have mistakenly assumed that ‘rule of law’ is somehow still in effect here, instead of ‘rule by Divine Right’, or whatever else you want to call that thing in Washington we refer to as ‘government’.

    • By the standards put forth in the Declaration, practically all politicians today, and their enforcers, are criminals. They all know this at some level, and seek to reinforce their criminal enterprises through gun control and other restrictions on human rights. It’s criminals helping criminals, building their empire of predation.

      Now don’t make the mistake of assuming that I’m saying these people each decided one day to pursue crime. It doesn’t work like that. Just like someone raised on a plantation running slaves, or like someone being raised by KKK member parents, it’s mostly cultural. Thus our current government is the product of a culture of crime.

      They see it as “The Way Things Are” or as “The Natural Order of Things” or that they’re pursuing “Justice” or whatever other horseshit they use to convince one another. That’s almost always how it is with the most insidious of criminals. They see themselves as the solution and not the problem.

      • Absolutely. And what’s worse, at least some of them know it and don’t care. For example:
        “There’s nothing in the constitution that says the Federal government has got anything to do with most of the stuff that we do.” — James Clyburn (D-SC)
        He clearly confessed to perjury, which last I looked was a felony. But that hasn’t kept him from being a Congressman.
        Similarly, if you read court cases you will find that a large number of them are written by people who pay no attention to the Constitution.

  2. I think it’s a mistake to use the phrase “law abiding”.

    In NY (of all places) between 80,000 & several million gun owners realized that when the SAFE acts registration provision kicked in, “law abiding” was synonymous with “sucker”. Many people in the u.S. don’t bother to bow their knee to the state, pay a tax & wait for a laminated permission slip to exercise their Right to carry. I recall a time when National Parks, even ones that had signage warning of bears & mountain lions, were “gun free” zones, & I’d wager a fair number of folks didn’t agree with the federal food chain placement & discreetly carried an effective bruin repellent (as I know I did)

    As I often tell folks when it comes up, I’m not a “law abiding gunowner”; I’m an American, & the more laws they pass to impose upon my Rights, the clearer the distinction will be.

    But if we keep throwing Americans under the bus, like the estimated millions in NY, Connecticut, Washington state & Colorado, who refuse to obey unjust & immoral laws, then we open ourselves up to the notion that Rights are only for those that the government approves of.

    The federal government (nor the state governments for that matter) do not have any legitimate authority to declare any person or category of persons as ineligible to enjoy their Right to arms. When we keep using that phrase “law abiding” we not only overlook that usurpation, but set ourselves up, as it’d only take passage of a law penalizing traffic violations to make the vast majority of gunowners prohibited persons.

    Gunowner control laws do it make it harder on those that would follow the law. They also make it more dangerous for decent people who exercise their Rights in spite of the law. They have little effect on those with ill intent.

    “Law abiding” is a phrase that will do us much more harm than good over the long run, especially since the proper response to an unjust law is to break it.

      • I would say “law abiding”. Remember that something that violates the Constitution “is not law”.

  3. ya know, most of the more accurate terms result in semi-awkward phrasing. “Gunowner control” laws is, for example, more apt than “gun control” laws, yet doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as readily.

    But I’ve been saying “gunowners”, omitting the law abiding part altogether. I’m thinking “good people”, “decent folk”, “non-predatory persons” would perhaps do, as would simply saying “Americans” or “people”. “Good gun owners”? “Good guys”? Pretty much anything that doesn’t tie exercising an inherent, fundamental human Right with the whims of a legislature, or the dictates of a tyrant will work.

    It seems like a small matter, but remember we got our assess handed to us in the 1980’s & 1990’s because the other side controlled the language. even now folks on our side confuse their Right to carry with a permit or licensing process, in no small part due to the words our side has used over the years.

    “The fact is, the President’s gunowner control agenda will only make it harder for people to exercise their Right to self-defense.”

    Personally I think it works fine without qualifiers.

    • You mean “The fact is, the President’s control agenda will only make it harder for people to exercise their Rights.” ?
      Yes, I would agree. And also, that’s the intent, isn’t it?

Comments are closed.