Quote of the day—Earnest Harris

I am officially beyond a place of wanting to find a compromise with those who want to argue for the right, or the need, of citizens to arm themselves with guns. Focusing on assault weapons only is just giving in to the gun lobby out of a fear that we can’t beat them if we don’t give them something. The time has come for our society to say enough is enough and that we must completely outlaw private citizens from owning guns. There is just no good logic to it and the number of senseless deaths attributed to people wielding all too easily acquired guns has reached a point where we have to say this has to stop.

Let’s not go halfway on this. Let’s not be afraid of the fight ahead in working to remove all guns from private ownership.

Earnest Harris
January 16, 2013
Assault Weapons Ban Is Not Enough
[Harris said this three years ago today. How’s that removal effort working out for him? Not so well? Maybe because he hasn’t take point on the implementation.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

18 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Earnest Harris

  1. Extremism will beget extremism.

    The number of people who feel that it’s completely within their rights to deprive others of their rights is alarming. I have to say that I’m puzzled by the lack of understanding that these people demonstrate when one refuses to accept their intended dictates. Unfortunately I don’t think they’ll suddenly get enlightened or become reasonable. More likely is that some combination of circumstance may occur that allows some of their pernicious schemes to be put in place, forcing many to become “criminals” and further eroding the already weakened participation and support for “our” society.

  2. Utterly stereotypical libthought.

    “I am officially beyond a place of wanting to find a compromise with those who want to argue for the right, or the need, of citizens to arm themselves with guns.” – IOW, “I have decided this is the way things should be, therefore any opposition to it is invalid.”

    “The time has come for our society to say enough is enough and that we must completely outlaw private citizens from owning guns. There is just no good logic to it …” – IOW, “We used the magic word ‘logic’, so our arguments are better than yours. You 2nd amendment supporters just aren’t SMART enough to recognize our holy righteousness.”

    classic stuff.

  3. In other words, the time for talk and compromise is over. For Earnest Harris, it is now time for action.

    Molon labe.

  4. I agree with him on one thing. The time for compromise is over. Compromise requires some sacrifice from each party. They give up nothing, we have given too much. The time for compromise is over.

    • It just occurred to me that these are the same sort of people who apply the same definition of “compromise” to Israel.

  5. No……….

    …..
    ….

    ……
    OK, your move.
    ….

    What, that was three years ago? You are going to have to move faster than that, bub, if you want to accomplish anything.

  6. What’s ironic is his depiction of all gun-related deaths by arms-bearing citizens as “senseless.” I would contend that if this statist SOB were to attempt to disarm me, his death would be entirely sensible.

  7. I disagree with him and I’m a liberal.

    I don’t understand why some of you try to paint liberals with such a broad brush….

    • To paraphrase a meme about another group, a progressive is someone who wants to confiscate our guns, a liberal is someone who wants a progressive to confiscate our guns.

    • Maybe it’s because “people” like him paint gun owners, whites, rural folks, and anyone that disagrees with them with such a broad brush first.

    • Why not, Ubu? As Heinlein explained, the people of the world are divided into two categories: those who want to tell others what to do, and those who have no such desire.

      The former can be infinitely subdivided if you care about precisely what these people want to control in others, but why bother? If you value liberty, such compromising is not useful.

    • Which party is composed mostly of liberals and has a party plank for gun control? That would be the Democrats (i.e. liberals, progressives and socialists).

      “Me thinks thou doth protest too much.”

      To offer another analogy, not all muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are muslim. So, our suspicion should be low that the typical Catholic nun has a suicide vest strapped on.

      • Do remember, though, that Republicans often favor gun control also. Perhaps a bit less than Democrats, and they may not make it into an explicit plank, but the coercive disorder is alive and well in both major parties.

    • You’re not a liberal, ubu. You’re a coercive. A liberal would be one who advocates liberty.

      Words mean things.

  8. “Let’s not be afraid of the fight ahead in working to remove all guns from private ownership.”

    This is Dan Rather’s “Courage”. It means going full-on, batshit communist. They’ve spent decades smearing, promoting blind hate against American patriots, libertarians, gun owners, capitalism, strong principled men, and now finally, they believe, the end game is now in sight– Full-on confiscation, round-ups, purges, a gulag system, the whole deal. Full retard. It’s been the goal all along, and it’s now pent up and ready to gush out of them. All they need is the “Courage” to pull it off. It’s a story that repeats itself all down through the ages.

  9. His first statement poses a non sequitor. I shouldn’t have to “argue for a right.” The right preexists – I shouldn’t HAVE to defend it at all. If he wants to strip that right, he should present prima facie evidence in support of his case. And then he should just go FOAD, because whatever lame argument he comes up with is going to be insufficient to meet strict scrutiny.

Comments are closed.