Quote of the day—Kim LaPointe‏1 @kimoui

I think the notion of any private citizen owning guns is absurd.

Kim LaPointe‏1 @kimoui
Tweeted on February 17, 2016
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

After having it pointed out that the right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right she followed up with, “can’t take ignorance GO shoot yourself”.

I found this last contribution particularly interesting. She was the one exhibiting the ignorance but insists the person trying to inform her is ignorant and demands the more informed party cause themselves harm. These people have mental problems.—Joe]


55 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Kim LaPointe‏1 @kimoui

  1. I think that is the biggest problem with the welfare state. It allows the ignorant and stupid to be so well insulated from reality that they become utterly unable to recognize it, and therefore unable to deal with it. they become dangerous, because they try to insist that those around them support them in their living an unsustainable and self-destructive lie.

    I’ve got no problem with dreamers. I *do* have a problem with people forcing me to subsidize their delusions at the government’s gunpoint.

  2. Self defense is a human right. Guns are not. You keep insisting that they are but I totally understand where she is coming from.

    Here’s an analogy: The right to privacy is a human right. A safe deposit box is not.

    • Ubu, I’m a middled-aged man who is 45 pounds over weight. If I’m accosted by a 22 year old who is 6 inches taller than me and in excellent physical shape, how do I defend myself? What if was 75? Wheelchair-bound? Who are you to dictate to me my method of self-defense? You understand where she is coming from because you all suffer from the same mental illness.

      This is the trouble with progressives: they all know better than you. And will demand that you follow THEIR instructions. Even if it could kill you.

      By the way, please point out the “Right to Privacy” as outlined in the US Constitution. (And the 5th Amendment only secures our person and papers from search by the government. Not the same thing.)

      • “Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.”

        “Human Rights” are not our “United States Constitutional Rights.” You can read more about human rights here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics

        • Their list is total crap, because it is a list that includes things that must be compelled from other people. If you have a “right to food” then that means someone else must provide it. A “right to medical care” means someone else must be compelled to provide it. If I only have enough food for myself and my family, and you have a “right to food,” that means I have to split it with you, and let my family starve. That way leads to all sorts of evil outcomes. It makes much more sense to say that a person has the right to as much food as they can buy at current market rates.

          A right to self-defense means you have the right to do something for yourself; it imposes no obligation on another, except to leave other alone.

          • A lot of the things on that list are things the government can’t deprive you of. The government can’t deprive you of food or medical care. The government can’t deprive you of self defense.

            If the government takes away your food and your family starves, they are depriving you of a human right.

          • You lose. You apparently have some serious confusion between the words “can’t” and “won’t.”

            Guns were confiscated after Hurricane Katrina, removing the ability (and therefore right) to self defense. Governments often confiscate food and medical care, either directly (think thug nations in the 3rd world) , or indirectly (through regulation, taxation, more regulation, and “emergency measures” of various sorts.

            And please answer the post below about the parallel between abortion and abortion service providers compared to self-defense and guns.

          • “Guns were confiscated after Hurricane Katrina, removing the ability (and therefore right) to self defense.”

            Yeah, and the government broke everybody’s arms while they were at it. Maybe you don’t have a way to defend yourself without a gun but I can think of a lot of alternatives.

        • HAHAAHAHA!! Amnesty International. Hahahaha!! Nice try. I don’t give a shit about Amnesty International, as they do not carry the weight of LAW in this country. That is why I specifically asked you to reference the US Constitution, since that is what ultimately governs us. Furthermore, your little quote says nothing about a right to privacy you so glibly noted above. Why don’t you link something to the Scientology Bible, or maybe Joan Peterson’s blog? Those are about as meaningful to me.

    • How about no? Does no work for you?

      Way to throw women, the elderly, and the disabled under the bus though, pal. Guess in your world it’s survival of the fittest, and they’ll just have to take one for the team for your glorious progressive utopia.

    • “The right to privacy is a human right. A safe deposit box is not.”

      If the safe deposit box is my property, it is therefore my right. No one has any right to take it away from me. Same goes for my life. I have the right to defend either, using any means necessary, against usurpation.

      I don’t have the right to someone else’s safe deposit box, and no one has the responsibility to provide me one.

      You know all this perfectly well, ubu. Why you continue to play this silly game is a mystery, but I understand that there are those who cannot quit poking and prodding others until someone makes them quit.

      • I play this game because this is how I see it: Rights to a general thing (self defense, privacy, food, property, etc.) doesn’t give you a right to own a SPECIFIC thing (gun, safe deposit box, ham sandwich, mansion on 5th Avenue, etc.)

        That’s why the HUMAN RIGHT to self defense does not equal the right to own a gun. In the USA, you can own a gun. In a lot of other countries, you can’t — BUT YOU STILL HAVE THE HUMAN RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE.

        It always bugs me when Joe says owning guns is a human right.

        • Rights to a general thing (self defense, privacy, food, property, etc.) doesn’t give you a right to own a SPECIFIC thing (gun, safe deposit box, ham sandwich, mansion on 5th Avenue, etc.)

          Let’s explore this further.

          Suppose you have “rights to a general thing” — privacy, for example. Now suppose you’re correct, and that “right” “doesn’t give you a right to own a SPECIFIC thing”, say, modest clothing (or indeed, any clothing), a safe deposit box, a house/apartment/domicile with opaque walls, an encrypted or password-protected cell phone or e-mail account, etc.

          How do you exercise your “right to privacy” if all the SPECIFIC items related to asserting your privacy are denied you? If you effectively cannot assert your privacy, can you truly claim to still have the right to it?

        • “I play this game because this is how I see it: Rights to a general thing (self defense, privacy, food, property, etc.) doesn’t give you a right to own a SPECIFIC thing (gun, safe deposit box, ham sandwich, mansion on 5th Avenue, etc.)”

          This “game” you are playing is a semantic game. It doesn’t work. We take our rights seriously. This is not a game to us.

          To say that you have a right to something, a right to do something or a right to own something, is to say that it is not proper for gubmint have the authority to prohibit you from doing that thing or from owning that thing.

          Let’s play your game. Per your premise, you have a right to “food”, but it is proper for the gubmint to have the authority to deny you specific food. So, the gubmint has the authority to prevent you from having a ham sandwich. Or a turkey sandwich. Or an apple. Or a steak. Or any and every goddamned piece of food whatever, because each one is a “SPECIFIC” thing. Thus, per your premise, the gubmint has the authority to starve you to death.

          Your premise leads immediately and inevitably to an absurdity, which means your premise is wrong.

          Really, dude, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. With a gun.

          “It always bugs me when Joe says owning guns is a human right.”

          Thus, you are holding that it is proper for gubmint to have the authority to prohibit a human from owning a gun. Your premise given above doesn’t justify that holding. So, let’s try again.

          WHY do you believe that it is proper for gubmint to have the authority to prohibit a human from owning a gun?

    • Do you support the right to have an abortion? What if they ban doctors from performing abortions, and prohibit “morning-after” pills, and discussion of alternative methods, would you be OK with that? Because, well, you can still legally have one, right? I mean, you have a right to it, but not to the means to do it safely, but that’s totally OK in your world?

      No? The analogy is a perfect match.

        • Then why does the left go on and on about “women’s rights” in reference to it, and frequently say “right to an abortion?”
          But you are still dismissing the analogy without addressing it: can you honestly say a woman’s “right to an abortion” is not being infringed if you ban all access to providers of same?

    • “Self defense is a human right. Guns are not.”

      You admit that self defense is a human right, thus you admit that the rights of the attacker and the rights of the defender are asymmetric when an attack is in progress, but you claim the defender does not have the RIGHT to use the one tool of defense that works for any defender against any attacker. What is it about THIS tool of defense that would drive you to make such a claim? That it can be used offensively? Any tool of defense can also be used offensively. That it can be used accidentally? Any tool of defense can be also used accidentally.

      There has to be a REASON why you made such a claim. What is it? Or does reason just not enter into it?

    • “Self defense is a human right. Guns are not. You keep insisting that they are but I totally understand where she is coming from. ”

      If self-defense is a human right, then the most effective means and methods to accomplish it are incorporated in that right. Currently, that means firearms.

      Thanks for playing! You have lost. Again. Please don’t vote or breed if that’s an example of your best reasoning.

    • “Self defense is a human right. Guns are not.”

      Drivel. So, you have no objection to me using claymore mines in my house to obliterate intruders, to me using a knife or a strong pen to stab to death an assailant, or for me to use a frying pan to smash in the skull of an attacker, or eventually the use of a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range or a Klingon disruptor to vaporize the evil SOB?

      Your purist approach is that I have the right to defend myself, but to only use the tools YOU deem not morally objectionable. So,no icky guns.

      You know what? Six million Jews were disarmed and they paid the price, so I cannot continue point ing out logic, facts, and morality to someone so devoid of all of them. I will stop now before I go to your level and hurl well-earned expletives.

      • The way I like to think of it is, the frying pan, bat, and kitchen knife are all deadly force. If it’s legal to use them then it cannot be reasoned that a gun is “worse” in some way.

        What I suspect Ubu52 will claim is that the risk to innocents is greater because of misses and shoot throughs. But this claim ignores the facts. Private citizens, in defense of innocent life, almost never accidentally shoot an innocent person.

        The other claims that can be made to denigrate guns, as covered by others here, is they are offensive weapons or they are prone to accidents in everyday life (kids finding them, etc.). These cases do exist in measurable numbers. But they must be balanced against the lives saved with the use of privately owned guns. Also accidents can, and have been, reduced through better training. The claim that violent crime can be reduced by restrictions on firearms has been well studied and has either a zero or negative correlation with reality.

        The only “defensible” reason to not want guns owned and used by private citizens is that you “just don’t like them”. In that case don’t let people with guns into your home and leave when you see them in public areas. This is just as you can do when you see black/gay/Jewish people. It’s the same thing and your options are the same.

        Thanks to everyone for restraining yourselves on the personal insults.

    • Chief, you can find the right to privacy in the 9th amendment.
      Ubu, you’re talking crap. It’s absurd to say you have a right, but that doesn’t extend to owning the tools needed to exercise that right. It’s like saying you have the right to free speech, but not the right to own a printing press.
      Or are you claiming that the right to self defense only means the right to defend yourself with your bare hands? So you’d say that there is no right to defend yourself against an armed attacker? You’re saying that the handicapped have no right to self defense? You’re saying that the weak have no right to self defense against the strong? You’re saying the right of self defense does not mean that a victim has the right to kill the rapist?

      What’s wrong with you?

  3. The right to privacy is a human right. A safe deposit box is not.

    Quite frankly, I don’t understand where you’re coming from here. Are you advocating that safe deposit boxes are somehow dangerous, and should be outlawed or restricted? Or are you playing games with words, saying that something is not a right because it’s not explicitly listed as one?

    (Because, as others have pointed out, a right to privacy isn’t listed in the Bill of Rights either.)

    Nobody speaks of safe-deposit boxes, or of guns, as a “right”, in the sense that people can expect the government to provide them. (That’s what people seem to mean when they talk about health care, or health insurance, as a “right”.) Rather, we speak of the right to keep and bear arms in the originalist sense — that the government has no right to infringe on our God-given right to defend ourselves, or on our right to legally buy such things as we believe will help us defend ourselves.

    As someone or other once said, a “right” is not what someone gives you. It’s what no one can take away from you. As such, a right to keep and bear arms means, or should mean, that the government cannot arbitrarily deprive a citizen of the means of defending himself or herself.

    People buy, and own, a great many things that other people don’t think they need. That’s part of what comes with living in a free country. Does your neighbor spend absurd amounts of money on a stamp collection, or a car collection, or on keeping a horse, or on some other expensive hobby? Do you think that said neighbor would be better off putting some of that money towards something more useful? Tough! It’s their money. And unless they are doing something that directly impacts you, and is actionable under the law, you leave them alone.

    As such, the guns in your neighbor’s safe are none of your business — until and unless they are used to commit a crime, unlike the guns of 99.99% of American gun owners.

  4. “I think the notion of any private citizen owning guns is absurd.”

    There goes a person who, clearly, has never feared for her life… and has apparently never known someone who needed a means to protect herself. “They laugh at scars who never felt a wound.”

    Fortunately, those of us who exercise our right to keep and bear arms don’t need to care what she thinks.

  5. I don’t do the twitter crap but the perfect response to that statement is

    ” I think the notion of any private citizen being allowed to say whatever they wish is absurd”. But then again she is almost certainly too dense
    to grasp the meaning of such a reply.

    • The problem with that is that they often agree with the statement. But most people who are strongly anti-gun are also strongly pro abortion rights. Comparing (right to self defense is unhindered by denying the tools to defend yourself) is a perfect parallel to (the right to an abortion is unhindered by a ban on doctors performing them and prohibiting morning-after pills). That seems to be a construct they have a much harder time dancing around, because they understand a right to an abortion directly implies reasonable access to abortion providers.

      • Yes indeed. You have to remember that these people come from colleges where the right to free speech has been explicitly and deliberately destroyed.

      • These people FIRMLY believe in the Right of Free Speech…..FOR THEM. But not for anyone who says
        anything they don’t agree with. And they believe in guns…..FOR THEM or for those they think should have guns….but not for the rest of us. The people who oppose us believe in the same things we do….it’s just that they don’t think EVERYONE is entitled to have rights….just whoever THEY like and agree with.

  6. People such as Kim are pretty hopeless so I don’t worry much about them. However, I do try to engage the other people who are reading the messages. I do this by using the same emotional thought-process that is driving them in their minds.

    This link is a powerful story about a young woman who used a gun while jogging to defend herself against two social deviants with ~baseball bats.~ I point out to the readers that if Kim (and ubu) had her way this young child of God would probably be dead, dead, dead.


  7. Absurd? Perhaps as absurd as putting a silent ‘e’ on the end of your name, to appear hifalutin’?

  8. One merely needs to look at (the formerly) Great Britain to see where ubu’s sort of thinking ends up. On the books, one is legally allowed to defend yourself and family. However, you are NOT allowed to utilize anything but bare hands, as any object used is considered to be a weapon, and the use of a weapon is illegal.

    There are still some guns in private hands, mostly shotguns, and black powder guns, but employing any of them in defense of your home/family will automatically put you in prison for much longer than your attackers.

    Home invasions are common, as the criminals know they are fairly safe, since they aren’t attacking people of their own age. They also know that if they are hurt, the government will take care of them, while destroying the family who dared to oppose them.

    So, self-defense is a “right” in GB, but only on paper, not in reality. This sort of stupidity is what these hoplophobic liberals want for our country, at a minimum.

  9. “Human rights” is just a phrase that socialists and their ilk use to justify stealing other people’s stuff to give to their latest victim group(s).
    Notice they never seem to give their stuff away?

    • That’s not accurate. While socialists may abuse the term “human rights”, libertarians also use it, to describe rights that are inherent in the nature of humans. Or the nature of living beings.
      Self defense is one of those. Neil Smith has pointed out that the non-aggression principle (“zero aggression principle”) is the only way for carnivores to interact safely. And I have observed that self defense is not just a human right but a natural right: even mushrooms understand self defense.

  10. I’m not going to respond to everyone because this could easily be a 100+ post thread. Let’s just say we agree to disagree.

    • Translation: you have no counter-argument, so you are going to stick your fingers in your ears and stomp away, because like any three-year-old having a tantrum, you KNOW you are right even if you have no factual or logical leg to stand on.

      • “Human rights” are rights that every human has. It’s not country-dependent. Our Bill of Rights does not apply to other countries. You can’t claim “Second Amendment” rights in Mexico, while you still have the right to self defense.

        The only reason you don’t understand this is because you don’t want to.

        • I, and I think most everyone here, recognize the right to keep and bear arms is independent of your geographical location. Mexico, and many other countries, infringe upon this right. It doesn’t mean the right doesn’t exist. As the 2nd Amendment says, “… the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” We also have the Cruikshank decision which states:

          This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

          When we refer to “2nd Amendment rights” that is being sloppy with our words. It really should be something like, “rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.”

          So we recognize the right to keep and bear arms are independent of country and is a “natural right”, SCOTUS recognizes it, why is it so hard for you to recognize it?

          • Exactly right. Just because a lot of countries infringe on most human rights does not make those rights any less real. It just means that most governments are hostile to liberty — which is not exactly news.

          • “… why is it so hard for you to recognize it?”

            Because it would be admitting that you are right and he is wrong.

          • Slightly off topic, but Ubu52 is a small middle aged woman who likes to wear high heels most of the time.

        • “The only reason you don’t understand this is because you don’t want to.”

          Pot meet kettle. This is the point where you scurry away because your ‘arguments’ are so laughable as to be pathetic.

          It’s also the point where you prove once again why restraining the personal insults and profanity is such an accomplishment.

    • “Let’s just say we agree to disagree.”

      No, let’s not.

      To you, it’s a “game” (your word). To the extent it’s a “game”, you lost. You just walked off the field, and that’s nothing more than abdication.

      It’s not just a disagreement. As I stated earlier, we take our rights seriously. About the right to own a gun, you are wrong, we are right, we have shown this quite well, we can continue to show it further, there’s nothing you can do about it, and you know it, but you cannot admit it.

  11. I’m probably going to be kicking a hornet’s nest here, but I totally understand where ubu is coming from (I’m not saying I agree with her–in fact I completely disagree! Nor am I stating that she is correct, only that I can “get it.”)

    She’s trying to say that humans have the right to defend themselves, and that this right is completely unrelated to a specific tool (the firearm or “arms”). This human right exists everywhere you go. If you are in a grocery store in Des Moines, IA, or in a bookstore in Tangiers, or at a restaurant in downtown Beijing, you have the human right to defend yourself.

    Of course, she’s missing the point that the human right to self defense is entirely infringed upon if a government is able to declare that certain places, or certain arms, or certain kinds of defense are disallowed. As Will made mention above, we only need look at ‘the place where Great Britain used to be,’ and you will see where that line of thinking (if it can be called that) takes us. The human right of self defense is mostly forgotten, and surely punished if one dares to invoke it. ‘How dare you protect your wife against that rapist? Twenty years in Thameside for you! Oh, and the young man you accosted whilst having relations with your wife will be lucky to see ten days in Feltham. But he will be able to sue you and recover damages, so there is that.’

    As Rolf pointed out, taking away the means by which something can be accomplished and then claiming that such action doesn’t infringe upon said thing is an inherently fraudulent line of thinking. Taking away a particular means to self defense is infringing upon the natural human right of self defense. The gun is merely a tool, that is true. But, being that we humans are tool users, that we create and use tools all the time, it is only natural (and follows our natural human instinct for survival) that we would use the best tool for the job. A knife, while an excellent tool for many purposes, including self defense, is not the ideal tool for that job. Our hands, while wonderful for many purposes, are not the ideal thing to use to defend our lives.

    To be fair, neither is a handgun ideal, but it is the best current option, providing a optimal compromise between powerful enough, lethal enough, concealable enough and still offering distance or range to prevent the attacker from getting too close.

    The founding fathers, when recognizing and enumerating our human right did not limit it to firearms, but instead used the word “arms.” Any sort of arms, be it swords or knives, or firearms or, maybe one day, phasers and plasma weapons and other assorted energy weapons. Who knows?

    One thing is certain, though. When the tools by which something is accomplished are restricted, then that thing is restricted. Otherwise known as infringed.

    • WRT “Arms.” Article 1, Section 8, specifically allows the US Government to issue “letters of marque,” meaning they explicitly acknowledge that private individuals or corporations may own WARSHIPS!!! with which to engage enemy commerce, military ships, or specified non-US assets.

      “Happy to see me, or is that a frigate in your pocket?”

      • For that matter, it seems that some (perhaps much) of the artillery used in the Revolutionary war was private property.

Comments are closed.