Quote of the day—Melissa Crawford

Good lord, he’s been President for over 7 years and you still have your stupid guns. When the hell is he going to take them already???

Melissa Crawford
March 10, 2016
Facebook comment on Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America page.
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


23 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Melissa Crawford

  1. This is the sort of frustration that leads people to demand a king. The poor dear has no inkling of the concepts of limited powers of government and the enumerated rights of the people. Some do though; they understand them and they reject them.

    • But who in government does understand, or rather obey, the rule of limited powers? The answer is no one, and none have for at least a century. Some (like Rep. Clyburn) even proudly admit it. But they all do it. Only a microscopic fraction of what the Federal government does is constitutional. Many cabinet departments are 100% unconstitutional, while others (like Commerce) are only about 99% unconstitutional (that’s because Commerce contains the Patent Office). Every “independent agency” is unconstitutional. And so on.

  2. “He” isn’t, sweet-cheeks. If he thought there would be no blowback to the action, then he’d tell his goons to do so. But, you see, even a narcissist like Obama knows there WOULD be blowback. The Overton window allows talking about it, and nibbling at the edges of gun-control, but not actual confiscation. To go full-stupid and attempt a ban at this point would invite tens of millions of people to say “NO…. your move.” in open contempt of the law. And the absolute LAST thing a would-be tyrant wants if a populace that is contemptuous of the law and think they have nothing to lose.

    • “And the absolute LAST thing a would-be tyrant wants if a populace that is contemptuous of the law and think they have nothing to lose.”

      And the absolute LAST thing a would-be tyrant wants is an ARMED populace that is contemptuous of the law and think they have nothing to lose.

      There. Fixed it for you.

      • Not quite right. The last thing a tyrant wants is an armed populace that is protective of the law and the Constitution.
        Don’t allow them to get away with claiming that we are the ones who have contempt for the law — the truth is exactly the opposite and this is an essential point.

        • Very true – I think of myself as “law-abiding”. Yet, after the passage of I-594 in Washington, how many of us suddenly became not-so-law-abiding? Did “we” suddenly change our morality overnight, or is that law being recognized as an unjust one and being deliberately ignored, to the point where even the cops won’t enforce it?

          • In general, an unjust law can be subjected to jury nullification, which is a right that goes back 1000 years.
            Apart from that, it is clear that a “law” that is contrary to the Constitution is not law. So it’s clear to me that you are just as law abiding now as you were before, because I-594 is “not law” under long established rules of what a Constitution is.

  3. I was dismayed to find a long-time friend posting in that thread. A decorated career cop and trained hostage-negotiator, now retired from the PD and working in mental health services.

    He apparently has a case of “…for me but not for thee.”

    I could have sworn that he’d know better.

    • That attitude is all too common among those animals that are more equal than the other animals, i.e., government employees.

  4. Patience, Melissa, he’s only one judge away from being able to do it by executive order. Blowback? Who cares. Any challenge will take 5 years to reach the Supreme court and at that point it may well lose 6-3.

  5. It’s instructive to try playing mix-and-match here:

    “Good lord, he’s been President for over 7 years and you still have your stupid freedom of speech. When the hell is he going to take it already???

    And that’s the difference, isn’t it? The founders wrote of the right to keep and bear arms, understanding its essential function to a free nation of free people. Cupcakes like this Melissa Crawford seem to see them as a dangerous hindrance — and imagine, no doubt, that her way of life would remain largely unchanged (and even improved) if all the guns were taken away.

    Here’s a tip, Ms. Crawford: you don’t want to be at the mercy of the Federal Government for your personal safety, truly you don’t. Please keep in mind that we won’t have a President to your liking forever.

    • Hmmm… Point out to the raving leftist that once Trump is president, they should be glad that Obama didn’t take their access to guns. Just keep your distance when you say that, because the cognitive dissonance might make their heads explode.

    • Her way of life will remain unchanged just as the lives of Soviet citizens were unchanged in the 30’s as Stalin purged the unreliable elements from society.

  6. Maybe a good answer would be: HE should take people’s guns away?? No, dear, he’s waiting for you to volunteer. You can start in your own neighborhood, then branch out.

    Oh, wait. You want others to do for you what you’re not willing to do yourself, is that it? In fact, you want your neighbors forcibly disarmed… by uniformed people with guns.

    Let’s just contemplate that for a minute.

  7. And you just *know* that the same people Clamoring for the President to ban and confiscate guns simultaneously laugh off the idea that the President wants to ban and confiscate guns.

      • Or the dishonesty. By now, I think this sort of thing can legitimately be attributed to malice, not ignorance.

Comments are closed.