Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

An arbitrary list, with no checks and balances, no functional controls or due process of any kind, will deny our fundamental constitutional civil and human rights. The man currently in the White House is calling for the list. You’re insane if you object, he says.

By implication, if you can’t buy a gun, you certainly aren’t free to possess any of the firearms you already own, right? Someone should come and take all those dangerous guns away from you because they must be contraband. You’re too dangerous to own them.

Alan Korwin
February 19, 2016
Obama Announces No-Buy List for Guns
[If the government can, which they do, add people to a secret list without notification, justification, or chance to defend yourself and prohibits you from exercising a specific enumerated right they are in possession of tool which enables an end-run around the constitution.

If you think there is nothing wrong with this then what is your argument as to why the government couldn’t just as well say you may only exercise “constitutionally protected” rights if you are on their secret list?—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

  1. Use of such a list won’t stop at just the Second Amendment.

    Kiss goodbye to your right to free speech, exercise of the religion of your choice, a jury trial, facing your accusers, and so on.

    The Left is so obsessed with taking away our firearms that they fail to see what might harm might befall them. Imagine illegal aliens, muslims, homosexuals, and loud-mouthed frothing professors, being rounded up for a “final solution” to the “problem of the liberals”. Sound familiar? It can cut both ways.

    • “It can cut both ways.”

      No it can’t. That’s all authoritarianism, so that’s only one way. Yeah yeah yeah; you mean “right” verses “left”, I get that, but you’re missing the point. The right/left meme is a false dichotomy. It originally meant communist verses Fascist, which are essentially the same.

      Oh, they’ll fight and kill each other, as in World War II, sure. Rival gangs will do that. That doesn’t mean their ideologies are fundamentally different.

      If, on the other hand, you see it as authoritarian verses liberty and justice for all, now you’re on to something. Understand that fully, and you’re way ahead of the game.

      • Yes, you are right because decent people are the ones being targeted and they don’t resort to the extreme measures that the authoritarians use.

        They clean up the mess and hold the trials later.

        Since the Left is made up of many disparate groups, they do sometimes eat their own. Example: the Left courts muslims who will in turn gleefully chuck homosexuals off rooftops and oppress women. Talk about not choosing your allies carefully. The silence about these actions in the ME and the “war on women” rants here shows the disconnect.

  2. “…no checks and balances, no functional controls or due process of any kind, will deny our fundamental constitutional civil and human rights.”

    That’s the whole point, of course.

    If we’re saying, “Hey, you can’t do that– It violates all of these fundamental principles!” then we’re missing the point. The motivation and goal of the Progressive (authoritarian) movement is to specifically and poignantly violate all of those fundamental principles. It’s as though we’re faced with a robber pointing a gun at us and demanding our money and clothes, and our response is to attempt to school him on the importance of muzzle discipline and trigger finger control.

    My mother’s response would be;
    “You don’t think the constitution was written by God, do you?”
    Never mind that no one one ever said it was. The question is intended as an insult. If you answer, “Yes” then you’re clearly insane, and if you answer, “No” then you’re admitting that some significant number of people on the right believe that the constitution was actually written and signed by the hand of God. It implies the same thing as in the quote, that you’re insane if you think there’s anything special about your stupid-shit constitution. So shut up and get out of the way, Fool.

    There are three possible responses to the committed criminal;
    1. Give him what he wants.
    2. Meet force with force.
    3. Try to talk him out of it.

    But he’s committed and so you aren’t going to talk him out of it. Option 3 has several facets to it though. If it’s a public forum the criminal is operating in, as with politicians, they rely on the support and tolerance of the public. Therefore the principled argument is still a viable option because there are those who will understand it and be moved by it. The criminal politician, though he hates our principles, may be forced to go along as his only option for continued support and/or tolerance.

    In Obama’s case though, there are only options 1 and 2 because he doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. We’ve fallen back on a combination of 1 and 2, with the #2 “force” option being that he can’t realistically expect to hold office beyond two terms.

  3. The government should have a master list that contains the names of every violent felon and everyone convicted of domestic violence (convicted, not just charged) — and they should be on a NO Buy list. It shouldn’t be left up to the states and whether they feel like reporting it or not.

    • Why should conviction of a crime carry a penalty of some number of dollars, some number of weeks or years in jail, and also a life sentence of loss of human rights?
      Also note that the lists being proposed have nothing to do with felony convictions. These are the infamous “no fly lists” on which you can be put just by someone typing your name, for no reason whatsoever.

    • I’m pretty sure they already do. And it includes non-violent felons and people who have been charged (at least until the charges are dropped or a not guilty verdict is entered–if not longer).

      • Sure. So effectively what ubu suggests is that the existing lists and laws should be cut way back. (I’m not sure if she realized that that’s what her proposal does.) But even such a trimmed back list is still quite questionable, Constitutionally speaking.

  4. I know laws don’t matter anymore, but the Paperwork Reduction Act sets strict requirements on any federal data collection, and the Freedom of Information Act outright prohibits secret databases such as this one.

    • And you think they’re going to obey those acts because…?

Comments are closed.