Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Instead of enacting, “A person may legally bear arms across state lines,” which officials can violate without repercussion, the law must say, “Anyone who interferes with a person legally bearing arms, shall go to prison and pay a fine.”

Alan Korwin
December 12, 2016
Stop The National Carry Permit
[See also Diplomatic Carry where Alan says, “As good as it is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.”—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

  1. We already have all of those laws. The second amendment, part of the constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, for one. We also have 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242, which aren’t being enforced, and no doubt there are several other measures, state and federal, which could be employed in the protection of human rights.

    So what next; a law saying we’ll enforce the laws already not being enforced? And who, or what magical force, is going force the enforcement of any new enforcement law?

    We’re fucking insane, even talking about new laws or new rules. It’s every bit as bad as any discussion of border and immigration laws. There’s no chance of a reasonable discussion when everyone in the room is full of shit, confused, bought off, in some state of denial or delusion, afraid, pissed off, or simply has never learned the basics.

  2. ”Anyone who interferes with a person legally bearing arms, shall go to prison and pay a fine.”

    What constitutes “interference”? How about telling someone to wait his goddamned turn in line at a supermarket like everyone else?

    When making laws, remember that they will, at some time, be administered by your worst enemy. Think them through carefully, with the utmost consideration of how they will be taken advantage of, or abused, in unexpected ways.

    • All true. But a bigger problem is that the laws will be administered by people who claim they are not written in English, and the words do not mean what they say.
      Against such abuse, careful wordcrafting is powerless. This is how “…shall not be infringed” was transformed into “…may be infringed if the State comes up with a good excuse for doing so” (a.k.a., “strict scrutiny”). Lyle is right, more laws don’t cure that. More carefully written laws don’t, either. Tarring and feathering might. Alternatively, there’s trial, conviction, and execution for treason.

      Jefferson said it well: “And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them.” And also: “Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense; and their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure”.

      So did Mencken: “In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naivete than in attempting to constrain government from all its favorite abuses, and entrusting the enforcement of those protections to judges; that is to say, men who had been lawyers; that is to say, men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.”

  3. All the comments about politicians flouting the law is the best reason why Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, The Hildabeast, and other criminals should be tried by the Trump Administration.

    Like naughty children, they will only learn if their bottom is paddled.

    Not holding my breath…

Comments are closed.