Quote of the day—Celebrity

The Second Amendment does not preclude federal law relating to firearms, as long as you can own one or fewer guns, your right to bear a firearm is not being infringed upon.

August 19, 2016
Comment in the DebatePolitics thread My Gun Control Plan [W:1271]
[A few things Celebrity should spend some time reflecting upon:

  1. Does the same logic apply to books and the number of people you are free to associate with? No? Then it doesn’t apply to guns either.
  2. They have crap for brains.
  3. Gun owners are going say Molṑn labé.

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


19 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Celebrity

  1. The whole notion that “The Second Amendment does not preclude federal law relating to firearms” it utterly unsupported by any rational interpretation of the plain English language of the Constitution. The fact that Scalia said otherwise does not alter this fact.

  2. Talk about an utter failure at basic reading comprehension. History fail, too.
    Not even a communications major; more like a failed single-medium art major.

  3. “one or fewer”? So being allowed to own zero firearms is “shall not be infringed” to this guy? Hell, just the “allowed” part is infringing. It’s a right, nobody is allowing it.

    • Yeah, I had to reread that a few times. I’m still not certain if he thinks he’s funny, or if he really is that dense.

      • looking at the thread that quote came from made my head hurt. I couldn’t find any coherent logic in Celebrity’s blather. Conclusion: Crap for brains.

        • Seriously. I wasted several precious moments of time reading that nonsense.

          That’s why I stopped the debates on forums. Too many people like that.

          • One or fewer. So as long as you can own half a gun, there’s no infringement. I can own the slide and stocks, you can own the barrel and the frame.


  4. Celebrity needs a dictionary. A little bit of history wouldn’t hurt either.

    How does one counter brainwash in others?

      • Hmm.

        ” There must be conviction.
        There must be commitment to this conviction.
        The conviction must be amenable to unequivocal disconfirmation.
        Such unequivocal disconfirmation must occur.
        Social support must be available subsequent to the disconfirmation.”

        One and two are essentially the same, as a conviction means having a commitment. Four and five I believe hit closer to the bull’s eye, and I would conflate them as;
        “The person must have an alliance to the Dark Side.”

        That cuts deeper I think, as we’re dealing with a co-opted mind. That mind must first be in what hypnotists call a “suggestible” state before one’s alliance can be co-opted in contravention of reason.

        A lot of the political talk comes down to the issue of taking over people’s hypnotic state (or suggestible state as defined above), whereas the proper goal, I should think, would be de-programming, which returns the individual to his senses and thus his own life and identity.

        I’m not sure what number three means. I must be thinking about it wrong. “The conviction” being amenable to disconfirmation would mean to me that one is open to reason. But we’re talking about the conviction and not the person, so I’m confused. I guess I’d have to read more.

        • Read the book. It’s awesome.

          One and two are not the same. In the context of the book a “commitment to their conviction” meant something like quitting their job, donating a lot of money, leaving your spouse, that sort of thing, to pursue their conviction.

          “Unequivocal disconfirmation”, in the context of the book, meant having a prophecy fail. Example, “A UFO will arrive on March 12, 2017 and take us to their Mars colony.” On the afternoon of March 13th, 2017 the prophecy will have been “unequivocal disconfirmed”.

          If those five conditions are met, in the context of the book, instead of the person saying something to the equivalent of, “Huh, I guess I was wrong” they will proselytize more than before the disconfirmation. They will put great effort into finding more converts to their conviction. This is sort of what is happening now with the political left. They prothesized Hillary Clinton would win the election on November 8th, 2016. When she didn’t they made more prophecies regarding Trump/Hitler and vigorously tried to get converts to an even more unrealistic prophecy, that they need to be even more to the political left to win elections. Those that don’t agree with them will be outcast and violent assaulted. Disbelief in their conviction is not allowed.

          The reason for this has to do with the above five reason. It is because of the psychological costs of admitting they were wrong. If they did not have some much invested (the commitment) in the conviction or there was a possibility the prophecy could come true (the electoral college votes different than the general population voters told them to), or they weren’t surrounded by people with similar levels of commitment to the same conviction, they probably would have responded much differently.

          The same sort of behavior happens to people with a conviction regarding gun control, communism, the war on drugs, etc.

          • This is something that would work with a cult like the Millerites in the 1840’s, who sold all their worldly goods and waited on a hilltop in the midwest for Christ to take them up into heaven.
            — twice.
            Then everyone quietly went their separate ways.
            For gun control, communism, and the war on drugs, and global change and climate warming, proving the belief wrong is much harder.

  5. What’s their beef with multiple firearms anyway? Since I can only shoot one or two at a time (tried the Antonio Banderas thing at the range once….), even if I had ill intent, the number of firearms I own is of no consequence.

    Of course, the fact that I have enough of them to arm my neighborhood in time of peril is a bonus. Cheap SKS rifles and a pile of 7.62×39 makes for an instant militia.

  6. Prohibition and infringement are not next door neighbors-they are polar opposites, on the mutually distal ends of a line.

    Words mean things. Different words mean different things.

    • And National Socialists are completely different from International Socialists who are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Just ask my Grandfather and his half-brother.

  7. Sadly I went and read some of that thread.

    My brain rebelled and slithered out of my left ear at some of the mindless tripe I was reading. Thankfully my daughter ran down the fleeing grey matter and returned it to my head.

    I really do believe that we see the world on very different terms and that those hard over on the other side believe our world is somehow some other reality than that which I see. It’s a case of “I reject your reality and substitute my own”


  8. Okay, if I only get one firearm then I want and deserve. a full auto M-2 50 caliber heavy machine gun. Only fair!

  9. “Does the same logic apply to books and the number of people you are free to associate with? No? Then it doesn’t apply to guns either. ” ???

    Liberals believe strongly in the censorship of books, and would have no problem denying prisoners, released felons, and people on a government list any access to books / internet / email / phone. Liberals believe strongly that there is no right to freedom of association – the state can and must decide which students get bused where, which colors get into which colleges, which jobs have to be held for minorities, and who has to serve whom.

    • Yes, that’s the problem with this sort of analogy. The reality is that the left doesn’t approve of ANY constitutional right (“a document created by dead white slave owners”). Free speech? Nope, just ask the students of Middlebury College. Jury trial? Not really, consider the recent Supreme Court decision allowing the government to second-guess the motives of jurors. No searches without a warrant? Of course not, consider the TSA, or sobriety checkpoints, or the FISA fake courts. No seizure of private property except for a public purpose? Consider the infamous Kelo case. And so on.

Comments are closed.