They say we need a “conversation” on guns in America. A common sub-argument is that pro-gun people need to stop saying “No” every time those who prefer a disarmed populace suggest more restrictions on the honest folks who didn’t kill any innocents in Newton.
We already had that conversation.
We had it in 1791, and settled the issue with the second amendment to the Constitution protecting a preexisting right to keep and bear arms. Gun banners being the whack-a-moles of civil rights violation, we had that conversation several times: Cruikshank and Presser come to mind.
More recently, we again had that conversation in 2008, when the Supreme Court pointed out that yes, the second amendment really does protect an individual right to keep and bear arms in Heller.
Chi-town pols didn’t like that, so we had the conversation yet again in 2010. The Supreme Court again pointed out that arms really are a right, and that it really is an individual right, in McDonald.
Victim disarmers are slow learners, forever doomed to riding the short bus through life, so we had the conversation yet-a-frickin’-gain in 2012: Moore v. Madigan, in which a federal judge had to lecture the poor, cognitively-challenged pols of Illinois (who have trouble even finding the short bus) in small words that, WHACK-upside the head “Pay attention, dipsticks; we told you it’s a right of the individual people, so stop screwing with it.”
And here we are: Once more, idiots who shouldn’t be on the streets without a guardian to wipe the drool off their faces, change their diapers, and keep them out of the road, are calling for the “conversation”. Like whiny children pestering exasperated parents over and over and over and over for a coveted-but-terribly-bad-for-you present, they keep ignoring the settled issue. “But China does it. What can’t we make all the citizens helpless, too?” they pontificate petulantly. (Yeah, China does it. That’s why their lunatic had to cut up those 22 Chinese schoolchildren with a knife a few days before Newton. Guns bans sure solved China’s violence problems.)
We had that conversation, and explained in words that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size should have been able to comprehend: “the security of a free state”, the right to life and liberty, self defense. At this point, anyone who doesn’t—or won’t—get it probably falls into one or more of three categories:
- whining mental incompetents
- those with a “professional” need to ensure a steady supply of helpless victims for violent predators
- and those with a more extensive agenda
You might abbreviate those as morons, criminals, and traitors. None of which are really interested in reasoned conversation.
July 14, 2017
We Had That Conversation
[I hinted at this in the post, Been there. Done that. Let’s move on. That was almost exactly five years ago. Our opponents are ignorant, stupid, and/or evil.—Joe]
The left’s definition of a “conversation” is where they give orders, and we’re supposed to tug on our forelock and say “yes, milord”.
Yes, and “closed mindedness” is our unwillingness to entertain suggestions for more wholesale rights violations.
Our problem is that we, as a society, have accepted, sometimes even embraced, authoritarian policies and systems all along. Our reluctance to “move forward” on violations of the right to near arms is therefore an inconsistency. That, essentially, is also the definition of the Republican Party. On the whole then, we are hypocrites.
Dumb as some of the rank and file leftists may appear, I believe that they do sense our hypocrisy.
The authoritarians, always wanting more power, more of other people’s money, and less liberty, are fairly consistent. We are not. Examples abound. They see that.
“Like whiny children pestering exasperated parents…”
I love this analogy. I love it because it zeros in on the problem, perfectly. That problem being the parents.
Parents have whiny, pestering children because they’re failing in their responsibility as parents.
We have failed in keeping the criminal political class in check in EXACTLY the same way a parent fails to raise a respectful, healthy child.
If the adults won’t simply take charge of the situation (it is their situation after all), then the whiny “children” will take over, and everyone suffers.
No one suffers more than the “children”, by the way.
The “children” hate us for our failure too, and rightly so. Who understands that?
The leftists hate us for our hypocrisy, and for our failure to take charge and set them straight. We deserve every bit of that hate– Look at how far we’ve let them take us down the shithole.
No, Young Grasshopper; don’t blame the children. The adults are responsible for the whole thing.
I’d have to agree, Lyle. As a rule, gun people just want to be left alone, and leave the strident, moralistically superior whining to the other side. If we had pushed back with a resounding “Hell, no” to every one of the gun-grabbers arguments, at the time they were first raised, this “conversation” would have been done a long time ago.
Can we take the liberals behind the wood shed for a serious whipping?
What the Left understands is that this is a zero-sum game. Any gun control law is an infringement and reduces our freedom, which delights them.
They hope to eventually get to full citizen disarmament, but there are plenty of trip wires that will start the Second ACW.
The left isn’t stupid.
As long as we are dumb enough to allow them to engage us in “conversation”, they will continue to try to talk us out of our rights.
I own a firearm because, Fuck You, that’s why. Only argue if there are fence sitters who can hear.
The left views a “conversation” the way they view “negotiations”.
To them it is ALWAYS “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable”.
They NEVER want to give up anything they hold dear, they expect
the conservative right to always be the ones to give up something. And
thus eventually via the ‘death by a thousand cuts’ methodology they win.
The left may be ignorant on basic gun facts but those in control of the left
are NOT STUPID (many of their sycophants however are booger eating
window lickers). Never underestimate the evil and the tenacity of those who
seek to first disarm us so they can RULE WITH IMPUNITY. Because THAT is
the ultimate goal behind their agenda.
You have lived a lucky and sheltered life. People who are self-admittedly dangerous and mentally ill don’t have a right to weapons. Your vision for gun rights in America is willfully blind to 25+ % of the US population.
The average leftist doesn’t trust himself with a gun. In casual conversation, they will readily admit that they lack the maturity and self-control to own a firearm. They have experiences where they would have used a gun if one had been available. They imagine many everyday situations where they would murder somebody if they had a firearm. They choose for themselves to stay away from guns because they don’t trust themselves. They like peer pressure against guns because they correctly don’t trust the people they know. Remember the political violence of the Occupy Movement, the Hillary Campaign, the post-election protests, Baltimore’s ‘space to destroy’. A protestor who will damage property or attack a victim because they can get away with it – is evil with or without the gun.
I believe them when they say they shouldn’t be allowed to have guns (or children, or jobs). I believe them when they say their lives are overwhelming. I can understand their fear of guns, why they want to disarm the people around them.
Unfortunately, most often they say that we should not be allowed to own guns. It is true that they are projecting, and what they really should be saying is that they are mentally unfit to own guns. But that’s not what they say, at least not when they are trying to inflict new policy.
Anyone too dangerous or defective to be trusted with a gun is too dangerous and defective to be trusted at all. It’s easier to steal a car and run down pedestrians than to steal a gun and commit mass murder. The issue is most people don’t want to address the problems of mental illness and sociopathic violence. It’s easier to blame an object and make it illegal than to lock away people who should never be allowed to wander the streets.
“…people who should never be allowed to wander the streets.”
We call them progressives and we once warehoused them in mental institutions.