Quote of the day—Engraver

Take the goober’s guns away! Ban the damned things already! Melt ’em down! If Billy Bob has a hissy, so be it. This second amendment is not protecting Americans, it is killing us.

October 2, 2017
Comment to A scary turn: Las Vegas may be first mass shooting using an automatic weapon
[Dear Engraver,

I would like to suggest you take point on one of the teams going through the door to collect them and “melt ‘em down”. You’ll meet a lot of people who do a good job of on the spot copper engraving you might have an interest in.




7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Engraver

    • Thanks, that was well argued. One point missing is that merely repealing the 2nd Amendment does not give the Federal government any authority to regulate arms. This was recognized by the people proposing and ratifying the Bill of Rights, since they often referred to it as redundant. The reality is that nowhere in Article 1 Section 8, nor in any amendment, is the government granted power over private arms. And if that alone were insufficient (as it typically is given our universally dishonest judges) there is the explicit protection of private arms in most state constitutions.

  1. “Take Billy Bob’s guns away” does not mean physically take them away. It means “make them illegal”.

    Well, we made murder illegal. Murder has been banned. It still happens though.

    People do illegal things.

    Once again, this is how it works; the bad guys will always be armed. They will be armed with the weapons of their choice, no matter how illegal.

    Government and criminals will always be armed.

    Government and criminals share a de facto common cause too, which is lording over and feeding off of the productive, the honest and law-abiding.

    Both government and criminals have convinced themselves that their actions serve “justice”.

    The one and only thing we are discussing then, when bringing up gun laws, is whether the honest and law-abiding will also be armed. The only thing we’re discussing is whether the TARGETS of both government and criminals can legally posses any means of protecting themselves.

    Of course government and criminals will want the general citizenry disarmed.

    The only issue is, which side are you on? Which side has your allegiance? To which side are you emotionally bonded? Which side feeds your ego verses respecting your honest way of life? Do you have an honest way of life?

    Many of you don’t know; you’re bonded to an alliance, and it may not be the one you think it is. A case in point is the famous “gun writers” who eventually snap, and then lash out against the crazy second amendment absolutists. You know a lot of that kind as RINOS also. So you may very well think you’re on one side or the other, and then you may find you’re on the other side after all. If you’re getting nervous reading this, that’s a sign that you’re sympathizing with (emotionally bonded with) the side you think you’re opposing.

    I heard Michael Savage yesterday, sympathizing with the hard left on this issue. It was the standard (for it’s always standard) “Enough Already! I have an AR fifteen, BUT…” Your know the drill, and fully half of you who think you’re pro second amendment will eventually spill the beans in similar fashion. You just don’t know it yet.

    You’ll feel that you’re being smarter than I, when you discover that you “understand” the need for “common sense” (though you’ll use different words, to make yourself feel smarter) gun restrictions. It will be nothing but an emotional connection with the left (whether born of compassion or irritation with them, or a combination of both) but you’ll rationalize it as superior intelligence (again, feeding an emotional need, a need in this case to feel smarter than simple-minded, “absolutist” hicks like me). Look for it and you’ll see this pattern developing in people you know well.

    • I can’t attribute this to the author except by his first name as I first read it on “the gun counter.com”;

      The use of the word “but” usually indicates that everything preceding it in a sentence is a lie.
      “I believe in Freedom of Speech, but”. . .
      “I support the Second Amendment, but”. . .

      I have to say that Michael Savage has revealed himself to be a liar, as my brother, who said he believes in the First Amendment, but thinks that “Hate Speech” does not deserve protection.

  2. I won’t be home. See, I’ll be at this guys house burning it to the ground with everybody inside.

Comments are closed.