Quote of the day—David Scharfenberg

If gun-control advocates really want to stanch the blood, there’s no way around it: They’ll have to persuade more people of the need to confiscate millions of those firearms…

David Scharfenberg
November 10, 2017
Hand over your weapons
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

In response to Mr. Scharfenberg, NO!

Your move David.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Scharfenberg

  1. Something tells me that any confiscation scheme would be likely to uncork a massive flow of blood.

    • It also possible that it would be a relatively small flow if it was the from the most appropriate sources. It’s hard to predict such things.

    • One novelist who explored this “what if” scenario is Matthew Bracken (the “enemies trilogy”). His particular take on it is quite scary. I keep hoping the bad guys won’t pick it up and use it as a recipe.

  2. It’s the standard Marxist/Stalinist/Maoist doctrine; if you initiate a revolution and kill enough people, eventually the killing has to subside. QED.

    The details of the rationalizations, outright lies and tactics may change from time to time, but the end results of run-away authoritarianism are always the same; stagnation, decline, frustration, Balkanization, turmoil, mass destruction, and the grand finale (but I say it’s the goal), mass death, followed by years of misery for all but a miniscule clique of rulers.

    Also, every little bit of authoritarianism demands a little bit more (you place strict legal “controls” on guns, as in Chicago and DC, crime goes up, so you do it again, harder. You start a “Social Security” administration, it’s a pile of money that gets sucked dry, you have to take more, etc., etc. – When you cause problems, you blame it on your political opposition, then call for more of what caused the problems, etc., etc.). Therefore, once you’re on that path (and we’ve been on it for 100 years), you don’t get off of it without a paradigm shift.

    SO; what will it take to make that paradigm shift and what would it be, exactly? What else is there to discuss?

    • Not sure what will trigger the paradigm, but I am worried we might find out…..

  3. “Linda Lee
    Linda Lee 11/12/17 08:55 AM
    If you pass clear-cut laws, they will be easier to enforce. For example, no assault weapon or large-capacity magazine should be sold or possessed in the United States. There should be no weasel words and exemptions for guns manufactured before a certain date. They are all banned, now and forever. Hand them over if you have them. That would be the easiest way.”

    I’ll be happy to dispense with the weasel words and hand them over. But I’m only going to hand over one end of them (hint: it will be the really noisy end).

    Not sure if it’s going to be as easy as Linda believes.

    • There’s also the problem that “assault weapon” is a weasel word (to put it politely).

Comments are closed.