Quote of the day—Alex Pareene

We will probably not nationalize or expropriate our arms manufacturers any time soon, though we obviously should. We can at least make it possible to sue them into dust. But if you want a gun ban in the United States, here’s a thought: Even if you accept the (obviously, stupidly, grandly wrong) conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment, there’s still no actual right to sell guns. So why not ban that?

Alex Pareene
November 20, 2017
BAN GUNS
[Apart from not reading and/or understanding the complete decision he references he has crap for brains if he thinks his suggestion even begins to make sense. Using the same logic, you may have the right to vote but not holding elections makes that right meaningless. Which, of course, is what he wants. But I find it difficult to believe the courts would tolerate such an idea and if they did I find it difficult to believe there would be enough law enforcement willing to enforce such decisions and/or prevent a dramatic and sudden shortage of judges and politicians.—Joe]

12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alex Pareene

  1. I suppose he’d advocate a free press without paper or ink.
    Good point about voting. It brings to mind the old quote of “I don’t care who does the voting so long as I do the nominating”. Attributed to Richard Daley? More recently practiced by Hillary Clinton, of course.

  2. Wow. That Slate article refers to “… a victory for gun safety advocates who feared judicial aggrandizement of the right to bear arms”.
    They also mention an interesting analogy without realizing it utterly invalidates the court decision they celebrate: the fact that an abortion clinic can sue to block anti-abortion laws on the grounds that these infringe on the rights of their customers. So they argue that there is a right to do commerce in abortion. If so, then clearly the identical argument tells us that gun stores have a 2nd Amendment right to sue to protect their customer’s right to bear arms.

    • Absolutely. Through their long advocacy of abortion as a “right”, the Eugenicist/authoritarian leftists reveal a comprehensive understanding of how a human right works. They’ve done a far better job in their advocacy of abortion than most conservatives or libertarians have ever done in advocacy of any true right.

      The left, and they alone it seems, understand and publicly advocate for a TOTAL HANDS OFF! policy when it comes to any asserted human right. That is, until they then take it a step beyond and demand public funding for abortion.

      Imagine applying their abortion standards to the second amendment. There’d be no local gun laws (because we all know that a human right cannot be voted away), no federal restrictions whatsoever, and the federal government would be forcing anti-gun groups to fund local gun ranges and shooting programs and to subsidize gun and ammo manufacturers. There could be no special taxes on guns, gun-making, ammunition or ammunition-making. Gun ranges and other gun-related businesses would be classified as tax-free, offering as they do a public service.

      Actual subsidy goes far beyond a right of course. The main point here is; the left can never claim to be ignorant of how a human right really works. They’ve demonstrated over and over, for decades, that they know exactly how it works. It means no one, anywhere, can say no to it, for any reason, no matter what, no matter how lives it may cost. It’s just that the one and only “right” they properly recognize is the made-up “right” to kill babies (though Margaret Sanger and her supporters in the Democratic Party and the KKK wanted to kill mostly black babies).

      Their relentless and un-compromising advocacy of abortion puts the lie then, to that common leftist plea, that attempt to fake us into surrendering more of our liberty;
      “If it could save the life of just one child…”
      That is as hypocritical as one can get.

      When someone is hypocritical it means they have ulterior motives. It proves a hidden agenda, and so we must ask ourselves; what are their real reasons for behaving as they do?

      I wrote about all this back in ’08.

  3. I recognize that you’re cherry picking the outrageous comments, which means that the similar comments and thoughts which predominate much of the left – none of which are any less egregious – stay below the surface.

    I’m curious, though; at what point do you think this boils over into real activity which must be accommodated? Or, are we just looking at an extremely high noise-to-signal ratio?

  4. Pingback: When will this boil over? | The View From North Central Idaho

  5. “and/or prevent a dramatic and sudden shortage of judges and politicians”

    Add in the sudden shortage of any law enforcement officers who chose to enforce such decisions.

    The stack would get mughty short by the time they got to the 30th house, IYKWIM,,,

  6. Sorree, can’t restrict an enumerated right. Next time around try getting an education. And stop playing with the toaster in the bathtub. Suggest you set your sights South. To Venezuela. Plenty of what you need from the government there, including gun control.
    You’ll be quite happy and safe, with no need to think.

    • mikee,
      if those idiots had bothered to even skim history of the last 100 years, it would be glaringly obvious that the left is horrified of the thought of self-defense. At least by other than themselves. It has been a bedrock principle of their ilk.

    • That’s why they like to point to the policies in Europe (skipping quickly over Switzerland, of course), a place where the right to self defense no longer exists if it ever did.

Comments are closed.