There are far, far too many guns in this country.
U.S. Representative (WA-9)
January 29, 2013
Rep. Smith visits Bellevue High, discusses gun control and I-502
[And if there are “too many guns” what does that suggest needs to be done? Get rid of many of them, of course!
This is my representative in congress.
I have some work to do.—Joe]
“Far too many.”
I wonder what number the good and noble Representative of the People thinks is a good number?
No. No, I really don’t wonder. I know.
No. Now what?
Eighteen years in Congress? I wonder what he’s done as a productive member of society, if anything? So in skimming his comments, it seems he’s OK with ramping up gun control laws, but wants to find a way to have the Federal Government “respect” Washington’s marijuana laws.
Talking our of both sides of his mouth? Can other States that don’t wish to be sanctuary States set their own draconian immigration standards to set things to what they consider “right” and have the Federal Government “respect” their laws?
As I’ve become aware of the hypocrisy of the governing elites and the smarmy attitude of superiority that almost all Progressives hold the right (spectrum) in, I’ve become less and less tolerant and more and more determined to retain my rights, my independence and my place in a society that I refuse to accept the meddling of my enemies in.
To me Smith is an enemy and should be regarded and treated as such.
If Sanctuary Cities and States on Immigration laws are acceptable to the Leftists, why not Sanctuary jurisdictions for things such as Same Sex Marriages, or Draconian Gun Laws or for the various intrusive laws of the regulatory state brought to us by Federal Agencies?
Or is it “My own law for me but not for thee?”
“Sanctuary” has come to be used for any place of safety. And this means safety for humans (or animals). Hence sanctuary for states which outlaw same sex marriage is rather contradictory (if that is what you meant, it’s not clear to me). Hence sanctuary states/cities for gun owners makes sense (see Firearms Freedom Act). A “sanctuary” for anti-gun people to imprison gun owners doesn’t.
I was thinking of that clerk in Kentucky who achieved national notoriety when she refused to sign same-sex marriage licenses. Since lately sanctuary is acquiring a meaning something like “the locals values are different from the national values and laws”, it would not be logically inconsistent for that county to claim sanctuary status. Since only Democrats have ever invoked States’ rights, it would have been worthwhile to see the reaction of the Leftists. But as you say, Sanctuary has heretofore had a very different meaning, as a place of refuge.
I included that out of a desire to make the Leftists think about what they mean exactly by “Sanctuary”, since there are many laws they insist on enforcing that could just as easily be ignored if the broad meaning of sanctuary is used, and that would be annoying and puzzling to the Leftists.
Let’s clarify the statement;
“There are far, far too many guns in this country.”
For what, he doesn’t say.
But what he means is;
“There are far, far too many gun owners in this country.”
Too many of you. Too many people who uphold the perfect laws of liberty.
He does NOT say there are too many criminals. That’s a key point, because he means that there are far, far too many ANTI-criminals.
It’s a simple and unavoidable extrapolation; There are too many guns, meaning there too many gun owners. Too many Americans. Gun owning Americans pose an existential threat to the corrupt and to the plots and schemes of the corrupt. There are too many anti-criminals, but only in the minds of the criminals. They fear you. They hate you. They want you removed from the population. You stand in their way. They want you dead.
The above is correct because of the unassailable logic and also because history says so, with a loud, perfectly consistent voice. The Marxists always tell us that this time it will be different, and it never is different. It always ends in tragedy. The Marxist is an exterminator. That’s his purpose. He’ll say whatever he needs to say, and do whatever he needs to do, to carry out that purpose.
He knows he can do it only with your cooperation however. He is weak, and needs the strength of others to carry out his will. His envy in that regard makes him all the more determined. He needs his victims on his side, and he is desperate, and so he is first and foremost a liar. A sneak. A surreptitious and devious manipulator. And make no mistake about it; he is very, very clever and, practiced in his trade.
The standard statement by police commissioners and other politicians in high crime cities is “there are too many guns on the street”. (I hear this about every other day on the Boston TV news, as part of the reporting about the daily shooting in Dorchester or Mattapan.) I have never heard any of these idiots say “there are too many criminals on the street”.
This is why those are high crime cities. As a certain President said so many times, if you aren’t willing to name the problem, you’re not going to be able to create a solution.
The corollary to too many guns is not enough places to shoot them. He should introduce legislation to give the Boomershoot operation a large, no-strings grant to say double the size of the operation, do R&*D into better target propellant, and provide low=cost ammo for the participants to practice with.
Nice thoughts! But like most government programs it would be misguided.
The current limits to Boomershoot are participants. We have more open positions than we do people. I’m mostly pleased with the target mix. The only thing I would like improved is the storage life. But with the current course of events it works out fine.
Low cost ammo for practice would be applicable to all shooting disciplines, not just Boomershoot.
Special dispensations for Boomershoot would be nice. But Joe, perhaps we should start small. Take your Congresscritter to the range.
As a participant, or a…?
Depends on how they vote. A number of them would make excellent target holders.
Wait til the rube realizes how many other potential weapons there are. I’m waiting for some fool to attempt to ban rocks.
I once “terrorized” a rooster with a slingshot. When I was a kid that rooster always attacked me when I went in to feed the chickens, so one day I “taught it a good lesson” with that slingshot, and it never attacked me again.
So there’s precedent; they could always ban slingshots as “assault weapons”, or limit the number of rounds you could legally carry with one.
I do also recall David having killed that giant, by using a sling, on the field of battle. That’s makes the slingshot “A Weapon of War” right there, so you’re right on the mark;
“Rock Control, Inc.!”
“Moms Against Rocks!”
“Mayors Against Illegal Rocks!”
“Enough is Enough!”
“The scourge of rock violence must one day be stopped!”
“Women an Minorities Hardest Hit!”
“If it Saves the Life of Just One Child…!”
Not quite rocks, but as I understand it, in England they made a serious attempt to ban knives.
Pingback: Quote of the day—Paul Koning | The View From North Central Idaho
Pingback: Representative Adam Smith on reciprocity | The View From North Central Idaho