Quote of the day—Don Kaag

I’m tired…

I’m tired of typing in the same constitutional arguments on gun control every time there is a shooting anywhere in America.

Tired of citing the same statistics of declining gun crime in America—except in cities controlled by Democrats for decades, with the nation’s strictest gun laws—to liberal people who think the Constitution is an outdated document.

Be careful what you wish for.

I am done discussing this topic. It is like shouting into the wind. No minds will be changed.

If and when you manage to get together the votes to retake the Congress and the Presidency to affect radical change, and to propose and pass and sign and ratify a constitutional amendment abrogating the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, we will reengage.

Because then there will be a genuine shooting revolution.

See you on the barricades…

Don Kaag
February 21, 2018
Private Facebook post (used with permission).

[Kaag is a former Marine. I’m glad he is on my side.

My fear is that unless we keep talking and keep taking new shooters to the range and converting minds we will lose anyway. Our enemies will always play to their strengths and our weaknesses. They will do their best to never get in a shooting war. They know this is our point of greatest strength. Their greatest strength is the mainstream media.

We have other strengths we must enable and utilize. SCOTUS is not yet our friend but with one or two more Trump appointed justices it will be. The Federal district and appeals courts have long been unfriendly as well but this changing with hundreds of new appointment made and to be made during the next few years. In another three to seven years the courts have a good chance of swinging the direction of the tide. This will require we vote, encourage others to vote, and to persuade our Senators to approve the justices which adhere to the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution.

Sometime after we win the battle for the courts is when I expect we could, literally, be “on the barricades”. This will be when the political left enables us to use our greatest strength.

The political left has totally lost their cool in regards to the current political setting. You can see Trump Derangement Syndrome nearly everywhere. The gun issue had people rushing the stage chanting “Burn her!” to Dana Loesch when she engaged in a discussion about the Florida school shooting on CNN. Loesch didn’t do the shooting. She didn’t encourage the shooter to murder 17 people. She didn’t give the shooter the guns or ammo. She didn’t even know of the murdering scumbag loser until she heard it on the news. What do you think the mobs will do when told the Second Amendment doesn’t stop at the school property line? Or that able bodied people on welfare for years must finally get a job or go hungry? Or that in addition to paying for their own food they must pay for their own health care? Or that most of the government grant money is going away and those people are going to have get private grants or get a real job?

One of the strongest political currencies of the political left is street violence. Violence is part of their nature. When they are losing with little hope of recovery they will use it and they will not hold back.

The barricades will have to be strong, the ammunition plentiful, and the aim true. I expect the mobs will be epic.—Joe]

35 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Don Kaag

  1. “One of the strongest political currencies of the political left is street violence.”

    Historically this has been successful in many cases. Examples include: The storming of the Bastille, the Russian Revolution with the subsequent Bolshevik Revolution, and the violent clashes between the SA and the Red Front in Weimar Germany.

    I don’t have any good answers, if I did, I’d run for president. I do see history repeating itself and I fear for my country and the world. One thing I think we should do is put aside our petty differences and form a united front to challenge the liberal fascists (See Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism”) at every turn.

    Yes there are differences from the past, for one if it comes to a shooting fight, the armed citizenry will extract a deadly toll on those well meaning oppressors. However, we will pay a dear cost as well, and even if we win, the form of governance that survives will be different than the one we have come to love.

  2. Which is why I’m so damn glad we have people like Dana Loesch, Colion Noir, and Erin Palette. The more we prove that gun rights aren’t just a white issue, or male issue, but a -personal liberty- issue, the better our chances are of driving wedges into the leftist identity politics coalition, and splitting off chunks of their supporters.

    Kinda hard to believe ‘they care about you’ when they won’t let you defend yourself, after all 🙂

  3. For decades one has heard “from my cold, dead hands” and recognized it as bluster; serious bluster, but bluster nonetheless, because no one ever believed the division could be so great, so large a segment of the population so irrational, that it would ever come to that point.

    Well, it’s here, and unless something catastrophic or majestic happens, destined to get worse.

    I don’t know where the tthreshold is, but I suspect Joe is right: a judicial – and, potentially, a legislative – transition to incorporate and enforce reality would do it. The great concern is the depth and breadth of the result; once begun, there will be no reason to not continue to completion. In fact, the case can be made that anything but continuing to completion would be a grevious error.

    No one, on either side, will enjoy it.

  4. I’m fascinated by your characterization of liberals as inherently violent. In the link you point to you say:

    “The Animal Liberation Front, and Earth Liberation Front are two of the top domestic terrorist organizations in the U.S. and are, obviously, liberal. Add in the Weather Underground, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Symbionese Liberation Army, and lots of other leftist terrorists going back to at least the 1960s and you realize that while they don’t have a monopoly on illegal violence they dominate to such an extent they might as well have a monopoly.

    Why are liberals so violent?”

    You pick the most extreme far left commie anarchist examples you could find and then generalize that liberals are violent? In the statistical distribution, you’ve picked some examples that are several standard deviations off the norm and decided to redefine that as the norm. That’s not a rational idea. Sorta like liberals pointing to the KKK and Stormfront and calling them the conservative norm. Why are you doing that?

    • Because even the KKK and Stormfront haven’t carried out organized, brutal violence on the level of ELF, ALF, Ruckus, EF!, WU, SLA, etc.

      This is the same argument of “why don’t you talk about Christian terrorists rather than Muslim terrorists!?!” Because they are orders of magnitude different.

      • You’re not answering the central question: why are you picking statistical anomalies and generalizing them to the norm? The ELF, ALF, etc. are a tiny fraction of the “left.” Calling them the norm is absurd.

        • Because they aren’t statistical anomalies. The long tail are not anomalies that are to be discarded — they are an instructive and inevitable product of the curve.
          There is no significant difference between the philosophy of these groups and the rest of the left. There is no large gap between them and the rest of the left — there is a smooth spectrum that they simply happen to lie on the end of.
          An anomaly is something that is out of place. There is nothing out of place about these groups, and they are instructive as to the nature of the continuum on which they lie.

      • Good to know that you know me well enough to know “my type” (you’re not even close) and that you know “the truth.” Makes civil discussion super productive.

    • I didn’t include the KKK because there were three different phases to their organization with differing politics during the 100+ years they have been active. This makes them difficult to categorize. But, if you want, I’ll include the 1940’s to the 1960’s era which is probably the most well known.

      This group was exclusively Democrats and included well known political figures as Senator (and KKK Exalted Cyclops) Robert Byrd.

      If you want to assign the KKK a left/right designation you have to either say the Democrat party of the greater part of the 20th century was right wing or you have to say the KKK was part of the political left. It’s easier to just avoid giving them a left/right designation because it’s not easy to pigeon hole them.

      The same sort of dilemma exists with Stormfront. This is not surprising because Stormfront grew out of the KKK. To the extent they align themselves with Nazis (National Socialist Party) they connect with socialism and, hence, the political left. To the extent they align themselves with “Christian values” (in their own perverted way) and a strong moral code (however misguided/evil) they align themselves in some sense with conservatives.

      So, I’m left with slim picking for violent conservatives and Libertarians. One could make the case that Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts qualified. And then there are some abortion clinic bombers and assassins. But are there any named terrorist groups?

      Perhaps I’m overlooking some. Give me some more suggestions and we can discuss…

      • So the KKK and Stormfront are “leftist” groups? If I could put in emojis here I’d put in the one showing my head exploding.

        But let’s get back to the original question: Why take extremist groups and re-define them as the norm? And to Phelps’ point about anomalies, I stand corrected, they’re not anomalies, they’re extremes.

        I’m stuck on the “violence is part of their nature comment.” I’ll totally buy that the far left is violent (as is the far right). But they’re several standard deviations from the norm. The vast majority of “liberals” have children and mortgages and holiday plans and are about as likely to throw molotov cocktails as they are to spontaneously transform into butterflies. (The same is true, IMO, of mainstream conservatives.)

        Using extreme examples to tar your political opponents is common, but not “reasonable.” Saying all liberals are extreme like the ALF is a statistically untrue statement, just as the liberal use of people like the KKK and Stormfront to tar all conservatives as racist anti-semites is untrue as well.

          • Well, I’m not a “liberal,” so we can start there. Wrt describing the KKK and Stormfront as “leftist,” you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who describes themselves as “liberal” claiming any common cause with those groups. Liberalism by definition is inclusive of racial and ethnic minorities, which the KKK and Stormfront are not.

          • Is this one of those things where even though you vote like a liberals, and argue like a liberal, and think like a liberal, you actually identify as conservative?

            Are you a transconservative?

          • “the political left is far more violent than the political right.” Well, that’s a different argument than your original statement, which was that liberals are by nature violent. Your new statement might be true in the sense of historical acts of violence.

            Wrt Phelps’ comment about Transconservative, no, this is not that.

          • True. I did sort of shift the goal posts on that. Sorry.

            I’m very busy at work right now. I’ll get the original point late tonight.

        • I didn’t say they were leftist. I said they weren’t easily categorized as left or right so I excluded them from consideration.

          If you have one or more groups that can be identified as violent conservatives then lets talk about them.

          My inclusion of the leftist groups which are one or more standard deviations away from the norm is to make the violence component more obvious. If there does not exist a violent component in similar frequency in the conservative population then one has to conclude that either the mean (average) violence component of conservatives is less and/or the standard deviation is smaller.

          And, furthermore, we can look at the political party representation in prisons. Not all people in prisons are because of violent tendencies so it is far from perfect but it can be an indicator. Those in prison who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political party identifications combined by a factor of about 2:1.

          Hence, all quantifiable indicators I have are that in the U.S. the political left is far more violent than the political right. I could be wrong. Do you have some quantifiable data that contradicts this hypothesis?

          And if you want to look at the political left internationally you don’t have look much beyond the genocides of the USSR, China, and Cambodia to get a body count big enough to weigh the scales decisively in their “favor”.

          • Joe,
            I try not to use the term “liberal” when labeling anything to do with Democrats/socialists/communists/leftists/Progressives. It is a name that the left hijacked long ago, specifically to cause confusion in their opponents. By using another group’s identification, they still hide under the mantle of that group’s associated attributes.

            That is one of the Lefts’s attributes, to play games with language. Words and labels are not fixed in definition, but are deliberately changed to gain some sort of advantage for the current situation. The manner in which they have re-labeled the NAZI’s as “right-wing”, fascist, etc, is instructive. They started that campaign after we entered WW2, and really ramped up their efforts following the publicity of finding the death camps. They didn’t want to be associated with such public failures, and so had to re-label them in some manner.

            A common trait of those leftists who are personally anti-gun is statements such as: “I could never own a gun, I would shoot someone”. They are referring to their drive to settle arguments over parking spaces and other daily minor conflicts. When they spout off about “streets running with blood”, they are talking about themselves and their lack of self-control. Not all of them think like this, but a significant percentage does. One of the inherent problems with this sort of thinking on their part is that they think everyone else thinks the same way. The fact that the streets aren’t ankle deep already is puzzling to them.

          • “Democrats/socialists/communists/leftists/Progressives”

            I’m curious: Do you think all those words are synonymous?

          • Huh.

            “That is one of the Lefts’s attributes, to play games with language. Words and labels are not fixed in definition, but are deliberately changed to gain some sort of advantage for the current situation.”

            It would appear you are the pot calling the kettle black, then.

          • On other words, the left keeps adopting new names as it ruins the reputation of old ones, and that makes us the assholes.

            Keep trying, transconservative.

          • Democrats/socialists/communists/leftists/Progressives

            In English, those words don’t mean the same thing. They’re not even denoting similar *categories* of things (e.g. economic systems vs. political parties). You can’t complain about people misusing words if you’re not willing to hold yourself to the same standard. Well, you can, but then you’re just an asshole.

            Wrt your “transconservative” name-calling, if you’re gonna troll you’re gonna have to troll a lot harder than that. Maybe go practice on Facebook for a while first?

          • I can complain about whatever Joe lets me. And, like I said, telling you the truth makes me an asshole. It really doesn’t take your type long.

  5. Pingback: Elaboration on the inherent violent nature of the modern liberal | The View From North Central Idaho

    • 1. At the time “Republicans” were actually the liberal party and “Democrats” were conservative. They’ve changed over time. Just as Democrats now are changing again to be a more conservative/pro-control party vs. Democrats of the 50s who were actually pro union. Things change.

      2. No, I’m not the UFO guy, but hey, it’s the Internet, let’s pretend: I’ll pretend I’m the UFO guy, and you can pretend you’re an adult.

          • But..but..but…this is the Internet! Isn’t it required that all comment sections devolve to pissing matches?

            Yes, yes, see, it’s right there, on page 3623, section 352, part G, paragraph 523! Right next to Godwin’s law! “All Internet discussions that don’t result in one party being compared to the Nazis and/or Hitler are required to at a minimum establish both parties as being inferior to the other in some offensive and derogatory way. Failure to adhere to this rule will result in immediate reduction of connection bandwidth to 1200 baud.”

            Gotta follow the rules, man. Gotta follow the rules.

          • This is a local jurisdiction of the Internet. Joe’s rule may be somewhat different than the Internet in general. Joe’s rules may also be arbitrary, apply to only those in particular favor or disfavor, valid only during certain phases of the moon, and dependent upon the number of various transitions of caesium-133 atoms since I last woke up. Appeals for mercy are generously accepted and rulings will be given after the execution and cremation of the person who appealed.

Comments are closed.