Quote of the day—Linda Allderdice

The best defense against an “abusive government” lies with the rule of law, an independent judiciary and law enforcement, the free press, civil disobedience against injustice, voting by all members of our communities without voter suppression, religious freedom and tolerance, and respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all who make their home in our country.

The myth that a gun guarantees freedom has to be shattered once and for all.

Linda Allderdice
Letter to the editor, Los Angles Times
March 21, 2018
[The irony is almost painful.

The Bill of Rights is part of the highest law of the land and Allderdice, apparently wanting to ban guns protected by the Bill of Rights, claims adhering to the rule of law eliminates the need for gun ownership. So, which is it? Does she want to adhere to the rule of law or does she want to ban guns? Also, apparently Allderdice doesn’t recall that the great genocides of Europe in the last century were perform in full compliance with their laws at the time.

I’m tempted to say she has crap for brains, but I have to weigh that speculation against the very real data that public schools don’t teach just how murderous socialist governments can be.—Joe]

18 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Linda Allderdice

  1. I recently had a conversation with a young electronics tech. Very skilled. Did not know what communism was. How can you know how bad a system is if you don’t even know what it is? Modern American education is great, right?

    • I’m in my early 30s and was never thought about the evils of communism by my parents or in public school. I vaguely recall one lesson where it was presented as the most egalitarian form of economy but that sometimes bad people take it over. Capitalism was always taught as being oppressive.

      My first exposure to a knowledge about communism came by way of reading the book Patriots. In there they execute a person who declared he was a communist party member (who was also a cannibal). Without a background understanding of communism I thought it was ridiculous.

      Then Kim Jong Il died and US forces were on high alert. I did not understand why. That seemed silly.

      Then I saw communist party members popping up on TV during the occupy wall street BS. A lot of them were tranny’s so that seemed a little weird.

      Then finally I watched Lisa Ling’s documentary about an eye doctor going to DPRK. The people lifted off their bandages after an American doctor performed cataracts surgery on them, and each one of them walked over to a picture of Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung to pledge their thanks and allegiance to the people in the pictures, and how they’d use their new eyesight to kill Americans, etc. Finally I also had eyesight enough to clue into what communism was about, and I began researching that economic system more, including how it goes hand in hand with facism, dictatorship, and tyranny.

      Most people in my age group have very little clue about communism, but likely remember some lesson from public school where they learned that capitalism hurts people and that communism probably is a good idea.

      Or the union at whatever pizza store they work at now says communism is good.

  2. I suppose this Linda person has never heard of the “shot fired around the world”. Or thinks that the Revolutionary War was fought with signs and pamphlets. Or ditto WW2. Or considered why MLK was an NRA member.

  3. She is correct. As long as our political leaders scrupulously adhere to the rule of law we don’t need guns. Also, as long as nothing goes wrong on a cruise ship you don’t need lifeboats and life preservers either. The problem in both cases is that crap can happen anytime. Usually due to incompetent and/or greedy people. Cruise ships catch fire. Politicians become tyrants. In both cases you then need the appropriate special purpose live saving devices; guns, lifeboats etc. to save your skin. Since you cannot usually predict in advance when you will need these things you need to have them all the time. And that ignores the fact that no government however constituted has the ability to absolutely guarantee you safety and security from criminals so where the governments ability to protect you from crime leaves off your right and duty to protect yourselves takes up and we need guns for that too.

  4. She is correct in a sense, but incorrect in a significantly more important sense.
    In a place where all humans and animals live in peaceful, lawful coexistence, there is indeed no need for personal self defense. She is correct about that. I, for example, don’t carry a pistol inside my home because the odds of me needing it are hundreds of millions to one any given day.

    But she is incorrect in thinking banning firearms produces peaceful, lawful coexistence. She has inverted cause and effect here. Being able to keep and own firearms is both a guarantee of law and order, and an example of law and order. Oh, well, one can expect nothing more these days.

    • “I, for example, don’t carry a pistol inside my home because the odds of me needing it are hundreds of millions to one any given day.”

      Your threat perception needs a tuneup. (Nothing like answering the front door and discovering someone you thought was still in jail for arranging a murder for hire!) Not having to run to the other side of the house for a gun is a useful thing. You spend perhaps 1/3 of your life at home. Statistics show it is not much safer than being out in public. Might be less safe, considering the increase in home invasions.

      • Maybe your perception of a threat perception needs a tuneup. Or maybe you just need to be less critical about how other people choose to protect themselves.

        Not everyone is the same. Some people don’t have to worry about others arranging murders for hire, live in a good part of town, take other precautions instead of just opening the door every time someone knocks.

        All I’m saying is that maybe Mikee is correct, the odds of needing a gun in his home may indeed be hundreds of millions to one. Why not leave his security to him? Just a thought.

        • I’ve been reading mikee’s comments for some time. I never got the impression that he needed a minder or protector. Who appointed you?

          You sure read a lot into my comment, with the obvious intent to be as disparaging as possible. I generally reserve that sort of focus for the leftest trolls and idiots.

          That murder for hire? Amazing what women will do over custody disputes.

    • Wait; who ever once said that a gun guarantees freedom?

      Answer;
      No one. Ever.

      Does a spear guarantee meat on the table every night?

      A gun guarantees freedom in the same way that a hammer and a chisel guarantee an exquisite sculpture.

      • A gun no more guarantees freedom than the Hammer and the chisel guarantee a sculpture, but in both cases, it’s hard to have one without the other.

  5. When Linda advocates respect for life for all who make their home in our country, is she also advocating respect for the lives of all who currently make their home in their mothers’ uteruses?

    When she calls for religious freedom and tolerance, is she also calling for freedom and tolerance of, say, the beliefs of Christian owned bakeries? Is she advocating for freedom and tolerance for child genital mutilation? How does shari’a law fit into religious freedom and tolerance?

    I’m also extremely curious about this independent police force she wants in our nation. In her perfect world do we have a fourth independent branch or government – the law enforcement branch?

  6. OK, let’s go ahead and Fisk it;
    “…an independent judiciary and law enforcement
    OK, Little Flower; how do you force that to happen? It’ll never happen without force, because people in power always appoint their friends, or whomever offers the best bribes. You walk into the courthouses all across America and throw out the politically-connected judges and clerks, and attorneys and raid the police stations in every town and drag the connected police chiefs out against their will, kicking and screaming. You’d better have an army with you. And you’d better start building prisons to keep then in or they’ll go right back to what they were doing.

    “the free press”
    What’s to stop the IRS from targeting conservative media groups and charities? Who is going to force colleges and universities to allow conservative speakers? Who’s going to force high schools to allow walkouts in support of the constitution, specifically the second amendment? What is to force the government, which works together with industry (Google and Facebook for example) from picking winners and losers in media? Again, you’d better have an army to force government out of the communications business and out of education. They have whole departments for that. So you want to shut down the FCC, the Ad Council, and the Department of Education to name just a few at the federal level charged with influencing hearts and minds toward authoritarianism. Where’s your army to force that to happen? It had better be a big one.

    “civil disobedience against injustice”
    What’s to prevent violent suppression of protesters and dissenters, as happens lots of places? You’ll need an army for any real resistance. Otherwise they just kill you and move on.

    “voting by all members of our communities without voter suppression”
    You mean letting any all foreigners come in and vote to change our society around. No thanks. By the way; what if million of Americans went in and wanted to vote in some other country? You’d scream bloody murder, saying there goes America again, interfering in other people’s business.

    “religious freedom and tolerance”
    You mean for any religion that’s anti-Christian and wants to Fundamentally Transform America. “Tolerance” means specifically, “tolerance for anyone and anything that can relegate the American Founding Principles to the dust bin of history”.

    “respect for life”
    OK here I think you’re simply lying. You don’t really want to ban abortion.

    “liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all who make their home in our country.
    There I would agree with you, but I don’t believe for a second that you mean what you’re saying. You probably don’t understand it. For one thing, my liberty and pursuit of happiness means I have any and all guns I want to purchase or build and can afford myself, it means my total taxation (local, state and federal) would never exceed five percent of income and there would be zero property tax. It means I have lots of places to shoot for fun and practice, where ignorant, hateful bitches with sweet-sounding words and fake smiles, the tools of authoritarians and gangsters alike, aren’t trying to shut me down.

    Here’s what liberty and pursuit of happiness means. It means you fuck off, leave me alone entirely and forever, stay entirely and forever out of all other people’s business as well, and try out the rare and precious endeavor of minding your own business. Once you’ve tried minding your own business, for just a little bit, you’ll find it impossible. Too many other people want to mind it for you, and not in any good ways. Pursuit of happiness indeed.

  7. Ooooo I glossed over that free press thing. Does that include the free press rights of Infowars and Breitbart? What about free press rights of bloggers like Joe Huffman, David Codrea, Oleg Volk, and James Yeager? Would Linda engage in civil disobedience to defend the free press rights of these people and organizations? I must know.

  8. Pingback: Quote of the day—Lyle | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.