24 thoughts on “Bart Hubbuch wants you hanged

  1. Do I even bother with the obvious rejoinder about myself being hung? Nah, too easy. Maybe Bart is just a Troll.

  2. Pingback: Bart Hubbuch wants you hanged | Freedom Is Just Another Word…

  3. This is the kind of “conversation” they want. It is also the sort of “reasonable” restrictions they want on ownership of firearms. After all it’s common sense to kill all of those that disagree with self defense and defense from a tyrannical gov’t. Wasn’t that what the reasonable governments of Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, oh, and Hitler do before turning their attention to the useful idiots that were all on board the “gun control” agenda?

    So sad they don’t teach history in schools any longer.

  4. Bart Hubbich is a pussy. He will not be hanging anyone. Instead, he will send police or military (who he also despises) to do it.

  5. Joe, who would do the prosecuting under something like that? US District Attorneys? Who would be the law enforcement arm? FBI? US Marshalls? I would love to see trials like this, but I don’t know how one would get the ball rolling…..

    • I think it would have to be a US District Attorney and the FBI. The US Marshals Service, for the most part, are part of the Federal Court system.

      I think it will be quite a while before we can hope to see such action. It would still have to be on Federal charges but frequently the culture of the Feds in one state is much different than the culture in another state. So, it’s conceivable that it could happen.

      The way I see it the great divide in our country will have to get so deep that one part of the country will have to start putting out warrants for people like this. For example, it would seem that a warrant issued by a prosecutor in Idaho would be valid and, from a legal standpoint, honored by law enforcement in California. The Idaho district court, in the 9th Circuit, could put a California judge, also 9th Circuit, on trial. If convicted it would still go to appeal in California and then on to the Supreme court. But, imagine if the district court also put out arrest warrants for every rights infringing judge all the way to the top at the same time. It would be hard to serve on the bench while in jail awaiting trial and/or having to recluse themselves for a conflict of interest.

      It would make for some very interesting entertaining times.

  6. Jew…

    Homosexual…

    Immigrant…

    Muslim…

    Native American…

    Person of color…

    Fill in the blank with your own favorite outgroup to join the fun!

    • Christian, father, husband, businessman…
      Of any race, he’s the worst of the worst in the mind of the authoritarian. He’s The Great Enemy of all things good and holy to the new, bold and glorious, coercive state.

    • So you deny people like Bart are rabid animals?

      So you me a docile, tolerant progressive/liberal/Marxist/Antifa.

      • I’m saying that if you’re going to point a finger at the left for their violent outbursts, you have to point the same finger at the right when they do the same. That’s called logical consistency.

        • Yeah, Americans papers should have been as hard on the american government as they were on the nazis. (Both sides are equal!)

          • No. Enforcing logical consistency (aka not allowing a double-standard) does not imply anything about the objects of the argument, only that the *logical method* used is applied equally.

        • The same logical consistency that will hopefully be applied to Hillary Rodham Clinton WRT violation of USC Title 18, handling of classified documemts?

    • Nugent was making an analogy after being asked why so many people love communism. You don’t ask why coyotes kill your chickens, you just shoot them. I think he made that pretty clear, though he is often overly provocative in his speech. Clearly he’s not out murdering every Democrat he can find. His point is that we must stop the criminal element that has infested and metastasized throughout our body politic, and save the questions and psychological analysis for later (I say that the psychoanalyses can be presented at their sentencing hearings; the only appropriate place for it).

      In any case;
      Your argument of “logical consistency” echoes the oft-repeated “It takes two to make a fight”, a statement implying equal culpability among aggressor and defender. Utterly devoid of principles, it looks at violence as being equally evil whether employed by a criminal attacker or a defender. In that logic a policemen who arrests a murderer has by so doing become a kidnapper, with the courts, prosecutor, jurors and jailers, and all who support them, conspiring.

      To say, then, that both sides have suggested violence, as though they share equally in culpability, is, in and of itself, saying nothing.

      To suggest that the deadly enemies of liberty, having the blood of hundreds of millions on the hands of their beloved confederates, deserve equal status with the lovers and would-be defenders of liberty is to support the enemies– It raises up the status of the enemy and lowers the status of the defender of liberty.

      I have said, “(So-and-so) should be arrested, tried, convicted and hanged”. That’s calling for legal process to address a crime which has the death penalty written in as one of its consequences. That’s 18 USC 242. Does that make me a dirty rotten, criminal bastard, on the same level as those who commit said crime shorty after swearing an Oath to the constitution? Hardly.

      It is said, The only thing needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Those who espouse the, “It takes two to make a fight” assertion, are proposing doing nothing, for the implication is that as soon as you act against evil you are in the fight and therefore just as guilty as the worst.

      You could argue the Christian principle, “…resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” But there you must be very well versed in scripture because for the moment I haven’t found an absolute proscription against self defense in all situations. It’s a very different sort of argument, and few so-called Christians are equipped for it.

      This is the sort of thing that causes me to warn everyone to be sure we keep the principles foremost on our minds when discussing these things.

      Without them there’s no guidepost. No right to defend against wrong. There are only warring factions playing a deadly game of King of The Hill, each tyrant being supplanted by another.

      • >>Clearly he’s not out murdering every Democrat he can find.

        And Bart Hubbuch isn’t out hanging people. I don’t have the full story, but it sounds to me like his tweet is just as glib as Nugent’s. If so, both utterances should be treated with the same level of attention (or ignored…as one should generally do with Twitter).

        >>Your argument of “logical consistency” echoes the oft-repeated “It takes two to make a fight”

        No. And even if you are hearing echoes, I didn’t say that. Argue with me, please, not straw men.

        >>Those who espouse the, “It takes two to make a fight” assertion, are proposing doing nothing

        Again, that was not my assertion.

        Strange that a demand for logical consistency would be so controversial.

  7. Just post Bart’s address and a map of where he lives. Let’s see what he has to say.

  8. Anyone who refuses to accept the reality that the Second American Civil War is well under way isn’t paying attention. I suggest they visit Daniel Greenfield aka
    the Sultan Knish and read his take on the matter.

  9. Please, try to hang me, Ms. Hubbuch. I look forward to killing you in self-defense.

    Unlike George Zimmerman, I won’t focus on lawyering up. I’ll be bragging about killing you on national TV.

  10. Pingback: SayUncle » Why are anti-gun activists so violent?

Comments are closed.