Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

Over the weekend Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety was quick to push its gun control agenda, and the Alliance for Gun Responsibility was asking for donations to ‘take a stand…against the gun lobby.’ When was the last time either of these groups demanded swift justice and certainty of punishment for the actual perpetrators?

Time after time, with endless fund raising appeals and inflammatory rhetoric, we’ve seen these anti-rights lobbying groups immediately try to shift blame to the NRA, or the Second Amendment, or the firearms industry, or some mythical loophole in the law. But they never seem to point their fingers at the culprit, and we think it’s time for the American public to ask why?

By diverting public attention away from killers and toward law-abiding citizens who had nothing to do with the crime these lobbying groups have created a very strong impression that they’re not really interested in punishing criminals, but only in penalizing honest firearms owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

Time and again we’ve heard these groups demand a national dialogue on guns. But how do you have a rational discussion with people or groups that repeatedly demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between the bad guys and the good guys?

They are so preoccupied with demonizing gun owners and eroding the Second Amendment that they have either lost sight of the goal of taking dangerous or deranged criminals off the street, or that was never their intention in the first place. If all they can do is blame innocent citizens while diverting attention from murderous monsters, then it is time to ask these people just whose side they are on.

Alan Gottlieb
May 21, 2018
HOW COME THEY NEVER BLAME THE MURDERER, CCRKBA WONDERS
[It would seem the last question proposed was rhetorical.

We have known, as does Gottlieb, for a long time they are on the side of criminals. They are natural allies in the destruction of our way of life.—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb

  1. “….penalizing honest firearms owners for crimes they didn’t commit.”

    Ah, but we did commit a crime. Wrongthink. The most heinous crime of all these days. We dared to hold an independent political ideology and dared to refuse to bow to He Who Must Not Be Questioned – the Great God of Victimhood.

    Its the same mentality that leads to Gulags eventually.

    I know that this story will not immediately seem connected, but I believe it is:

    http://delarroz.com/2018/05/29/wiscon-full-crazy/

    Someone in a writing panel discussion of writing villains in fiction dared to suggest that there are few acceptable “villains” and that those still acceptable are just cardboard. Dared to propose that in writing fiction, that even these villains have to be fleshed out people to be interesting.

    This heinous opinion was so bad that the convention immediately banned the person from the convention and offered support to those so traumatized by hearing it.

    That’s the mentality arrayed against us.

    • Yep. It’s the same mentality that has a king of old (pick just about any one of them) condemning someone to die for failing to bow properly, etc. It’s also the same mentality that led to the deaths of huge numbers of Protestants during the Dark Ages (a process which never stopped, by the way).

      It’s “blasphemy” or “heresy” against the authority of the state.

      Truth does not matter. The authority matters, and must be protected by all means necessary.

      Man’s authority is a false authority. As such it requires all people involved to play-act, pretending that the authority is real, and palpable. Failure to become an actor in the play is a major threat, because the authority is a pathological lie and people can often wake up to such a lie.

      One person, like the child who declared, “The king is naked!” can blow the whole ruse apart in an instant. Such a person MUST be treated with absolute contempt, venom and violence, if for no other reason than to make an example for everyone else, terrorising them, lest anyone dare question the lie.

      It’s all part of the play. Reality then, is the enemy, truth a poison, and the problem gets worse as time goes on, se every lie requires ten more lies to cover it up. Thus comes the bizzare irrationality (which we foolishly call “stupidity”) of the Powers That Be, such as we’ve seen in places like the Soviet Union and, well, anywhere assumed authority becomes more important than truth. Even here in the U.S. Even, quite likely, in small ways or even not-so-small ways, in your own household or workplace.

      It’s all explained and resolved in the Ten Commandments, if you think about it, but who gives a crap about THAT anymore?

  2. Leftist, in general, are allies of the criminal class. See the Gulag books.

  3. “We have known, as does Gottlieb, for a long time they are on the side of criminals”

    When you say “on their side” what do you mean? That anti-gun people explicitly believe criminality doesn’t exist as a concept? Or that they think criminals are actually good people? Or…what, exactly?

    So many of these discussions are predicated on the idea that you know what “the other side” believes, vs. what they say and/or do. Modern psychoanalysis tells us that those things (beliefs vs. actions) are often not in sync, and even in conflict with each other in both individuals and communities.

    And maybe it’s just me, but I can’t think of any liberal I’ve ever talked to who even implied they thought criminal behavior was ok, much less *desirable*. They would immediately reject the idea what they were “on the side of criminals”.

      • Well, the first link about the Sullivan act isn’t really relevant. That was a very specific situation of corruption, and I see no link between that (in terms of motivation) and modern liberal attempts at gun control.

        The second link about the gulag is also problematic for the thesis of “liberals are on the side of criminals” as the approach there (stupid though it is) can be explained more easily by incompetence. Just because the judge felt fleeing the situation was a better solution than fighting doesn’t imply the judge favors the criminal. (Back to the old quote about “never attribute to malice that which can be more easily explained by incompetence or ignorance.”)

        The third link about the bulletproof glass in the liquor store does not include a rationale that implies the council member proposed it because she’s “on the side of the criminals.” And it appears that the real issue isn’t about liquor stores, but about stores posing as restaurants so they can sell liquor and get around normal liquor licensing requirements. http://6abc.com/business/philadelphia-city-council-passes-stop-and-go-bill/2734741/

        Your final link, where you say “Those who would ban guns are seeking to disempower good people” is an assertion that you don’t back up. And it doesn’t really follow what most anti-gun people say. They don’t *desire* to disempower “good” people and empower criminals. To repeat: that’s not what they *want*. What they want is a reduction to violent crime, and they’re not smart enough to understand that banning guns won’t accomplish that. Those are different things, and just because they want to ban guns doesn’t mean they want to support criminals.

        Again, you can’t attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by stupidity.That’s important because it changes the tenor of the conversation rather significantly if you claim anti-gun folks are *consciously* supporting criminal behavior. It allows you to then label them as criminals themselves, and if you gain power to then strip them of rights they would otherwise have. At some point they just become animals, and you can do what you want. (I’ve seen many responses to your posts posit exactly that…that the enemies of “freedom” as expressed here are basically animals that need to be put down.)

        This is all quite nicely illustrated on Hulu’s show “The Handmaid’s Tale”. Great demonstration of how otherwise good people turn into monsters.

        • “Liberals”* (the term as used in the e current vernacular) favor crime. It’s inherent. Some of them are fully aware of that, while most of them have no idea what’s going on. Again and again, fleshing out the distinction between the perpetrators and the duped is properly reserved for the sentencing hearing, after they’ve all been defeated and put on trial.

          *There are two kinds of “liberation” or “liberty”. One is the “liberal”, or free, use of the coercive power of government. That’s the left, who most often call themselves “liberal”. The other, and proper, “liberty” comes from the recognition of the God-given rights and responsibilities of the individual which requires the strict limitation of government, and ideally the total elimination of coercion at all levels.

          The fact, in and of itself, that “Liberals” virtually always favor wholesale coercion, forced intervention and confiscation, makes them criminals, individual beliefs and individual, personal motivations notwithstanding. One can be fooled, scared or forced into becoming an accessory to crime, sure, while having no real criminal intentions. Again, that is properly addressed at the sentencing hearings. All this apples to both Democratic Party and Republican Party “liberals” too, lest anyone attempt to remain confused,

        • I had hoped to make a blog post last night explaining this, or failing that, do it this morning. It’s not happening today and probably not for several days.

          Until then, I just want to point out that in the case of the Sullivan Act, if it really was “very specific situation of corruption” rather than general pattern then when the “corruption” was cleaned up the law should have been repealed. It was not. That law exists today and various forms of it exist in many legal jurisdictions. Either the “corruption” still exists in New York and it has spread to other locals, the more recent lawmakers are so stupid they don’t know what the creators of the Sullivan Act knew, or recent lawmakers intentionally made laws they knew would benefit criminals.

          • I don’t agree that the corruption has been cleaned up. NY has been, like Chicago, corrupt for decades if not centuries. But that’s beside the point.

            The assertion I’m arguing with is this notion that liberals *want* to support criminals, that they *desire* criminal behavior be if not legal at least ignored.

            The fact that they pass crappy gun control legislation speaks to their ignorance or corruption (the Sullivan example being the latter), not their intent. I’m willing to bet good money we could go survey 100 liberals and 100 out of 100 would not support any assertion that they desire to support criminals or their behavior.

          • The only thing you can measure is the results of actions, not the intent, if any, underlying those actions.
            In the case under discussion, we have at least a century worth of history involving victim disarmament laws whose outcome is quite consistently the enabling of criminals at the expense of the victims. If this happened once or twice, it could be explained as misguided action prompted by ignorance. That would certainly be plausible if the offending laws had been repealed. But in fact it keeps happening over and over. As the old rule goes, never attribute to malice what can plausibly be explained by ignorance — but ignorance is no longer a plausible explanation when the same wrongheaded action is repeated over and over.
            Similarly, the only correct way to analyze laws is by their consequences, not by the claimed or imagined intent of their proponents. So a law that disarms good people does “…[seek] to disempower good people…”; protestations to the contrary by its proponents do not change that reality.

          • >>The only thing you can measure is the results of actions, not the intent, if any, underlying those actions

            That’s not true at all. The entire advertising industry is based on the study of intent and desire so that actions can be first understood then changed. If you don’t know someone’s intent, it’s because you haven’t asked the right question.

            >>but ignorance is no longer a plausible explanation when the same wrongheaded action is repeated over and over.

            You’re assuming your premise by stating the action is “wrongheaded.” The same could be applied to trickle-down economics: it’s been tried over and over again, and is being tried again now, yet the trickle has yet to get all the way “down.” Are the trickle-down economists malicious? Or just incompetent?

            >>Similarly, the only correct way to analyze laws is by their consequences, not by the claimed or imagined intent of their proponents.

            The proponents of “originalist” constitutional interpretation would beg to differ…and they’re typically on the pro-gun side. Scalia himself was totally in this camp: https://content.law.virginia.edu/news/2010_spr/scalia.htm

Comments are closed.