Quote of the day—Rob Shattuck @RobShattuckAL06

I think expanded police forces and police technology, subject to civilian control, will be sufficient to do any necessary killing of citizens who are needed to be killed.

Rob Shattuck @RobShattuckAL06
Candidate for U.S. Congress
Alabama 6th District
Tweeted on August 17, 2018
[The background for this is a gun control thread:

There are many laws banning or restricting items for which there is a market. It is true such laws can have limited or no success (e.g., Prohibition, unlawful drugs, child pornography). I don’t think society is ready to give up trying to impose restrictions. #alpolitics

Rob Shattuck‏ @RobShattuckAL06 Aug 16

And none of those three things are protected by the Constitution. This time you are targeting a specific class of items that is protected by the Constitution. There is a big difference.

It’s the end of the World as we know it…again‏ @AntCar0123 Aug 17

And laws banning those items tend to have a reverse effect as those items become more available. Hell, prohibition helped usher in the age of organized crime.

It’s the end of the World as we know it…again‏ @AntCar0123 Aug 17

I have acknowledged problems and difficulties society has in enacting restrictions and prohibitions. I don’t think those problems should be considered an absolute impediment to restricting guns. #alpolitics

Rob Shattuck‏ @RobShattuckAL06 Aug 17

Have you acknowledged that you’d need many people with guns and the willingness to kill their fellow citizens to properly enforce such a thing? Have you acknowledged that as you push for more restrictions the other side will push against you harder?

It’s the end of the World as we know it…again‏ @AntCar0123 Aug 17

While it is a little unusual for leftists to openly admit it, if you dig deep enough it always boils down to this:


It’s very generous of a candidate for U.S. congress to confess this is what he has in mind for U.S. gun owners. One has to wonder if he is bright enough to realize he probably just got himself put on a few lists of people who do not plan on being on the receiving end of the rifles.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Rob Shattuck @RobShattuckAL06

  1. Thesis verses Antithesis equals Synthesis

    A gratuitous assertion or claim can be as equally gratuitously countered. With no higher authority or principle than the person speaking or asserting at any given moment, we end up with;

    Man’s law verses Man’s law equals War.

    After that war we begin the run-up to the next war.

    So WHAT if a billion people have to die? By what principle should that be an impediment to doing whatever it is that someone assumes “needs” to be done?

    You post the image of the extermination wall as though it were a bad thing. By what standard is it bad? Maybe the communists simply haven’t killed enough people to make Earth a paradise. If someone thinks they have the recipe for paradise, then who are who, and by what authority should you be allowed, to oppose them?

    If you stand in any way whatsoever in opposition to a collectivist paradise, and you’re clearly incapable of seeing the brilliance of it or of ever changing your mind, then why shouldn’t you be eliminated at the earliest opportunity, without pause?

    By what standard or what authority do you oppose these things? Because you said so? Because you have a degree or an IQ of such-and -such? Plenty of other people say otherwise, and they have degrees and IQs too.

    Beyond claims of “Do what I say because I’m smarter than you” or “do as I say or I’ll kill you” neither “side” in this conflict has anything. Thus both “sides” are really one side. They are both empty. The thesis is founded on the same bases as the antithesis, and the synthesis (destruction and death) was predetermined long ago.

    On the other hand we have the Ten Commandments and the long string of prophesies that have been fulfilled and still we argue. The Ten Commandments have been re-written and lied about, those who pretend to uphold them are usually liars, and so unless you dig deep and look past what’s presented to you you’ll find only what I wrote above; unsubstantiated assertion verses unsubstantiated counter assertion equals brute force.

    Why should things ever change? You must have some pre-determined standard before you can answer that question. Did you invent that standard? It is all yours, and if so what’s to stop everyone else from having their own standards? You? Your guns?

    • And the Marxist says, “And of what authority are the ‘Ten Commandments’? Someone, thousands of years ago, claims to have had a god speak to them? How can we believe that? And what is a god? And if the god you claim exists then you should have nothing to fear from the prisons, batons, and bullets of mere men even if you have no guns of your own. Show us the proof of the existence of your so called ‘god’. Compare the writing of a people barely out of the stone age to that of the genius of the well educated Marx and Engels. They carefully detailed the entire basis of their principles in great detail for all to see and study. Ten Commandments versus tens of thousands of words giving people the path to true equality. The choice is easy.”

      Or, you can search for a philosophy and a set of principles that are fundamental and obvious (or nearly so) to all and build upon them. This is as in, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

      The best deep dive which I have found so far into this line of thinking is Objectivism where “the proper moral purpose of one’s life is the pursuit of one’s own happiness (rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism”.

      • As soon as I read ‘tens of thousands of words’, a phrase popped up in my mind. And the source is delicious as well, if you remember it.

        “Keep it simple, stupid.”

        • KISS. I highly recommend it in engineering and in life. But sometimes it’s not easy. Try putting a person on Mars or building the Internet, from human user interface to data centers, using that principle.

          Marx and Engels, on the other hand, didn’t put a person on Mars or build the Internet. They build the foundation for systems which murdered hundreds of millions and created misery on such a grand scale that it may never be equaled. I suppose that can be considered an accomplishment of sorts. But try reading their works and you find it indecipherable (Das Kaptial) or a synopsis of a poorly written alternate history novel (The Communist Manifesto).

          • Did Engels do anything except provide money for that layabout Karl Marx?

          • Yes.

            He co-authored The Communist Manifesto. He added the “Fourth Volume of Capital”. And he contributed many other communist theory things as well.

        • As a researcher, I would suggest instead, keep it as simple as possible for it to still work as intended.

  2. The good news is that this moron isn’t a representative; he got blown out hard in the 2014 primary, and hasn’t tried since then (at least as a Republican).

    • So what is he running for now? His Twitter account seems to say that he’s a candidate now — not years ago.

      • To be honest, I don’t know.

        He made zero impact in the 2014 primary (reference data here: https://ballotpedia.org/Robert_Shattuck ). Gary Palmer ran unopposed in the 2018 primary and will face Danner Kline for the seat in November.

        It looks like he’s grandstanding and trying to make himself look good for #nevertrumper or leftist dollars. I could be wrong though.

Comments are closed.