Quote of the day—Bob Menendez

If Brett Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court, the gun industry will have new ammunition in their war to overturn common sense gun safety laws aimed at protecting our children, keeping our streets safe, and stopping deadly firearms from falling into the wrong hands.

Bob Menendez
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
September 3, 2018
Senator Bob Menendez Speaks in Paterson Against Appointment of Supreme Court Nominee Based on ‘Dangerous Views on the Second Amendment’
[All freedoms are “dangerous”. And that is why some of the most important ones are specific enumerated rights.

And you notice, as frequently is the case, this anti-gun person speaks in terms of “the gun industry” being the driving force rather than there being a market for common sense defensive tools. They pretend to believe that only evil capitalists and criminals could possible want or need to own guns. The truth is that only political tyrants and criminals could possibly want or need to restrict gun ownership.

I would like to suggest Senator Menendez and his ilk get on the winning side soon or risk prosecution in the future.—Joe]

10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Bob Menendez

  1. I stop reading/listening when the words “common sense gun safety laws” are invoked.

    Whose definition of “common sense”?

    To be sure it won’t be yours or mine…

    • It’s not hard to figure out.

      People who un-ironically say “common sense gun safety” don’t know anything about guns or people who own guns, don’t know anyone who knows anything about guns, and dismiss anyone that tries to correct them as being shills for the ‘gun lobby’. Ignorance is virtue.

      The common sense they have is the common sense of flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers and the earth-fire-water-air elemental theory. It is the common sense of the intentionally ignorant. It doesn’t actually matter if they have an MD or PhD after their name; they are profoundly ignorant.

      • They also speak as if the “corporations” were great evil spirits that put bad thoughts into our heads about what we only imagine we want, like a quick meal, or effective self-defense, or a way to get around the city on our own, so we can get five errands done in an afternoon rather than be tied to the bus schedule, If I didn’t know better, I would think the corporations were like the eye of Sauron, watching and controlling everything, Or the Tripods in John Christopher’s White Mountains trilogy, but that’s a REALLY obscure reference.

  2. Pingback: Gun Industry Picks SCOTUS Justices? - The Gun Feed

  3. I’ll pay attention to all those sorry MFs when they dismiss their personal, armed security guards(usually paid for with taxpayer money), and open the gates at their guarded condo/apt complexes.

    • I would love to start an initiative ro strip them of their private armies. According to the WA constitution, there is no Contitutional protections to employing armed guards.

      • I like it! It should be broader though – to include those billionaire plutocrats who don’t hold political office, but simply buy the government they want to suit their whims.

    • Perhaps a law making equivalent “the right to keep and bear arms” with “hiring, retaining or associating with individuals who bear arms on that individual’s behalf”.

      Basically, if you’re hiring someone to do an activity, it’s as if you’re doing the activity through them. You’re the will, and they are implementing.

      The practical effect should be that if a person has armed guards, they should have to personally have a CPL (or equivalent) valid in that locale to employ people for that purpose, even if they brought the people with them from out-of-state. Naturally, that’s no big deal in Constitutional Carry states, and a big deal in unfree states.

      It would also be a cause for action against a prohibited person if they associate with non-prohibited people who are ‘guarding’ them.

      As for police protection, that could be acceptable if the police are there because they have actionable intelligence that someone is going to commit as crime against the protected person. But to use police officers as a protective detail generally, absent a specific threat? That would seem to be an Equal Protection violation if the public cannot also hire police officers to be guards. An elected official should have to pay for that protection out of their official pay.

  4. I agree with the logic of your post with the pedantic argument that the question articulated in your 18 USA 241/242 link should be changed from “Why aren’t these people aren’t these people violating the law?” (We know why.) to ” How aren’t these people violating the law.”

Comments are closed.