Quote of the day—Defens

The real result if I-1639 passes:
Tim wants to by Bob’s used 10-22.
Bob is the local sheriff’s deputy

Rifle – $200
Unconstitutional taxes and fees – ignored
State background check – ignored, since Tim and Bob have known each other for 20 years. (Remember when you could buy a gun from a dealer without all the paperwork if “known to dealer?”)
Tim becomes a law-breaker
Tim doesn’t fvckin’; care – nor does Bob, since his boss told him not to bother enforcing this POS law.
Since Tim ignored this stupid law, he wonders about other stupid firearms laws
Tim heads out to his shop and builds a suppressor
Bob stops by for a visit
Tim and Bob step out side the shop and pop off a few rounds into the shooting stump.
“Cool silencer!” says Bob.. “Have a nice day!”
“Stay safe, my friend!” says Tim
Liberal assholes in Seattle think they’ve made a major dent in crime.

October 22, 2018
Comment to Vote No on #I1639
[I mostly agree with this. But it’s a little more complicated than that.

Most of the progressive assholes in Seattle don’t know or care about making “a major dent in crime”. We know this because it turns out that in 2017 Washington had one murder attributed to the use of a rifle, the type of weapon targeted by this law This fact is from the 2017 FBI Uniform Crime Report. If they were concerned about “crime” the would know this can’t possibly make a measurable change. It would appear their primary and desired accomplishment is to “poke a stick in the eyes” of people they don’t like. Probably secondary is that they will now be able to more easily control these “deplorables”. As Ayn Rand pointed out decades ago:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them.  One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

I believe this is about achieving control over people they find deplorable.—Joe]

7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Defens

  1. I have no doubt that you’re right about the control freaks who are constantly proposing these laws. They would have to be willfully ignorant to KNOW that they do precisely nothing to actually control crime. They are, as you say, poking a stick in the eye of what they perceive as their cultural enemies.

    I suspect the majority of those who would vote for this abomination just don’t grok how misguided it is, or the huge impacts that it will have on gun owners. They think they are just regulating an object – what could be simpler? And, like most voters, they won’t bother to try to understand either – “Make it harder for bad people to get guns? Really regulate the [presumed] guns that only bad people would want to own? Great idea! Check that box….”

    Okay – play that game. You ignore my rights. I’ll ignore your silly-assed law. Fair enough?

  2. And further –
    Maybe it’s time to repeal state preemption on firearms laws. That law was passed with the intent to make the laws uniform across the state, so that someone passing through Seattlestan from Chehalis wouldn’t inadvertently get into trouble.

    Well, it’s obvious that Seattle now has the political clout to dictate to the rest of the state on their progressive firearms agenda – so the protections of preemption are disappearing. So, let’s pass a new law – new restrictive gun laws, whether at the state or lower tier, ONLY APPLY TO BLUE CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS. Ban assault rifles? Ban ammunition? Tax magazine capacity? Have at it – but the laws only apply to the core of Seattle, Bellevue, Medina, etc. Want to restrict protected rights – do it to yourselves only and leave the rest of us out of your utopia.

    • It’d be more honest just to have a state-level secession.

      US Constitution, Article 4, section 3: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

      I propose a state-level secession to eject part of Washington State out of the state. What that part wants to call itself, I don’t care. I think they’re rather embarrassed to live in a state named after that old slave-owner white male, George Washington.

  3. “This is what needs to happen if there is not to be a civil war.

    I’m getting the impression that this ship has already sailed and we’re now in countdown mode, for a variety of reasons in a variety of locales.

    I agree with Defens (above) that there’s widespread ignorance about the real effect(s) of 1639, and the judicial spin-offs it will spawn, and his secondary comment about “you ignore my rights and I’ll ignore your law,” while not necessarily unreasonable, portends a Stalinist-era period of selective enforcement that does not bode well for an organized society which is based on trust.

    The bottom line is that, while many, if not most, will face no consequences under 1639, those consequences will hover above society like the Sword of Damocles, since they can be enforced at any time against anyone. The LE agency in Town A, as directed by its Chief, chooses to not enforce 1639’s provisons, but adjacent Town B does. Prosecutors, always looking to improve their conviction record, are infamous for habitually adding “christmas tree” charges whenever possible to gain leverage over plea bargains and court proceedings. It’s unrealistic to believe that “crimes” which attract law enforcement attention, from simple traffic offenses to serious felonies, will not have any and all possible charges added, including firearms charges routinely disregarded by individual agencies and officers.

    How can Joe trust his long-time neighbor Fred when Joe knows that should Fred become upset over some real or imagined affront he can call upon the Wrath of the State to land upon Joe. There’s often enough occasional conflict between spouses to accomplish the same thing.

    Once a sufficiently large segment of the population becomes convinced that becoming a State Wrath victim is unavoidable and only a matter of time there are only two choices: leave or fight back.

    While the first option will be popular, few will be able to leave without suffering varying degrees of economic hardship, leaving serious conflict as the only remaining choice. When an easily-applied minimum charge by State Wrath Agents becomes sufficient to destroy lives the options rapidly approach zero; faced with 1-3 years’ incarceration, guaranteeing the loss of job, home, family, financial assets and respect, what’s another 10-20 years? You’ve already lost with the “minor” charges, might as well make it count. As one of John Ross’ fictional characters said in Unintended Consequences, “after the first one, the rest are free.”

    It will certainly take a while, probably years, and various court actions and proceedings may delay the reckoning, but once a substantial portion of society gets severely “othered” the path becomes set.

    • Very astute comments – and very much a rational extension of my thought process. I like the Unintended Consequences quote, too – one of my favorites.

Comments are closed.