Quote of the day—Sackeshi

I am a 2A repeal-ist total gun confiscationist, gun prohibitionist.

My end goal would be all of the fire arm factories taken down, the guns melted down, the second amendment overturned, life sentence for just having a gun, and total disarming of everyone including the military!

How ever that is clearly not going to happen so I will start with what is reasonable…

Sackeshi
October 24, 2018
Posted in This is what the gun control law should be in the US.
[Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns or that those that don’t openly say it aren’t working toward that goal with their “common sense”/”reasonable” gun control.

I’m in full support of a common sense gun law. We actually already have it but its been corrupted so badly that in many political jurisdictions its completely lost its effectiveness. It’s called “The Second Amendment”.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Sackeshi

  1. I suspect when every intern starts at the Brady Campaign, or Everytown , or Giffords, within the first week the supervisor has a heart-to-heart with them saying to effect: “Yes, we ALL want that here, but we can’t let THEM know that. “

  2. Skimming the first page of the comments over there; no one seems to understand the fact that criminals don’t obey laws. So it’s kind of a retard fest over there. Here’s how it should always go;

    “Outlaw guns!”
    “Then only the outlaws will have guns.”

    “Put tracking chips in guns!”
    “An outlaw can get one of the hundreds of millions of guns that have no chips, or will remove your stupid chips.”

    “Require registration of ALL guns!”
    “Outlaws won’t register their guns.”

    “Shut down the gun factories!”
    “Outlaws can make their own guns, being as they make cocaine and meth, et al.”

    If making something illegal makes to go away, then there’s no murder today because murder is illegal, and no drug problems because problem drugs are illegal. So the problem is already solved. So shut up.

    If you argue and say that the laws against murder and against certain drugs haven’t solved anything, and in the case of drugs have probably made things much worse, then you are forced to admit that banning guns won’t solve anything either, and will probably make things worse.

    The bottom line is that a) there is an inherent right to self defense, and b) creating a monopoly on gun ownership for criminals, by making guns illegal for the law-abiding, is both a bad idea and a specific goal of the authoritarians.

    Thus; a call for banning guns is really a call for chaos and civil war. It’s a “dog whistle” for the Confederacy of the previous civil war. Those who pretend to demand and end to violence (by violating basic rights at the wholesale level) are the primary advocates, promoters and practitioners of violence.

    There can be no compromise whatsoever with such goals, no compromise with the enemies of liberty, without a cost in blood. We’ve already compromised for many generations, meaning we’re guilty too, and have blood on our hands as a result. You know it’s true, and the longer we let this go the more blood will be on our hands.

    It’s probably too late though. We’ve let ourselves become conditioned to having the criminals point at us and accuse us of being the criminals. We’ve been intimidated by it. Like deer in the headlights we’re unable to respond on principle. The best we’ve come up with is to defend ourselves against the charges, thus taking the bait by allowing ourselves to become the issue, shifting attention away from the principles of right and wrong. That is a lose-lose situation and we’ve been in that downward spiral for near 100 years.

  3. If the children take over the classroom, do you blame the children, or is it the fault of the adults who should have known better than to allow such a thing to happen?

    The adult who responds with the ever-so-classic, “But what do you expect ME TO DO?” is the problem in the world.

    Either you saw it coming well in advance, because you understand the “principalities” which are at play in the world, and so you nipped it in the bud and kept the peace, and the classroom thus became a hallowed and fruitful place of learning, or you’re blind, or a coward, or complicit, and thus worthless, and hell will break loose upon you.

    The appeaser, the people-pleaser, he who wants to like and be liked, is the indispensable tool of chaos and destruction. It cannot happen without him.

    So it is that when chaos and violence take over, it will have been our fault.

  4. Well, in the face of such moderate stances, it would be only appropriate to adopt a similar but opposing moderate stance:

    All citizens are required to armed in public in order to provide for the security of the free state, or they must have a license with an appropriate annual fee to fund the public provision of internal security (which may be in the form of subsidized training for the rest of the citizenry) to make up for their deficiency. This license shall only apply during times of civil order, and will not be honored during times of civil unrest or natural disaster.

    Criminal citizens who have proven themselves incapable of bearing arms safely shall be confined until such time as they have proven themselves to a jury of citizens safe to return to the public. They may alternatively relinquish their citizenship.

    Resident non-alien non-citizens may carry if they want to, unless they have been prohibited by reason of criminal conviction. There shall be a legal path for all resident non-citizens to gain (or regain) citizenship, but all paths shall require the applicant to prove that they can personally contribute to the security of the free state by bearing arms, even if the applicant intends to acquire the license to be un-armed.

    Permission for any alien to be resident in the territories of the USA is still controlled by laws passed by the US Congress and faithfully executed by the Executive.

    As this position is so very very excessively moderate, as the counter-proposal is, I suppose I can back something a bit more reasonable…

    • “… license to be un-armed.”
      I’m thinking that this would be a bad idea. It WILL be abused. I would prefer that anyone raised in the US that still would rather not bother with self-defense or the public’s defense be required to renounce any claim to the US and to pick some other nation to reside in.

  5. When that occurs I will become the greatest conquerer if all time, using a board with a nail in it to take over the world.

  6. I too wish for a world where firearms were not an absolute necessity, where people were loving, kind, fair, intelligent, moral, and non-violent.

    Then my pet unicorn nudged me and I awoke and I smelled the fresh coffee as I strapped on my CCW so I could safely traverse the world for another day.

    This utopian moron is welcome to emigrate to Venezuela, China, North Korea, or any other sh!thole country where firearms are prohibited for the citizens to see what it is like in real life.

Comments are closed.