If a citizen is law-abiding in his home state, he or she is going to be law-abiding in a different state where they might find a firearm they want to buy, but the interstate sales ban prevents that. Citizens can purchase all sorts of other goods across state lines, but why not the one tool that is specifically mentioned and protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment? That simply defies logic and common sense.
November 26, 2018
CCRKBA SEEKS SCOTUS REVIEW OF MANCE INTERSTATE HANDGUN SALES CASE
[While it’s true that many anti-gun people steadfastly oppose logic and common sense (see examples in this post), it is probable that in this case, at some level, there is a logic to this situation. Such a law makes perfect sense and is entirely logical to anyone that who is of the mindset to deny people their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Such people are the enemy of our country and the U.S. Constitution.—Joe]
Restore our rights. I donated.
“That simply defies logic and common sense.”
Yeah; at best there’s a lot of silly coyness in that statement.
If we can’t come out and identify the problem as it is, and call it for what it is, as perpetrated by specific people and organizations, how can we expect to oppose it? One cannot oppose what one cannot see, or cannot name.
So long as we continue to talk like that, our enemies will be laughing up their sleeves, knowing they have us right where they want us.
So which is it; is this the best case scenario of “tactically feigned ignorance”, an Art of War-style ploy, or is it genuine, honest ignorance? Or is it willful blindness, some form of active denial, meaning he’s running from something? If I’m going to continue to pay for it I think I’ll need an answer. Are we putting our hopes into a high school prom queen, for a new dress, or do we have a serious pro liberty movement?
There’s a worst case scenario to that statement, but I haven’t mentioned it. I’ll leave it to you to answer for yourself. First, go read the Jesuit blood oath.
Last time those guys called me I gave them money, but for several years before that I had a running offer, which never went past the individual phone operator I’m sure, that as soon as I saw a successfully prosecuted 241/242 criminal case against an anti 2A perpetrator I’d resume giving them money.
Also, I’m no longer using the term, gun control “advocate”. It’s stupid and wrong. “Advocate”, to “call to [one’s] aid” is a positive term. Those who cherish the perfect law of liberty are advocates. The proper word for someone on the criminal side is “perpetrator”, or “perp” for short. We never say “robbery advocate”, for example. Terms like “instigator”, “ring leader”, “anti-American agitator” and “conspirator”, etc., may be proper depending on circumstances. Referring to someone on the criminal side as a “dupe” or a “mindless dupe” is to defend that person, as it absolves him of criminal intent, or is extenuating, and may be appropriate at times.
There is always criminal intent when politicians are perpetrating restrictions on constitutional rights, or launching attacks on those who exercise those rights, and until we can admit that (for why would we deny it) and say it, we’re basically sitting on our hands as, at best, spectators, watching our downfall.
Again; if we lose the language (and with it, the law), and can no longer say it as it is, for what it is, naming the perpetrators and their malicious intent, naming the crimes committed and seeking prosecution, we’ve already lost everything. We can dump all our wealth at this or that professional organization only to see liberty die bankrupt.
Every single gun control extremist will happily lie to your face and claim anyone already can buy a handgun in another state with “lax” laws.
Pingback: Quote of the day – Alan Gottlieb, via Joe Huffman’s Place at Traction Control