Quote of the day—Steve Pomper

What is clear is the danger of groups and people who advocate Trask’s position. Trask clarified WAGR’s goals. “This is the first part of our comprehensive gun violence prevention initiative that’s going to make major changes in Washington State’s law and do some big reforms [emphasis mine].”

Okay, now I’ll agree with Trask. His and WAGR’s positions are quite clear: Infringe on Washingtonians’ gun rights in any way possible until you can find a way to completely usurp American’s gun rights.

Steve Pomper
January 4, 2019
Gun Store Owner ‘Resists’ State’s New Gun Law
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


One thought on “Quote of the day—Steve Pomper

  1. Usurp; to take, or to replace (take the place of), by force or deception.

    Rights cannot be created, modified, destroyed, replaced or removed by Man. They can be either upheld or violated only.

    Thou shalt not steal.

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

    Do any of these things and you’re in violation. This is the foundation of liberty.

    “Anything that is thy neighbor’s” would not be limited to material goods either, but clearly, weapons are material goods and those are clearly on the list (being as the list includes everything that is thy neighbor’s).

    Throw out all the rationalizations for the myriad violations perpetrated by governments and there’s nothing left but liberty verses brute force, and the question of who prefers one over the other, and of who’s going to do what about those on the opposite side.

    Democrats and Republican alike are in favor of violation, and lots of it, and more all the time, always. They only argue (or pretend to argue; take your pick; the result is the same) over the specifics; the degree or the rate of increase in the level of violation, the supposed purposes and rationalizations for the violation, the target groups (who gets robbed, how much, and who gets the booty) and the style of implementation.

    So where does that leave us? I guess we’re fucked.

    I’ve wanted to vote for liberty, but it’s never been on the ballot.

    Nor is that any surprise; if liberty were on the ballot, people might vote for it, and that would starve the Beast to death. How would criminals make a respectable living then?

    If by some trick or miracle liberty wound up on the ballot, and by some further miracle a majority of people voted for it, it would not, could not, be allowed to stand. A state of emergency would exist from that moment onward, until the problem was solved.

    “Now is not the time” it is to be said, “when so many children are dying” (or fill in the blank for any real or imagined disaster).

    Now is never the time for liberty (so long as one criminal needs to be respected and there’s someone willing to respect him).

    If a tree falls in the woods, and there’s no one there to hear it (or if a tree remains standing in town and there’s a crowd present – either way) a politician will use the occasion as justification for robbing someone, exulting himself, and intimidating or bribing or tricking others into agreeing with him (or at least looking the other way because, why make waves?).

    The coercive system will continue until kingdom come. That’s not even at question. What is at issue is how many people will be able to see it for the beast that it is, and of those how many will get out of it, repent, recant, and go the other way.

Comments are closed.