Quote of the day—Paul Leonardo @RealPleonardo

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE needs access to semi-automatic weapons, with the exception of trained law enforcement. They are weapons of death meant only to kill and maim. They should be banned and outlawed.

Paul Leonardo @RealPleonardo
Tweeted on Tue, Jan 29, 2019
[What is the legal difference between “banned” and “outlawed”? Anything?

I could go on with picking this apart but it doesn’t matter. For a long time I’ve been saying, “Never let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.” That was important for a while. There were anti-freedom people actively trying to sell that story. They claimed they just wanted “reasonable gun safety laws”. Almost no one is telling that lie anymore. In the last few years the progressives have stopped trying to hide their delusions about guns and gun owners. Washington state put oppressive restrictions on all semi-automatic rifles. Other states and politicians are proposing greater restrictions and even bans on semi-autos. We are seeing a widespread mass delusion about guns and gun ownership.

As I have said many times before, quoting Robert Heinlein in a different context, “Delusions are often functional.”

Although I don’t have the data to prove this, nor the time and resources to gather the data, it is my hypothesis that a certain segment of the human population needs to hate other people. Racism, religious persecution, and homophobia and related aversions to sexual preferences are other manifestations of this. The 1960’s were a turning point for racism in this country with bans on interracial marriage disappearing in 1967. The later decades saw the fading of aversions of to people of different sexual preferences and finally the nationwide legalization of same sex marriage in 2015.

It is my further hypothesis that as those other hatreds diminished gun owners become the new target. This is demonstrated by the ramping up of gun restrictions in the 1960s. The democrats could no longer continue the open oppression of blacks with the Jim Crow laws and other open discrimination so they began targeting others such as gun owners and white men. This continued as the hatred of “sexual perverts” diminished (and the corresponding hatred of the fewer and fewer people opposed to gay rights). With the legalization, and general acceptance, of same sex marriage in 2015 the political left needed another target to hate. We now see a frenzy of hate from the political left. It undisguised, beyond reason, and unsupported by any rationalization. You see the face of this in the event at the Lincoln Center regarding the Covington students last week:

“We now know the kids of Covington Catholic were the real victims of the altercation in front of the Lincoln Memorial,” the statement added. “This is bigotry and its own brand of hatred. It is an ongoing display of anti-Trump, anti-life, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bias. These are blatant bullying tactics designed to make conservatives and people of faith think twice before standing up for their beliefs or even having the audacity to wear a ‘MAGA’ hat in public, let alone smile while doing it.”

In order to accumulate power they need a hated enemy. Gun owners fit the bill and are a significant component of their targets of hate. We are doubly hated because gun ownership is a means to resist their exercise of oppressive power.

We are in for a rough ride and it appears our best hope for survival is with the courts giving us enough time to change the culture. But if my hypothesis is correct many people will need a new target of hate. Can we make that the enemies of freedom?—Joe]

26 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Paul Leonardo @RealPleonardo

  1. I just LOVE how in the same breath he says that ‘semi-automatic” weapons are only for killing and maiming, and also that’s why law enforcement needs them.

    Really tells you what his perspective of the relationship of the citizen and the state is. It also means he thinks his ideological compatriots are on top, and he damn well wants to make sure they stay there. This is fundamentally un-American, in every sense.

  2. Joe- I am honored that you chose my tweet to highlight in your blog. Hate is such a strong and ugly word. And used far too often when reasonable people choose to disagree. I hate NO person. What I abhor are guns and the perverse gun culture that grips segments of our population in a cult like fantasy, who state they will die before they allow anyone to strip these weapons of death from their cold dead hands.

    I will submit, that there do exist “responsible” gun owners. If that is indeed a “true” statement, then tell me why a responsible person needs and/or wants an AR-15 or a bump stock? These are NOTHING but killing machines intent on destroying lives. They serve NO other purpose. NONE.

    There is NO God-given right to gun ownership. The Providence DID NOT bestow an unalienable right to guns unto humankind. The only unalienable right God granted was the right to life. And guns take away this right. We will agree to disagree and we won’t change eachothers minds. You are right to espouse your version of the truth, and I mine. God Bless.

    And I am happy that the State I live in (Washington) is acting in a many befitting protecting the citizenry of the Evergreen State from the NRA and gun loving sychophants who believe beyond all else that they have been bestowed by God the right to own an instrument of death.

    Peace and love and smart gun laws for all.

    • I don’t think God gave me the right to own a gun.

      I simply believe that there is no man, nor group of men, nor any other earthly institution, that have the moral standing to disarm me absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I am a criminal threat to the populace.

      I reciprocate that to everyone else. But if there is someone that is a criminal threat to the populace, beyond a reasonable doubt, he doesn’t stop just because guns are removed from him. He’s a threat with a plastic fork. The threat is inside him, not what’s in his hand. You certainly can’t fix that problem by taking defensive tools from everyone hoping in vain that this will affect this criminal at all. Gun bans empower the criminal population.

      As for why I need an AR-15, the answer is this guy. In one breath, he explained that his view of government was that the enforcers should have tools of maiming and death, and the general public should be helpless against them. There is no way that he would advocate that position if he didn’t think he was on the “in charge” team… unless he has a slave mentality (and that is the most generous interpretation).

      So let’s break it down:

      He thinks he, or his side, or his masters, are in authority
      He wants his side or his masters to set the rules
      He thinks it is OK to kill or maim to enforce that authority

      He wants to have his way, and he’s OK with someone else killing or maiming to make it so. His view of state power is a threat to everyone.

      I need an AR-15 specifically because of Paul Leonardo, and everyone that thinks like him.

    • Let’s address your real argument. Your actual argument isn’t about guns. Not even about AR-15s. It’s about my ability to kill other people. You say it quite plainly.

      “These are NOTHING but killing machines intent on destroying lives. They serve NO other purpose. NONE.”

      Let’s ignore that this argument is factually incorrect. Let’s, for the sake of argument, accept that it is true and then argue from that point. Let’s say it was actually true that my AR-15 is nothing but a killing machine that serves no other purpose than killing other human beings.

      So what?

      I would sincerely like to know why that would make even the tiniest bit of difference.

      Why is it absolutely wrong in all circumstances for me to kill other human beings? Because that’s your argument against me owning it, that the only thing I could do with it is kill other human beings, so I shouldn’t have one. This makes it very clear that your problem isn’t with the AR-15, it’s with killing other human beings.

      Are there no circumstances where you’re willing to accept that it is the morally, legally, and ethically correct choice to kill another human being? Or two of them? Or six? Or ten? Or is it your sincere argument that I should, when faced with imminent death or great bodily harm, allow another person to kill me rather than use whatever force is necessary to prevent that crime even if it leaves the attacker/s dead?

      If your argument is that I should allow others to kill me rather than shoot them use deadly force against them, then you can take a long walk off a short pier. You don’t get to make that choice for me. You don’t own me and you don’t get to dispose of my life.

      If your argument is that it’s OK for me to use deadly force against an unlawful aggressor who is offering me lethal violence, but you just don’t want me to use an AR-15, then your argument is completely incoherent.

      If your argument is that it’s ok for me to kill one person to save my life, but an AR lets me kill multiple people, then I have to ask you how many people I’m allowed to kill to defend my own life. 1? 2? 17? How many people have to show up at my house with the intention of murdering me and my family before I am required to just let them kill me because I’m outvoted?

    • Come and take them, Paul.

      But first please consider you are advocating forcible disarmament on forum frequented by people whose hobby it is to sail little pieces of metal really fast into tiny objects at extreme distances. Also consider the possibility that a quantity of us are the ones you’ll be sending.

    • “…tell me why a responsible person needs and/or wants an AR-15 or a bump stock?”

      Because they are fun to target-shoot with, interesting from a mechanical/operational standpoint, and fun to tinker with. They are less expensive, and take up much less space in the garage, than custom cars, but provide me a similar level of satisfaction, enjoyment and “hobby time.”

      However, right after asking that question you say:

      “These are NOTHING but killing machines intent on destroying lives. They serve NO other purpose. NONE.”

      But you have already made up your mind about this, and about me, it seems. Thus there is no way to have a meaningful conversation about it, and no reason for me to agree to any compromise at all with you and your ilk.

    • NO ONE and I mean NO ONE needs access to semi-automatic weapons, with the exception of trained law enforcement. They are weapons of death meant only to kill and maim.

      So tell us Paul, what mission did you have in mind for the police that they would be called upon to kill and maim the greatest number of us in the shortest time?

  3. As Dr. Hupp put it…

    “How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”

    Although she was referring to politicians, I think the view can be extended to individuals as well.

    “Compromise” to these people is relinquishing your freedom and rights to the State. We’re going to exists as proles under the thumb of our “betters” or engage in an existential struggle with them.

  4. Correction for Mr. Leonardo. Most of us living in the cult-like fantasy of Constitutionally-protected firearms ownership have no desire at all to die to protect that right. We want to be left alone, just as people want to express their religious or political opinions in unmolested freedom. As with many of these hard-fought rights, we are willing to stand to protect them.

    If there’s any dying to be done, I’d prefer it to be you, rather than me. And since you’re the one who wants to deprive me of those right, and I’m the one with the guns, that seems likely. Unless you’re lying about your motives, which is common among your ilk.

    • Don’t go digging around about him. Thirty seconds on whitepages.com and another thirty seconds on Google maps, and you know what his house looks like.

      There is nothing positive any of us could do with that knowledge, and we’re not the kind of people to do something negative.

      It’s enough to know that if we divide Washington state as per US Constitution Article 4, and 27 counties boot out the other 7 (or the enlightened 7 get rid of the 27 counties full of cousin-humping redneck racist homophobe transphobe xenophobe boo yuck icky cooties, depending on your point of view), Paul is unlikely to be in the part with the rest of us.

      • The additional information I presented was to put his beliefs and desires in better context. This isn’t a random guy ranting on Twitter. This is someone with influence and power to achieve his anti-constitutional goals. This is not someone to dismiss as being politically irrelevant.

        Convince him his beliefs are wrong/impractical/illegal and you have made a significant contribution toward slowing down the infringement of our right to keep and bear arms.

        • But once you find he was chosen / promoted to that position because of his positions by the ruling forces behind the bifactional uniparty, then you will realize that he’s professionally obligated to espouse that party line to keep his gravy-train running on time. He has a vested interest in promoting such insanity. The party elites keep nominating candidates who are only willing to push the Overton Window one direction (just at different speeds, while using different-sounding talking points).

        • I know, Joe.

          I did the searches, found his address, and then I looked it up on Google maps, and I looked at it from the street and by satellite, and then the strategy game part of my brain started saying, “relatively impassible from north and south property line, big hedge in front with narrow walkway, bottleneck, lots of access from the alley in the back and then… WHOA WHOA WHOA, what the hell, brain?”

          Basically, I found him and now I want to unknow what I know because nothing about knowing that stuff helps.

  5. This person is dim but in a fascinating way. Here’s another one of his statements:

    “That’s the biggest load of uneducated horseshit I’ve ever heard spouted. The Good Lord in NO way endowed to humankind the right to firearms. Guns are evil. They are killing machines. Thou shall not kill…..”

    • So then why does he think the police and military should be able to posses and use them? Ah,because they are of the Devil, not the Lord, perhaps he thinks?

      (BTW – better translation of the commandment is “Thou shall not murder.” There are different verbs used in both New and Old Testament for the ending of life, depending on circumstances and intent, and the difference is clear.)

      • It just seemed ironic for him to condemn uneducated horseshit only to then vomit some very uneducated horseshit of his own.

        • I find it very telling that he doesn’t recognize an individual right to keep and bear arms despite all nine members of SCOTUS agreeing on that point and the Washington State Constitution which says:

          SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired…

          I guess as a local Mayor he thinks he should not be bound by the restrictions placed upon him by the State and U.S. constitutions.

          • I’m willing to bet there aren’t too many other areas where Paul attempts to discern God’s will over and above individual rights or the government’s authority.

  6. It will be difficult to target them away from ourselves. We are an easy target and safe. We don’t go around killing people or beating them up like they do. We are not going to target them in retaliation.

    One of our major weaknesses imo. We turn the other cheek and get that slapped too.

    • I argue that true masculinity involves having power, and the discipline to use it appropriately. There is virtue in taking a slap to both sides of the face (a non-lethal assault) and choosing not to retaliate at full power.

  7. “Gun control is the assertion that a gay man, beaten and left for dead on a fence, is somehow morally superior to one who shoots his attackers stone dead.”

    (Yes, I swap the protagonist around on occasion. Helps get the noggin joggin’… sometimes.)

  8. “Can we make that the enemies of freedom?”

    If I understand that correctly as, “can we make the enemies of freedom the new target for hate?” then the answer is;
    That would be problematic, or, in a word; no.

    The enemies of freedom are the ones who foment hate, whereas the proponents of freedom (by which we really mean “liberty”), by definition, do not hate people at all. Proponents of liberty may hate certain actions and ideas, and they by definition certainly hate lies, but not people. Big difference.

    The spread of hate is used as a weapon to put people off of their innate ability to discern, and it is that innate ability to discern that is the enemy of the enemies of liberty, if you will. Thus, any strong emotion (hate, desire, fear, excitement, et al, even certain kinds of what we think of as “love”) may serve the cause, but the hate which is tactically fomented between various groups (and it doesn’t matter which groups, by the way, necessarily) is strong medicine in favor of the authoritarian alliance.

    Above is that Roy Masters-ian thesis of, You may rebel or you may comply, and either way you’re becoming a part of the system you oppose.

    In Christian, Biblical doctrine it is stated as, Come out of Babylon!, or Come out and be separate!, or, Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them, etc. It is an oft-repeated theme throughout the Bible, having the always-underlying message that separating truly and completely from the authoritarian system requires a leap of faith, to stand on principle come what may! without fear of the repercussions which will surely come, even to the point of torture and death. Yet who among us is willing, or knows how, to do that, or what it even means to do that?

    “…my hypothesis (is) that a certain segment of the human population needs to hate other people.”

    Close, but to really understand the tactical landscape we face, we must clarify that to “a certain segment of the human population believes they need to foment hate against other people.” Only therein do we recognize a belief, resulting in a tactic, which, it then becomes clear, must have a motive and purpose behind it.

    “We are seeing a widespread mass delusion about guns and gun ownership.”

    Well, yes and no; again we have to unpack that to some extent before we can make any sense of it.

    Given the fact that, in order to bring about an authoritarian system, and secure it in place, and to grow it, etc., the people at large must be disarmed to the fullest extent which is reasonably achievable. Knowing that to be true, it then makes perfect sense, and is consistent and logical, from their point of view, given their objective, that the leftist/authoritarian/criminal alliance must do or say whatever is required to make that disarmament possible. If that means lying and fooling and otherwise brainwashing, confusing, frustrating and scaring and manipulating as many as possible, in any way necessary, then so be it. Separating people from truth is always a priority.

    It will be seen as prudent, and as good, logical, “sensible” (there it is) tactics, and thus it would be considered stupid or foolish NOT to do it. Only the suckers, the chumps and dolts of the world, it will be said, limit themselves to any (synthetic, as they see it) construct of “right and wrong” or of “good” or “evil”.

    This is exactly what “liberal” means in the current political context; “liberating” one’s self from the constructs of good and evil, so that no action, if deemed necessary or beneficial to the alliance, need be rejected out of hand. This is where we get, and I will expand it to its full meaning; “All’s fair in love (getting what you want) and war (vanquishing anyone who gets in your way).

    Thus, indeed, there is “mass delusion”, of a sort, but it is fomented and driven by the alliance’s primary movers, just like a field commander would move tanks, planes and infantry to and through a battle zone. Delusion is a weapon, same as a gun, but probably more powerful.

    Like any authoritarian social structure, from the family level, to the school playground, to organized crime to global government alliances, there are the perpetrators and the duped, with several layers of authority, and thus levels of disclosure, in between. Whether one leftist is truly delusional then, or another knows the genuine, consistent, tactical logic and reason behind the “delusions”, all depends on his standing, and upon his need to know verses the need to be kept as a clueless sheep.

    (That layer system, right there, by the way, is the structure of all major fraternal organizations – just sayin’. New members are kept largely in the dark, or even told lies. When they move up the ladder, the next level of disclosure is achieved (or the “revelation” of “secrets”) but only those near the very top know what the fraternity is really doing and that may be totally at odds with what new recruits are told. These organizational features are as old as the hills.)

  9. Commies only lie when they don’t have the upper hand, full control. When they believe they are in control and unassailable then the mask comes off, the lies go away and the true agenda becomes open. What we are seeing about them openly calling for total bans on guns, for the elimination of private insurance, for taxes at 70, 80 and even 90%, for stuffing teens in MAGA hats into wood chippers is the façade being gone. No longer are they pretending. They actually believe they have enough power to MAKE WHAT THEY WANT HAPPEN. And since you NEVER get rid of communism peacefully it means that if we want to return to a free and rational America we are going to have to start SHOOTING THEM. They aren’t going to give up and go away peaceably.

Comments are closed.