Quote of the day—Steve Scalise

Their ultimate desire to take and confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens is where they have always wanted to go, but they know the public is not there, the country is not there, so they try to go in backdoor ways.

Steve Scalise
House Minority Whip
April 28, 2019
Steve Scalise: Far-Left Democrats Want Gun Confiscation
[It’s not the most coherent expression of someone’s thoughts but the essence of what he says is correct.

The question is, can he and other gun rights supporters in the house do something about the criminals attempting to infringe upon the rights of the people?—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Steve Scalise

  1. “The question is, can he and other gun rights supporters in the house do something about the criminals attempting to infringe upon the rights of the people?”

    No Sir, I don’t believe that is the question, for it has the built-in assumption of a desire, or motive, to “do something about the criminals”. We must first, beyond reasonable doubt, establish the motive, and we must establish also the goal, before we delve into the questions of “can it be achieved” or “how can it be achieved”, etc.

    Goals and motives. Those are, and always have been, the muddled and compromised issues among the so-called conservatives. To ask, “can they do it?”, then, is to jump the gun, getting far, far, ahead of the fundamental questions.

    Scalise himself points out a difference between rhetoric and goals; the difference between the lie and the ugly truth that it hides. That’s the whole game of politics.

    So it works like this; a Republican wants to be in office, for whatever reason. We know it’s not to advance the cause of liberty, for if liberty were to reign supreme there’d be no benefit to being in political office. So he panders to the people he sees as his ticket to office. He panders to people he knows he needs, but he often dislikes them, does not agree with them and so does not respect them.

    So he’s motivated to put on an act. The better he can pretend, the better his chances of getting elected.

    He gets into office, and everything changes. Now it’s time for him to start reaping the benefits of his former acting job, but he has pressures from all directions. The pressures coming from inside the Swamp are the ones he’s going to pander to, because that is where the benefits he wanted are going to be found. After some years in office, when you ask him whatever happened to all that liberty talk you heard during his campaign, he’ll get angry with you and want you to shut up and go away.

    Once his meal ticket, and buddy, you are now his instant enemy. He initially wanted something from you, but once he’s in office it’s the other way ’round.

    It’s the same as loaning money to someone. You’re his best, good buddy and he has nothing but adoration for you, until he gets your money. After that you’re a liability to him, yet you won’t begin to realize that until sometime after the first payment comes past due.

    That is simple math. It is axiomatic, but that’s not all. Once our example Republican gets into office there are pleas, offers, warnings and threats coming from inside the Swamp (“our silver or our lead”) which are serious and cannot be ignored. So get out of the way, you pathetic little people, you catechumen, with your stupid “principles” and your idiotic “constitution”; you just DON’T UNDERSTAND!

    At that point you’re just an irritation to them. The very notion of “the cause” of liberty is a particular irritation. It’s the last thing they want to hear. It’s so repulsive to them, they can barely even pander anymore, and thus they stumble and fumble and trip over their words, and contradict themselves, and utter all the usual compromise nonsense and excuses with which we are so familiar. The more they feel the need to pander to us, to remain a viable party, the more they hate us. Sometimes that hate spills out and we see through the mask (John McCain let it out several times), but it’s always there.

    I imagine the freshmen getting “how to keep the hate from spilling out on-camera” lessons, but such training and discipline can only go so far.

    Of course the Party can pretend to fight for liberty, but only for so long. Eventually they need some serious, major-league excuses. That’s where the Democratic Party is always ready to help out. Republicans must have the “opposition” to blame, and Boy Howdy, does they do a great job at it! The Dems have really stepped up their game of late.

    If that’s not enough, then there’s always crisis, so when it comes to the earnest, committed push toward real liberty, now is just not the time. It never is, you see, what with the next election right around the corner and all, and, and, and…

    Eventually we forget what liberty was, and where it comes from. No one alive today has seen it in operation on a national scale anywhere in the world, and so now we’re fighting for a Man-made compromise, a synthetic, an imposter, a counterfeit of liberty, or a mockery of it, and so it’s all downhill from there. As a nation, we passed that benchmark long ago.

    • I find it interesting that you believe you can know with such certainty the entire extent of political beliefs of all those who identify with the label “Republican”. It reminds me of the certainty with which some people identify all the traits associated with those who identify as a Christian.

  2. As this continues, we’ll end up supporting Republicans who promise to petition our Islamic overlords to allow us to keep our butter knives;


    And the Republicans will say, after the Butter Knife Confiscation Act is passed, that they did everything they could for us, and that if we keep voting for them, maybe they can get some kind of exception built into the Act in the next session of Congress.

  3. I think their ultimate desire goes far beyond confiscation, which is just a step on their path.
    I think, ultimately, they want a return of feudalism with them being at the top and everyone else at the bottom essentially being their slaves. I mean, think about all the things they advocate (gun control aside) and that hypothesis starts to make sense.

    So… yeah, that’s all I got. Plausible?

    • Absolutely plausible. It’s about power. Some of them believe they “are born to regulate“:

      it is a thrill; it’s a high… I love it; I absolutely love it. I was born to regulate. I don’t know why, but that’s very true. So as long as I’m regulating, I’m happy.

      Such people are addicted power and need more and more to get their high. Left unchecked they would be feeding people into woodchippers in a decade or two.

      They should be keep away from all government power and most management positions in private industry.

      • Interesting that we have so-called “red flag” laws to prevent a person about which there is some concern about their mental stability to have access to a firearm, with a very limited range of power projection. Yet, power mad politicians, even self-avowed ones who are “born to regulate” have access to broad policy making authority without the blink of an eye. And if they become too crazy, well, we just elect them to a more prominent office!

    • Why do you think some of us call them ‘neofeudalists’? It’s not just because it trips off the tongue wonderfully.

  4. “Their ultimate desire to take and confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens is where they have always wanted to go, but they know the public is not there, the country is not there, so they try to go in backdoor ways.”

    Yet MORE news from the Department of DUH! The only thing that has changed recently is the fact that so many more commie leftist have “come out”
    as it were and are OPENLY stating their agenda to disarm us so they can rule us. In the past they virtually ALL hid behind pretexts such as “public safety”. Now many openly espouse their communism beginning with the desire to end the Second Amendment forever.

Comments are closed.