Quote of the day—Donald A. Fox

I’m taking the sanctuary city status that’s been used by progressives and liberals around this country and turning it on its head. We’re thumbing our nose at the federal government. We’re no longer going to be used as a punching bag for the left, for the anti-gun movement.

Every spring, I have to put on my yellow vest and defend the rights that are afforded to me under the Constitution. I finally got tired of it. Maybe it’s time for the town to take a stand.

Donald A. Fox
City Councilman of Burrillville, Rhode Island
Burrillville declares itself ‘sanctuary town’ for gun owners
[See also Hopkinton joins Burrillville as a sanctuary for gun rights which is also in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island! Wow!

I remember when Rhode Island required you to take a state run class to get a concealed carry permit. It was only put on once a year with a limited number of students. It could take years to get your permit. You also had to get a passing score in the shooting part of the class using the supplied gun—which had a bent barrel.

Times are changing.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Donald A. Fox

  1. I think the Lyolans are playing both sides here.
    The resolution…says that the town will support “the Burrillville police department’s [right] to exercise sound discretion when enforcing laws impacting the rights of citizens under the Second Amendment.”

    The Oath to the constitution already demands “sound discretion”, so this is purely redundant and pure posturing. That is, except for the fact that it officially gives police the choice of whether to protect citizens’ rights, thus nullifying their required Oath (it could sure be taken that way, so one must allow for the possibility that such is it’s purpose).

    Also, again; saying that the city police won’t attack you for exercising your rights doesn’t mean the State or Feds won’t attack you.

    Clearly what’s happening here is a move toward greater polarization and confusion. They push, we push back, they respond by pushing harder, we push back harder, all while the first principles are being forgotten. It’s the path to war.

    What was it Ayn Rand said? Something like, When both parties in a disagreement share the same principles, the most rational (and I’ll add faithful) side will prevail. When disagreeing parties do NOT hold to the same fundamental principles, the more irrational, aggressive and outrageous side will prevail.

    Clearly the latter scenario is being exhibited in these “sanctuary” laws, in both sides.

    So when your city council passes such a law, and you do something which is perfectly legal yet the Feds have “outlawed” it, and the Feds come after you, is your illustrious city police chief going to summon up a posse and go to war with the Feds to protect you? I mean, it is their job to do so anyway; they’ve taken that Oath to do just that, sanctuary law or no sanctuary law.

    Passing the extra “sanctuary” law, putting a layer atop the Oath, which is in turn layered atop the constitution, doesn’t change one little thing, other than to make a statement, but they could make the statement anyway (and already have, by taking the required Oath), so what’s really going on here? That’s a rhetorical question, pointing out that things are not what they appear to be. I don’t expect an answer that makes any sense, for there isn’t one, and that’s the point.

    When every cop and every politician already says, I swear to uphold, defend and protect the constitution of the United States, that right there makes the entire country a sanctuary. That such a thing is already being ignored, that some believe we need something more, says that this country has been surrendered already. All that remains is the matter of which criminal gangs will control which former U.S. territories.

    As we’ve been telling the left; if existing laws aren’t solving the crime problem, passing additional laws to make this or that “more illegaler” won’t help a thing. All it does is say that the previous laws have failed, because we abandoned them, because we either forgot or rejected the fundamental principles, and if the previous laws failed due to lack of understanding of principle, then surely the subsequent laws will fail just as well (and by design). Its a racket. We’ve all been telling the left these things, pointing out how “stupid” they are. Do we hear ourselves today?

    But a lone voice crying in the wilderness can’t stop you. You all go ahead and have your civil war. Apparently it needs to happen, but it certainly won’t help anything, any more than making murder more illegaler by banning certain weapons can help anything.

    We’re just making the violation of the Bill of Rights More Illegaler.

    All current, popular idealogical roads lead to Rome, and Rome is an unprincipled, murderous dictatorship.

  2. A bent barrel is about par for the course. My Scoutmaster said that was common at traveling carnivals.

    • That’s why the class was only held once a year. The gun was traveling with a carnival, and the class was one of it’s yearly stops.

      The alternative is that the state itself is a circus. Hmm, that probably applies to the entire North East. I guess it being the oldest part of the nation, it would seem natural for the rot to be worse there.

      • Not the entire northeast. NH is a Constitutional Carry state, and then there’s VT where the concept was invented a century ago.

        • But Vermont keeps electing Bernie the Communist. A man who looks like he slept in his car all last week, and honeymooned with his second wife in the USSR. Sure, your American dollars go further there, but seriously!

  3. If a government document “afforded” you your rights? why should you be complaining when the same government can no long “afford” them?
    Is it brain washing that makes people think like that? Damn!
    Show me one example of something the government has “given” to someone, that they haven’t stole twice that amount from someone else in order to do so? government granted, “afforded”, rights? Oh Please!
    I think its “Educational Inbreeding”. he’s just another EI sufferer.

Comments are closed.