Quote of the day—Tam

Only when these yahoos are getting reliably smoke-checked by their intended victims is this attention-seeking behavior going to stop.

This got stopped by good guys with guns, but people got killed waiting for them to show up.

Anybody who mandates you be disarmed in a country full of guns does not have your best interests at heart.

June 3, 2019
Overheard In Front Of The Television…
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Tam

  1. Anybody who mandates you be disarmed does not have your best interests at heart.

    Fixed it. And can distill it further;
    “Your enemies want you disarmed.” In that case it becomes most obvious, and so it shouldn’t be necessary to add the word “only” at the front.

    Not only does “in a country full of guns” leave an opening for, “well in that case let’s get rid of the guns, and then there’ll be no need to be armed”, it is irrelevant phraseology.

    Mankind has had weapons ever since the expulsion from Eden. The debate is therefore NOTHING but a question of whether the bad guys will have a monopoly on the tools of deadly force, or whether their intended victims will also be armed. Those who demand legal restrictions are demanding that monopoly for criminals. Our biggest problem is that we continue to beg the criminals to let us be armed, thus demonstrating to said criminals that we acknowledge them as our bosses.

    And lest we remain confused about this, thinking of it as a political/cultural issue, as though a political majority must agree that people have rights; No. It doesn’t work that way. People have rights no matter how many other people hate those rights. It is therefore purely, solely and exclusively a law enforcement issue.

    Being that no one is enforcing the law (no one is being arrested for violating the second amendment) and that there are not even any plans for, nor even any official discussion of, enforcing the law, things will surely get worse. It is axiomatic, as we say in science.

    Sure; you can keep lobbying the criminals, begging them to grant you approval, and you can keep trying to gain a strong majority among the culture, but the former is counterproductive and the latter is a side issue. Just sayin’, for if a majority is required then the constitution means literally nothing, and if the constitution means anything and can therefore be enforced then we don’t need majority, or even a minority, to grant us anything.

    See how that works? That’s the fundamental principle of the unalienable right. Now let the flack be unleashed against it by the self described libertarians who have no connection to the Supreme Law-giver (for without Him we can never say “unalienable” and mean it). The American founders understood this, and a flimsy little shepherd boy named David understood it even better.

        • That comment is inane and wothless. Lyle has it spot on.

          I bear the burden of living in a nearly disarmed society, under the neo-totalitarian socialist jackboot, with a population of mindless thought-controlled sheeple, but for a few percent of the total.
          I reside in and am a native of Australia, all the horror stories you’ve heard of about this US colony do not go far enough.

          I’ve paid the price for thinking like Lyle, and making it public, as a shooters rights activist. If the ‘authorities’ can’t just kill you, they break you financially, and continue imposing their will without letup, ever.

          Many are surprised to find that there are now more registered guns, owned by more licenced shooters, than there ever was before the false flag attack that supposedly prompted the government crackdowns of the ’90s. But those guns, apart from “lost or stolen” examples are truly worthless, because being registered means that they are only temporarily yours until seized or confiscated by the state. Ask me how I know about that last line.
          Here, as an ordinary person, only ‘providential’ access to a gun can save you or your family from danger like armed home invasions, as storage restrictions are designed to make sure that you cannot have a chance to use your legally owned gun against an agent of the state. Your family’s protection is irrelevant to them.
          In every state, self defence in not a valid reason to obtain a shooters licence. Under some state laws (New South Wales for certain), using a gun for self-defence is illegal, no matter the circumstances.

  2. I will note that apparently you have a better chance of finding high school and college students with the stones to fight back, even unarmed, than you do of finding municipal employees willing to do the same.

  3. Acknowledging the obvious doesn’t serve the agenda of the power mad politicians. Thus the never ending push to disarm us.

Comments are closed.