Quote of the day—ReelFun

the shooters in seattle a week ago have over 60 felonies between them and several each with firearm convictions. Why are they out of jail and on the street with more guns after those convictions? anyone with more than one conviction with firearm should be in jail for decades, not on the street after 30 days. Start there and there is all the data you need. put in jail felons with firearms period.

ReelFun
February 19, 2020
Comment to Pass bills to reduce firearm violence through research, limiting magazine capacity
[Truth. But, almost for certain, it will never happen in Seattle.

One of the reason this suggestion is almost never heeded by the progressives is because such criminals are their demographic. Remember, felons in prison who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of two to one. Another reason is that firearm restrictions are not about reducing violent crime. It’s about making the average citizen more dependent upon the state and giving power and control to the government.—Joe]

5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—ReelFun

  1. But Joe, how many felons actually vote when they are out of the joint? Wouldn’t the Democrats be better served by keeping that portion of their constituency behind bars, where they can keep an eye on them and make sure all those votes are cast?

    • Leaving aside the various progressive efforts to restore the vote to felons automatically, said felons don’t need to vote to be useful to the politicians.

      When one’s political base consists largely of people that have drunk the anti-gun koolaid, a higher geographical density of independent bespoke wealth redistribution activists, or consent-optional lotharios, or undocumented recreational pharmacists is a net benefit to the politician. The base’s go-to instinct is Somebody Must Do Something, and that Somebody must be their local politician, and the Something is always a Government Program (but not a “keep them in the prison and away from us” program). Said programs will provide jobs for political allies, launder taxpayer money into campaign funding, a little bread and circuses for the populace, but the most important thing is that they are not effective. The entire cycle solidifies the progressive politician’s position.

      Why do you think progressive politics is so strongly linked with gun ownership prevention? It’s a double threat to them. Self-sufficient people don’t need Someone to Do Something, and there’s entirely too much chance someone that’s useful to them will stop being useful, one way or another.

      Besides, you negate the problem of felons not being able to vote by registering all driver’s license applicants without any checks on their eligibility, going to all vote-by-mail so there’s no followup verification and record of lawbreaking, and resisting all efforts to scrutinize the voter rolls.

  2. It seems to me the liberals are just frightened and lazy. If we had a free society. Anyone and everyone is carrying. In such a place criminals with guns don’t last long.
    But actually having to fight crime on a personal level, as in shooting someone. Is more than most liberals can mentally handle. It’s to scary. Paying some professional to do it is OK to them. It’s like hiring a plumber when the sewer backs up. But getting your own hands dirty? Even with your own crap? No way .It’s repulsive to them.
    Their fairy tale sense of the world is what drives them. And our willingness to tolerate them is what destroys civilizations.
    No grown-ups = lord of the flies.

  3. The underlying message in such talk of “gun violence” and “felons with guns” etc. is that violence, per se, is not the problem. If violence were the problem then the particular weapons being used wouldn’t be the central focus as they are now. They wouldn’t even be an issue.

    Turning the populace into cattle, for the benefit of the “common good” (the rulers’ good) is the issue, and that means there must be disarmament.

    So of course this is not, and has never been, about crime or violence or “public safety”. In the minds of the power-mad, common criminals are not the problem. Rather, YOU are the problem which needs to be “solved”; the more principled, peaceful, law-abiding and productive citizen patriot. The truth is a threat. You are the threat.

    There are several ways to look at it, including the notions of doctrinal or mind-set alliances, and voting blocks, but looking at it purely as a financial balance sheet; controling the criminal is mostly an expense, whereas intimidating and controlling the property owners and the productive is where, ultimately, all your revenue comes from.

    In order to tighten the control of the peaceful and the productive, who are already paying appriximately half of everything they produce, and to squeeze more out of them, they’ll eventually have to be disarmed. For that you need a pretense, and crying “Felons with Guns!” is as good a plan as any, though they have many different angles, of course.

    Don’t knock it. That sort of thing has had an excellent success rate, all throughout human history, so why should the power-hungry and the greedy stop now, while they’re doing so amazingly well? They’re on top of their game, with little or nothing standing in their way.

    Asking them to pretty please stop now (because “the constitution says so”, or making moral argument) is probably one of the most clueless things one could do. It’d be like trying to talk a builder out of tearing down his high-rise office building while he’s having the finishing touches put on it, has it 90% rented out already, and his phone is still ringing with new inquiries and offers.

  4. Pingback: Quote of the day—Lyle | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.