Quote of the day—Robb Allen (@ItsRobbAllen)

As an enlisted Marine, I worked with officers like this for 8 years.

Stuffed shirts with no constitutional authority to limit your arms have no place on our streets. We must take bold action to point at them, laugh in their faces, and tell them where they can shove it.

Robb Allen (@ItsRobbAllen)
Tweeted on March 2, 2021
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Robb Allen (@ItsRobbAllen)

  1. “We must take bold action to point at them, laugh in their faces, and tell them where they can shove it.”

    Bullshit. They don’t give a rats ass about being made fun of or told to get stuffed.
    The CORRECT action for commie bastards seeking to disarm us so they can rule us is to shoot them in the face. This isn’t complicated. Dangerous maybe, unpleasant certainly, but necessary.

    • Shoot if you have to, but don’t be pissed off about it. That’ll just get you into trouble. If you want to be pissed off at someone, be pissed off at we, you and I and our fathers, who should have known better over the last couple hundred years, ignoring all the warning signs, and did nothing because we were too busy pursuing wealth security, excitement and pleasure and feeding our egos.

  2. Sure, we can point at them, laugh in their faces and tell them where they can shove it, but of course what really matters is who they can get to follow along with their orders and how much trouble they can cause.

    If world history is any indication, there’ll be no shortage of outlaw goons in uniforms (and out of uniform) willing to follow unlawful orders. We’re already seeing it. Some will refuse, citing the constitution and citing regulations, certainly, but they’ll be few in number. Their ranks are increasingly indoctrinated in Critical Theory. Most will either blindly stumble into atrocity, or eagerly participate in it, thinking themselves righteous.

    But make no mistake– Such officers as in Allen’s example are not the ones coordinating this on-going, generations-old insurrection against our constitution and founding principles. They know nothing about it. They’re duped as much as any dupe you can name.

    The actual perpetrators are far more intelligent, they’re the beneficiaries of centuries of study in cultural and ideological subversion, they command all the tools modern technology can provide, they know exactly what they’re doing, and they’ll be the last ones on Earth to face justice. So don’t get to laughing too hard. This is quite serious.

    Goons like the poor, ignorant Marine in the example, the ideological believers in the (Romish leftist authoritarian) cause, are the disposable ones. The pawns. They mean to nothing to the movement beyond the value of the temporary trouble, shock and tragedy they’re able to cause, and after that they’ll be disposed of like trash by their higher-ups. Or as Yuri Bezmenov put it, “They’ll be…pffft!…squashed like cockroaches” once their usefulness has ended.

  3. If “the people” in the Second Amendment aren’t the general population, who are “the people” in the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments?

    If “arms” in the Second Amendment doesn’t protect a right to arms particularly suitable for military/militia use, what kind of arms does it protect a right to?

    If “keep” doesn’t mean to own or possess, what does it mean?

    If “bear” doesn’t mean to carry on your person, what does it mean?

    • Well, yes. But these people don’t have any more respect for the other parts of the Constitution than they have for the 2nd Amendment. (Or for article 1 section 8, the 9th amendment, or the 10th amendment — each of which also protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.)

    • “The Constitution means what we say it means.”
      The Supreme Court of the United States

      • “The Constitution means what we say it means.”
        John Marshall, Chief Justice, The Supreme Court of the United States in Marbury vs. Madison.
        Our troubles did not start with Roosevelt, or Wilson, or even the Slaughterhouse Cases.

        • In fairness to Marshall, there’s good reason behind his statement that “it is emphatically the duty of the court to say what is a law”.

          More importantly, the problem isn’t that the courts find things unconstitutional when they shouldn’t, not very often anyway. The real problem is that they accept an astoundingly vast quantity of crap as constitutional when it’s obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of plain English that it is not.

Comments are closed.