Let’s have the conversations

The blood is still warm from one of the most tragic mass murders we have ever had in our country and now the anti-gun people really want to have a conversation. A few months ago I explained we had the conversation over the last 40 years and they lost. They apparently didn’t get the message so, okay, let’s have the conversations.

Instapundit has some suggestions but he is far, far too timid for me.

Say Uncle is a little closer in line with me but he is still too timid.

Here is my list conversations openers:

First conversation:
Civil rights attorneys and/or prosecutors should be lining up to confiscate the wealth of and/or send to prison the politicians and other government employees who created victim disarmament zones. These people enabled the murder of dozens of people, mostly children, by a single person. If a private citizen had enabled these murders they would be facing massive civil liability and probably criminal charges. Government employees should not be exempt. If we don’t have the prison space for all of them then turn the drug addicts, prostitutes, and other “criminals” who committed victimless crimes loose and make the room. These public servants stripped people of their rights to keep and bear arms and then put signs up advertising “Gun Free Zone”. It’s bad enough to enable cold blooded murder but to advertise the fact they enabled it and to be proud of it is seriously sick and criminal. This can and should be used as evidence against them at their trials.

Second conversation:
The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. This makes it the equivalent of the right to a lawyer when being questioned by police. The right to a lawyer is backed up by government payments for a lawyer if you cannot afford one. Health care isn’t in the bill of rights but we have politicians claiming it is a basic human right and the government should pay for your doctor if you cannot afford one. If people cannot afford a firearm and ammo to defend themselves the government should provide them.

Third conversation:
When people are advocating the murder of people peaceably exercising their rights the police should investigate and prosecute as appropriate. The First Amendment does not protect death threats or the advocating of murder. If these threats are not dealt with quickly and appropriately further blood is likely to be on the hands of government officials. This is no different than violent threats against people of color, homosexuals, or any other group. By ignoring them government officials are tacitly approving of them and should be held accountable for their failure to do their job.

Further conversations:
Our rights are not up for grabs, compromise, or debate. Such a discussion will not be part of any conversation. One of the reasons we have the Second Amendment is to make sure that such “conversations” are brief, vigorously resisted, and successfully concluded on the side of freedom. We don’t want to go there and the other side damn well doesn’t want to go there.


16 thoughts on “Let’s have the conversations

  1. Are you trying to bring REASON and THOUGHT to the debate? The other side abandoned that long ago. It’s UNFAIR to use such underhanded tactics.

  2. There is to be no compromise with gun control advocates. This is a zero-sum game. The Constitution is strongly worded with “…shall not be infringed” which means that any gun control law takes away from my rights and freedoms.

    I do not want to have a “conversation” with those that imply that my gun ownership and belonging to the NRA makes me somehow responsible for the evil actions of a madman on the other side of the country. I will not submit to “collective punishment” for the actions of another. Molon Labe!

    • Compromise only gets rights taken away just a little bit.

      No compromise. No quarter. No more lost rights, and no more armed criminals.

  3. Pingback: Quote of the Day - Joe Huffman (12/17/2012) - The Minuteman

  4. I think that the conversation needs to happen. It is time we took back the country and the well regulated, all volunteer and totally unpaid, militia should provide security for our communities, post offices, libraries and schools. Honestly, there are many more good people than bad (except in movies) and most willing to stand up and protect all those things we love. If we have shootings at the gun free zone, why is the idea of making a larger area a gun free zone anything but stupid.

  5. The militia act of 1792 needs to be enforced. it’s still on the books. It has not been repealed.

    People that cannot make it to militia training on a monthly basis with a proper load out should be fined. The fine back then was 5 silver dollars. About $150 today. A monthly fine of $150 fort failing to show up with your M-16 and load out sounds about right.

    Not having your gear contributes to unarmed zones, where nutters kill schoolchildren.

  6. Pingback: You Say You Want a Conversation, Well... You Know... | BabyTrollBlogBabyTrollBlog

  7. Pingback: Quote of the day—James Freeman Clarke | The View From North Central Idaho

  8. Pingback: Quote of the Day | Shall Not Be Questioned

  9. Deprivation of rights under color of law, resulting in the death of innocents, carries a possible death penalty for the perpetrators. Those who enacted, and those who enforce, restrictions on the keeping or bearing of arms are criminal perpetrators. Yes; it’s time to have that conversation.

  10. I agree with this except the comment that drug addiction and prostitution are victimless crimes. Drug addiction and prostitution absolutely create victims; just ask the families (spouses, children, parents, etc.) of drug addicts and prostitutes.

    • Laziness, drunkenness, and smoking also create victims as the people indulge themselves. Even failing to get vaccinated, clean your house, change the batteries in your smoke detector, get enough exercise, or washing your hands can affect others.

      But all of these create indirect rather direct victims and it is not the responsibility of the government to criminalize such behavior.

  11. Pingback: SayUncle » Having the conversation

  12. Once again, and as always, we fail to understand the difference between causing harm on one hand, and violating rights on the other.

    There are myriad ways in which one may innocently cause “harm” to other people. The little girl selling lemonade on the street may harm the local fast food joint by competing with them, but she hasn’t done anything wrong– she hasn’t violated anyone’s rights. I may put up a new building on my property,. thus harming my neighbor’s enjoyment of his property as I block some part of his nice view, but I’ve done nothing wrong. I’ve violated no one’s rights. I may put my neighbor’s business into receivership, or his employees out of work, because I started a better business than his, but I haven’t done anything wrong. I may in fact have done something very good– serving my community far better than he in the same industry.

    Nor does a rights violation need result in appreciable harm for it to be a crime. It is always a crime.

    See the difference? It is night and day, yet most Americans do not see it (or if they do see it they fail to act on it) and that is our problem.

  13. Pingback: Conversations on Guns - INGunOwners

Comments are closed.