Quote of the day—Ann Coulter

The “general welfare” is every tyrant’s excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they “need” something simply because the government wants to ban it. That’s true of anything — but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.

The question isn’t whether we “need” guns. It’s whether the government should have a monopoly on force.

In liberals’ ideal world, no one will even know you don’t have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.

Meanwhile, we’re all required to subsidize their hobbies — recycling, abortion, the “arts,” bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc.

Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.

Ann Coulter
February 27, 2013
[The one thing I would add is that the “question” as to whether the government should have a monopoly on force has been answered. The answer is not just “No”, but “HELL NO!” There are about 100 million reasons (bodies) that answered that question in the 20th Century alone.

But then Liberals know they can’t implement “justice” without a monopoly on force. Force is part of their nature.—Joe]


5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ann Coulter

  1. This reminds me of a thought I had the other day. Every time I see the media or administration (but I repeat myself) trot out a general who says he doesn’t think civilians should have “assault weapons,” I see yet another very good reason for us to have them-lots of them.

  2. I’m starting to think I’ve had this all wrong. The gun control movement as is being pursued by politians is not about stopping gun violence as claimed. If it were they’d propose things that actually, you know, stopped gun violence. I’m starting to think libs are seeing stories where women and youth (both reliable dem-voting demographics) are starting to become gun owners (typically a reliable rep-voting demo) in increasing numbers, and are worried that, if this trend isn’t reversed it could get them voted out of office. So they’re poisoning the well before too many of their voters drink the water. Look at the recent arguments – “an AR-15 is too difficult for you to understand” (directed at women), “get a shotgun” (directed at women, knowing some women are turned off due the recoil), and “assault weapons must be banned” (knowing the youth are attracted to it as some kinda open-source configurable gadget). Poisoning the well. They aren’t afraid someone’ll pick up a gun and start killing people. They’re worried someone’ll pick up a gun a vote republican.

    • “The gun control movement as is being pursued by politians is not about stopping gun violence as claimed.”

      It never was. In the U.S., gun restriction was first about White Power (post Civil War period through Woodrow Wilson) and it soon broadened, becoming a tool for power in general. It is no coincidence that the first federal gun restriction was enacted under FDR, who was one of the most radically Progressive presidents of the 20th century, the man who set up internment camps for undesirables like Americans of Jananese and German descent, and who had business owners arrested for charging low prices.

      Nor is the current doctrine of “never let a crisis (even a government-caused crisis) go to waste” anything new. The Prohibition era was the catalyst for much corruption and gang violence, just as our War On Drugs is today. FDR seized upon the opportunity created by this violence to get the National Firearms Act through in 1934. It took effect a month after Prohibition ended. If the Progressives had waited much longer to pass the NFA, their excuse for enacting it would have soon evaporated.

      That’s just a teeny, tiny piece of the overall strategy of degrade, create chaos, then swoop in with a government “solution”. The technique for power consolidation is as old as the hills, and we fall for it every single time. Even while we’re complaining about having been tricked yesterday, we’re in the process of being tricked again today.

      • Therefore, any CLAIMED reasons for Progressive proposals can be safely dismissed as having absolutely nothing to do with the REAL reasons they want it. Certainly that is the safer bet.

        • Notice too, how in politics we spend almost all of our time discussing the merits of the Progressive lies and almost none of our time discussing the principles. It’s all, “We don’t want crazy people to have guns, do we?” and “How can we protect our kids from violence?” et al, and very little discussion of the second amendment itself as a protection against violence.

          We fall for it EVERY, SINGLE, TIME.

Comments are closed.