Quote of the day—Dudley Gibson

Our Congress and the NRA contribute to the dangers of policing through their refusal to restrict assault-type weaponry to those that should have it — the police and our military. There is no legitimate purpose for every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess this type of armament. Most rednecks can kill Bambi with one shot!

Yes, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment, but in my opinion, it is entirely constitutional, and rational to restrict these weapons which are designed to only kill other human beings.

Dudley Gibson
June 26, 2016
READER’S OPINION: Assault weapons, the NRA and ‘cowardly’ Republican Congress caused massacre
[The most popular type of firearm in the U.S. apparently doesn’t qualify as being “in common use”, and therefore protected as per the Heller decision, in this “Constitutional Scholar’s” opinion.

“Designed to only kill other human beings”? That would be news to 100s of thousands of deer, rodents, coyotes, and other varmints. And besides I’ve fired thousands of rounds through many different ARs without killing anything. Does that mean those guns were all defective?

This guy may be a mental midget but he still wants to ban guns and is politically active in pursuing that goal. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take you guns.—Joe]


20 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Dudley Gibson

  1. The most depressing part is “I believe in the 2nd amendment”. Is he lying, or is he just incredibly ignorant?

    • He clearly doesn’t understand the second amendment, or he’s refusing to acknowledge that he understands it.

      Actually it must be willful denial. Anyone who can read, and has read the second amendment, knows that it’s about the security of a free state, meaning it’s about weapons suitable for self defense and war. The hunting or sporting rights of rednecks are not mentioned.

      • the only reason the 2nd Amendment was written was so we could have arms to kill human beings.

        The British were’t seizing militia arms because they were concerned that the Colonists would shoot all of the King’s deer, but that we might kill THEM.

        And we did, and our founders had such humility that they understood that they too could overstep, and might too need to be culled by the populous.

    • He’s coming from the mindset of Justice Berger.

      And as has been noted in the past, lawyers will “swallow a camel” if it will serve to advance their point of view. Similarly, they will “strain at a gnat” if it will perform the same service. And we’ve got that embedded in our court system so deeply that it will probably never go away…..peaceably. Which is a pity because these dolts can’t seem to get that point through their heads.

      As Justice Scalia said:
      “Our [his] manner of interpreting the Constitution is to begin with the text, and to give that text the meaning that it bore when it was adopted by the people … This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked when I’ve given a talk like this a question from the back of the room — ‘Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?’ — as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people — ‘When did you first start eating human flesh?’ ”

      • Mencken recognized this early on:

        “In nothing did the founders of this country so demonstrate their essential naivete than in attempting to constrain government from all its favorite abuses, and entrusting the enforcement of those protections to judges; that is to say, men who had been lawyers; that is to say, men professionally trained in finding plausible excuses for dishonest and dishonorable acts.” H. L. Mencken

  2. “Rednecks.” That tells you all you need to know about this man, and his arguments. Anyone who uses that term in this discussion needs to be called out for his bigotry, just as surely and forcefully if he had said, “n*gger.” Using that term to describe hunters or target shooters is one tiny step from a Markley’s Law quote.

  3. 1. The 5.56 Nato round was selected because you could carry a lot of them – before it was adopted as a military cartridge, it was primarily a varmint round. The bullet was then redesigned to increase wounding potential, because the US was a signatory to the Geneva Convention rules, and we didn’t use hollow points on combat rounds. So, in effect, the round was designed to wound, not kill.
    2. If rednecks are so skilled with a single shot, next up on the ban roster will be obvious – sniper rifles. We all know them as bolt actions with telescopic sights.
    3. Since when do the police face “assault type weaponry?” In the vast majority of active shooter cases, the cops wait until the perp runs out of ammo or offs himself.
    4. Dudley can kiss my ass.

  4. Ban all semiautomatics, and then see how safe that makes the cops who would attempt to enforce the ban.

    It has been said that the criminal use of sub machineguns increased after the UK’s current (extremely oppressive) gun control went into effect. As the reasoning goes, before that, there was a difference in penalties between possessing a machinegun compared to a semi. After the ban, there was essentially no difference, so why not use a machinegun?

    If all guns are equally banned, then we’ll see more use of machineguns among criminals. I wonder how many American cops have figured that one out. Probably very few. These things are rarely understood until after the fact, which is of course why they keep happening.

    Any of you cops out there care to comment?

    Here’s a parable regarding cop safety;
    Cop pulls me over for speeding, waits a bit, and then gets out of his car to come talk to me. First question out of his mouth is, “Do you have any firearms in the vehicle?” I think to myself;
    “Kid, if I wanted you dead you’d never have made it out of that cruiser, so the fact that you’re walking and talking right now proves that I have no ill intent. Therefore it matters not at all, at this stage, that I have firearms in my vehicle. Chill the fuck out. Now I suppose you’ll ask if I have a Bible, or any politically oriented or otherwise controversial print material or digital files in my vehicle…” Instead I say, “Oh yes, several…” and I politely go along with his silly process, feeling like we’re both being needlessly dragged down by that process. Back in the 1960s and ‘70s, the conversation would have stayed on the fact that I was doing 70 in a 60, or 95 in a 50, etc., and that would have been that (at least in my part of the Inland Northwest).

    And so it is that the Progressive march toward totalitarianism is making the relationship between cops and everyone else more tense by the day. This is totally unnecessary, and would go away if we simply understood and embraced the simple concepts behind the American Principles of liberty. Cop training, however, is apparently more inclined in the authoritarian direction. Cops are, after all, the frontline troops, or pawns, of the Authoritarian movement and will therefore be seen as disposable. They are between a rock and a hard place. I do not envy them. That does not excuse them though; the constitution still applies even though they’re expected to violate it several times per day.

    • I suppose a simple answer to that stupid question would be “yes, of course”.

  5. Weer’d: bravo!

    Yes, the reason we have a Second Amendment pertaining to arms is BECAUSE they’re dangerous to humans. There was no need for the Bill of Rights to make explicit the right to own powder puffs, nor feather dusters.

    The Founders knew that, to authoritarians, the right to keep & bear arms is always controversial… and thus must be protected.

    As for Dudley: he believes legal gun owners are a danger to society. Going by history, statistics, and common sense, he is very much mistaken. Yes, people kill other people with guns in America… but no, legal gun owners are NOT the ones to worry about.

    • Oh no Daniel. The legal gun owners are the ones to “worry” about.
      I truly believe TPTB sleep uneasy at best wondering what the next morning might bring.
      I think they’re very concerned that somehow, someway, enough people will get pissed off just a little too much and decide to take exception to The Plan™ and require payment of “punitive and exemplary” damages.
      For if they’re not that concerned, why the continual increased drum beating for more gun control?
      I’d be very interested to see how many different prescriptions they have for sleep and digestive problems.

      • “I’d be very interested to see how many different prescriptions they have for sleep and digestive problems.”

        Not enough to bury their guilt.

        • I was speculating if my mutual fund’s position in pharmaceuticals was strong enough, or not. 🙂

  6. Joe, “shaming” the anti-rights filk for their lack of firearms terminology, for their lack of understanding the true meaning of the 2A and their slavishness over the dictatorial socialist agenda has NOT worked. There are not less of them since before the shaming started. Why? These fools feel no shame, that’s why.

    It time to take it to them. Social media give us the the charge for our virtual rail-guns. Let’s commission a roster of the first and second classes of right-killers, and publish their social media addys, etc, everything we can do short of the stalking laws. When THEY begin to feel the heat they are trying to put on us, then we will see who has the starch for the long fight.

  7. It always amuses me how people seem to forget that at the time of writing the Second Amendment, *all* firearms were “military-style”.

  8. Don’t forget that this line of thought leads to banning all guns, for each type has some feature that makes it “wrong” for civilians to use. From the concealability of a single shot .22LR Derringer, which obviously makes it an assassin’s weapon (John Wilkes Booth, right?) to the high capacity of a Glock, which obviously makes it a mass murder tool, to the accuracy at distance of a bolt action (obviously a scoped high power sniper rifle!) to the overpowered .50 cal, (which we all know is used primarily for shooting down planes and helicopters), there is not a single firearm that cannot have exactly analogous arguments, equally irrational, equally emotionally compelling, against their ownership.

    I, for one, know that all guns are potentially lethal tools, and that their potential is not an argument against civilian ownership, and refuse to accept such BS from any supposedly rational person.

  9. I attended an Edmonds City Council meeting last night to watch the presentation of a project my wife was involved with. During the public comments section (for any topic the public wanted to address), some dude stands up and offers the following:

    1. I own a couple of handguns and a rifle
    2. I support the 2A
    3. Nobody needs an AK for hunting
    4. The City of Edmonds should ban assault rifles

    Cognitive dissonance at its finest. During a break I wanted to find him and have a bit of a discussion about state preemption, the most popular [hunting, self defense, and competition] rifle in the country, and a few other issues, but unfortunately he had departed.

    • What did you say in the meeting to counter that moron’s comments?

    • The proper response, as soon as possible in the meeting, would be to make the statement that he should immediately deliver all his firearms to the police, as what he is advocating will eventually reach the point of him being REQUIRED to do so. Let him, and the others attending, ponder that reality.

Comments are closed.