Quote of the day—Phoebe Maltz Bovy

On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with. 

Phoebe Maltz Bovy
December 10, 2015
It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.
[I have to wonder how much timidity she would have in taking point on those door-to-door raids.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Phoebe Maltz Bovy

  1. It’s so good of them to let us know that is their ultimate goal. It is comforting to hear there is no need to compromise on anything, because their ultimate desire is utterly unacceptable.

    It’s funny: the left demands that we accept anything they say uncritically, without question, as an obvious truth, yet demand at the same moment that we never, ever, believe the words of those who say they are trying to kill us and destroy out nation and our freedoms in so many words.

  2. I have truly reached fatigue with these people. I went to a medical conference two weeks ago; three of the three lectures* I sat in featured gun control in some part. I saw an article published on Yahoo (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know): “The Second Amendment Only Covers Muskets.

    I am past discussing this. A simple, “No; FYNQ,” is all anybody proposing these things will get from me anymore.

    *I walked out of two of the three lectures. I was not quiet about the last one. I don’t think they’ll be inviting me back next year.

  3. Regarding the medical conference lectures, I have a few thoughts.

    I would make a stink and I would stay around to hammer them with questions.

    It is not an epidemic. That is a term used for infectious disease on a huge scale. So, I would challenge them on that scare tactic and inaccurate assessment.

    I would challenge them about their expertise. How many certificates and how much training have you received? How about, have you touched a firearm in your life?

    The final one though is to warn them that if they counsel patients they could be guilty of a boundary violation. It’s like a non-lawyer giving out legal advice while passing them self off as an expert.

    • The most blatant one, the one I walked out on, was a straight on lecture with no Q & A. The presenter was a trauma surgeon out of Atlanta who was an officer in a branch of the military (major? Army? Can’t remember; doesn’t matter). His topic was basic ballistics and treatment of gun shot wounds. Several slides of his lectures included firearms he described as his. Several handguns and rifles, including a pretty tricked-out AR15. Most of the lecture was decent. Near the end, or what I assume was the end, he started in on his gun-control bullshit. I said as I stood up, “This man is a disgusting hypocrite,” and was rather obnoxious about leaving my table. I found one of the organizers of the conference near the door and I explained to her rather loudly and tersely that having a lecturer, whom I *PAID* to see, start spouting about a political topic that was not listed on the agenda was– unacceptable.

  4. Just once in 100 years I’d like to see someone come out for a total ban on socialism of any kind or form. NO redistribution of so much as one dollar, for example, with as total protection of human rights as is practicable. NO government interference in human affairs whatsoever unless rights are being violated, and ONLY for the sake of stopping a specific violation against a specific individual and dispensing justice to and for the involved parties. NO group distinctions of any kind in the aforementioned dispensing of justice, etc. You know; just like we were promised with the formation of the United States.

    Unfortunately, liberty is not on the ballot, and hasn’t been for generations. We’re therefore faced with the prospect of enforcing it ourselves.

    “On the pro liberty side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all government-perpetrated coercion is a vocal ‘ban socialism’ contingent…”

    There. Fixed it.

    Enemies of human liberty should be treated as just that– Enemies, criminals, and dealt with accordingly. The only way they can operate in their criminal activities is when those who know better allow it.

    • The problem is that for most of the people of the world, individual rights and personal freedom are very low on their list of desirable things. They view things through the lens of tribe, clan, party, and identity; i.e., they see things collectively. They only see our (national) loss as their (relative) gain, and their gain is good for their clan/tribe/people/nation. Our generosity is either us being stupid and lucky, or suckers, or evil. They are part of a cargo cult, with no conception of what’s necessary to have a 1st world nation, of why we are a place to go to, rather than flee from.

      • That’s all fine, but I should have made the point more clearly that the ban should be on COERCIVE redistribution.

        Too many are clouded, or outright delusional in their thinking, and cannot, or will not, make the distinction between charity on one hand and coercive redistribution disguised as charity on the other.

        That’s a simple and very powerful point that more people need to hear.

        No one is opposed to charity, but the problems come in as soon as we’re talking about coercive redistribution disguised, or excused, as “charity”. One is a beautiful thing, while the other is horrible, destructive and deadly, yet who can put their finger on the difference?

        The national conversation treats the those two opposites as though they are equal, yet anyone would understand the difference between the Girl Scouts showing up at your door asking for a donation in exchange for cookies, and an armed thug holding you up at gunpoint. When government implements a redistribution ruse, they’re acting as that armed thug with a gun, and the fallout is much the same except worse– That government thug never gets prosecuted, and so the crimes increase in scale and frequency until the criminals end up running everything. Eventually the whole society is degraded and eventually destroyed.

        • My point is that a lot of people are OK with Government taking YOUR stuff by force and redistributing it, because they think they might get some of it. And even if they don’t, it means you don’t have as much to compete against them with. They are totally fine with it. They are cool with the harm it does to you, because they see things as zero-sum, or they are spiteful, or envious, or whatever, but the majority of people in the world do not understand, nor value, individual rights. Sad, but true.

    • What we need to be less timid about isn’t so much “no socialism,” although that’s a step in the right direction. The problem with “extreme” views like this isn’t that they are dangerous; quite the opposite. Many times taking such views is a way of, perhaps subconsciously, indicating that the one holding those views doesn’t intend to win.

      (Case in point: the Independent American Party. Far from being the “new Hitlers,” they are the least threatening organization in America today, from the leftist perspective.)

      Where we REALLY need to be less timid isn’t on the random positions we put on our website. It’s on TACTICS: specifically, we need to be physically aggressive against the gun control devils.

      And yes, I called them devils; they are utterly evil, and if we are to win, we need to stop thinking of them as fellow Americans, or even human. They are wicked, malicious monsters.

      And not just in their political views. Bill Maher, for instance, according to Julian Assange contributed a great deal of money to the Clinton Foundation. Almost certainly, this was to buy influence, as are all contributions to the CF; and almost certainly, the reason Maher wants influence is so that he can avoid prosecution for his own crimes–specifically, sex crimes including, but not necessarily limited to, rape and fetal homicide. (Fetal homicide is a forced abortion not desired by the mother).

      (How do I know Bill Maher is guilty of such things? Quite frankly, I know it just by looking at him. I was coming of age in the 1980s, and I recognize an Eighties nightclub douchebag when I see one. The mullet he once sported, the satin shirt, and the phony macho act–which, notably, dissolved quickly when it looked like a Truther would rush his stage–and then just as suddenly reappeared when his paid thugs, excuse me, his security detail, got ahold of the heckler–are all dead giveaways. If I were on a jury in a rape case, and the defendant looked like Maher, I would consider that look alone strong evidence in favor of a guilty verdict.

      Anyway, I got sidetracked. The point is that, rather than making more “extreme” positions that have no possibility of being effective, we need to adopt REALLY extreme tactics that can’t help but be effective. Got a gun control freak in your neighborhood? Get 100 armed gun owners to knock on his door and demand an apology. See someone online trying to insinuate that all NRA members are draft dodgers, when you yourself are a veteran? Track down the piece of shit and demand an apology. If he tries to slough you off, spit in his fat, repulsive face and call him a coward and call his wife a dirty whore. If he swings at you, take him down and beat him until he either acknowledges you as a veteran, or until he is a red stain on the sidewalk.

      We are losing because we won’t use violence against–and I repeat myself–DEVILS.

    • Someone has come out exactly as you said: Neil Smith. Pretty much all his books as the foundation under the story, and completely explicitly in his essay collection “Down with Power”.

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

Comments are closed.