Quote of the day—Jim Mastro

In 1936, sawed-off shotguns and Tommy guns were heavily taxed and regulated by both state and federal law, to the point that sales plummeted, which essentially had the effect of banning them. In 1986 (in a law signed by President Reagan), Congress made fully automatic weapons (machine guns) illegal. None of these actions constituted an “attack” on the Second Amendment, nor did the 1994 ban on “assault weapons,” which expired in 2004. Another ban on these weapons, which were specifically designed for combat, also would not constitute an attack on the Second Amendment, nor would it constitute an attack on NRA members, law-abiding gun owners, or hunters.

Jim Mastro
Dover, New Hampshire
June 30, 2018
There is no attack on gun rights
[I have no words to describe someone who even pretends to believe this.

Of course, he is an admitted fiction writer.—Joe]


12 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jim Mastro

  1. Make no mistake, it’s an attack. It’s an attack authorized by the Supreme Court. It’s important not to confuse the two. The Supreme Court was never meant to have the power it does- they took it for themselves in Marbury vs. Madison.

  2. I hate having to bring this up, but it’s such a good comparison that it can’t be ignored.

    The authoritarians (the left) consider abortion, the taking of a human life, to be a “right”.

    Further, they know exactly how a “right” is supposed to work because, with this one “right”, they show us. They show us that they know a “right” means hands off, totally and completely, no matter what, period. Not the slightest infringement can be allowed, anywhere, no matter the size of the majority that might approve of it, because a right is a right and no one must ever be deprived of a right. Plus, for sure and for absolute certain, one infringement leads to the next, AND THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD BAN IT ALTOGETHER, DON’T YOU KNOW. To preserve the right therefore, no infringement, no matter how seemingly innocuous, can ever be allowed.

    Apply that standard, the left’s own standard for their made-up “right”, to the actual right to keep and bear arms, and to all other real rights. Anytime they throw an infringement at us and claim that an infringement is not an infringement, nor a violation a violation, we must remind them;
    THEY KNOW how a right works.

    They’ve merely been Gaslighting us. Because it works. We often fall for it.

    Of course they go beyond protection of their one and only “right”, into coercive funding of it. And they actually get it. I don’t believe we’ve ever seriously demanded government-funded guns, or ammunition subsidies, or lead ingot for all.

    If we actually applied the left’s own standard for a “right”, we’d outlaw the Democratic Party, purge 95% or more of the Republican Party. and eliminate the entire Progressive infrastructure and supporting networks. We’d have a constitutional United States for the first time ever.

    So it is that we get an inkling of true liberty, not from any person on the right, ever (they’re far more interested in parlaying for the approval of others than in the simple truth), but from the most vile and blood-thirsty of the leftist authoritarians themselves.

  3. The left demonstrates, and proves, with their own actions, the validity and propose of the second amendment.

    When the people are armed, the corrupt in office, and their followers, are made nervous and discouraged, and they become bitter and hateful.

    They try to tell us that our small arms are no match for planes and tanks, et al, but IF that were true they wouldn’t be trying to further restrict our small arms!

    Thus it is proved; they understand and acknowledge the validity and purpose of the second amendment, for otherwise they would not oppose it.

    They lie about their motivations, of course. It’s in the nature of corruption to lie, but the consistency, focus, and predictability of their actions speak far louder than any words. They’ve proved beyond all shadow of doubt that they’re not interested in saving innocent lives. Quite to the contrary, and so all that’s left is the political motivation for disarming the public, a public over which they want total control.

    • That disparity of force was created by the exact laws Jim mentions in his letter, only to then be thrown into our faces on a regular basis as the reason why we should all surrender our most effective defense weaponry and march compliantly into the ovens.

      With the increasingly frequent calls for a violent socialist revolutionary overthrow of Trump’s Government by the extreme left, I’m curious at what point they stop advocating so loudly on behalf of a government mandated expansion of the Left’s disparity of force.

      Tangent: His original letter on the linked site praises gun prohibitionists for going out of their way to claim they support the 2A before they make proposals to gut the 2A. Well I guess that makes this all okay then if he *says* he supports the 2A. Reminds me of people who preface racially charged statements with “I’m not racist, but……”

  4. Check out Jim’s vanity website and other letters to the editor, with titles like “It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment”.

    Not only is there an attack on gun rights, little-known author Jim M. II is one of the attackers.

  5. Not to open up a can of worms, but every one of those “non”-infringements on the Second Amendment has had an analogous law that was found to be an infringement on Freedom of Speech and The Press in the First Amendment and on women’s right to choose abortion. THOSE infringements go away, while we have this giant of legal reasoning saying that similar and analogous infringements of the Second Amendment are not actually infringements. The ability of people to rationalize their way to slavery is one of the mysteries of psychiatry.

  6. We can keep our guns for hunting and home defense, he says.
    Except for semiautomatic rifles, and other rifles that have a military pedigree – i.e., all bolt rifles, all shotguns, all single shot rifles, all semiautomatic rifles, all select fire rifles.

    And handguns, well, they’re just too easy to conceal and use criminally.
    So ban those.

    And thus we can have any firearm we want for hunting and home defense, as long as they aren’t military-style. Forget Miller vs US. This guy is an outright artiste of BS.

  7. Pingback: Quote of the day—Windy Wilson | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.