Sad but true

Daughter Jaime:

Just saw a quote that is sad but true:

“The constitution is the conservative equivalent of a gun-free zone.”


Now, can we use that insight and turn it into what needs to be done next?


34 thoughts on “Sad but true

  1. The Constitution failed because it had no “OR ELSE” clause.

    The next one will feature hanging a disloyal weasel every Fourth of July.

        • I believe it would be fair to reserve more severe punishments for repeat offenders.

          • I don’t think exile is a small thing. Might be smaller for someone with a large enough pile of cash, but for most of us it would be devastating. Have to find a place that will take you, no friends, few or no contacts, likely limited ability to make new ones especially once they find out about past behavior, probably a language barrier to overcome (unless very lucky), may or may not be able to leverage job skills cultivated over the years, no house/place to stay, no citizenship rights anywhere…

            Probably survivable, but I don’t think it would be very easy.

  2. it has been observed that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

    well, to be perfectly frank, we’ve been incompetent*** dealing with the leftist wannabe’s and the honest to goodness really really marxist-leninist,s among us, so what other choice do we have?

    i do not like the term “revolution” as applied to asserting our god given rights, which, by the way, were not created by the constitution but preceded it. i much prefer the term “restoration” as applied to asserting our right and privilege. so, you may term me a “restorationist” if you wish, and i would prefer that.

    guns are tools. we should use them as such.

    ***along the lines of “tolerating” rattlesnakes in our boots.

    • “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” – That has never been true.

      To paraphrase Carl von Clausewitz “violence is the continuation of politics by other means”

      We have not been nearly violent enough, on the individual level. That is a large part of why we have arrived at the situation we’re in today, and why I believe we’re going to have violence on a larger scale soon. It’s damned unfortunate, and I hope my family can avoid it, which is why I moved us out of a major metropolitan area to a much smaller city.

      The Real Kurt

      • FWIW, a recent discussion has emerged about that translation if Clausewitz. “A continuation of politics WITH other means” appears to be more accurate, and it makes more sense. Politics and war exist on a continuum with overlap in the middle of the Venn diagram, not a binary and exclusive opposites.

  3. it has been observed that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

    well, to be perfectly frank, we’ve been incompetent*** dealing with the lefties wannabe’s and the honest to goodness really really marxist-leninist,s among us, so what other choice do we have?

    i do not like the term “revolution” as applied to asserting our god given rights, which, by the way, were not created by the constitution but preceded it. i much prefer the term “restoration” as applied to asserting our right and privilege. so, you may term me a “restorationist” if you wish, and i would prefer that.

    guns are tools. we should use them as such.

    ***along the lines of “tolerating” rattlesnakes in our boots.

  4. Gosh, Joe, I was hoping you had read this as pointing out that the extreme Right has no more respect of the U. S. Constitution than criminals do for gun-free zones and it was time for the center-Right and moderates to drop them like a hot turd, but it appears instead that you and your commenters have decided to go full-on Brownshirt/Blackshirt/Silvershirt instead.

    Just remember, there is always an aftermath. Don’t take it from me, listen to a man who grew up in the midst of such an aftermath, and ask yourself who you want to be in your old age:

    • It appears you have taken an open ended question to mean you have the ability to read my mind.

      I’m on the road now and don’t have the time to properly respond to the comments. That includes yours as well as theirs.

      • I look forward to hearing how you talk your way around this one, Joe.

        As for your commenters, they have spoken for themselves.

        • Talk his way around what exactly? Your logic stream went over the falls by calling us turds and brown shirts. And there’s going to be an aftermath to deal with if we don’t toe the Pelosi/Schumer line?
          Because we dare to say that putting an obviously senile criminal and communist prostitute in the most powerful position in the world through fraud is a bad idea? And there’s are going to be a lot worse aftermath for doing so?
          At the same time not one logic stream is ever presented by anyone of you to prove what you want to do, actually works.
          I would normally tell you to grow-up. But it’s way to late for that.

        • It’s funny, Joe, how you think I have taken “a bizarre break from reality,” when one of your commenters/co-bloggers still thinks Mr. Trump won the election and will be “consolidat[ing] his victory.” He’s a lot more likely to be trying to explain himself to a largely unsympathetic Senate; it’s doubtful they’ll have enough votes to convict but there will certainly be questions asked, and possibly even answered.

          The putsch failed. Please come back to actual reality.

          • Monica, you must have missed some of the comments I have made in response to Rolf. Here and here for example. I have also commented my skepticism on his blog. And, obviously, you haven’t seen the private email which has gone back and forth between us.

            Perhaps you also missed that Rolf has been very polite. Not once has he insulted anyone here because they didn’t agree with him.

            I want this to be a free speech zone. Just because I hang out with people that say weird stuff doesn’t mean I agree with them. I find weird stuff and alternate views of reality interesting. As long as people are not advocating criminal activity or insulting people I’m probably going to allow it. Sometimes this is going to piss people off. I’d listen to someone explain in detail why they think women shouldn’t be allowed to vote or why they think the ideal government is a inherited monarchy. Then I’d probably ask a bunch of questions to try and get them to see the error of their ways. I wouldn’t insult them as long as they were polite and did a decent job of responding to my questions in defense of their position.

            Repeatedly resorting to insults, particularly when I can’t see the justification, is going to irritate me.

            There are a lot of things people say here, other places on the Internet, and in person which cause me to roll my eyes (perhaps figuratively). Just because I think someone is wrong doesn’t mean I speak up. I do tend to defend people that I think have been unjustly accused of something or mischaracterized. For example, several times you have received my defense here. I have done this even at times when you have irritated me.

      • I find most prog/libs believe they have the ability to read not just minds, but intentions.
        Actually, I think it’s them projecting their own feelings and intentions on others since they figure everyone else is as illogical and emotion driven as they are.
        Is that part of what you’ve termed a ‘process failure’? Joe?

        • Yes.

          But I don’t think it is limited to “prog/libs”. But it may be that those types are more inclined to that political viewpoint.

          I can’t imagine Monica, if you knew her as well as I think I know her, fits the “prob/lib” label.

          • She may not be, but when someone starts using the same ‘full-on Brownshirt/Blackshirt/Silvershirt instead.’ , that we see when progressive/leftists call everyone that disagrees with them a Nazi/Fascist, well……..

          • I find no fault in that hypothesis as it is a good fit to the data available here. I would just rather people not go down that path too far because I think it is the wrong path and it borders on an insult. Out of respect for her desire to hide her true identity here I’m not going to offer evidence to support my alternate view.

    • He would be the expert, since his father (being a member of the Austrian NSDAP and the SA) probably helped plan it.

      Even with all of that, the muscle head has it backwards. Kristallnacht was Brownshirts destroying the property of private citizens, because those citizens were being targeted and designated as “unpersons” to be destroyed. This was followed later by the Reichstag fire, which was blamed on Communists headed by Jewish leaders The Reichstag was the German equivalent to the US Capitol building. It was this fire that caused Hitler to be granted emergency powers in order to deal with the Jews “once and for all.”

      If anything, the Antifa/BLM riots are more analogous to Kristallnacht, and Wednesday’s incident being our Reichstag fire. The Democrats faux outrage and targeting of the right is their response.

    • HAHAHAHAHA! You call that violence? Look who got shot, Monica. Congress was back in a couple hours. The place wasn’t even trashed. You and Artie think that’s big violence?
      Watch what the Chinese communist do to this country. Go ask Vicki Weaver about violence. How ’bout a few of the children at Waco I? Ask them about violence. Go ask the untold millions that have been murdered by the same policies that are being constructed by the Biden/Whore administration. You and Artie don’t think the drunken/drug problems that ravage the black community aren’t violent? Drug OD’s brought you us by China/Mexican drug cartels? That’s violence.
      Just like the examples you provide. Your clueless.
      You remind my of someone that called Vietnam vets that were drafted and order what to do, “baby killers” . Then you head down to the abortion clinic to take care of the “problem”.
      You think Trump supporters are a problem? Remember. We weren’t until you made us one. Enjoy the whirlwind.

      • Congress declared war on the American people on January 6th. Fort Ballotbox was taken by storm last November. The Left drew first blood.

        Conduct yourselves accordingly.

  5. I look forward to your explanation of what that quote means, as on the face of it, it doesn’t parse into anything. Lack of context, for me, anyway, hinders my comprehension.

    The Real Kurt

    • What it means to me is that the left believes that their “no guns” sign will work because criminals will obey it. The same is true of conservatives and the constitution.

      Without people willing to ensure they are complied with by backing them up with force, both are worthless.

      • I agree and also think that it applies to our bill of rights. As an example just a few years ago when I first heard of safe spaces on campuses I could not believe my ears. College for me was an exposure to all sorts of ideas and freedom speech was a given especially on campuses. How could any official at an university support such an idea, yet that’s exactly what they were doing.

        Then there was the New Your Times 1619 project that was built on the idea that our constitution was built by white men to keep blacks down. Even the Second Amendment was presented as a tool to keep blacks down.

        Now the constitution and the bill of rights are all but meaningless. And doubly so since even the courts no longer seem to be willing to interfere.

        Even our informal live and let live attitude is dead.

        Is it even remotely possible that those ideas can again be accepted?

        • I’m reminded of the old saying that it is darkest just before dawn.

          “Gab on fire, metaphorically speaking, with tens of thousands of new users signing up by the hour.”

          • The disciples of Jesus were absolutely stricken when their prophet died on the cross and was hauled away. How, how, HOW could that happen to the son of God? they asked. “Trust the plan, trust me.” he’d metaphorically said before he died. On the third day he arose, and THEN they understood, and they BELIEVED.

            Q has said things like “the scare is necessary.” and “dark to light” and other cryptic things. One way to intrepet it is it is necessary for the Dems to think they have won, and drunk with power will over extend to far. They are starting to do that now, and it may even appear as though there is a legit swearing-in ceremony. That is quite possible. If that happens, I don’t know how long the charade will go on before the take-down. Given the number of times the phrase “it will be Biblical” have been said, it could well be a full three days before the sting is revealed.

            I’m quite sure, after all is said and done, a LOT of people are going to need it to be spelled out for them, because there is going to be a whole lot of WTF expressions.

      • That seems reasonable.

        Much as I loathe Trump, he did one good thing – put two probably good Constitutionalists on in black robes at the highest level, and some number of others throughout the rest of the federal judiciary. It’s always a crapshoot, but with any kind of luck, they will be a good defense against the authoritarian madness that is coming.

  6. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” — John Adams

    I have nothing to add.

  7. A while ago on this blog there was another good observation on this same subject (I don’t know the date, I neglected to save that):
    “The Constitution is a restraining order against the federal government. I’m not going to say a word about the effectiveness of restraining orders against criminals.” — Standing Wolf

    Then there’s this one:
    “And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them.”— Thomas Jefferson, in “On state rights”, letter to William B. Giles, December 26, 1825.

    “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

  8. Pingback: Ghosts of the Constitution, past, present, and future | The View From North Central Idaho

  9. Mencken was wrong for once. The founders did not intend to make the judiciary the guardians of the Constitution; there is nothing in it giving judges any special role in enforcing the Constitution, beyond the responsibility _every_ government official had to follow it. (Thanks to many truly awful English judges, the founders had no liking for the judiciary at all – they just couldn’t think of how to get along without them.)

    But when every other official ignores the Constitution, eventually the case will come into court where the judge _may_ remember to follow it. Perhaps that is because a judge is supposed to be an expert in the laws, and the Constitution is the fundamental law in our system. However, I think the real reason is that an honest judge usually is constrained to a single course by the facts and the law and lacks any power to choose. But when a court case comes down to Constitutional issues, judges get the awesome power to tell all the other officials NO!

    Since the founders distrusted judges, this power is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, making the judiciary rather timid about exercising it. In addition, to be working as a federal judge, they had to be appointed and approved by the same elected officials that regularly ignore and violate the Constitution. (Remember the Bork hearings? The main reason he did not belong on the Supreme Court was that he clearly didn’t believe in limited government and would never want to enforce Constitutional limits. But that’s not what bothered any of the Senators…) So they too often avoid their duty of enforcing the Constitution.

Comments are closed.