Quote of the day—George Skelton

All these bad guys are law-abiding until they’re not. Then they sometimes become heavily armed mass killers.

George Skelton
June 7, 2021
Column: An AR-15 is like a pocket knife? Maybe federal judges shouldn’t get lifetime appointments
[This is just one item which illustrates my point. From the same article is another item:

“The Bill of Rights prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking away the rights of a minority,” the judge wrote in his opinion.

Sure, but in a democracy, there’s also something called majority rule.

I sometimes give people such as him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they do not really understand the content and/or intent of the Bill Of Rights, right? Skelton makes it clear he understands and that he wants to do away with it.

He understands the BOR protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority and he wants that protection eliminated. He understands innocent until proven guilty and wants to replace it with guilty until (never) proven innocent enough to own a common firearm.

Respond appropriately.—Joe]


17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—George Skelton

  1. It appears that George does not realize how good life has been, but he is about to find out the value of the US constitution, the bill of rights, and a functioning society (with all its flaws) when he no longer enjoys its protections. A year ago I expected that his kind of thinking was going to push the US into a civil war. Now, with the police demoralized and without support, it looks like we will instead see the rise of the gangs and never ending gang wars.

    • What if he does understand? Maybe he’s just trying to create a rhetorical framework to disarm you so that you might be victimized. Remember: These people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it’s funny. And the right had accommodated them.

      • I suppose that George could realize how good he has it but it seems more likely that he and his comrades believe that they are now gods that know how to control the world. That makes me think that he is just one more IYI.

        In a scene from the Russian revolution, a plant engineer asks the leader of the mob if he knows how to run a factory. He responds no, but we’ll figure it out when we need it. In the meantime we have to destroy this factory because it is corrupt.

        • Basically yes. But remember the part about impoverishing and killing you then raping your kids. That’s the bit that I’d hope you start worrying about. Because that’s what I’m worried about.

          • I’m concerned too. Especially since CRT is now mandated in WA as is sex ed. What other threats do you see?

            I’m expecting our exceptionally reliable power to become less reliable and more costly; cost increases for everything; persistent periods of products being out of stock; much more expensive services; more crime and theft along with a rise of the gangs and no-go areas; more limits on defensive weapons; and more attempts to control our everyday lives.

        • Well, Bloomberg seems to think he knows how to run a farm.

          I know enough to know I have no idea how to run a farm, or a factory. But I know some of the important things that go into running a certain kind of factory, because I’ve spent my entire professional career around them. Let me tell you, it’s no mean feat. Lots of things to think about, that are extremely important, that the layman most likely takes completely for granted.

  2. He also fails basic civics, which was likely eliminated due to the implementation of “Social Studies” and does not comprehend that we are at least, nominally, a Republic, not a Democracy.

  3. The judge screwed up by using intellectual exercise to make a point. You can’t do that with Pharisees, I mean liberals.
    It wouldn’t matter what he wrote. If it protected our rights to defend ourselves it was going to get attacked. They can’t help themselves. (Satanic communist must have that part of their brain fried in college?)
    One is always shocked by the ignorance of their arguments. The desperation of the appeal in such a manner. Would only be attractive to the most base of intellects. Maybe he knows his readership well?
    You can smell the fear through your computer!

  4. Democracy means the majority always rules. If that were the case, slavery, segregation, the ban on gay marriage, and the prohibition on court testimony by people of Chinese and African descent would all still be the law of the land.

    Still, the comments on that article have become an argument of the stopping power of 45 vs 9mm vs 223 and disagreement over the definition of assault weapon versus assault rifle. Sometimes gun owners are our own worst enemy.

  5. “Everyone is law-abiding until they aren’t” is a justification formula for a police state. There are no guard rails on that line of reasoning. Once you accept that kind of thing as legitimate, you can go from zero to gulags in a heartbeat. Then you’ll go to bed each night dripping with gore and sleep the slumber of the justified.

    I’d rather be in polite company (in Heinlein’s meaning). If someone decides that’s the day they want to stop being law-abiding, I’d rather have to call the cops for clean-up than rescue. I guess that’s the difference between me, and George Skelton and his like.

  6. All those girls are totally legal, normal, law abiding ladies one day, illegal prostitutes the next. We REALLY need to regulate vaginas.

    All those boys are totally legal, normal, law abiding gentlemen one day, illegal rapists the next. We REALLY need to regulate penises.

    All those elected officials are totally legal, normal, law abiding ladies one day, corrupt illegal influence peddlers and bribe takers the next. We REALLY need to regulate pols much more closely.

    • The real issue then, is not that people are totally legal, normal, law abiding people, until they are not. To this erstwhile Gauleiter, there is no difference between people, then. They follow the law and then they do not. There’s something called Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF). According to his thinking, something similar operates with people, so let’s call it Mean Time Between Non-Law- Abiding Events (MTBNLAE). He must believe that there is no difference between the law-abiding and the non-law abiding except, perhaps, how long between failures. I would not want him buying parts for assembly into anything on which lives depend, as he sees no difference between the reliable people and the ones whose MTBNLAE is measured in hours, not months. .

  7. There is no peaceable response to people like Skelton. They understand fully what the BOR means. They simply DO NOT CARE. They intend to RULE US and they intend to do whatever required to make that happen. The ONLY appropriate response to people like that is to KILL THEM. There is no coexisting with them.

  8. All these governments are law-abiding until they’re not. Then they sometimes become heavily armed mass killers.

  9. “All these bad guys are law-abiding until they’re not.”

    Remember UBU52, who used to comment a lot on here years ago? He/She made that very point, going on to say that it is NOT the known criminal population that “We” should be worried about, but the law-abiding, for every criminal was once law-abiding and therefore the law-abiding represent the “source population”, as it were, of all criminals.

    “Innocent until proven guilty” then means that (and my leftist mother in-law has said this verbatim) “we have to wait until someone commits a horrible crime before we can stop them” by which time it is of course too late, isn’t it? So the police must sit by, stand back, stand down and do nothing until after it is too late, goes the argument.

    And so they want, essentially, a “Department of Pre-Crime”, which can, in effect, arrest, try, convict and imprison you (or drug you, etc.) before you commit a crime, thus enforcing the law in a way that is much more efficient, and protective of civil society.

    It’s a compelling argument against the BOR…for an ignoramus or a tyrant (one of the mind of Cain). Apparently some people must experience the full force of the jack-boot of tyranny against their soft backsides before they can come to understand the BOR. History tells us that they will likely have that opportunity. The modern, Romish left now refer to the full realization of this sort of “opportunity” as “Social Justice”. It is quite popular, and goes with the notion of a “strong” politician (etc.) who “gets things done”.

  10. Pingback: Quote of the day—Ritchie | The View From North Central Idaho

  11. Re majority rule: a variation on that is the peculiar notion that “science” is decided by consensus. (This is of course exactly backwards, and anyone who understands what science has looked like since at least Galileo knows that. Those who do not aren’t scientists but rather politicians or quacks or charlatans.)
    The way I like to put it: if truth was decided by consensus, we wouldn’t be here, because Columbus would have sailed off the edge of the flat earth when he went west in 1492.

Comments are closed.