Quote of the day—Laura J. Nelson and Kristina Davis

Dramatic anecdotes and a tendency toward gun-related puns seem at times designed to troll gun-safety advocates, who view his rulings and his expansive view of the 2nd Amendment with a mixture of outrage and alarm.

Laura J. Nelson and Kristina Davis
August 8, 2021
The judge upending California’s gun laws: ‘Blessed’ jurist or ‘stone-cold ideologue’?
[This is regarding U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez who has been throwing out some of California’s oppressive gun laws.

I don’t think it does any good to troll the anti-gun people in judicial rulings. Rather I think they should be treated with a certain amount of respect as they are prosecuted.

I didn’t know that he is 70 years old and semi-retired. That explains why some of his rulings have taken so long.

Reading about his experience as a child in Cuba may explain why he gives the 2nd Amendment the respect it deserves:

In September 1960, Castro set up a network of “revolutionary collective vigilance” committees in neighborhoods across the country. Its members, covert adherents to the Communist Party, began going door to door, asking neighbors to surrender their weapons, said Lillian Guerra, a University of Florida history professor.

At school, Benitez and his classmates were pulled out of class and questioned about their parents’ view of the revolution. His father was a businessman, and his mother held advanced degrees. In the Daily Journal, Benitez recalled opening the front door one day to see two armed people in army uniforms who took his mother away.

“We didn’t see her for three days,” he told the Daily Journal. “We didn’t know where she was, what happened to her, whether she was dead or alive.”

That would make quite the impression.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Laura J. Nelson and Kristina Davis

  1. The real clue is how long it took to find a judge in Kalifornia that kind of understands the law. What’s it been, 15-20 years or more? And were just now getting to hear about the 2A as a controlling legal authority on government. What a concept!
    Somehow the term institutional rot, just doesn’t quite cover it? Try communist putsch.
    Glad the judge got his mom back.
    Che must have had a headache, or was busy killing people on the other side of the island that week?

  2. I didn’t know that. Thanks for posting this article. I had wondered why he was so vehement in is support. Now I understand.

  3. From the article:
    “That was a new and deeply disturbing line of thinking,” said Ari Freilich, the California policy director for the Giffords Law Center. Benitez, he said, seemed to suggest that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of “average people in a civilian militia to make war against their government.”

    “If we take that seriously, then there’s no limiting principle on the types of firearms that people should be allowed to possess, including tanks, anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns,” Freilich said.

    Well, yes. Tanks are in fact legal, even working. So are machine guns, though tightly regulated and way too expensive.

    “New and deeply disturbed line of thinking”?!! Really? Have you not read the Declaration?

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Protecting the ability to do just that is the ENTIRE POINT of the 2nd Amendment.

  4. The term “gun-safety advocates” of course must be translated from Left-Speak into English before the quote can be understood.

    Gun-Safety Advocate; noun (20th Century L-S, coy/sarcastic/ironic term). One of a large class of terms used by various anti-liberty, anti-Reformation, pro-authoritarian (i.e. murderous) factions, “brotherhoods”, political parties, fraternities, trade organizations, religions, etc., to describe evil (human rights violations, wholesale larceny…mass destruction) as good (peace, health, “enlightenment” and safety).
    1. Pro-authoritarian, anti Bill of Rights agitator, bomb-thrower. 2. Communist or fascist, i.e. Marxist i.e. papist, Jesuit, globalist, et al.
    (American; also see “Republican”, “Progressive”, “Conservative”, and “Democrat”)

  5. Something to keep in mind: statists and despots (BIRM) cannot stand being mocked and ridiculed.

    Bad enough to have their causes stymied, but to be made fun of in doing so?

  6. “expansive view”

    Is there a better term for those of us who approve of the original meaning?

Comments are closed.