Quote of the day—UR a Smart Ass, Carl @cleflore23

I own my gun for lawful purposes, so why am I unfairly targeted like I’m the next mass shooter? It’s discrimination to judge me based on the gun I own.

UR a Smart Ass, Carl @cleflore23
Tweeted on November 6, 2021
[I would probably describe it as “prejudice” (pre judging) rather than “discrimination”, but the general sentiment is certainly correct. In general, anti-gun people are not nice people and many are demonstrably evil.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—UR a Smart Ass, Carl @cleflore23

  1. The guy is right. But with that and $5, he can get a cup of coffee some where.
    NEVER justify your gun ownership to any one! I own a gun because, BFYTW! MINE. Private property. Not yours. Nothing to do with you, until you try and take it away.
    Don’t know nothing about no stinking laws. And don’t care.
    As soon as we say, “I own a gun for legal proposes”. You just told a commie to redefine the word , “legal” for you. And they have been, for a 100 years now.
    We need to quit falling for the same bullshit game.
    I’m pragmatic enough to understand one can’t always act on one’s principles. (No, I wouldn’t open carry in a police station in DC.)
    But Twitter would not be one of those places. Owning a gun is nobodies business but mine.
    Don’t like that? To F–k’in bad.

  2. I own my gun for lawful purposes, so why am I unfairly targeted like I’m the next mass shooter?

    As an anti-gun person said (repeatedly), every gun owner is law-abiding … until they aren’t. (Bonus points for anyone who can name that anti. 😉 ) That’s why they feel justified in targeting owners of certain types of guns — because they might turn criminal and shoot people.

    It makes perfect sense … if you live in China, North Korea, or the newly-minted Biden-approved Talibanistan (where Afghanistan used to be).

    Problem is, American Constitutional jurisprudence is not based on what one might do, nor what one is capable of (which is really another way of saying the same thing). It’s properly based on what one has done.

    It doesn’t matter what I own or purchase. It doesn’t matter if I build myself a Howitzer or convert all my semi-autos to select-fire if I only use them responsibly and never harm anyone or damage their property. Until and unless I use it for some nefarious purpose, it’s nobody’s damn business what I do with my private property.

    (Yes, I understand there are laws against ownership of certain harmless-by-themselves items, such as auto-sears and suppressors, without prior government approval, which is a law based on what one might do with them. I’d argue that such laws fall outside Constitutional jurisprudence; a priori restrictions are generally verboten.)

  3. Every criminal has a tendency to accuse others. Making you out to be more like them is their way of making them closer to average. It’s a form of justification. In the 2A conversation it is the criminal, Romish left accusing the population at large. It makes them and their ways more normal and acceptable if they can make us out to be dangerous criminals-in-waiting.

    @ Archer; UBU52 said it here, for one. The argument was that the generally law-abiding population represents the “feeder stock” as it were for the criminal population, and furthermore that, as such, the law-abiding deserve more careful scrutiny than the already criminal population which is a known factor. It turns society on its head, making the law-abiding population responsible for the existence of criminals (and Charles Manson made that case in court, quite vehemently). Morally and intellectually, that argument is little different from the Marxist notion that the more well off in society deserve to be threatened and coerced into supporting the less well off who, solely by their condition in life, have more legal right to your stuff than you.

    And in fact that is an open, unabashed papal assertion as well, and indeed I believe that the papacy is very likely the main source of it, at least in the modern era starting in the mid 19th Century. Two papal encyclicals, Rerum Novarum (1891) and Fratelli Tutti (2020) articulate the sentiment more completely and more skillfully than some of the most well-trained Marxists. And so, when a set of ideas comes from an ancient power, and also is the most well articulated by that power, while that power has the ear of practically every political leader in the world, one can well suspect that it is that power from which the ideas emanated in the first place. There is other evidence besides, but that’s a whole big long conversation about world history, and no one likes long, thorough posts.

  4. The term and concept is “Prior Restraint”, and is the basis for overturning laws that constrain other, more approved (for now) Constitutional rights. Submitting one’s speech text before delivery is such a prior restraint, and is considered to have a “Chilling Effect” on the exercise of the right.

Comments are closed.