Quote of the day—Stilettos & Shotguns (@thereal_SnS)

I don’t know who needs to hear this, but there is no such thing as freedom with strict oversight.

Stilettos & Shotguns (@thereal_SnS)
Tweeted on January 21, 2022
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]


5 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Stilettos & Shotguns (@thereal_SnS)

  1. When it comes to the provisions of the Constitution, there’s no such thing as “Intermediate Scrutiny” or ‘Rational Basis Test” either, but we have them, too.

  2. There’s been a lot of confusion over this issue during the ages-old argument between liberty and authoritarianism. There are those who seem to believe that liberty is the absence of laws, rules and standards, a free-for-all, a do whatever you feel in the moment to whomever you feel philosophy, and this QOTD isn’t helping in that department.

    Liberty can never thrive, nor exist at all, without strict, absolute laws. This is why James refers to the Decalogue as “the perfect law of liberty”.

    In the case of the 2A we MUST have strict oversight or we lose the ability to exercise the right without constant harassment, false accusation and encroachment. Indeed the whole problem is caused by an extreme lack of oversight of politicians, and we exercise far too little authority over them, and so our constitution and its underlying principles are never strictly enforced.

    The extremist, Romish, anti-American, leftist-seditionist-insurrectionist, Progressive authoritarian revolutionary agitators (the abomination of desolation) seek a kind of absolute “freedom to exercise strict oversight” of us, and the only earthly antidote that we have against them is our “freedom to exercise strict oversight” of them. The authority to which we appeal in that case is our constitution, a set of laws designed as guides for the strict oversight of politicians, judges and police, for the purpose of securing liberty.

    So, again and again, you can look at the same statement and, depending on your allegiance, its meaning can flip from one polar opposite to the other.

    This is really all about understanding the difference between good and evil. They both want “freedom”, they both appeal to some authority, and both claim their own versions of “justice”. The best measure we’ve ever had for discerning the difference between the two is the Decalogue. “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:20
    But hardly anyone cares about that anymore, hence the problem.

    • Dang, Lyle! I’m finding myself agreeing with you. I think the average 2A supporter “just wants to be left alone” – but in our current situation, without a team of activists, lawyers and politicians to oversee, scrutinize, and push back on anti-liberty laws, “just want to be left alone” requires a ton of oversight and action.

      Too bad laws can’t be passed that ban the idea of even bringing up stupid laws. Then we wouldn’t be facing the annual “assault weapons” bills in Olympia year after year after year……

      • We already do. It’s called the 2A. “Shall not be infringed”-speaking directly to all in government, and employees of any stripe.
        It wasn’t wrote for to tell us what we could do. It was wrote to tell government what they couldn’t do.
        The problem is the people haven’t gotten around to adding a penalty for violating it.
        For our forefathers made it also clear that anyone violating the provisions of the constitution are automatically no longer government employees. Their acting on their own.
        So when a Politician starts talking about gun-control. Think of them like a thieving neighbor.
        The problem is no one remembers what were going through, is what this country already went through. And wrote laws against it happening again.

Comments are closed.