Anti-gun Activist has Delusional Beliefs

Quote of the Day

Those of us who are not gun fetishists are supposed to “keep our powder dry” on the subject, but it must be said: The Second Amendment is as antique as a muzzle-loaded long gun, and should be treated as a historical artifact.

The need for a well-regulated militia, crucial to the early history of the country, is no longer in play. We need to rewrite the amendment, dispensing with the oddball capitalization and punctuation, to fit the times:

The right of the people to serve in the armed services or the National Guard, or to serve as law enforcement officers if duly qualified, shall not be infringed.

Kirk Swearingen
April 23, 2023
The Second Amendment is a ludicrous historical antique: Time for it to go

It is as if he misses the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. It is for the people to preserve their free state by defending against a tyrannical government. It is not the right of the people to learn to shoot guns under the direction of government.

Reading the entire screed, I find it very telling that he ignores that in the Heller decision all nine Supreme Justices agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. They were not unanimous on the application to the particulars of the application of it to the D.C. law. But, they did all agree on the individual right aspect. Swearingen apparently believes he is a better constitutional scholar than all nine SCOTUS justices combined.

Lots of other “errors” could be pointed out but with that delusion, ignorance, or indicator of evil intent in your pocket you know you can confidently ignore anything further he has to say.

But don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.


8 thoughts on “Anti-gun Activist has Delusional Beliefs

  1. Todays Progressive actually would better fit the definition of a Fascist. They want to eliminate any means of resistance to The State and enable their ability to control every action of their subjects.

    They are, IMO, incapable of even comprehending a basic definition of liberty.

    • “Progressive” is a euphemism for “socialist”. And “fascist” is a synonym for “national socialist” (just as “communist” is a synonym for “international socialist”). So yes, your observation makes perfect sense. And this of course is also why Hitler and Stalin got along so well until Hitler did something particularly stupid. Of course, it was a typical move: “devour your own”, one we’ve seen over and over.

      • Actually, Hitler beat Stalin to the punch by a WEEK! Documents found after the Soviet breakup show his troops were scheduled to attack across their mutual border in the Poland seized area. They both needed the food produced there, 1/2 of it for each wasn’t cutting it. Stalin so mistrusted his army that most all weapons were stockpiled near that border, which the Germans overran immediately, which is one of the reasons they got so far, so fast, in their drive to reach Moscow.

  2. So much for the “can’t we all just get along”, thing. And I guess life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should have added to it, “if we/government say so”?
    Maybe what we should be re-thinking is that thing about being nice to retards our moms taught us? This communist-autism thing is getting out of hand.

  3. The second amendment has always seemed to be perfectly clear to me, because to me the ‘militia’ was another way of saying ‘armed forces’, and what best regulates (keeps under control, prevents excesses by) the armed forces is knowing the gen pop that they are supposed to serve also has arms and might shoot back if trod upon.
    Always made sense to me. And explains why statists would want it gone.

    • Spot on Steve. And I would add its definitions are perfectly clear to them also.
      It seems delusional evil just can’t abide you having the same or more power they aspire too.
      Thus, the silly, moronic lies in place of reasoned discourse. And unacceptance of their argument lost.

  4. If the Second Amendment goes, can the First be far behind? If the Government is better at providing safety to the masses, would they not know better what they can safely say, hear, read, print,join together to say, hear, read or print, what they can believe that isn’t proven and approved by the state, or ask the government to redress. After all the Government kinows better than any individual not part of the government, right? Leftists believe in an all powerful, all knowing, everywhere present, all generous, and all merciful entity whose name starts with a G, the same as conservatives.
    Certainly the Fourth Amendment is unnecessary with such an invisible friend as Government, who needs a separate judgment of what reasonable oversight and inspection by Government is.
    Why have any constitutional limits on the power of the giant invisible friend? That is of course the ultimate goal of the Leftists.

  5. Ya Windy, those that don’t have God in their lives generally replace him with themselves.
    As crappy Joe says, “no amendment is absolute”. You can feel very comfortable in your predictions.
    And the most frightening thing to come out of his mouth to date? “I need to finish what I started”?!?!?!?!?!?! And it’s not an ice cream cone he’s talking about, unfortunately.

Comments are closed.