Quote of the Day
While Judge Benitez’s ruling and reasoning were welcomed, it’s frustrating to many on the pro-gun side of the argument that judges continue to link the need for standard capacity magazines solely to domestic crimes. They should also be referring to citizens’ defense against government tyranny should the need ever arise as a justification for such magazines, as well as the possible need by citizens to protect the nation from foreign invasion sometime in the future.
Mark Chesnut
September 22, 2023
Judge Overturns California’s 10-Round Magazine Limit—Again
Agreed. That Overton Window needs to be moved.
Judge Benitez is spot on. And so is Mr. Chestnut, as he touched on the real problem. Defense against tyrants, from government or street denizen varietals.
We all know, especially them, no one gives a crap about magazine capacity or saving human life. That’s just the SJW pretextual lie.
It would certainly be nice if we could get down to some real bone gnawing for once.
That being sometimes you just got to kill the faggy-communist-theiving-tyrantical-self-esteem-junkies. In whatever form they attack you.
And exactly what tools one uses to do that is nobody’s business but your own.
And anyone in government that says different is no longer part of the government. As in, NOT-WITH-STANDING.
Courts are big on standing. Its way passed time the courts recognize tyrants have none. Inside a court or out.
Next time someone tells you we have a gun violence problem. Tell them, obviously, a lot less than we actually need. And at this rate, a lot more than we will ever want.
Suppose you weren’t a native speaker of English, and you were trying to figure out what “violence” meant. Even if you are a native speaker, it’s not clear any more since silence is violence, some speech is violence, some widespread arson and rioting is speech not violence, and some disorderly conduct is insurrection worse than 9/11.
So, let’s take them at their word that they are working against “gun violence”, but we don’t know what they mean by that phrase. Let’s work backwards from what their policy solutions ask, and we come to this conclusion: “gun violence” means the possession of guns by people that doesn’t advance progressive political power.
The anti-gun politicians are, as they say vociferously, fully in support of the Second Amendment. The problem for us is that “The People” from the 27 words of that amendment doesn’t include you or I. They’re fully in favor of guns being kept and borne by their people, under their control or convenient to their purposes.
“Next time someone tells you we have a gun violence problem. Tell them, obviously, a lot less than we actually need. And at this rate, a lot more than we will ever want.”
According to history, the Kaiser told the Swiss Germany could invade with 250,000 men; the Swiss, known for having 250,000 in their citizen militia, replied “we would shoot and go home.” Th eKaiser upped th e ante to 500,000 invading German troops, whereupon the Swiss repiled “we would shoot twice and go home.”
A math question here: What would be the necessary number of shots per American citizen to resolve the problem(s) we currently suffer?
In actuality, not that much. Most of the problems sit in DC. Take care of that and most of the chattering class communists will go hide.
In reality, on present course, like counting the hairs on our heads. Only God knows.
To me it’s like surviving a bear attack. Once the adrenaline wears off, your done vomiting, and have cleaned yourself up. You can reflect back on the fact it wasn’t enough.
In caliber, firepower. or placement.
In the three months prior to Obama’s election American’s bought enough guns to arm all the personal of both the American and Chinese militaries combined. Plus, close to 5 billion rounds of ammo. Those numbers have done nothing but go up since.
How much will it take? No communists with three functioning brain cells left would want to find out. But the army being imported across the southern border right now means it’s going to be a lot.
God’s speed, brother.
We are meant to believe:
– “Literally Hitler” stole the 2016 election via collusion with the fascist dictator of Russia.
– When he lost the free and fair 2020 elections, he attempted a coup.
– Because of the undemocratic Senate who was in thrall to him, he escaped removal from office and disqualification.
– Now Literally Hitler is attempting to rise to power again, and because his fascist supporters still dominate his party, could be in a position to reclaim the Presidency.
Also:
– Trust all government with our safety. It can protect you better than you can.
– Besides, if it became tyrannical, like you’re worried about (how silly a notion!) your puny, ineffective rifles would do nothing against the massive power it possesses.
– After all, your AR is useless against tanks, drones, F-15s, or nukes. Resistance is futile. Just submit now, while the government might still consider having some mercy upon you.
– And again, you’re paranoid for thinking the government could become tyrannical.
Judges…even good ones like Benitez, are at heart cowards. Afraid to actually stand up, state the truth and uphold the Constitution. They are taught to issue the narrowest most cloistered rulings possible in order to not “rock the boat”. Even the good ones are saddled with that conditioning.