Author, frequent commenter, and blogger in his own right OldNFO had some thoughts yesterday regarding the hoopla and frenzy over two f**ktards and the inevitable Dumbocrat blood-dancing following their escapades:
"I would have a different proposal, do away with gun laws! Train everyone how to use them, once they pass a mental evaluation and background check, they are allowed to buy and carry whatever their heart desires. Constitutional carry…"OldNFO is a good guy. His blog is a regular stop, and he's generally a thoughtful and sensible guy, and make no mistake about it, very pro-2A.
But I have a teeny weenie issue with that proposal as stated.
To wit:
Which other constitutionally protected natural rights mentioned in the BoR should require a doctor's note before kicking in?
Freedom of speech?
Freedom of religion?
Freedom of assembly and association?
Right to jury trial?
Right to no cruel and unusual punishment?
Right to no double jeopardy?
Right to not be required to quarter soldiers in your house?
Just curious where and why you'd draw that line...
If I say I don't want soldiers in my house in peacetime, does that make me therefore crazy, and thus unfit to exercise that right??
Captain Yossarian called.
All he said was:
"That's some catch, that Catch-22."
"It's the best there is!"
Anybody who would try to put a doctor's note between me and natural rights should be placed on a permanent mental health incarceration hold for 72 years, or until such time as the delusional state completely passes.
Failing that, should anyone try and enforce it, I'll be happy to arrange a meeting for them with 72 virgins.
Or was that 72 Virginians?
I forget...
Either way, it's not going to work out like you think it will.
The state doesn't get to put up a hoop - not any hoop - for anyone to jump through before deciding their constitutional rights will be granted.
Natural law rights were earned when my name was typed on my birth certificate, and I had a pulse.
End of discussion.
200M zombies killed by their governments in the last century would like a word with you...
The @$$tards proposing stupid gun law ideas don't need any help.
But a goodly number of them need a bullet to the head, and if they keep pushing, they're going to get their wishes granted.
Weaponsman conservatively estimated the number of guns in the U.S. in private hands, using actual data (with numerous blank spots) at a solid 600,000,000 guns. Not 200M. Not 300M.
And every owner probably has 25-1000 (or more) rounds of ammunition per piece, which puts rounds of ammunition available in the stratosphere.
The people who think they're going to ban guns , and follow through on that cunning plan, are going to get a headache that will make the Irish Troubles look like a church picnic egg toss.
And when it's over, we'll be 150M Americans short of current numbers, and no one left alive who'll be in favor of banning everything.
So except for the regrettable rivers of blood that plan will occasion, maybe it's time to open that ball, and get down to the rat-killin'.
"You can't argue with a rat, baby sister..."
They don't seem to take a hint any other way.
27 comments:
A mental evaluation is just an easy way to keep guns away from those as deserve them, and give them to those as don’t.
Why are people lulled into thinking that the Communist want what's best for us...They want us dead dead and dead get that through your skulls people otherwise the Commies will be drinking from yours...
For that type it's 72 San Franciscans.
This so-called red flag law is quite obviously as illegal of a so-called law as has ever been contemplated in these United States. It is a blatant violation of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments to the Constitution. Its implementation must be resisted at all costs, and in states where it already exists it must be overturned by any means necessary.
If a particular individual is REALLY a dangerous nut job, then there are already laws that allow for that individual, not his guns, to be confined in a mental facility for evaluation and treatment.
Any politicians promoting this kind of a law that is such an egregious violation of black letter constitutional law needs to start receiving Night Letters explaining what will happen to them personally if they persist. Ditto for any judge issuing a warrant based on such a law. And if they choose to ignore such clear warnings, then the Michael Collins method applied.
The biggest stupidity with the "red Flag" laws (assuming they actually follow a rational due process route, big assumption) is that they lock up the guns, not the person who is supposedly such a threat.
Yeah, sure, let's piss off that "dangerous" person by taking away his property and leave him out and with access to motor vehicles, gasoline, fertilizer, chlorine and ammonia, and, oh yeah, the ability to hook with the friendly neighborhood gang bangers to get an off books gun.
As Jeremy Clarkson says: "What could go wrong?"
Hey Aesop;
I am tired of debating with people that want me to compromise my rights away when the only people that will get lessened is people of the gun. Everytime there is a a shooting by some deranged squirrel, they immediately go for everyones elses lawful property and rights. I am just tired of dealing with this and I have reached my "red line". I just ain't gonna give them up. The powers that be want us to be wage slaves for the system, they want us to be productive and support the system with our sweat, and productivity and just be quiet because "our betters" know what is best for us. I just ain't feeling it.
Molon Labe, you'll die in the shade of a trillion bullets.
Spin
I don't know. TiredMasses has informed us that gun owners can't win a war with the government, so that seems pretty conclusive. /sarc
I'll own to being as tired as MrGaribaldi; tired of arguing, explaining, explaining again...just tired. DONE. No point in engaging further...at least verbally.
I'll spend my time at the gym, the range and the reloading bench.
DONE.
Boat Guy
Off topic...but I don't know how else to reach you. Ebola alert in Missouri. Not sure of the veracity of the report.
http://www.ebolaoutbreakmap.com/listings/ebola-alert-missouri-possible-ebola-patient-july-9-2019/
Relax. Unless you live next door.
If there's a confirmed Ebola patient in CONUS, you'll know within 24 hours.
So will everyone else.
The problem, at that point, will be contact tracing of everyone they interacted with in the 3-40+ days they were incubating, and during some unknown amount of which were actively contagious.
This is probably my Liberal education failing me, but I thought the 2nd Amendment was covered by the National Guard? Being a well regulated militia and what not. I know it says the Right of the People in there, but I always thought was more of a legalese phrase. Like the People vs Dingus or something.
A bit of cool history: I recently found out that in the days of Bonnie and Clyde, towns used to have Arsenals where all the guns would be kept in case a call to arms was ever issued. In Texas especially they were maintained in case Mexico ever got the itch to get their land back. A consequence of this was that criminals got easy access to as many military weapons as they could carry and cops with their pea shooters didn't stand a chance. No opinion, just thought it was interesting.
Yeah that lack of education is shining like a fiber optic laser light show with aerial fireworks backing up a cymbal clashing monkey toy.
Research 10 U.S.C. § 246
And then the Supreme Court's majority rulings in the Heller and McDonald cases
Then the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights
Come back when you can articulate an understanding that where ever you went to school probably defrauded you.
We'll - maybe - wait.
Oh, I forgot.
Also be able to articulate how the the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 affects certain parameters of §246.
Be prepared to show your work.
Good plan man.
My issue is that if someone is not to be trusted with exercising his full Constitutional rights, either for criminal, medical or psychological reasons, he's also not to be trusted walking around unsupervised. If he's a criminal, and he's paid his debt to society, he's back among the civilized and as long as he behaves himself he's just like anyone else. If his crime was so serious, or he committed so many, that he's not to be trusted as a citizen he needs to be locked away so deep his family has to mail him boxes of sunshine. Yes, this is punishment, he did something wrong now he gets his pee pee whacked because of it. Don't do bad things, don't get punished.
If someone is psychologically unstable and is a DEFINITE (meaning via actual actions, not just facebook posts) danger to others, he needs to be institutionalized, permanently perhaps.
Mark D
Wow. "cool history" and all. The existence of Guard Armories is New and Exciting stuff.
Boat Guy
PTHM : Been seeing your posts here and several other places all within the last week. Never saw you anywhere prior to that. Most of what you say and the way you say it, combined with your sudden appearance here and elsewhere makes you appear to be a leftist troll. But just in case you are not, here are a few brief pointers to fill in the gaps of your edumacation:
First, go read what the Constitution and Bill of Rights actually says. Then, read the writings, both public and private, of the Founders and signers of the Declaration of Independence. They were all of the same mind with respect to guns. And when they referred to a 'well regulated' militia, that did not mean the National Guard, which by the way the Founders would have referred to as the Select Militia. The words 'well regulated' was standard lingo in their day for well trained and proficient with their weapons. So in other words, a citizenry at large that was well versed and proficient in the use of firearms.
The Founders considered the militia to be, and I quote, "the whole of the people". In other words, the citizenry at large. And they absolutely wanted and intended for the citizenry at large to possess, and I again quote, "all the terrible weapons of war that a standing army might have". This would include crew served weapons such as heavy machine guns and artillery. So the idea that semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity box magazines do not belong in the hands of everyday Americans is the exact opposite of what the Founders intended and expressly said.
The Founders did not create the 2nd Amendment so the people could go hunting or go target shooting as a hobby. They did it for the express purpose of having a citizenry at large that possessed terrible weapons of war and was proficient in their use, so they would be capable of overthrowing their government, by violent and deadly means if necessary, if that government eventually became tyrannical. This specific purpose and no other for the 2nd Amendment, is what the Founders explicitly expressed in their spoken words and their writings.
"Where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Where the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- George Washington
Actually, been reading since at least 2014. Didn't realize it'd been that long until Aesop linked to an old article. How time flies
Yeesh. A bit of tongue in cheek doesn't go as far anymore, these days.
Tired... I call bullshit on that otherwise you wouldn't of had to ask where I was at since I've pretty much let everyone know where I was since I want people to start building Communities...When you have all the same characteristics of a leftist and sound like them your going to be judged as one...Your screen name screams leftist by the way so might want to work on that...
Definitely glad you're on our side Brother...If you all had met him you would agree with me...
Gotcha, lineman. I now understand the general tone of response to my comments. I didn't think it got more Patriotic than Lady Liberty but you learn something new every day. To be fair, I didn't go into the comment section until this year so that might be why I missed your stuff.
Agree with you completely Boat Guy! However, I don't like to pass up the opportunity to educate. There are some open if not malleable minds around still...
Yes if they were here to learn instead of stir up shit I would agree...
"And every owner probably has 25-1000 (or more) rounds of ammunition per piece..."
In my innocent youth, I thought 1000 rounds was a huge amount. Then I bought a case of 22LR; surprise me: 5000 rounds. Anyone with 25 rounds per piece is just a dabbler.
@Boat Guy
They've actually been around for a while. They're not so common anymore, in fact.
Post a Comment