search
top

Limiting Guns Only to Party Members

In the fine tradition of Nazi’s, Communists, and Fascists:

This issue is ‘Gun Right’s’ fatal flaw.  It constitutes a threat to our country’s remarkable diversity through those who harbor hateful beliefs.  I submit that there has been no real solution to this issue as we do not deny access to guns based on ideology.  No solution, that is, until what we just witnessed in this past general election.

You can read the whole sorry tome here. These are supposedly educated, tolerant, sophisticated people. The reality is they are thugs with PhDs.

22 Responses to “Limiting Guns Only to Party Members”

  1. Here is the key idea, from the second paragraph:

    However, there is an issue for which there really has been no solution. Those holding hateful ideological beliefs can legally arm themselves, as long as they don’t have an existing record that would prohibit them from doing so – and some of them have demonstrated the capacity to kill innocent people simply because of their race, ethnicity, religious belief, sexual preference and even gender (domestic violence)

    So, their solution is to deny people their rights because of their beliefs. But holding a belief is protected under the 1st Amendment, is it not? SO they are also attacking the 1st Amendment rights of those who do not hold approved beliefs.

    I hope people like these do not amass political power.

    • Greg in Allston says:

      “I hope people like these do not amass political power.” Plenty of them already have I’m afraid. May you live in interesting times.

    • Arnie says:

      If they do, that’s why we have guns, sir! (Jas. Madison, The Federalist, #46)

    • Jack says:

      He’s also agaisnt the 5th and 6th with this: “Those holding hateful ideological beliefs can legally arm themselves, as long as they don’t have an existing record that would prohibit them from doing so”

      So that’s 40% of the Bill of Rights.

      From the context you could make a case for his contempt of the 4th, 7th and 8th.

      At least I don’t think he mentions quartering of troops.

  2. ecurb says:

    This is just one old retired guy, right? Who apparently spends his entire day writing massive screeds to spew into an uncaring void.

    He’s got over 900 followers, if you include “Obama for America” and the “Boldly Social” social media marketing group…
    I’m under 30, so I don’t understand how to check how many retweets a person gets, but his facebook page is pretty barren.

    Weird how some people seem to think they can run a blog without allowing comments.

    • Tam says:

      Weird how some people seem to think they can run a blog without allowing comments.

      Well, that explains why that Glenn Reynolds guy has such a hard time building readership… ;)

    • “Weird how some people seem to think they can run a blog without allowing comments.”

      In his case he’s pretty much obligated to dispense with the comments section. It really harms his image as a credentialed “deep thinkering” member of the Academy when his every argument gets evicerated by a bunch of knuckle dragging rednecks in the comments.

  3. Erin Palette says:

    Not that I expect anyone that far gone to listen to reason, but I’ve had good results using the “sauce for the gander” technique, specifically:

    “OK, let’s say for the sake of argument that this passes into law. Then let’s suppose that next election, your party loses and my party wins. Are you fine with the law now saying you have to turn in your guns and only we can have them?”

    All parties eventually lose favor.

    • Jack says:

      Yeah, its funny that people who are supposedly on the lookout for Right-Wing-Facist-Hate would be so happy to give their enemies such powerful new toys.

      They must either feel they’ll forever be in power, or that the bureaucrats implementing such schemes will forever be on their side, or maybe they feel that when/if the Reich-Wing gets back into power they’ll just protest this “sudden/new” tyranny.

    • Sigivald says:

      I’ve tried pointing that out to them, msyself.

      It doesn’t seem to ever work; they seem to really believe that The Powers They Desire For The State will naturally Only Be Useable For Good.

      It’s like nobody’s paid attention even to the history of living memory, let alone before that…

    • Rob Crawford says:

      I dunno. Cuba’s been a one-party state for 50 years; the Soviet Union lasted, what, 70?

      Sure, eventually those parties lose their grip. But even then, the replacement may not be any better.

  4. Want an apartment with a stable rent costs, longer leases, and without the trouble of home ownership? Buy a condo. Otherwise try to negotiate a longer lease, but keep in mind that tits a two way street. The property owner ought to have property rights too.

  5. Anyone who takes Morris Dees seriously needs his head examined. He’s either looney tunes or too stupid to be able to breathe without written instructions.

  6. Asdf says:

    He lays awake at night in fear of white hate groups, which are responsible for maybe a dozen shootings a year, but mum’s the word on ghetto gang-banger thugs, who account for probably 99.9999999% of all shootings in America. Way to go, idiot!

    • Arnie says:

      That was going to be my point as well. Statistically speaking, if you wanted to save black Americans from gun violence, you’d be most effective by denying guns to…black Americans. Even the Rev. Jesse Jackson once admitted this.

      • Tam says:

        Racism always sounds better when you preface it with “statistically speaking”. It makes it all scientific and stuff.

        • Is it racism to admit that the major cause of murder for black Americans are other black Americans? It must therefore be racism to admit that the major of cause of murder for white Americans is other white Americans.

          These are facts, and accusing Arnie of racism for pointing this out is stupid.

          • Asdf says:

            Tam, please don’t take offense, but I think your reply is the result of exactly the sort of PC, Pavlovian conditioning that we have been bombarded with for decades. A few years ago I would have had the same response as you to Me and Arnie’s posts, but I have always felt a sort of cowardice about going along with this insufferable tyranny we call Political Correctness. Eric holder was right, actually, when he accused us of being cowards in dealing with racially charged issues. The tactic of calling out Heretics in the name of “eracism” is losing its power to intimidate people who have legitimate grievances. So thank God for the Internet!

            Again, I apologize if this post comes across as a scolding. That was not my intent.

  7. Archer says:

    Wow. I feel less smart after having read some of that. There wasn’t a single point I couldn’t easily counter, off the top of my head. Research would only strengthen my position.

    Not that I expect anyone who accepts “studies” by the Brady Campaign or VPC at face value to be swayed by such trivial things as “logic”, “common sense”, or “evidence”.

  8. Jack says:

    He’s also got contempt for the 5th and 6th amendments

    “Those holding hateful ideological beliefs can legally arm themselves, as long as they don’t have an existing record that would prohibit them from doing so – and some of them have demonstrated the capacity to kill innocent people simply because of their race, ethnicity, religious belief, sexual preference and even gender (domestic violence). ’Stand your Ground’ or ‘Shoot First’ laws, where only the shooter is left standing, makes a plea of self-defense by an extremist essentially a license to kill.”

    Get that? How dare you think you can do something just because you haven’t been convicted of a crime!

    Due process and right to tiral are for people with the proper idelogy.

    And if you’re attacked you have to wait for the other person to shoot you first. Sorry ladies, you gotta let that rapist get that first hit in. And you’ll have to run first.

  9. Scott says:

    I wonder if that loon realizes how close he sounds to a Nazi.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      He knows he can’t be a Nazi, because he’s not a right-winger.

      Never mind that Nazis were only “right wing” according to Stalin…

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » You know who else thought that guns should be restricted only to the pure? - [...] Hitler. [...]
  2. Violent Pro-Government Extremists at A Geek With Guns - [...] Shall Not Be Questioned has a post that links to an article trying to unite the various gun control …
top