Sep 22 2007
Quotation Of The Century
This will stay at the top for a while — scroll down for updates. From Bruce:
“How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”
~Texas State Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp
19 responses so far
19 Responses to “Quotation Of The Century”
I agree completely.
“Gun control” isn’t about controlling the things, the guns; it’s about controlling the people who own them. People support disarming the citizenry only when they believe the ordinary law abiding individual is to stupid or irresponsible to use weapons wisely.
At its heart. gun control is an elitist statement. A politician who believes in gun control, believes you are an idiot.
There can be no more fundamental civil right than the right to self-defense, because in some circumstances it *is* the right to life. If someone doesn’t recognize the RKBA, they don’t recognize an individual’s right to life, period. Those who talk about “Society’s” rights have no concept of - and thus place no real value on - the worth and dignity of the individual. People like that build re-education camps and gulags.
What is important is not what they Say about it - it is what they do about it. Do they push laws to do away with it - like Rudy has done several times the last 15 years - or do they vote against laws that do away ith it.
What they say is not important. How they make laws is what is important! With the exceptions of Ronne and Barry all politicians tell lies. Ignore the words and study the deeds!
A very true statement. The thing I find puzzling is why so many voters agree with those who feel and act as if we are not smart enough to survive without their help. Whenever people cry to the government for help it only proves they are not smart enough to take care of themselves. That does not mean that there are not uses for government, but only that one should not look to it for help. Our forefathers gave us a good start and we have been screwing it up ever since that time. All one needs to do to see that is read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, something many politicians apparently have not done judging by their actions.
“Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.”
Mao Tsetung
And as much as I hate quoting the murderous commie bastard, he had that part right. Which is why, of course, that modern politicians don’t trust you with current issue military arms. Unlike the founders of the USA did - in fact they passed a law that REQUIRED all male citizens to own a military grade rifle/musket (Militia Act of 1792). Now guns that even look like current military issue are suspect. The thing about gun control is its all about power and trust, which is why politicians generally hate the issue. You really can tell precisely how they feel about you, depending on whether or not they trust you with power (i.e. guns).
Which is one large reason I support Fred Thompson over Rudy Giuliani and the other crypto-controllers. Senator Thompson has said:
“My position on this is complex. The Constitution means what is says.”
Nice to know someone else thinks so.
If it weren’t guns, violent people would find other ways of inflicting harm. They would use knives, hammers, cars, bananas, anvils, or grand pianos. I’ve never understood the obsession with guns. It’s like people have some irrational fear of one weapon over another.
You’re just as likely to be killed by a knife as by a gun. Of course, you need to be standing next to the person with the knife and not 100 feet away. But dead is still dead. And you can just as easily be killed by a car. Of course, if you walk into a building or go up some steps the car can’t follow you like a gun, but being a bloody corpse is still being a bloody corpse.
And didn’t we learn anything from our childhood cartoons. How many times did the Coyote get shot be a gun compared to how many times he was flattened by an anvil or grand piano? Those things are just as dangerous. Sure, a mugger can fit an anvil or grand piano in his jacket pocket, but he could still coyly lure unsuspecting citizen near them.
So lay off the guns. Remember, guns don’t kill people, people kill people, with knives, hammers, cars, bananas, anvils, grand pianos and guns, lots and lots of guns.
Anyway, wouldn’t you rather be killed by a gun? It’s a much better way to go. Just think of how cool it would be to die from a something Dirty Harry carries compared to something the Naked Chef uses. I rest my case.
the first rule to become a politician is to learn the art of lying.Gun control in Britian,Australia,New Zealand to name several is a complete failure.Many studies have shown armed citizens are at much less risk than one unarmed.We do not need more gun laws we need new politicians.Socialist politicians[Feinstein,Polosi,Kennedy,Reid et al]are the real enemy.So enforce existing gun laws and push like hell for term limits at all levels of government:city,county,state,and most of all congress
Agree with Mr. chandler, with one exception: Push like hell to roll back existing gun laws and push like hell for term limits, etc.
Actually, roll back government power on all fronts and they’ll term-limit themselves, out of low pay and inability to lord it over their employers (us).
fritz says “The thing I find puzzling is why so many voters agree with those who feel and act as if we are not smart enough to survive without their help. Whenever people cry to the government for help it only proves they are not smart enough…”
Or as the hippie said to the First Black President, “We are all your children. Take care of us”
The problem is not that people are smart or stupid. It’s easy to believe that you can handle a gun responsibly; no one wants to believe the unflattering evidence that they really can’t. (It’s somewhat like drivers’ feelings when they read the results of studies of automatic stability control systems that show that a robot can drive the car better than they can.)
The people who have the most experience at gun-carrying in civilian situations are the police, and they get it wrong quite often. (NO, I do NOT favor disarming them!)
Reviewing the Diallo and Bell cases in New York City should show you that when you are forced to pull a gun out and shoot, you are NOT the rational creature you were when you posted your pro-gun comments. The adrenaline gets pumping, your aiming muscles turn to rubber, and YOUR REPTILE BRAIN TAKES OVER. This happens to the police, and they are the professionals. You are an amateur.
I was an auxiliary police officer in New York City for a number of years. (I was not allowed to carry a gun while doing so.) I never met a regular NYPD officer that wanted to see armed civilians “helping out” at the scene of a gun run.
Mr. Stoller, I suggest you meet some American policemen, instead of NYPD babysitters. I also suggest that you do some research. Civilians are far better shots than policemen nationally.
I wonder why that is?
Of course, your points are irrelevant, because we have that little document known as the Constitution, which you supposedly took an oath to defend. What you, or your city cop friends want is irrelevant.
1. Your insulting remarks about NYPD officers are not appreciated, especially by the officers of other departments that I have met. The police job in any American city of any decent size is pretty much the same, and so are the people that do it.
2. Civilians are fine shots when they shoot at targets that don’t shoot back. Totally irrelevant. I have no objection to target shooters that carry their handguns to and from the range in a locked box, ammunition separate.
3. The point of my post was that trying to get the constitution to knock down restrictive gun laws is not very wise. Those laws were enacted for good reasons. The second amendment was written to protect states’ rights, not to trample on them.
I’m sorry your poor little feeling were hurt. However, I’d be glad to point you to some policemen who are Americans (rather than bed-wetting, purple-haired urban two-legged rats), starting with my own (Democrat) sheriff. As to shooting back, those studies *were* from situations in which perps were shooting back. I suppose you need to be reminded that a large number of civilians are veterans, who receive as much, if not more, firearms training than police. And as for what you do or do not object to, again, we have that little thing called the Constitution. In this American state, our rights to defend ourselves and carry are not abridged, as you would prefer. And finally, there is that sticky 14th Amendment, which precludes your attempt to use Federalism to support gun control. Certainly, not a word in the Bill of Rights was written to protect states’ rights (powers, actually). The Bill of Rights restricts governmental powers.
You should perhaps read the Constitution. You obviously haven’t in quite a few years.
I’m sorry that you dislike your sheriff, but try to remember that he’s there because a majority of the American voters in your county disagree with you. A real American is a citizen of this country, whether you like his opinions or not. Everyone votes, and real Americans accept the results of our elections and the decisions of our courts. I really don’t think the courts will agree with your views of our Constitution….
By the way, as a true American I have read the Constitution, and its amendments. I can’t help but notice that the Bill of Rights is all about restricting the powers of the then new federal government, including one that precludes it from interfering with well-regulated state militias…maybe you missed it, but it certainly seems to be a defense of state powers.
The fourteenth amendment is very nice, and it prevents the states from abridging free speech, etc., but so far the courts have not supported an individual right to form militias. I don’t believe they ever will.
I don’t dislike my sheriff. You misread. I wrote my Democrat sheriff’s name in on my Republican primary ballot. My sheriff is a Marine, he throws the bad guys in jail where they belong, and he’s a Second Amendment absolutist. My sheriff rocks.
And if you’re so illiterate that you’re spouting the militia nonsense, then nobody can expect you to understand the Constitution. Not even the most liberal Constitutional scholars are doing that.
Being from NYC, you’re used to sheeple who depend on others for their safety. Here in the United States of America, as opposed to the Europeanized cities, we aren’t subjects of the state. We’re citizens. I suspect you should stay in the city. Seeing people drive around with rifles and shotguns would make you wet your panties.
1. I looked back, and yes, I did misread what you said about your sheriff. Sorry about that.
2. ‘That miltia nonsense’, as you call it, really is there. It won’t go away by wishing. The amendments 1 and 3-8 are simple prohibitions on the federal government; don’t do this. The second amendment differs in that it starts off with a rationale before the prohibition, “States need well-regulated militias and so don’t do that.” They tell you why and what for the right to bear arms is being protected. (By the way, in the 18th century, bearing arms referred exclusively to military service, going back to the times when only the nobility (the knights) had the right to bear arms. In our new nation, any ordinary citizen would have the right to serve in the militia or the army. This would be a defense against government by an exclusive elite.
For the people in 1789, someone who took his rifle into the woods to hunt was not ‘bearing arms’. Rifles were not considered military weapons.)
3. I am not against long guns, and I consider hunting and target shooting to be perfectly legitimate uses of firearms. I’m not scared of them, but I am honest enough to admit that I certainly was plenty scared when two men pointed a loaded revolver at me in the elevator of the apartment building where I lived and took my money. Had I been carrying, they would have escaped with the gun, too, maybe after shooting me. Having a handgun on you is not the answer to this problem. Handguns enable too much chaos; we’re better off without them.
4. One of my fondest childhood memories was my participation in the Brooklyn Boy Scout Marksmanship Program 50 years ago. (I’m 61 now.) It was run by a wonderful married couple named Prebble and I’ll always be grateful to them and their staff for introducing us city boys to guns and shooting. My grandfather had a place upstate, and I later had a .22 that I plinked with in company with my cousins. I gave the gun to my brother when I went away to school, and haven’t done any shooting since, but I don’t hate guns. I do believe, however, that laws against unrestricted handgun carrying are really necessary.
Let’s look at that English, shall we?
“Good arch support being necessary to the health of feet, the freedom to buy shoes shall not be infringed.”
The first phrase is an absolutive (called that because in Latin, it would have been marked with the ablative of the absolute case). An absolutive does not in any way restrict the meaning of the clause. Note that in the exact parallel above, the interpretation cannot be twisted to mean that the government shall not infringe the right of only a certain group of people to buy shoes. The militia phrase (it isn’t a clause) does not restrict the meaning of the clause.
That’s basic English grammar. There is no way to “read” the Second Amendment as applying only to the militia. None. And while the so-called “gun guys” may still try to do so, no Constitutional scholar, even on the left, does, not even long time opponent of the 2A, Laurence Tribe.
Certainly, there are reasonable restrictions, just as there are on any other God-given right. I don’t want criminals to have guns. I’m not real crazy about nutjobs having them, either. But gun control has nothing to do with crime, since the proponents are also active defenders of criminals. It has to do with control, control of citizens.
And however pro-LEO I am, no thanks, I do not want to live in a state where only the police are armed. That’s what is known as a police state. After all, if only the British military had been armed, we’d still be a British colony.
You can’t reason with people like Mr. Stoller. His premise is that persons other than “peace officers” — a term that includes many persons not recognizable as police — must not be allowed to carry guns. He’s not interested in the great masses of evidence to the effect that an armed citizenry is safer than a disarmed one; he’s more comfortable with anecdotes that appear to support his position. No rational argument can shake his stance, because he didn’t reason himself to it; it’s an article of faith.
A lot of people have political postures that are really articles of faith. Somehow, one must cope with them — and Mr. Stoller’s is by no means unusual. The only problem with his position is that it’s a contemptuous dismissal of a Constitutionally guaranteed natural right: the right to defend one’s life and honorably acquired property.
Sorry, Mr. Stoller. You lose. The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land, is on the pro-gun side — and the federal courts have finally, reluctantly started to agree.