Here's my reply. I encourage you to follow the link and leave comments of your own.
No, Mike.
That's it, just "no."
Now what are you going to do about it?
How many men like me, who refuse to bend to your will, are you willing to have killed or ruined in the futile attempt to enact your agenda? Because we won't just give up. We won't just surrender our guns.
And in order to get them out of the 80-plus million households in this country, you're going to need to conduct a full-blown national occupation. The "authorities" won't have time for 80-plus million search warrants and habeas corpus and all that other Constitutional nonsense, so it will just be block sweeps and dynamic entries. Nice police state your little fantasy will create.
What, you thought "benefits" didn't come with offsetting costs?
You're talking tripwire scenario here, Mike--real resistance and everything that implies.
And I assume you won't be doing the disarmament yourself--you expect hirelings to risk their necks doing your dirty work for you. Except most of those hirelings
have family. I wouldn't count on all of them staying "loyal."
It doesn't surprise me that you've worked for the state your entire career, that is, been a career statist, Mike. That much is evident from your attitudes. So I guess you haven't dealt all that much with free men who earn their own keep without relying on plundering the productive sector--perhaps you even had power to deny permits--that kind of stuff--make the rabble jump through your hoops, rather than be a public servant.
Free people don't need your permission to keep and bear arms, Mike. If you try to act like they do, you'll be in for a rude awakening.
[Via Alphecca]
6 comments:
Done, and passed the link along to my friends.
Mike makes a classic liberal error when he states:
"A murder trial will be enough. According to the NRA, that’ll solve the problem. It’ll stop murders with guns. You bet."
Laws are supposed to be primarily punitive, not prophylactic.
It's shameful that the most useless members of our society live off of, and regulate, the contributing citizens. It is shameful that people like Mike feel empowered to infringe our human rights.
My contribution:
Mike,
You gonna ban hacksaws too?
In this utopia of yours it would take a trip to the hardware store, a five dollar purchase, and about half an hour to turn one of your perfectly legal longarms into a dreaded short gun. Or, if I was of criminal mind and wanted a pistol I would just shoot a cop and take his with my oh so legal longarm.
You might just want to try thinking things through a bit before exposing your simplistic remedies to public view.
Well, I read what Mike Durham wrote. I really don't know what to say except that Mr. Durham is sadly mistaken if he thinks the problem of the existence of violent crime is external to man. Of course, Mike is not much different than many in that he believes that he would not do any such thing as become violent and use an arm (of whatever type) to harm his fellow man.
He is utterly deceived.
I know that if I push the right buttons, Mr. Durham would commit just as much evil as Adolph Hitler, or Stalin. Mike Durham is in denial as to his true nature -- which is no different than anyone else's nature -- evil.
Limiting barrel lenghts and taking away guns is not going to fix that. However, the Second Amendment does provide a bar to evil men and their intentions.
"If you try to act like they do, you'll be in for a rude awakening."
That reminds me of a line from the movie Blade Runner: "Wakeup, time to die."
From the article:
"Yet both somehow got lost in a 200-year-old cowboy mentality of a lack of oversight: flight and gun regulations. Both forms of regulation are allowed for by the Constitution of the United States."
He must have a different Constitution in mind than the one I've read: the government is not _authorized_ to issue regulations regarding either those subjects -- assuming you use standard rules of English language interpretation while reading it.
Post a Comment