By and large, the hardcore "gun control" extremist organizations throughout America have to play the long, political game, which basically boils down to incrementalism – they want total civilian disarmament, and we know they want total civilian disarmament, and it is fair to say that they know we know, but in order to make any progress at all, they cannot exactly come out and say they want total civilian disarmament. That would just be too sudden… too abrupt… too radical, and the resulting backlash from the American people would finally end up sending those anti-rights organizations to the dustbin of history, where they rightly belong aside the KKK and other, similar, bigoted groups.
So they take the long way to their ultimate goal – they prattle on about "common sense gun laws", they abuse statistics and facts until the uninformed and ignorant really do believe that their gun-owning neighbor might just fly off the handle and kill everyone, they demonize people who dare to take responsibility for their own safety, they hold up the actions of criminals as "examples" that law-abiding citizens cannot be "trusted" with guns, and so forth. Taken individually, those incremental attacks against us and our rights are just so much background noise, but when combined into a cohesive political movement… well, those little jabs and feints are why things like the "Assault Weapon" Ban Ban on Evil-Looking Rifles happened, and why people still demand more "gun control" even after it demonstrably fails.
But those are just the major organizations, and they have to be concerned with how the public perceives them, and maintaining their supposedly "rational", "reasoned" appearance. Actual, individual "gun control" extremists, however, they are encumbered by none of those concerns, and they are quite able, and sometimes quite willing, to let their "freak flag" fly tall and proud.
Take anti-rights cultist Kate Lang, writing under the Twitter screenname "@buckwilde", and this delightful tweet of hers for example:
@BrisketChuckle @bobbied100 @CSGV Well I’ll tell you. I’m in favor of taking every assault weapon and handgun out of the hands of civilians.
(As a reminder to my non-Twitter users, the screennames in the above quote are the people to whom @buckwilde is addressing her tweet.)
Yup, you read that right; there was absolutely no beating around the bush with Kate Lang – she wants the government (because you and I both know she will not be on the team that goes door-to-door to enact her totalitarian pipe dreams) to forcibly remove your lawfully-owned property, simply because she does not like it. And lest you think she is alone in her all-too-ironic (given her LGBT support) beliefs that she should be able to dictate how you live your life to you, she is not.
On the one hand, I have to give her credit for the remarkable lack of prevarication and beating-around-the-bush on her part – other anti-rights cultists, such as Joan Peterson and Michael Bonomo, could learn a great deal from her example. On the other hand, she is certifiably insane if she honestly believes such an action would be (1) Constitutional, (b) acceptable to the American public, and/or (iii) executed without bloodshed. I attempted to reminder her of this rather uncomfortable reality with the following tweet:
@buckwilde You are welcome to them. But you will have to accept receipt of the ammunition first.
… but she maliciously misinterpreted it as a "threat" (helpful hint: neither self-defense nor defense of property constitute "threats", nor does pointing out that one would defend one’s self or property), made some random-assed comment about my likely religious beliefs (how that has any relevance on the situation, I have no idea), and promptly blocked me. I guess the notion that some Americans are completely unwilling to go along with a blatantly unconstitutional, unjust, and unnecessary confiscation of their lawfully-owned private property was just too much for Kate Lang’s bigoted, intolerant mind to handle. Oh well.
In the same vein, I guess @buckwilde is as ignorant about history as she is about the Constitution, or she probably would have recognized my rather artful (if I do say so myself) if significantly longer rephrasing of the original sentiment: μολὼν λαβέ. As I said, we all know that Kate will be nowhere near the front lines of the movement to forcibly relieve law-abiding Americans of their property, so the costs of such an operation, and the repercussions of the same, probably never even crossed her mind.
Which is rather part of the problem, is it not?
(And this is all without even addressing the inherent stupidity of the very notion of "assault weapons" or attempting to control firearm ownership based on aesthetic features.)





It always astounds me whenever I see a homosexual advocating gun control. Don’t they realize what a target they are for hate crimes?
I see what you did there. Though it would be funny if you didn’t mean it, too.
They want to disarm us. If some Government Official arrives at you door to take your weapons away, kill him/her. Kill them and anyone assisting them. There is no other possible reaction.
If that’s too radical, get rid of your firearm now. Don’t struggle, don’t seek to avoid a confrontation, dump them now.
I’ll be more forth-coming with my opinions at a later time.
So Kate Lang sees it as perfectly moral and common sense to deploy armed people to confiscate property and use lethal force if needed, but feels threatened when it’s pointed out that some just might take exception to a seizue that voilates a whole boatload of ammendments and resist such an action?
Violence by proxy is still violence. But Katie is fine with blood on her hands if it’s the right blood.
And at least not all LGBT is not gleefully making themselves easier victims. Pink Pistols is a good organization, with some great slogans.
@ The Jack:
Oh yeah. I <3 the Pink Pistols.
@Erin: It makes almost as much sense as a Jew advocating that only the police should have the guns.
I suppose they are simply unable to learn from history.
@ John Hardin:
Yeah, I shake my head at that too…
There’s a strong sentiment in humanity to think boots the neck are fine if the boot is of a pleasing color, soft tread, and being applied to the right people, for their own good of course.
Self-exemption from such things is seen as being due. As an entitlement of the people’s work. Nothing invites hypocritcal indulgence like being assured your actions are inherently moral and blessed. Such is how you have antis owning guns, having special carry permits, and armed gaurds.
Every fellow traveler and useful idiot assumes they’ll be part of the nomenklatura.
I would remind Kate Lang that Clinton Rules of Engagement are in effect.
She may not think that she would be on the front lines of the conflict that would come should her idea of nirvana come to pass, but she would be grossly mistaken. So, I would ask her: Is she aware that what she wants will (not might, or possibly) lead to a shooting war? Is her belief in her principles strong enough to potentially give her life for them?
Somehow, I doubt it.
@ Erin Palette: As the saying goes, a woman supporting “gun control” is like a chicken supporting KFC.
I am sure a similar analogy can be drawn for homosexuals.
@ bluesun: Did not doubt anyone here would, but those ignorant of history (i.e. the person I was talking to) would completely miss it.
@ MAJ Mike: As the other saying goes, if you are burying your firearms, it is time to use them.
Honestly, though, I think we are past both points in a country’s fall.
@ The Jack: Unfortunately, anti-rights cultists like her really are capable of compartmentalizing their minds and responsibility to the point that they firmly believe someone else doing violence on their part does not dirty their hands in the slightest.
I wonder what it is like to be that disconnected from the world?
@ John Hardin: I know what schools were teaching a decade ago, and I know what they taught when my parents were in… based on those two datapoints, I would be surprised if anyone really comprehended the danger of that path.
@ Mark: On the one hand, I have to wonder if she really believes that no one would fight back against such a confiscation. On the other hand, I wonder if she welcomes such a conflict if only because she believes it will allow her violence-by-proxy minions to kill us, as she believes we should be.
Either option makes me very worried, regardless.