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.
(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?