why we win

CSGVBloodDancingIt really boils down to a difference in perceptions.

On the one hand, "gun control" fetishists gleefully dance in the blood of victims and exploit the murder of innocents to further their own, personal, unjust, totalitarian, anti-Constitutional dreams, as documented in the image to the right. (Highlights added to really bring out the crazy in those cultists’ eyes.)

On the other hand, we quite cheerfully and respectfully celebrate the lawful, peaceful defense of civil rights and the restoration of the same to an entire state of people for whom certain aspects of the United States Constitution might as well have never existed.

Now, tell me – to an outside observer, which group of people would appear to be the more rational, reasonable, well-adjusted, and positive? And which would be perceived as being destructive, irresponsible, and negative? Hm.

In other news, I am very thankful I am not the only person who considered the Portland, OR mall shooting yesterday to be remarkably… coincidental… what with it happening on the same day as the decision in Moore v. Madigan being passed down. Obviously I am not hypothesizing that "gun control" extremists keep spree shooters locked in a big pen until they are needed, and then release them into the wild to distract/detract from pro-rights victories; that would require more coordination and intelligence than those organizations are capable of. But I do think the media sees incidents like these transpire on the same day as something major like that court case, and think, "Oh, hey, this would make a great counterpoint; let’s blow this out of proportion!"

After all, more people were murdered in Chicago on the 30th than were murdered in the Clackamas Town Center on the 11th, but the former is the "gun control" capitol of the country, and we would not want to highlight the fact that such policies demonstrably do not work, now, would we?

(And for a dose of humor, that Michael Barkley character at the bottom, whinging about not being supported by his anti-rights cultist ilk? We have discussed him before, and apparently even his fellow fetishists think he is too far out in the weeds to really care about – he admits to coming in "a distant fourth" in his district. Poor baby.)

14 thoughts on “why we win”

  1. The only constitutional argument justifying access to guns and ammo by the general public simply evaporated at Appomattox. Since that time, we have been operating under a covenant that armed rebellion is never legitimate in the USA. The 2nd Amendment is quite moot now. No repeal required. It just needs to be correctly interpreted for postbellum society, and sooner or later it will be.

    What we have in the meantime with respect to the topic of guns in this country is political indulgence of what is nothing more than a very popular kink. Much as public policy finally turned zero tolerance against child pornography, so it must eventually turn against guns and ammunition.

    There can be no “right” empowering convenient murder and depriving others of all their genuine rights at the whim of a shooter.

  2. @ Briggsy:
    The only problem with that… is reality describes exactly the opposite of your fantasy. Guns are more prevalent. They are more accepted. Women are taking up shooting in ever increasing numbers. HIPSTERS ARE HUNTING. What next? Cats living with dogs?

  3. @ dave w: It is interesting how you never see cowards like John Cordes doing that, is it not?

    @ Briggsy: It impresses me how coherent someone can be while being so awesomely and completely wrong.

    1. The “constitutional argument justifying access to guns and ammo” had absolutely nothing to do with “armed rebellion”. The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right all human beings have to defend themselves, their persons. That defense can be against a common thug assaulting them for their purse, a murderer wanting to spill their blood, or a government grossly overstepping their bounds into the realm of tyranny.

    2. Just because something is “illegal” does not mean you do not have the right to do it. As British colonies and subjects, the American Revolution was wholly and completely NOT “legitimate”, yet we have absolutely every right to do exactly what we did.

    Likewise, slaves retain the right to freedom, even if governments and their “owners” do everything in their power to abridge that right. Someone ignoring a right does not mean you no longer possess it.

    3. Coincidentally, my understanding is that this is why the Supreme Court has thus far refused to say that the armed rebellion that took place during the Civil War was, in an of itself, illegal – doing so would completely illegitimize the American Revolution, which would have put the still-somewhat-wet-behind-the-ears country in something of an interesting predicament, no?

    4. Exactly how can you interpret “the right of the people to [do X] shall not be infringed” in such a way that means something completely the opposite of what it says? I am honestly curious.

    5. This comment amuses me:

    Much as public policy finally turned zero tolerance against child pornography, so it must eventually turn against guns and ammunition.

    Yes, that must be why more and more Americans every year are purchasing firearms, why more and more Americans every year are opposing unjust and unconstitutional abridgments of the Second Amendment, why the “gun control” extremists of our country are losing court battles in almost every state, why more and more states are going to shall-issue carry permits, and then Constitutional Carry…

    Tell me, does your “argument” have any grounding in reality whatsoever?

    6. Ending on a strawman is not going to earn you any points in my book:

    There can be no “right” empowering convenient murder and depriving others of all their genuine rights at the whim of a shooter.

    There is no such right, and the Second Amendment does not protect it. Self-defense is not “murder”; not legally, not morally, and not ethically. And someone who takes steps to deprive me of my rights – whether it is my life, my security as a person, or my ownership of private property – has already surrendered their personal rights by attempting to infringe upon mine. I am fully empowered and within my rights to defend those rights, and will do so as I see fit.

    That is what the Second Amendment protects.

    7. Phssthpok beat me to it, but you should really read his link. If you honestly believe taking up arms against the government is both illegitimate and unnecessary in “modern” times, you are hopelessly clueless.

  4. “Just because something is “illegal” does not mean you do not have the right to do it.”

    Hear, hear. I’m going to guess that every rebellion — armed or otherwise — is deemed “illegitimate” by whoever is in power. Let me get President Hassad on the line and ask him if the Syrian rebels are legitimate.

    What is offensive is trying to associate gun rights with a horrific sexual perversion. Gun ownership isn’t a “kink”. The jabs at penis size and masculinity are silly ploys to try to get people angry, but really, it’s this absence of logic that has diminished the anti gun rights arguments over the years. History, morality and legality are all working against them.

  5. And The Chocolate Jesus Shed A Crocodile Tear…
    This country is moving to a Zero Tolerance Policy-Of any form of gun control.The point now is to hit them Hard and keep up an unrelenting pressure to insure no amount of idiot liberal CPR will bring that rotting corpse back to life.

  6. @ Anonymous Coward: Yeah, I have been keeping up with the “gun control” extremists – the only variable in incidents such as these is how strongly they will wail and gnash their teeth, and that seems to be controlled by how many people were killed. In this case, lots of children, so there is all kinds of blood for them to dance in.

    @ Tom: Yeah, I was trying to avoid the whole “kink” comment, but it unquestionably was an invocation of Markley’s Law. When people start reducing the conversation to that level, you know they know they have already lost…

    @ AuricTech: It is arguably illegal in the first person if you lose, too ;).

    @ B.C,King: I think we are still a long way of from “zero tolerance” in regards to “gun control”, but that is certainly a nice goal to have.

  7. I have been waiting to see what the facts were of CT, unfortunately the antis don’t do the same. They must be so happy when stuff like this happens its really creepy.
    Since Friday the story was;
    -a guy shot his mom at a school with a bushmaster
    -a different guy (the right one this time) shot his mom a teacher and her class with an AR15
    -A coroner said all the kids were hit multiple times with rifle rounds
    -The guy shot his mom at home and took her guns,2 pistols and AR
    – the guy shot everyone with the high powered rifle and then himself with a pistol.
    -the guy had personality disorders
    – the guy took the 2 pistols and AR but left the rifle in the car and only used the pistols.

    I am still waiting to see what happened. If people want to fix this and Obama wants free healthcare, i say start with free mental healthcare that’s the one thing all such events have in common.

  8. I am not a huge fan at how the narrative has been changing so rapidly and randomly throughout the weekend. I know stories invariably get confused right at the beginning, and your initial batch of information is rarely correct, but when the story goes from “The AR15 was found in a car” to ” the AR15 was used to murder everyone”, I really have to wonder.

  9. @ Briggsy:

    Actually, briggsy, SCOTUS said exactly the opposite.

    The ACTUAL holding that the secession that kicked off the Civil War was illegal was that it was illegal because it FAILED.

    Had it succeeded, it legally would have been no different than the secession that we fought the American Revolution over, or the secession that created teh republic of Texas — BOTh of which were civil wars of secession (making 1861 – 1865 the FOURTH Civil War fought on US soil.

  10. As per historical standard, the winners get to write the history books. If you lose, what you were doing was obviously illegal! 😉

Comments are closed.