From Legal Insurrection:
Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category
My arabic has deteriorated badly since I last used it, but the words he uses that I still recognize fit perfectly with the subtitles.
I’ve read those who speak it well say it’s all pretty much a correct translation.
The preface to this is an article in Salon:
Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
Short short answer is tyrants, and enabling of tyrants.
It’s the reason why there are still monarchies ruled by hereditary kings, dictatorships, and countries ruled by warlords in the 21st Century. If we were to look at other countries as examples, then one rapidly finds there are plenty of regimes across the world that, by their existence, then must be “better” by this standard.
It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
Here’s the problem – a peaceful libertarian state would have to overthrow its old government or have it dissolve. Or it would have to be left alone. Or throw off its old government and be left alone on the other side of an ocean.
The United States for roughly the first hundred or so years of the nation was a libertarian nation. It was a Constitutional republic formed on classic liberal ideas from the enlightenment – the value of the individual and the rights of the individual. One country did try it, and it succeeded wildly.
Kowloon is one more modern, (if bizarre) example, and it worked, despite being in an area not known for libertarian ideas. Until China destroyed it.
The welfare state and public education are both schemes cooked up by those who wish to be masters of men – types like Bismarck in Germany who decided that he would bring people closer to the state. The state that he ruled.
Criminalization of drugs is a decision by rulers to tell people how to live, and impositions on trade are attempts by government to steer economies.
As far as open borders go, no libertarian nation can survive truly open borders, and few libertarians actually want open borders. A nation without borders is not a nation. A nation without borders is subject to the political whims of migration as new arrivals bring old ideas and change the political landscape. You can’t invite in tyrants as full partners into a libertarian world any more than a monarchist could invite a follower of Robespierre.
When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve…
He didn’t ask someone who understands what they believe and why. (As a fun contrast, if you ask someone why they voted for Obama, you’ll get some much more interesting answers.)
And from here the pro-collectivist anti-liberty hit piece descends mostly into drivel. Why? Because leftists don’t understand other points of view. Those who wish to conserve American liberty (Constitutional conservatives, classic liberals/libertarians, and more open-minded traditionalists, even) understand the left, the left does not understand the right.
Lacking any really-existing libertarian countries to which they can point, the free-market right is reduced to ranking countries according to “economic freedom.”
Wholly, totally, completely wrong. The US up until the advent of socialism’s import around the 1900-1910s is the libertarian country.
And to the “Achilles’ Heel” by EJ Dionne at WaPo:
The ideas of the center-left — based on welfare states conjoined with market economies — have been deployed all over the democratic world, most extensively in the social democratic Scandinavian countries. We also have had deadly experiments with communism, a.k.a Marxism-Leninism.
The Scandinavian countries have been having some major problems with their welfare state as of late. They also prospered, like all of Europe’s socialist paradises, under the protection of the US’s guidance of NATO. Otherwise, they’d have all been Soviet satellites, or starved from defense spending to prevent the Soviets from invading.
Libertarians can keep holding up their dream of perfection because, as a practical matter, it will never be tried in full. Even many who say they are libertarians reject the idea when it gets too close to home.
Wrong. It already has been tried, and it succeeded wildly.
The problem is that a truly libertarian state has to acknowledge that it is a libertarian state, and it does have to make sure its people understand that the benefits of their society come from their freedom. Politicians who serve decades in power are not eager to tell people that they need to live without the politician.
There used to be politicians who were leaders and who would stand up for the fact that the nation is one created in liberty. For example – Democrat Grover Cleveland, discussing giving federal disaster aid:
Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . .
- President Grover Cleveland
Such men existed, and such do exist, but it requires breaking the collectivist nonsense that has been spouted for decades and decades by both tyrants who spout it as a means to power, and individuals who bleat it as a means to security at the expense of their own liberty and dignity.
Those who desire to encourage paternal care, or even coercive paternalism and government force against the citizen, actively desire to weaken the sturdiness of national character, because it makes it easier for them to put themselves in power.
But Dionne lines up another swing that misses the point.
…tea party members, as the polls show, are older than the country as a whole. They say they want to shrink government in a big way but are uneasy about embracing this concept when reducing Social Security and Medicare comes up.
They payed in to a system they were forced to pay into. Government took from them for decades “on their behalf”. There’s a reason they aren’t keen on shedding programs they paid into. But younger Tea Partiers would be willing to forgo so-called “Social Security” and live free with the extra money they have – investing it as they wish.
But this inconsistency (or hypocrisy) contains a truth: We had something close to a small-government libertarian utopia in the late 19th century and we decided it didn’t work. We realized that many Americans would never be able to save enough for retirement and, later, that most of them would be unable to afford health insurance when they were old.
Wrong. “We” didn’t decide that. Politicians decided that. Politicians acting outside the scope of the Constitution – in violation of the Constitution – went out and created a program out of whole cloth. Politicians who promised security told people to trade their liberty, and it worked because the politicians created crises they knew they could exploit. Politicians worked to weaken the national character for their own ends.
And when the Great Depression engulfed us, government was helpless, largely handcuffed by this anti-government ideology until Franklin D. Roosevelt came along.
And here is the great fiction again. The Great Depression was caused by the New Deal and FDR. FDR exacerbated what would have been a jarring market correction, but a market correction nonetheless. He and his retreads from the Woodrow Wilson administration decided to “mold the world nearer to their heart’s desire” by exploiting a crisis they helped to manufacture.
The weakness with libertarianism and the end of the libertarian United States was through the expansion of politicians willing to give people things “for free”. It was a cultural weakening of national character. Things like the Curley Effect may be effective, but it’s also destructive.
It just means that a formerly successful nation can be destroyed through manipulation and political dealing. Just like an athlete can be laid low by a disease, it’s not necessarily the athlete’s fault.
The reason the United States succeeded was because people understood why it succeeded in large part. The yeoman farmer took pride in his nation, and did his best for that nation, and understood the makeup of that nation. The welfare recipient who’s been told for generations that their nation is the worst in the world and that it owes them doesn’t care to defend it.
Individual character matters, and individual character creates an free nation. Individual character that succumbs to collectivism and the misery it produces will create a collectivist nation.
Much of this nation is still libertarian, and succeeding wildly. Part of this nation is collectivist, and seeking to destroy the rest and control it.
A friend of the blog sent this news story a few days back – from the UK Register:
Plans for fully 3D-printed gun go online next week
The Liberator pistol causes political panic
Defense Distributed, the pending non-profit that plans to make 3D-printed weaponry available for anyone with such a printer, will release the blueprints for a fully-working plastic firearm next week.
The UK Register is pretty open about their bias in the story, which they at least try to make funny, but it’s on the level of McNugget jokes. But they do point out that Democrats have never seen anything they don’t wish to control.
“Security checkpoints, background checks, and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser,” said Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) in a statement.
“When I started talking about the issue of plastic firearms months ago,” Israel said, “I was told the idea of a plastic gun is science-fiction. Now that this technology appears to be upon us, we need to act now to extend the ban on plastic firearms.”
HotAir today has a story citing that ol’ Chuck Schumer, who’s never met a ban he didn’t like, and demands total control over you groveling peasants who need to kneel before his Ruling Class dictatorial power – because it’s what’s good for you – also wants to ban it.
Should we light our hair on fire about plastic guns made with 3D printers?
Too late for Senator Charles Schumer. The combustible New York Democrat is encouraging hysteria over the prospect of criminals using 3D printers to manufacture firearms, possibly to assassinate the president. “We’re facing a situation where anyone—a felon, a terrorist—can open a gun factory in their garage ,and the weapons they make will be undetectable,” Schumer said. “It’s stomach-churning.”
Bloomberg’s own people don’t care about actual criminals, though:
…If you’ve got the skills, you can already make a gun in your basement, and there are less complicated ways to do it than using a $10,000 3D printer and computer set-up. Why would bad guys bother making comic book firearms when they can go online and order anything from a Glock 9 mm pistol to a Bushmaster military-style semiautomatic rifle with 30-round ammunition magazines?
Perhaps the evil doer wouldn’t want to leave a credit-card trail. Then he pays cash at a Main Street gun shop, a weekend gun show, or to the criminal down the block who sells black market firepower from the trunk of his car. Or the crook steals or borrows his gun.
Point being, ban real guns first. Get the “dangerous ones”, then ban all the rest.
The plastic Liberator pistol is a very interesting thing, and not just in its mechanics.
Perhaps the most interesting is what’s in the name. A Russian professor of mine that taught Chekhov explained that Chekhov’s names always were indicative of the character; and names are often very, very important. Going a very long way back in history, true names were a method to power over someone – either due to knowing someone and being able to identify them in a time before pictures, or out of a very early belief in names as a form of magic. Here, too, in a very fascinating way, the name was chosen for a reason, and is very indicative of what this pistol really represents.
Here with the plastic Liberator, we have all that liberty and liberation connotates, that this will free the information and free the people to have the tools to arm themselves against tyranny. We also have its historical antecedent, the FP-45 Liberator pistol:
It was made on the cheap, and made to be distributed to resistance fighters.
It had abysmal accuracy, but the purpose of the pistol was very specific.
It was made to shoot occupying forces up close and personal. It was made to shoot Nazi dictator thugs at extreme close range.
Some computer geeks at The Verge yammer on about the convergence between “crypto-anarchists” and guns, but for them, history doesn’t exist before the Palo Alto labs, apparently.
Cyberculture icon Stewart Brand’s famous notion that “information wants to be free” has been an almost ubiquitous refrain ever since utopian-minded hackers began populating computer networks in the 1980s. Today, 3D printing has given the phrase a whole new meaning, allowing raw data to become real world weapons with the click of a button. Cody R. Wilson, the antagonistic founder of Defense Distributed, is taking that idea to its logical — and hugely controversial — extreme.
Except it’s not an extreme at all…
(DefCad’s) his reasoning, he claims, isn’t really about the Second Amendment at all — it’s about technological progress rendering the very concept of gun control meaningless.
“It’s more radical for us,” he told Motherboard in “Click Print Gun,” a recent mini-doc about the dark side of the 3D printing revolution. “There are people all over the world downloading our files and we say ‘good.’ We say you should have access to this. You simply should.”
If this all sounds very similar to the good gospel spread by Brand and advanced by progressives and activists like the late Aaron Swartz, you’re hearing it right. But even without the context of Wilson’s operation, firearms and freedom of information share a strangely similar history, an oft-overlooked ideological confluence between hackers and gun advocates that seems to be gaining momentum.
Except it’s not extreme at all, as guns existed well before computers…
If you go back before 1934, there were no restrictions on guns except if you were black or another wrong color/status. There were restrictions on people, and that’s what was understood. Guns aren’t dangerous, criminals are dangerous because they don’t restrict themselves to any laws or social mores. Guns weren’t dangerous to the people in power, freed black former slaves with guns were dangerous, because guns are tools of power. Today, as then, it’s not the guns that are dangerous – Schumer and his ilk are surrounded by security with guns and send their kids to schools with guns and will come after you with guns – it’s you being armed that’s dangerous to his power. Guns are just a tool, as they always have been.
Guns used to be made by smiths, but anyone with access to some basic tools and a bit of skill can make them. Zip guns have been made out of virtually nothing for decades. Submachineguns are relatively easy to make, and some famous SMGs were even made in facilities as simple as bicycle shops.
The next leftist dictator-tyrant argument is then to control ammo and powder, which has a few major flaws. Namely, their enforcers use them, and their enforcers provide criminals with guns and ammo, so the criminal argument goes right out the window. Of course it isn’t about criminals, it’s about making you into a criminal so they can tell you how to live and make you live the right way. It’s never about the guns, it’s about the control. Components to make ammunition aren’t impossible to come by, and conventional ammunition is only needed once – until an armed instrument of the state has his tools liberated.
The entire concept of homemade guns isn’t extreme. Going back a few decades, not only could you buy a machinegun by mail, no matter who you were, but you could build whatever you liked. There was a great heyday of gun manufacturing in the early 20th century before regulations started becoming overwhelming. John Moses Browning was designing his greatest works in the early 20th Century – from pistols to machineguns, many of which are still in use today. Consider that the M2 heavy machine gun is something that’s been in service for nearly 100 years. It’s not that there aren’t more designers for weapons with better ideas, it’s that government regulations have limited the marketplace and made it more difficult to experiment. Government has stalled technological development – developments that used to be made in mechanic shops when designers and engineers and skilled craftsmen got together and designed new tools.
There were virtually no regulations or restrictions on firearms for a hundred years or more, with the exception of those laws meant to target blacks, American Indians, and other specific groups that the majority wanted to oppress; and a few local laws.
Defense Distributed to some degree is just bringing things back to how they were for generations. Before, the government trusted citizens and so it didn’t restrict citizens, soon, the government simply won’t be able to restrict citizens; and if they do restrict enough, there will be tools of liberation available.
From CNS News:
Twenty-nine percent of registered voters think that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years in order to protect liberties, according to a Public Mind poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University.
That’s somewhat substantial.
The survey asked whether respondents agreed, disagreed, neither agreed nor disagreed or did not know or refused to respond to the statement: “In the next few years, an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect our liberties“
Pretty clear statement.
Results of the poll show that those who believe a revolution might be necessary differ greatly along party lines:
18 percent of Democrats
27 percent of Independents
44 percent of Republicans
That’s very substantial. Consider that only about 3% was historically necessary.
Made a few waves in the media, too.
Tags: Ted Cruz
Part 1 here, mostly about food and people who want the government to dictate to them how they should eat.
And today, part 2, as we look at a Time Magazine piece titled “Tread on Me“.
America was born from resistance to tyranny, and our skepticism of authority is a healthy tradition. But we’re pretty free.
That’s good enough, right? We’re “pretty free”. It’s about time we move on in the Tytler Cycle and get back to bondage! Woo-hoo! Bondage! The state will make us free from responsibility and dangers of the world! They know what’s best for me!
the Don’t Tread on Me slippery-slopers on both ends of the political spectrum tend to forget that Big Government helps protect other important rights
Doesn’t work that way. This is a question of whether people believe in more or less government control. Americans believe in less government control, have traditionally always believed in less government control, and only ever believe in having government control them when they’ve been brainwashed and programmed.
But standby for incoming collectivist BS…
Like the right of a child to watch a marathon or attend first grade without getting massacred—or, for that matter, the right to live near a fertilizer factory without it blowing up your house.
There are no such rights. To be free from danger is not only impossible, but even reduction of danger is not a right – it something paid for by someone’s work – whether it be the soldier, policeman, or factory manager and safety staff.
I guess you could call me a statist.
How about one who will lick the hand that feeds with his chains resting upon him, and someone who I would wish posterity would forget was my countryman?
Go ahead, quote the Ben Franklin line about those who would sacrifice some liberty for security deserving neither.
You forgot the last part – they deserve neither – and will lose both.
But what about the rights of 8-year-old Martin Richard, blown away after watching his dad finish the marathon? Who safeguarded the liberty of 6-year-old Charlotte Bacon, gunned down in her classroom in her new pink dress? What about Perry Calvin and Morris Bridges and the other victims of the West Texas explosion? Nobody read them their rights.
There are no such rights as to be free from danger – and there can be none.
This kind of high-minded utopian fantasy was cranked out back in the 1930s and 1940s by the FDR administration. There were even oaths made to defend the freedom from want and freedom from fear.
It is, by itself, nonsense.
Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.
- Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers
You cannot legislate industrial accidents out of existence (unless you obliterate industry entirely – which is a goal of the left as a tool to fight Manbearpig).
You cannot legislate madmen out of existence. You can forcibly disarm the populace, and leave them at the mercy of governmental ruler madmen like maniac cop Chris Dorner. You can leave them at the mercy of government to make them “safe”.
You do all of those by destroying liberty, something that high-minded collectivist utopians have done in the past to construct human nature into what they want it to be – to “mold the world closer to their hearts’ desire”.
And it almost always looks the same in the end.
In contrast to those statist desires, you can safeguard the liberty of 6 year-old Charlotte Bacon. You need a rough man ready to do violence on her behalf to safeguard that liberty – that liberty needs to be bought, but the left is terrified of the tools of violence to the point where they irrationally declare that to make the gazelle safe from the lion, you must strip the gazelle’s horns.
By the left’s logic, to make the child safe, you must leave her unguarded; and target those who would do her no harm but instead do seek to protect her. There are people who are actively willing to put their own lives in harm’s way, but they are called monsters for demanding real security. They are demonized for understanding the tools and nature of violence as defense and deterrent.
You can begin to defend the life of 8 year-old Martin Richard more by identifying the threat and dealing with the threat when it rears its head. What killed him was islamic terrorism. We know this. We all know this, but our government denies it on the basis that their ideology rejects making that judgement. By the response of the authorities in the Boston bombing case, there will be no more fatalities from those particular two terrorists. The hundreds of lives saved, like the baker’s new suit in the Broken Window Fallacy, are easily forgotten because they never materialized. There were no more terrorist attacks from those two because the terrorists were pursued (at a cost of life and harm) and stopped.
Yet there are still high-minded utopians who believe that if they just apologize enough, that if they are sensitive enough, they can stop people who chant for their deaths in the street through just well wishes.
And here’s where the Time writer gets worse:
Our rights are not inviolate. Just as the First Amendment doesn’t let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the Second Amendment shouldn’t let us have assault weapons designed for mass slaughter.
This is, as Jonah Goldberg would say, bonesnappingly stupid.
The First Amendment totally and completely does let us shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
If the government could mandate a white-noise generator that would specifically tune into the sound of a human voice shouting the word “Fire!” so that it could never again be said in a theater and the First Amendment were restricted, what would happen when there is a fire and no one can shout the word? What happens when no one can give the alarm? What happens when that lifesaving tool is denied? It would result in people burned to death.
The Second Amendment totally and completely does let us have modern firearms. I have yet to take or instruct a firearms class wherein I have taught or been taught to use an “assault weapon” for “mass slaughter”. Sorry, just doesn’t work that way.
The Second Amendment protects the natural right of self defense. It codifies it in the Constitution and ensures that the tools of self defense will not be denied. It does the same in that sense as the First Amendment protecting the word “Fire!”. It exists as the last full response against oppression, large and small, whether it be a lone criminal or the force of a dictatorial government.
If used improperly or abused, it’s a crime, just like yelling fire when there’s no fire. If used properly, it’s a wholly necessary lifesaving right; and it protects tools that allow for lives to be saved. And just like the loss of yelling “Fire!”, if it is taken away, it ends up the same – the result is people burned to death.
To revisit this quote from the “Tread on Me” masochist:
Those of us who support aggressive government action to protect the public ought to acknowledge that it does, at the margins, limit individual rights—the rights of gun owners, the rights of business owners, the rights of the accused. Go ahead, quote the Ben Franklin line about those who would sacrifice some liberty for security deserving neither. But what about the rights of 8-year-old Martin Richard, blown away after watching his dad finish the marathon? Who safeguarded the liberty of 6-year-old Charlotte Bacon, gunned down in her classroom in her new pink dress? What about Perry Calvin and Morris Bridges and the other victims of the West Texas explosion? Nobody read them their rights.
The Bill of Rights is there to limit government. Governments create oppression. In a state of nature, there may be terror, but there is no all-encompassing institution that can deny you your natural rights. The Constitution is there as a contract of free men that created a limited government with the intention of protecting all of our natural rights possible while providing us tools to ensure greater protection for all as well.
I’ve been told that invoking the death of innocents is an emotional appeal rather than a logical argument. And I do admit these tragedies make me angry. But I think it would be logical for our government to try to limit these tragedies in the future.
The author thinks wrong. There have been a million individual tragedies that are easily forgotten by their magnitude that were undertaken by free men (and sometimes conscripts) to preserve liberty, not to have it thrown away because some statist submissive grovels to beg for tyrants to enslave us all because he is a sniveling coward.
You want to protect people, do it yourself. You want to prevent tragedies, do it yourself. You want to tread on me because you’re a coward? Then you become an oppressor, Mr. Grunwald, and you are trading bought-and-paid-for liberty for security that is not only fleeting, but wholly nonexistent.
We already sacrifice liberty all the time—our right to automatic weapons, our right to walk through airport security with our shoes on, our right to run our businesses however we please.
The writer is an amoebic poltroon who kneels before the might of the state. We shouldn’t sacrafice our right to automatic weapons, our right to walk through airport security with shoes on, or our right to run our businesses however we please. Excluding abuse of our rights, which infringes on someone else’s natural rights, it’s not the place of the government to do anything. Just because the government has abused rights in the past, doesn’t mean we should tolerate it any further.
The rights of the next Martin Richard and the next Charlotte Bacon matter, too.
Yes, and the next Martin and the next Charlotte may be killed by leftists with utopian wishes who demand schools be gun-free zones, ensuring that only criminals and madmen intent on mayhem will be armed. The next Martin and Charlotte, if they survived being left in a defenseless free-fire zone for 12 years of mandated government schooling, may not like being x-rayed by government lackeys who see them nude any time they get on a plane. They may not like that when they go to start a business, that their government demands so much from them that it’s easier just to not start the business, that their freedom has been curtailed so much that they don’t have options for a business.
But they may grow up thinking they’re “pretty free”, because there’s always something worse.
The next Martin and the next Charlotte are not one or two children, they are millions of children who will grow into adults in a nation where they are less free. The next boy may be bashed for being gay because he’s left disarmed against a mob, the next girl may be another Amanda Collins, who was raped because she was disarmed by government. The next boy may have developed the motor that runs on static electricity, but will never make it because the government has regulated him into oblivion. The next girl may not want to have her privacy violated by government every time she enters a private contract with an aircraft company to fly her somewhere.
There are no shortages of people demanding destruction of liberty. From Cass “We Must Dominate You For Your Own Good” Sunstein, to any of the intellectuals Thomas Sowell criticizes as dominating sheperds who demand you be their sheep, there is never a shortage of men who wish to dominate and control their fellow man.
There is always a question of how many people believe that becoming sheep is noble, and how many reject that destructive notion of bondage.
PoliceOne recently did this survey of some 15,000 law enforcement officers on their opinions of gun control. The results, to folks who are pro-liberty, really aren’t that much of a surprise. Cops who deal with criminals on a day-to-day basis know what works and what doesn’t. They know liberty works, and they know that criminals don’t follow the law.
Everyone knows it wouldn’t. Police train with modern pistols, and are well aware that it takes little time to reload, and that criminals won’t follow laws limiting magazine size anyway.
This has already been demonstrated quite well at Clackamas Mall (where the CC holder didn’t even have to shoot) and Trolley Square (where the CCer was an off-duty cop carrying illegally against mall policy).
As of now, there are at least 340 sheriffs refusing to enforce unconstitutional anti-Second Amendment laws.
Tags: Joe Biden
Good roundup at HotAir to start.
The AWB goes down 40/60. Remember a few weeks ago when Reid claimed they didn’t have even 40 votes for it? He wasn’t kidding. They barely ended up with that much. It’ll be a few minutes before the roll is up, but assuming Republicans voted against it unanimously, that means no fewer than 15 Democrats joined them.
It’s a good start to stalling the tyrannical aspirations of government.
Bloomberg as quoted by HotAir:
Today’s vote is a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington. More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.
Why is it that anti-gun tyrants love using the number 90% so much? They make up numbers saying guns are going to Mexico at a rate of 90%, and they claim 90% of people support draconian checks as a step towards registration, confiscation, and obliteration of gun rights. Do they just love targeting minorities of 10%? Oh, that’s right, they do.
Incidentally, only 4% care about gun control as opposed to every other issue.
Gun-ban propagandist, hypocrite who said he’d shoot his rivals, and fraudulent journalist who was kicked out of England Piers Morgan whined on:
Soon he’ll fade back into obscurity once the schtick of having a lying Brit who threatened violence and lectures down to Americans wears off. Oh, and it has.
Meanwhile, from the Washington Times, Obama plays the blame game, and says those who oppose him are filthy liars who need to be sent to the gulag:
President Obama angrily blamed the defeat Wednesday of his centerpiece gun-control proposal on lies spread by the National Rifle Association, calling it “a pretty shameful day for Washington.”
“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” Mr. Obama said in the White House rose garden about 90 minutes after the vote. “It came down to politics.”
No, they didn’t. Obama has been quite open about his loathing of the Second Amendment and the Constitution in general, and he views it as an obstacle to his grand utopian dream that would be so much easier. See, the left knows what’s best for you, and they’re going to give it to you by force if they can.
There’s also a certain type of projection on the left. They accuse others of lying while they do. The NRA warned of true objectives.
“They claimed that it would create some sort of big-brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite,” Mr. Obama said. “This pattern of spreading untruths … served a purpose. A minority in the U.S. Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery. It’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans just voted against that idea.”
Of necessity, to work, it had to create a big brother gun registry – which would be either an amendment or a future bill when this one was found. There was no secret that Democrats were pushing for a big-brother gun registry. But, as Levar Burton would say, don’t take my word for it – take NY Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer’s:
There’s that 90% statistic again, too. They just love it.
And again, the “families” are being led by Democrat propagandists. I say “families” because Mark Mattioli isn’t represented, nor are many other Newtown families who don’t hold the same opinions as those who are politically aligned and campaigning for the Democrats’ rights-control schemes.
“You’ve got to send the right people to Washington,” he told voters. “That requires strength and it requires persistence. I see this as just Round One. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it.”
The American people and those who’ve fought for liberty don’t want their tyranny.
But do note what Obama said in there. The meaning is clear.
…requires strength and it requires persistence. I see this as just Round One. Sooner or later, we are going to get this…
He uses some of the Newtown families as props, and it seems many of them are willing props – but he doesn’t care about them any more than he cared about the hundreds of dead children in Mexico murdered by his Fast and Furious program.
And lastly, but not least, the Assault Weapons ban and the limitation on the size of magazines, let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning.
And Joe Biden today:
“We’re going to get this eventually,” Biden said. “If we don’t get it today, we’ll get it eventually.”
The gun ban anti-rights movement is not out for safety, they’re out for your disarmament, which has horrific long-run consequences.
I see this as just Round One. Sooner or later, we are going to get this…
…let me state this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning.
We’re going to get this eventually…if we don’t get it today, we’ll get it eventually.
And the anti-gun anti-rights movement will never stop.