Is it war, then?
So, it finally happened. The tyrant that had been foretold by most, has reared its ugly head. Yup. Well, it isn't like this ever happened before. Right? or did it?
During the Civil War, the president regarded by most as one of the best presidents ever in the US, Abraham Lincoln, suspended Habeas Corpus, or due process. That tyrant!
During WWII, FDR did a similar thing, but it was much more targeted. Of course, I would mention that FDR is also considered one of the best presidents the US has had. Ask Japanese Americans how that turned out.
You argue, "but that was different, it was war time!" Is that the best you got? Because here is the thing.
If members of the NRA or other gun owners used the language the left is against them, they would have their guns taken away, and probably charged with assault.
Progressives have elevated the gun debate to a war footing, with the media beating the drum. Make no mistake, it is a war. Verbal, for now, but with the left shrieking about GUNS!, and then parading the children in front of the cameras, it is not heating up, it is red hot, and it is only as stable as the wack job on one side or the other (Usually from the left, but not always). The president and the GOP feel backed in a corner, so of course they are going to react. I think that they are reacting in a possibly fatal manner (for the party).
Now if you think that I am defending, in any way, the suspension of due process for owning a gun, you must be out of your freakin' mind. I don't rank FDR anywhere near the top of US Presidents, or even of US Presidents in the 20th Century. (look on the other end of the scale, I think only Wilson is worse) As to Mr. Lincoln, he was one of the last casualties of the war, killed by a wack job Democrat, before having to deal with the reconstruction of the republic. That was going to be ugly, period. There is NO DEFENSE for usurping someone's rights. And I am grateful that the grassroots GOP, at least, is waking up from this fog they have been in since 911. Too late, I am thinking.
Surrendering rights for security gives you neither. a paraphrase of a quote by any number of people. Truer words rarely spoken.
One final thing. I just bought a MOSS 590 Shockwave, 14 inch, 5 shot 20 gauge. That is truly a defensive weapon, as the range is limited.
An AR-15, or one of the many variations thereof, can be a defensive weapon, certainly, during the LA Riots it served as such. Who doesn't remember the Korean on the roof of his store using one of these rifles to protect his store from looters. But, it is primarily an offensive weapon.
The GOP and gun owners have been slandered and threatened, to the point of conceding that maybe we need to do something about these guns (see Trump Due Process, above) But once you say that it is too much firepower, you have conceded that you don't believe what you say about the 2nd Amendment. It isn't about hunting (which by the way, the .223 is an excellent round for varmints.) or even self defense, it is about preventing tyranny. AND nothing else.
If you are one of those idiots that think that IF the 2nd DOES guarantee a right to bear arms, then it is just a musket, then you should also believe that freedom of the press only covers newspapers, and other hardcopy media. And the internet, TV, and Radio are not guaranteed under that freedom. That is the same argument. What, you don't think so? hmm
They will start with "assault rifles", but move on to other weapons, because those rifles make up such a small percentage of crimes that they will need to act on other weapons. And they will. They always do.
But, with the partisanship approaching war like levels, is it any wonder that the President is reacting this way? Let's say he gives in. What happens then? The Democrats start a non-stop barrage of "how Trump sold out the NRA" ads. want to join the NRA? nra.com I am sure they won't mind me sharing the link.
Read MY lips Mr. President. Just don't.
During the Civil War, the president regarded by most as one of the best presidents ever in the US, Abraham Lincoln, suspended Habeas Corpus, or due process. That tyrant!
During WWII, FDR did a similar thing, but it was much more targeted. Of course, I would mention that FDR is also considered one of the best presidents the US has had. Ask Japanese Americans how that turned out.
You argue, "but that was different, it was war time!" Is that the best you got? Because here is the thing.
If members of the NRA or other gun owners used the language the left is against them, they would have their guns taken away, and probably charged with assault.
Progressives have elevated the gun debate to a war footing, with the media beating the drum. Make no mistake, it is a war. Verbal, for now, but with the left shrieking about GUNS!, and then parading the children in front of the cameras, it is not heating up, it is red hot, and it is only as stable as the wack job on one side or the other (Usually from the left, but not always). The president and the GOP feel backed in a corner, so of course they are going to react. I think that they are reacting in a possibly fatal manner (for the party).
Now if you think that I am defending, in any way, the suspension of due process for owning a gun, you must be out of your freakin' mind. I don't rank FDR anywhere near the top of US Presidents, or even of US Presidents in the 20th Century. (look on the other end of the scale, I think only Wilson is worse) As to Mr. Lincoln, he was one of the last casualties of the war, killed by a wack job Democrat, before having to deal with the reconstruction of the republic. That was going to be ugly, period. There is NO DEFENSE for usurping someone's rights. And I am grateful that the grassroots GOP, at least, is waking up from this fog they have been in since 911. Too late, I am thinking.
Surrendering rights for security gives you neither. a paraphrase of a quote by any number of people. Truer words rarely spoken.
One final thing. I just bought a MOSS 590 Shockwave, 14 inch, 5 shot 20 gauge. That is truly a defensive weapon, as the range is limited.
An AR-15, or one of the many variations thereof, can be a defensive weapon, certainly, during the LA Riots it served as such. Who doesn't remember the Korean on the roof of his store using one of these rifles to protect his store from looters. But, it is primarily an offensive weapon.
The GOP and gun owners have been slandered and threatened, to the point of conceding that maybe we need to do something about these guns (see Trump Due Process, above) But once you say that it is too much firepower, you have conceded that you don't believe what you say about the 2nd Amendment. It isn't about hunting (which by the way, the .223 is an excellent round for varmints.) or even self defense, it is about preventing tyranny. AND nothing else.
If you are one of those idiots that think that IF the 2nd DOES guarantee a right to bear arms, then it is just a musket, then you should also believe that freedom of the press only covers newspapers, and other hardcopy media. And the internet, TV, and Radio are not guaranteed under that freedom. That is the same argument. What, you don't think so? hmm
They will start with "assault rifles", but move on to other weapons, because those rifles make up such a small percentage of crimes that they will need to act on other weapons. And they will. They always do.
But, with the partisanship approaching war like levels, is it any wonder that the President is reacting this way? Let's say he gives in. What happens then? The Democrats start a non-stop barrage of "how Trump sold out the NRA" ads. want to join the NRA? nra.com I am sure they won't mind me sharing the link.
Read MY lips Mr. President. Just don't.
Comments
Post a Comment