Remember that scene in Independence Day where the President of the United States asks an invading alien what he wants from humankind? “Die,” the alien responds. So much for negotiation then. As for left-leaning pols talking about “common sense gun control” and the [current] President of the United States’ call or a “conversation” about gun violence, L. Neil Smith [above] isn’t buying it. For a second. In fact, the once and future TTAG contributor reckons gun control advocates advocating for “reasonable restrictions” are exterminating aliens in human suits. Not literally. But close enough . . .
In order to satisfy [the progressive environmentalists’] crackpot theories, and assuage their deeply seated hatred of their own kind (which stems from a pathological hatred of themselves), creatures like this want you dead.
They’ve cooked up a pretty intimidating excuse. They proclaim that the human race has exceeded the planet’s “carrying capacity”, a phrase which means absolutely anything. It’s pretty hard to argue with a phrase that doesn’t mean anything.
Therefore, “some of the Earth’s population has to go.”
“Go where?” Wherever millions of Jews and Gypsies went when Adolf Hitler decided they were a problem that required a Final Solution. Wherever a third of the Cambodian people went when Pol Pot marched them to death.
Writing for the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), Neil’s essay Is civil argument possible with a gun-grabber? makes the link between statism and mass murder and the preventative role of civilian gun ownership.
Naturally, a hundred million gun-toting North Americans or more, in the United States, represent an obstacle to their plans. You can’t very well kill people who are prepared to “rise up quickly and kill” you and your minions first. Therefore, they must all be disarmed, the chosen means being an “international small arms treaty” cooked up by the UN and being pushed on Americans by Hillary, among others, in the name of preventing war (when it’s actually rebellion against tyranny that they wish to prevent.)
Seizing your means of self-defense is an important first step toward their objective. To answer my own question, civil argument is not possible with a gun-grabber. They aren’t prepared to quibble about it. They may pretend otherwise, they may play at democracy or the rule of law, but plain and simple, they want you dead.
Again, so much for negotiation. If the gun grabbers want us dead why would we sit around a table working on a compromise re: our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? But do they? In their heart of hearts, do gun control advocates want bitter gun-clinging American gun owners to just . . . disappear?
[h/t JJ Swiontek]
I have to nitpick a little. Since every movie line I’ve ever heard still resides in my head, I have to point out the alien didn’t say “I want you to die.”
The president asked “What do you want us to do?” And the alien replied “Die.”
Fair enough. Text amended.
Dead? no. Under their thumb? Yes. Who is going to pay for everything is the question.
I don’t think it’s exclusively their idea that we are overpopulating the earth or consuming scant resources best used for their liberal ideals. It’s more along the lines of making the world suit them.
Man is the only animal capable of truly creating his own comfortable living space no matter where he is. Extend that to ideas which run counter to the liberal idea, that crime has causes in economic disparity fueled by guns and permitted by the establishment due to a dearth of equality laws.
You defending yourself from bad people with a firearm doesn’t fit any of the models they have for an orderly society.
I generally find that people make more sense if I assume they aren’t behaving maliciously. Most of the time I find that people are just misguided and uninformed, or are making emotional arguments rather than ones based on reason.
I’m sure there are some out there that actually are filled with hatred and would like to kill us, but I know for a fact that there are some gun rights advocates that would like to kill gun control advocates and stuff. Fortunately, these people are few.
I think the best thing we can do is to be good, decent, law abiding people, who just happen to own guns. Eventually our non-gun owning neighbors will see that we just like them, and that gun ownership is not something to be feared.
+1
I am a good, decent, law abiding person who owns guns. I’m a decent person not to impress anybody, but because that’s who I am. I absolutely despise anyone who tries to dictate to me, even if it’s for “my own good.” So I despise gungrabbers and choose to have nothing to do with them at all. First, because no good will come of it. Second, because even if they don’t want me dead, they certainly don’t mind if I end up that way if that’s what serves their agenda.
Good ‘ole Joe Stalin referred to those who based their political support on emotion, and therefore were controllable through rhetoric, as “useful idiots.” Most of the anti-gunners you know probably fall under this category. Then there are the likes of H. Clinton, Bloomberg, Obama, Chuck Schumer, and other wealthy and well-protected Progressive elites that want to obliterate the constitution and see us all under socialist authoritarian rule. Do they want us dead? I don’t know. But their actions speak loudly, and I would bet my last rapidly devaluating dollar that they don’t give a fraction of a damn what happens to we the people, whether we happen to be one of their useful idiots or not.
Do they want us dead? No–not most of them, anyway. What they want is for us to comply with their view of human nature and society. They want submissive subjects, not free citizens. Some of them genuinely care about safety, about keeping people from dying. Those are misguided as to what will work in this country and what is realistic. Then there are the ones who are simply angry. They’re the truly unhinged who themselves should never touch a gun. They project that rage onto everyone else.
The compromise between right and wrong is wrong.
Very profound!
The scene from the movie. It is a classic.
http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=2Rw5MosKRm4
Independance Day sucked. The collected works of Kenneth Anger rule.
Independence Day would have been a lot cooler and weirder if Kenneth Anger had directed it.
In my personal experience, radical antihumanism is actually a lot like antisemitism in form, if not in societal penetration. There are a few radical cranks who will openly talk about a mass die-off or even a massacre of humans and how that would benefit nature (which humans are apparently not part of). The rest of environmentalists won’t endorse human-hating per se, but will not speak against it either. They are the people who will say later that they had no idea what could have been going on when the SS drove all those people into the woods and came back without them.
That said, I don’t feel any particular threat from these people — even the passive supporters are a fringe in terms of the entire western population, and as pointed out above, they are dramatically outgunned by those of us who are willing to defend our rights. But the attitude does exist, and its adherents do seek out policymaking positions in the government.
liberal progressive beliefs are based in communist marxist thought; hundreds of millions of people have been murdered in the name of the “collective good” as imagined in the sick minds of these communists marxist mad men like Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot and others.
Bill Ayers; currently a professor at an Ivy league college; good friend to Obama; while a leading member of the Weather Underground in the 70’s planned after they had taken over the country in thier communist/ marxist revolution; to be prepared to murder over 25 million Americans who would not be “re-educated”.
The “useful idiots” as Stalin called his followers at our level would not necessarily condone mass murder; but the leaders at the national level would without a second thought commit mass murder of all who would oppose them if it gave them the kind of control they truly want.
If any of you doubt that they are capable of this then you are living in severe denial of the corrupting influence of power and what those drunk on that power will do to aquire even more control over us all.
Yep. And Ayers and the Weathermen were in league with the Cuban intelligence service, who provided them with money and weaponry. I’m so sick of the “mainstream” left laughing off Obama’s association with the guy. Obama is/was friends with a traitorous communist terrorist, a racist pastor, and has a black radical that staged an armed uprising at his college as his attorney general (Eric Holder).
No one else could get away with this insanity and they shouldn’t. He’s lucky he’s got a (D) next to his name and the media on his side.
Unfortunately, the commie scum is NOT at an Ivy league school. He is a retired professor at the University of Illinois – Chicago Circle Campus. A proud member of the Chicago machine.
This whole business of “sustainable population” is about how many the up-coming world government feels they can safely control, without a chance for successful rebellion against their tyranny. It has NOTHING to do with resources, or lack thereof, other than the man-power required to police our every thought and action. Freedom of religion, speech, or the ability to own a “weapon” is in danger.
Not exactly a new theory. The great Isaac Asimov wrote about a similar premise
over the course of many short stories. Nut jobs wanting a “healthy population”
serve as the main protagonists in Clancy’s Rainbow Six.
Considering who we’re dealing with and frequently debate about (on this very site
and others), if anything we may not be giving the theory as much scrutiny as
it deserves. Whether gun grabbers would like us dead or just under their thumb,
I don’t know. Considering the anti-gun movement, I get the feeling that while they
may not act as executioners; they would not be averse to seeing those with
an independence streak disappear.
“In their heart of hearts, do gun control advocates want bitter gun-clinging American gun owners to just . . . disappear?”
Some do and some don’t, and to different degrees. BTW, great piece from the JPFO. Thanks.
Aharon wrote the above. My name is not being published.
The same loons who want to reduce the human population are also typically anti-vaccine and anti-GMO too. They spread vicious unscientific lies and they are now the useful idiots of the Democratic Party. The Eastern Bloc used to fund them in Western countries to cause trouble. Noticeably, there were envirowhacko protesters in the Soviet Union because watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside.
That and anyone who complained about pollution there would surely end up living a fairly green (or white) life in lovely Siberia.
there weren’t*
I’m against genetically-modified food and having 7 billion++++ humans alive on Earth. Do you know another name for unlimited growth? Cancer.
I know another name for unlimited growth.
Pizza.
As a man living 7 minutes away from 6 pizzeria’s I can attest to this.
Please read http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle632-20110814-02.html
and http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle689-20120923-02.html
Old Armenian saying, “He who wants your gun, wants your life.”
Your neighbor parroting the anti-gun talking points may just want to ‘feel’ safe, but don’t trust the people who start those talking points.
Old Armenian saying, “He who wants your gun, wants your life.”
The JPFO publishes an excellent book and DVD (they go by different names) that covers all the genocides of the 20th Century starting with genocide against the Armenians by Turkey in the early 1900s. Like all genocides, it started with gun registration followed by confiscation.
Here is a brief intro to it: Innocents Betrayed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYkO_3dZAYg
it’s not the guns they hate, it’s us. the guns are just an excuse. as for people not acting maliciously, have you read much history?
They want us helpless, they only want us dead if we don’t follow orders.
Yes, gun grabbers want us dead because the wolves can’t effectively terrorize the sheep until they get the sheepdogs out of the way.
“If the gun grabbers want us dead why would we sit around a table working on a compromise re: our Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms?”
You and the majority of posters here have said countless times that you have exactly ZERO interest in working out a compromise – it is your way or nothing at all. That is in the end why you will be crushed in the gun debate, because you are incapable of actually having one.
As for the bulk of this latest post – another sad decline into hyperbole and playing to the crowd. You used to be way better than this Robert.
You used to be way better than this Robert.
The same cannot be said about you.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
It wasn’t I who wrote this ridiculous BS masquerading as “The Truth About Guns”. If you actually think that “grabbers” really want you dead then you are an even great idiot than I had ever taken you for, which is saying something. Having said that, I suppose a paranoid reactionary who lacks the balls to leave his home without a gun probably DOES actually think the world is out to get him.
Hmmmmmmm,
The argument can certainly be made that the anti-gunners, who clearly favor disarmament in a dangerous world, care little to nothing about our safety. Politicians are regularly protected by armed men, metal protectors in secure buildings, LEOs, and secret service personnel. Yet these same politicians wish to deny us armed protection. It is clear that my individual safety is not a concern of theirs. I’m an LEO, and I’ve made enemies in this world, just like politicians. I support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms by the fact that my resonse times are several minutes at best, and can be longer based upon a variety of factors such as traffic conditions and physical proximity.
So you can challenge RF, Jwm, or any other poster all you want to. You have not forwarded any argument that makes me favor disarmament specifically or reducing 2A freedom in general. I have seen violence in this world, and know that the actions of evil men will not be thwarted by a scathing email or witty argument. If that is your best defense, so be it. As for me, I have this crazy notion that the best chance of winning a gunfight is by controlling the one already in my hands.
Dead just for the sake of being dead? No. They, well, you want us firmly under your control. Any who will not be controlled you have no problems killing.
The thing that’s always puzzled me is why you (the collective “you”, meaning gun grabbers and other collectivists) are so afraid of people making their own choices and taking care of themselves. It’s never been enough for you to have your own community / state / country ruled with an iron fist, you are continually compelled to seek out anyone who values freedom and conquer them. WHY?? The US was founded by people who wanted to be free and live their lives as they saw fit – yet people like you couldn’t let that stand and were compelled to come here and try to conquer us…why can’t you just leave people alone? Why must you always have everyone forced to kneel before you?
Hmmmm, clearly you are delusional. We have comprised with the likes of you for over 4 decades and look where is has gotten us. More school shootings and more decadence. There is NO more compromising, it has proven to be an EPIC FAIL! There is zero reason to give another inch to you communists wrapping yourselves in a fake blanket of so – called “safety for the children”. Your post is a singular example:
” I suppose a paranoid reactionary who lacks the balls to leave his home without a gun probably DOES actually think the world is out to get him.”
You insult us at every turn and WE are supposed to have a civil discourse with you? Spare me your nonsense.
Gee, hummer, you sound so upset. Did someone shut down your bridge?
Compromise? At what point has the gun control crowd ever compromised? The only compromise they, and you want is for us to turn in our guns.
Nobody can be so deluded as to believe that the last 60 to 80 years of gun control efforts have shown any compromise.
How many hoops do I have to jump thru to exercise a gauranteed right that has “Shall not be infringed” right in the wording.
I don’t care if RF deletes or bans me. Hmmmmm, you’re without honor and nothing but a liar.
Please, for the benefit of everybody here, give us all an example of a lie I have told. Either that or go back to school, learn how to read, get that GED you always promised yourself, and then work out what the word “liar” actually means, because you are currently too dumb to use it correctly.
Do not address any part of my comment except where I called you a liar. Ignore the fact that the compromise has never come from the grabbers and that the constitution protects our rights to carry and insult Ralph for wanting to exercise his legal rights.
And yet you’ve claimed in previous posts that you are a gun owner. Said you were picking up a new rifle next month.
That’s where I call you a liar. No way do you own or use guns and still campaign so hard for gun control.
As for intelligence. How dumb do you have to be to delibertly throw out crap remarks here just so you can take a verbal bashing afterwards? That goes past being dumb and into sick territory.
Get help Hmmmmmbug, you really need it.
That’s it? Your entire evidence that I am a liar is because you don’t believe that somebody can keep a gun (in their rural home, for defense and varmints) and also believe that people shouldn’t be able to carry loaded in public?
Really? That’s it?
So what is your designation under the DSM IV?
Hmmmmmmer, code talk only works if you’re familiar with or in the system. I’m neither. But since you talk the talk we must assume that you are. Kinda figures really. I’m actually glad to hear you’re getting treatment.
Hummer wouldn’t know a gun if he found one in his panties.
Fundamental rights are not subject to majority vote.
Anyone who reads that and understands the constitution gets it, and won’t need to read the rest of this.
So, what are fundamental rights?
In America, the Constitution provides for the framework of the government, and explicitly states several individual rights. Freedom of religion, of the press, of speech, to peacefully assemble, to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not provide testimony aginst yourself, to a speedy trial with a jury of peers.
And to the right to keep and bear arms.
So, it is not supposed to matter if 51% or 99% or even 100% of the citizens in the US agree to pass laws preventing the free exercise of these rights. The rights are fundamental. The only way to legally limit them is to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
“But Jake” you say, “The National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA) violates your right to speedy trials, and juries, or trials at all! So your fancy so called ‘fundamental rights’ can be subject to majority rule!”
Well now, like most people who have read the Constitution, and aren’t hypocritical with themselfs, I understand that just because something is wrong, immoral, and illegal, doesn’t mean that Congress won’t pass it.
It still does not make the NDAA legal- nor would having congress pass a bill requiring Churches to forgo their religious beliefs and participate in abortion… Oh wait.
You see, this is a big part of why Second Ammendment advocates are ‘one issue voters’. A politicians stance on gun rights can tell me fairly quickly if they support the Constitution.
Right now, there are too many in Congress, republican and democrat alike, that pay only lip service to restrictions on governmental power, and some that outright flaunt their evil intentions to make government unlimited in power.
Oh sure, they can be charming people, but a government with unlimited power is evil. Tax agents with automatic weapons and body armour raiding homes and murdering people over length of a bit of wood or metal, is evil.
There is no compromise with these people- they do not believe in or respect the same values of government that I do. They will never convince me to give up a right, and I will never convince them that their ‘good intentions’ are evil. The most I can do is try to educate undecided voters around me, and hope we eventually elect a congress more interested in serving the people than expanding the government.
The fact that the constitution has been amended so many times proves quite clearly that there is no such thing as fundamental rights – if there were then there would only need to be one draft of the constitution. QED.
And this statement proves that you slept through civics class. The Constitution doesn’t grant us our fundamental rights. The Declaration of Independence describes the natural rights of all people that are granted by our creator, The Constitution sets forth the basic laws of the land, flowing from our natural rights. At no point do any of our founding documents confer rights upon us. They protect rights we already have as human beings.
Really? If you are correct, which you are NOT, then why bother to write it down at all? Just state there are to be three branches of the federal government and Congress can make any laws, rules, regulations, edicts as they see fit. You are the one who is in dire need of remedial classes in civics and English.
+1 to Stacy. Go crack open an Intro to American Government text and then we’ll talk about the Constitutional protections of rights.
Nice job. I do take issue with this:
“The only way to legally limit them is to pass an amendment to the Constitution.”
And I’ll quote you again to illustrate my point…
“Fundamental rights are not subject to majority vote.”
Constitutional amendments are just majority vote. No where near that 100% that isn’t supposed to matter. The enumerated rights have nothing to do with the government. The enumeration points out only that the government is to have nothing to do with them.
hmmmmmm,
Your facts and logic are wrong and twisted. Why should gun owners try to compromise since we know the game you are playing? Politicians, judges, and the gun industry leadership will ‘negotiate’ or ‘fight for’ us as they will. You are just a troll. Go away now.
I am perfectly willing to compromise. The first compromise should be to eliminate the regulatory constraints on buying, owning, and using silencers, suppressors, or gun mufflers, whichever term you prefer.
There is no logical reason for the heavy tax and regulatory burdens that are placed on the ownership and use of these items, as evidenced by their wide use and low regulatory requirements in Europe.
The burdens placed on their use have resulted in a public health care disaster, with millions losing hearing because of these misquided policies.
Here is a clear and easy possibility for compromise, but the anti-freedom side will have none of it.
Compromise, in the anti-freedom vocabulary simply means more regulation, never less. That is not compromise, it is more Orwellian word twisting.
Does nobody teach Zeno’s Paradox [sic] anymore? If they did, what Dean says would be so self-evident that when the occasional totalitarian minded rube stood up and whined about compromise everybody with a jr. high education would just point and laugh.
the problem with compromise is you seem to be using a definition of it that does not actually exist. If we were to “compromise” on your terms it would be being quiet and doing everything you want how you want it. Last I checked that would be the dictionary definition of “capitulate” not “compromise”
“After making a spiffy cactus needlepoint wall hanging, this lightly goateed man feels ready to take the Karl Lippard Challenge.”
The argument over whether or not anti-gunners want us dead is purely semantic. Most anti-gunners are either women or really pathetic excuses for men. They are not the fighting type. They rely on dumb meat heads who obey. You may notice that there is a very popular hipster brand called “Obey”, it has been around for years – starting as urinal stickers when I was a boy, with Andre the Giant. Now people pay $40 for a T-shirt with his face on it and the word “Obey.”
A few months ago I was hospitalized for an abscess and they had to put me in the Oncology ward temporarily. My roommate was a 90+ year old man. His daughter came to visit and she brought her husband, the father of her three charming, horseback riding daughters. He made a point to, seemingly at random, go on the most extreme anti-gun screed I have ever heard. This wealthy parent and pillar of the community went on about how ALL handguns should be outlawed and gun owners were trash, his entire charming family agreed.
These people hate you, me and everyone else who would even consider owning a “killing machine.” These people go to Church/Temple/Whatever. They will ultimately marginalize us in an effort to drive extremists into a provocation,they may even undertake false flag attacks to vilify gun owners in general. When the time comes they will declare our destruction to be God’s will, a revolutionary and necessary act. When that time comes, will you be willing to fight back?For the LEO or state employee, would you be willing to walk away on principle or worse, undermine your agency if they become corrupt? These are tough questions. Geddy Lee already told us in “2112” what will happen if you try to reason with them.
@Stacy’s Reply to hummmmm
Very well said! At least the nonsensical argument hmmmmm offers demonstrates he knows what QED means, but I don’t think he intended to prove that.
Dissent has always been inconvenient for tyranny.
Mike V. said it all. If you try to take our guns, we will kill you.
If you are a Morally-conscious, Rights-respecting, Peaceable, Law-abiding Citizen of your State and of these United States;- you’re a Problem.
If you’re skin color is ‘white’, your gender is ‘male‘ and you’re capable of independent thought and action;- you are ‘THE PROBLEM’.
If you’re a ‘white male’ who has thoughtfully considered the alternatives;
recognized and accepted the Judeo-Christian philosophy as the basis of the most viable guidelines available for individual thought and conduct in a Civilized society;
are knowledgeable enough about the American Constitutional Republic form of government to know it as the most evolved system of government ever devised;- AND
own a GUN…
( but haven’t yet become a Monk )
Make no mistake about it. You’re not only a Problem, ‘THE PROBLEM’ but are, in fact of actuality…
“THE ENEMY.”
Yup.
Bill, clearly you need a proper civics class. There was an argument between the Federalists and Anti Federalists about writing down (enumerating) the then understood concept of pre-existing natural rights. The anti Federalists wanted a list and the Federalists worried that if such a list was provided, that someday government representitives would get the idea that those were all the rights there were. As a compromise, the Ninth Amendment addressed that issue. And by the way, an amendemnt to the Constitution cannot abrogate any rights, because the Constituion, like government itself, does not grant rights. We have them simply because we draw breath—this is the philosophy of John Locke adopted by the founders.
The left (elites) in this country WILL kill those they cannot change or disarm. Furthermore, they will even kill those “useful idiots” when they no longer serve a purpose. The vast majority of the people killed by arms in this world, especially in the last 100 years have been killed by agents of their own governments.
SamAdams1776 III
Molon Labe
Si Vis Pacem Parabellum
A military officer
You clearly missed the entire point of my post.
hmmmmmm,
The fact that the Constitution has been amended is no arument for the non-existence of natural / fundamental rights. The Consitution is the framework for our government: governments do not have the authority (certainly not as John Locke or the Founders understood the term of “rights”) to grant rights-they come from our creator. The Constitution therefore, has no authority to grant rights; the Bill of Rights (BOR) the first Ten Amandemnts to the Constitution, merely protects rights by limiting the authority of government.
The whole point of the Constitution is to place tight limits on government–limits that are now largely being ignored by our government. The BOR assumes the rights and simple tells government it cannot interfere with those rights. Repealing any part of the BOR does not abbrogate rights, beause the BOR does not and cannot grant them. Repealing any part of the BOR would simply be a statement that the government has no intention of recohnizing fundamental, natural rights, and intends on hostile action against the people. But ignoring Constitutional limits of power amounts to the same thing. I will remind hmmmmm and others why Second Amandemnt protections are necessary by quoting from the Declaration of Independence:
“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, …when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
It is also interesting to note that generally believers in a Supreme Being recognize the concept of Natural Rights as being gifts from God, whereas in general, atheists do not accept the notion of Natural Rights and may be why they often lean towards the statist philosophies, i.e. Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan, and argued for an all-powerful government that people must obey–that whatever government did was what was best, and that there could be of guarantees given to subjects. Hmmmm…you sound like a Hobbes kind of guy to me, rather than a Lockean!
In any event, what you wrote was in no way a classic proof and QED sounded fatuous at best.
The old, “Divide And Conquer” gambit.
Comments are closed.