The Founding Patriots Versus the Liberal Fascists of the Left

The Captain’s Journal » A “Greater Right” To Weapons

Because people in law enforcement deal with criminals every days, Grebert thinks they have, “a greater right” to weapons, “to deal with potentially violent situations.” And Grebert says he’s confident police will still have access to the equipment they need “to get the job done right.”

He could be discussing the popular progressive notion that the militia doesn’t exist today because it’s an antiquated idea, or if it does, it consists of law enforcement.  Thus, the second amendment gives them rights that it doesn’t give us, or a “greater right,” if you will.

This is the logic of tyranny, in this case, authoritarian police statist tyranny: Tyrants always have “greater rights” than subjects, serfs, or slaves.

The evil, stupid, and totalitarian “Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban” underlines this dichotomy, which is explicitly making a distinction between “hunting and sporting” firearms, and “weapons designed for military and police use.”

I wonder if the men who used their muskets to establish the United States of America would understand, or accept, that distinction?

I suspect not. In fact, faced with the sort of tyranny expemplifed by Queen Dianne Feinstein and her ilk,  I suspect they would be reaching for their muskets once again.


UPDATE:  By the way, George Orwell was right – in a fascist state, some pigs are more equal than other pigs.  Also:  Have you noticed how the lefties all loved themselves some Orwell when Bush was president, but now that they’re running the farm, you never hear a word about him?

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


The Founding Patriots Versus the Liberal Fascists of the Left — 4 Comments

  1. Because people in law enforcement deal with criminals every days, Grebert thinks they have, “a greater right” to weapons, “to deal with potentially violent situations.”…

    The simple-but-factually-correct response to this bit of “greater right” moronity is in two parts:

    1) “Dealing with criminals/potentially-violent situations” – frequently on a near-daily or daily basis – is in no way exclusively true for “law enforcement” – many, many ordinary citizens have everyday or near-everyday close-proximity to criminals and/or potentially-violent situations, some even more frequently than most cops do. Based on that set of criteria, they are every bit as needful and deserving of having weaponry; and,

    2) Nothing in the Second Amendment says anything about “law enforcement” having any “greater right” to firearms possession – in fact, the inherent right guaranteed to individual U.S. citizens (as per SCOTUS’ decision) has nothing to do with “law enforcement”, except as it pertains to defending against infringement(s) on freedom.

    In short – this “greater right” bullshit is just that. There ain’t no sech a thang.

    Re: The statements at the top of the post – anything that makes Henry “Pignose” Waxman – or most any of the Inside-The-Beltway Bastards – nervous about the potential behavior of “constituents” being armed should generally be counted as a Good Thing. Based on prior behavior and statements, that slimy sack of crap should be kept awake at night and nervous all day about what might be coming at him as a result!

    • The simple-but-factually-correct response to this bit of “greater right” moronity is in two parts:

      You’re wrong. Your two parts were an attempt to demonstrate the logical or factual errors on the part of the banner. As if that matters. Gun banners are driven by fear or the desire to control or both. Logical analysis based on peaceful gun use never entered into it.

      The gun banners were not logically and honestly reasoned into their positions. They cannot be logically reasoned into a different position. The only thing to do is remove them from any position or voice of influence. The increasing warm-body democracy in the US won’t let us prevent government employees and other drones from voting, and they have refused to leave even after Bush was elected, so I think the only thing for it is to kill them.

      • Oh, I have no illusion (or perhaps “delusion” is the better term) that any of what I wrote will serve, now or ever, as effective rhetoric or logical argumentation versus the gun-grabbers – they have, as you point out, no interest in actual argumentation or “dialogue” (beyond “do what I/we say, or I/we will crush you”) on the subject of guns or “alleged” gun rights.

        I was merely stating – for the benefit of anyone whose mind may not already be made up, or for purposes of public statement if the opportunity should arise – the two pieces of actual argumentation that effectively nullify the moronic “greater rights” bullshit.

        I have long-ago ceased to attempt to actually “change minds” or “win hearts” with the gun-grabber crowd – such efforts have been pointless for a very long while. I do sometimes, however, feel impelled to state what should be quite obvious (but seemingly so seldom is, for some): The illogic of the gun-grabbers’ rhetoric, and the logic that reveals it.

        It helps to keep my own thinking on the subject clear and sharp -and, who knows? Perhaps some actual, logical, reasoning folks who read it may find it useful.

        One never knows…

        (In the end, I think you will be proven correct in your last statement, BTW – and There Will Be Blood.)

  2. our founding fathers would have been shooting by now

    SCOTUS ruling in garner vs tennesse stated in rather clear language that the police use of fire arms was to be for self defence only….any other use would be a violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments…the police cannot enforce the law at the point of a gun.
    the police have no “greater right” to self defence than you or i do…only more opportunities to need that right, because of their job. therefor, they should not need “special” weapons that are unavailable to the general public.

    and stop calling them “assault weapons”…they are sporting guns……like a viper, a cobra, or a mustang gt is a sports car and not a race car

Leave a Reply