Firing up the base

Over at Salon, Rick Perlstein writes his tale of woe on the topics of Threepers, “Open Carry advocates”, and the phrase Molon Labe.

In other words, there is virtually no countervailing power to the now-hegemonic acceptance that there’s nothing much to do about the proliferation of guns in America. Democrats, as usual, gave an inch. The right, as usual, took a mile. And now we face the consequences.

Actually, as you well know, he faces no consequences and gets to claim victim status if he is robbed or assaulted. Unlike you and I, who face severe consequences if we walk through the wrong doorway or cross a state, county, or city boundary without knowing the minutiae of local firearms laws.

But no worries, his heart bleeds anyway.

Also, he gets to turn his fellow hoplophobes into fire-breathing fascists!

So At What Point Do We Actually Stand Up To The Gun Nuts?

Rick Perlstein writes about how Democrats completely surrendered our political will to control guns when the Obama administration backed away from the Bundy ranch. And I have to admit, he makes a good point. I assumed the feds would be back later — as in, a few weeks. How long has it been now? By the time anything actually happens, will it have any real deterrent effect?

But Perlstein doesn’t mention the big honkin’ elephant in the room: Namely, at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we’re not talking about bank robbers here, we’re talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks — scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point? Because you can’t talk about the Bundy ranch without talking about Ruby Ridge, and Waco.

So here’s the political corner into which we’ve painted ourselves.

Do we have the ATF and BLM agents roll up in armored tanks? Do we use drone strikes? I can see the administration’s reluctance to have that confrontation — after all, it’s not as if gun control advocates were flooding the White House switchboard, screaming to ‘take them out!’ And then we do have the militia types all over the country, just waiting for an excuse to start their own local uprising. These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.

Some days, I wonder: Should we let them, and just get it over with? You know, settle the burning question about whose is bigger.

Susie Madrak hits for the cycle in this one: She calls law-abiding firearms owners insane, gets to wish her political opponents dead, invokes Markley’s Law, all while claiming victim-hood status.

That’s why she is a front pager at Crooks and Liars!

This entry was posted in Order of the imperial upraised middle finger.. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Firing up the base

  1. rusty muskets says:

    the problem seems to be this; a faction of the population thinks that gun control is the answer to the problem of random, or perhaps not so random violence in our cities. another faction thinks that gun control means that the collective unit i.e. government – federal, state, local will in an attempt to reduce violence arrive at a level of confiscation of privately owned firearms thereby rendering this people helpless in the face of unprovoked violence by those who do not obey the laws and would not surrender their firearms.
    The historical facts seem to indicate that those governmental units with the most restrictive firearm ordinances seem to have the highest level of gun violence. This fact seems to be conceded with the reasoning that if all governmental units had the same restrictive laws then those people who are willing to commit violent crimes with firearms would not have access to them.
    My opinion is twofold; prohibition did not work to curtail the consumption of alcoholic beverages. Nor has the war on drugs curtailed the drug traffic in our cities.
    Banning something, be it firearms or alcoholic beverages will not curtail the demand. It will merely establish a black market for the item and those who truly want the item will pay for it. Also, it is my belief that all people, regardless of their gender, race or age have a right to self protection. In short, if someone wants to kick in my front door well that is fine, just be ready for the consequences. What most people don’t grasp is the fact that the local police, where ever you live do not stop violent crime. Their job is to investigate crime and submit their information to the local district attorney for prosecution. So if you want to be a victim… don’t have a weapon. Personally I would prefer to not be a victim.

  2. CAshane says:

    Isn’t all this gun control talk a moot point anyway. Whether the gun-grabbing crowd is aware or not, we already have had someone print out a complete and functional 1911 (less the springs) on a 3D metal printer. Granted, those printers cost a small fortune now, but with Moore’s law in effect, in 5-10 years they will be cheap and readily available. Once the criminal class figures out how to obtain and use this technology it will be more important than ever for everyday citizens to have and exercise their right to arms.

  3. Firehand says:

    Wonderful, isn’t it? She’s specifically asking when they SHOULD literally go to war with its own citizens?, and then later calls US nuts and says WE want a civil war…

  4. Pingback: Quote of the day—Susie Madrak | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.