1 year, 2 months ago
That means, of course, that there is no vitriol too foul, to his way of thinking, to fling at groups like Open Carry Texas, for their campaign of openly carrying rifles and shotguns into places like restaurants and retail stores (although he may not have made the comparison between such activists and child rapist/murderers–yet). Of rather greater concern than the vitriol, though, is Malloy’s stated intention to try to get open carry activists shot and killed. Ah–another “non-violence” advocate.
It’s yet another installment on the logical inconsistency of the gun control movement, like claims that guns don’t save lives or that they create more danger than they abate – which they cannot truly believe because they never advocate taking guns away from the police.
It’s part of a long-standing and not particularly successful attempt by the “progressives” to chill dissent by making gun owners fear to speak out lest they be tarred with the brush of extremist. Perversely, those who want them to feel that way have been known to come up with extremist advocacy positions like ‘Isn’t it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?”
David and Mike have already been painted with that brush. So have I. Care to join the club? And speaking of extremist, Mike explains just what he really believes.
It is for this reason that the collectivists — the domestic enemies of the Founders’ Republic — are made somewhat angered, if not deranged, by the Gadsden flag. Its sentiment is plain — it cannot be polluted or corrupted or co-opted. They must therefore do their best to demonize it, to discredit it, to profane it, and to lie about those who fly it. We have seen that very clearly in their reaction to the Miller meth-head murderers’ misuse of the Gadsden flag in their Nevada rampage. The flag is itself “anti-government” they proclaim and proof that the Millers represent the rest of us “anti-government types.”
Now I don’t know about you, but I’m not “anti-government,” although the Southern Poverty Law Center has been calling me that for two decades now. I am in fact pro-government of the kind the Founders would recognize. I am pro small government, safe government — a government of limited powers — a government that supports the rule of law AND OPERATES WITHIN IT.
It’s important to distinguish between advocates of constitutional government and anarchy, the brush our opponents would choose for us.
And finally, Mike asks the question, has the Department of Homeland Security become America’s standing army? Yes. Next question.