I saw the same video of Judge Kavanaugh being questioned by Senator Diane Feinstein that Miguel did.

The “common use” aspect of the back-and-forth was stunning.  She conceded that people may own a lot of assault rifles (If they want to cal AR’s “assault rifles, I don’t care, they will try and ban them no matter what they are called) but don’t use them.  I can assure her, I use mine, so does everyone I know who owns them.

Where that exchange took a turn for me was when she asked about school shootings.

Anti-gun activist Igor Volsky jumped on the same thing I noticed but on the other side.

The short answer is “Yes.”

The longer answer is “The criminal acts of a very tiny percentage of the population is not an excuse to eliminate a civil right.”

There are over 72,000 overdose deaths, per year, more than twice the number of all gun deaths.   To save lives, maybe we should up-end the 4th Amendment and allow police to set up checkpoints to search people and their vehicles for drugs.

Illegal immigrants cause a disproportionate number of DUI related fatalities.  No Liberal or Civil Libertarian would say it’s a good idea to let the police set up checkpoints to ask drivers for their proof of citizenship like some Soviet bloc nation.

Why should a few dozen people (remember that the hundreds of school shootings Senator Feinstein is quoting never happened) eliminate the rights of 100 million law abiding gun owners or 300 million Americans with the potential to exercise their right, even if they don’t want to?  Simply: it shouldn’t.

I figure we settled this debate back in the 1770’s.

I remember the words of patriot Patrick Henry:

“Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

And those of Samuel Adams:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

This nation was founded on the idea of liberty over docile subservience.

Senator Diane Feinstein and all those that support her don’t believe that.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

4 thoughts on “The answer is yes”
  1. I like the new buzz fraise “ common use”. WTF is that supposed to mean? What part of “shall not be infringed “ dont they get? Wake up America

  2. I have a simple way to make the Libs eat their words and live by the BS they expect us to. Put forth a legislative change that mandates ALL Federal buildings may only have the security measures, equipment or mechanisms of the least secured schools in the nation. And may only be allotted the average number of armed personnel, per building, that are present in said schools.

  3. I don’t even go down this path anymore. Frankly, there is absolutely no answer that will be accepted by the “Ban Weapons of War”, “Why do you neeeeeeeed and AR15” crowd and arguing that position requires a knowledge base that most people don’t have.

    Now a days I throw the ball back in their court and I challenge them along this line:

    “Okay, POOF, all the AR15’s and rifles like it are now banned and you magically got everyone to turn them in. Then, like Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Gabby Giffords, Santa Fe High School, the Navy Yard and many others, there is a mass shooting that kills 30 kids in a grade school tomorrow. The shooter used a pump shotgun or a handgun. What policy would you advocate now that your “Assault Weapons Ban” failed to achieve the results you claimed?”

    I find this very useful for the people listening in because at best, the anti gun person will have to stumble through a line of thought that they were not prepared for (which reveals the lack of thinking their policy position through) and at worst they will advocate for more types of weapons to be banned. If it is the latter (and they haven’t called me a baby killer yet), I walk them down the road to defend their true desire of civilian disarmament. That is still seen as a very extreme position by most people in this country.

    I feel that linking people that “just want to ban weapons of war” to the policy of total civilian disarmament should be the goal in any debate about Modern Sporting Rifles. It’s not the person you are arguing with that needs convincing, it’s those that are observing the argument. Most of those people are not schooled enough in firearms to understand nuanced workings of an AR15 and a Ruger 10/22.

    Many people will understand when you properly expose someone who is trying to trick them.

Login or register to comment.