Elections – Page 25 – Splendid Isolation

See You In November, Asshole

September 5, 2019 Kim du Toit Crime, Elections, Politics, The Gun Thing

I did not need to read this.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) told Fox News on Monday that the ability for strangers to sell guns to strangers without a background check is a “loophole” that needs to be addressed.
“I think one of the things, Jon, we have to do in this country is, take a strong look at this ability for people to buy a weapon when they’ve been turned down by a background check. … I believe, as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, we should protect that family transfer or family sale. But any stranger-to-stranger, however — we don’t know how this person got their gun, but we do know that that’s a real loophole in the law. Because I’m a gun owner, I’m never going to sell my gun to someone I don’t know that — do they have a criminal record, are they a danger to other people, are they ready to commit evil? There’s no need for that.”

Fuck you, Patrick. If I want to sell a gun, I’ll fucking well sell it. If a guy has been turned down for a prior gun purchase and he then tries to get a gun anyway, then he’s at fault, not I.

And what if he was turned down because a vengeful ex slapped a restraining order on him, just for spite? Am I supposed to know that, too?

What you and your fuckbuddies in the gun confiscation business call a “loophole”, I call a personal freedom — the freedom to sell my personal property whenever I choose to do so. If the buyer turns around and commits a crime afterwards, that’s not my fault — just as it’s not the (FFL) gun dealer’s fault when a “legal” gun buyer turns round and murders someone. In both cases, the actual perpetrator caused the problem, not the seller.

As someone who wants to sell a gun, I have a right to ask the prospective buyer if he has a carry permit, and the right to refuse to sell him my gun if he doesn’t have one. That’s the right you want to turn into an obligation? Bite me. If you want me to perform a “background check” on someone, go ahead and deputize me. Otherwise, stay the hell out of my business.

Wait, here’s a thought: why don’t you and your politician buddies pass legislation that automatically grants every concealed-carry permit-holder a FFL? Then we’d have to perform background checks each time we sold a gun (except to other CHL holders, of course). Go on, I dare you.

And stop listening to the screams and wails to “do something”. That “something” that they want you to do is going to piss off a lot of people who might otherwise have voted for you. Like me.

Pity

September 3, 2019 Kim du Toit Elections

Here’s something I might be interested in supporting:

Sadly, Mad Dog has categorically denied the rumors.

Giving In To The Commies

August 8, 2019 Kim du Toit Elections, Politics, The Gun Thing

Dear President Trump,

“Doing something about guns” according to the wishes of the media would be an even grosser betrayal of your 2016 supporters than not building a wall along the southern border has been.

We all — even the media — know that “doing something” in this regard means, in essence, increasing control over law-abiding gun owners which will do nothing to solve crime of any sort.

I, and most gun owners who voted for you back in 2016, know that your efforts to build a wall were undercut by the Establishment Republicans and Democrats in Congress. More ineffectual gun control legislation and the concomitant assaults on our Constitutional rights, however, will place at risk not only your chances of reelection in 2020, it will place the electoral success of the Republican senators and House legislators in a similar situation.

We are not fooled, and we will not be fooled, by the current demands to “do something”. Try to convince us that you won’t be fooled either.

And yes, this is a warning.

Sincerely,

Kim du Toit

Not Gonna Happen

July 11, 2019 Kim du Toit Elections, Politics

Over at PJM, ol’ Roger thinks our presidential campaigns are too long (I agree) and wants to do something about it:

How about postponing the campaign until Thanksgiving and allowing the country and Congress to go about their real business? The British manage their campaigns in only 60 days. Maybe we could squeeze it down to, say, 180.

While he makes some excellent points about the folly of long election campaigns, Roger falls into the liberal trap of wishful thinking. Whenever some asswipe Lefty (i.e. all of them) makes some stupid proposal, the common response from conservatives is twofold:

“How are you gonna pay for it?” — OR —
“How are you going to do that, exactly ?”

To whit: “Free health care for everybody” gets question #1 in response; and “We’re going to come around to your house and take away your guns!” gets question #2.

The problem with trying to limit the length of presidential (or any) electoral campaigns is that we have that pesky Constitution, in the form of the First Amendment.

If it’s (say) a week before Thanksgiving and someone says, “When I’m president, I will…”, telling someone that “You’re not allowed to say that yet” would result in you getting your pee-pee severely whacked by the courts, and deservedly so.

The Brits get away with their 60-day election campaigns by simply banning election speeches and so on before the start date. Try doing that in the U.S. of A., and a shit-storm will ensue. We’re a free people, and if Governor Sextoy Butt-Plug (D) of Michigan wants to announce in 2019 that she’s going to run for the presidency in 2031, she’s perfectly within her rights.

I’m irritated by the perpetual campaigning thing myself, but at the same time, the First Amendment is more important than my irritation. Some people are frightened by guns, but the Second Amendment is more important than their trepidation. That’s how the whole thing works, even if it is inconvenient sometimes.