Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

1130, 14 Sep 19

“Certain Guns”

Herein lies the root thought process behind benign tyranny.

(CNN)Let me start by saying this: I don’t want to take away all guns. In fact, I can’t think of a politician or gun violence prevention advocate who has suggested repealing the Second Amendment. However, I do believe it should be really, really, hard — if not impossible — for certain people to get their hands on certain guns.

Who are “certain people?” And what are “certain guns?” Today we already ban certain people from having guns – mainly felons and the insane – but we do so after rigorous due process is afforded. We do so because the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that our founders knew deserved the utmost protection. That is why they protected it in the Bill of Rights.

When we loosen those definitions and suspend due process, we are on the path to tyranny. In Milano’s case, it is a benign tyranny rooted in the illogical assumption that access to firearms is a problem that needs to be solved. She’s a true believer who thinks that if only we could remove guns from our population, then we would be a safer society and that there wouldn’t be other negative consequences to such a situation. It’s a naive belief that is easy for someone to have who is protected by walls and armed security.

The problem is that once the wedge is created in our rights by those with benign interests, it can easily be wrested wider by those with more malignant intent. This is the same well worn path toward tyranny used in nations around the world for centuries. Disarm the population for their “own safety;” force them to rely upon the “authorities;” and then use those authorities to impose the will of tyrants. History is our guide and despite the fantasies of some, human nature has not changed enough that we would get a different outcome should we tread that path.


1130, 14 September 2019


  1. Mar

    Clearly, you dont suggest that a person who is mentally ill and making threats saying he is going to kill people with his gun should be allowed to keep their gun, if he has had due process in the courts?
    Yes,the system can be played,like it is every day. But there are people out there who should not have guns.
    And guns are taken in many circumstances- domestic violence, wildlife violations etc, so this is nothing new.

  2. Mike

    We don’t need any new laws for “certain people.

    We already have a whole statute (Chapter 51) on dealing with mental issues that includes emergency detention and a court hearing to determine competency. We also have laws on restraining orders and harassment injunctions that include court hearings with a judge that has the ability to remove firearms from a dangerous person.

    What “certain people” are they really talking about disarming?

    Democrats had their presidential candidate call half the country deplorable and irredeemable, signalling how we were to be treated. Democrat Gov. Dannel Malloy called the NRA (and their 5 million members) terrorists. The Democratic San Francisco supervisors officially labelled the NRA (and their members) terrorists. Democratic Rep Swalwell signalled he is willing to use the US military To control US citizens. WI Democratic Gov Tony Evers stated that gun owners 2nd amendment concerns were “BS”. The whole Democrat party that wants us disarmed. What are their plans for us once we are disarmed?

  3. Kevin Scheunemann


    See Venezuela for the Democrat plan in action. Venezuela was disarmed in 2012.

    It is an awful, dystopian future that awaits, that Bernie openly praises.

    The Democrat debate this week was a clown house for the insane.

  4. Mike

    I am aware of what they seem to have in store for us. In the 20th century there were about 12 million homicides worldwide there were, however, 262 million civilian citizens killed by their own government. This makes it 20 times more likely for citizens to be killed in a disarmed society.

  5. MjM

    “I brought Fred Guttenberg, whose precious 14-year-old daughter Jamie was murdered in Parkland, with me so that a person who was personally devastated by gun violence could speak to the emotional truths of that experience. And I also brought my friend, Ben Jackson, a veteran and brilliant man, with whom I co-founded NoRA, who could speak to the weapons we were going to discuss. “ – Misleading Milano

    IOW, she was to chicken-sheet to face Cruz alone, standing on her own opinions/positions. She needed help (in more ways than one, I would suggest), and as leftist usually do, resorted to emotion rather than logic and reason.

    “By the way, I have two guns in my household for self-defense, just so you know.” – Misleading Milano

    This is one case where I might be convinced that a red flag law would be good to implement. She is certainly one of those “certain people”.

  6. dad29

    After the first four minutes of listening to Milano stagger incoherently through her estrogen-screed, I expected Cruz to interrupt and ask her “Is there a point to this?”

    MjM is correct; Milano is not competent to discuss the matter.

    We also note that the Gun-Grab Gruppen has begun using the term ‘military’ weapons to re-define the objects of their grabbiness.  They’re hoping that the public does not know the REAL reason for the Second Amendment, and that the public does not know that the Colonists possessed and used military weapons during the Revolution–precisely the weapons the 2A was written to protect.

    In fact, the Kentucky long rifle actually was superior to the Brits’ Brown Bess, because the long rifle had rifling.

Pin It on Pinterest