I posted something like this on the Twitter today:
Sadly, I am overcoming my reluctance to believe my political opponents are just misguided, rather than evil. I’m pretty sure that since their policies include using violence to take my property, that they already believe I am evil.
So in addition to being sad, I’m alarmed because all this invites the question: Where is this leading us?
Your political opponents view you as evil. You’re a deplorable bitter clinger, in thrall to a racist Constitution, and in the words of an almost-president, “irredeemable” and “not America.” Now the left has declared the NRA to be a “domestic terrorist” organization–well, what do we do to members of terrorist organizations?
As for where this is leading us, an obvious read of Robert Francis O’Rourke’s confiscatory proposal is that he’s trying to provoke the right, in an attempt to elicit an overreaction that will work to his political advantage.
I’m reminded of how a terrorist will try to provoke governments, also in an attempt to elicit an overreaction that will work to his political advantage…
If Robert Francis O’Rourke said merely he wanted to spend taxpayer dollars on voluntary AR-15 buybacks, and if he actually meant it, that would be one thing.
But that is not the case. He’s fired off a series of Twitter posts (three so far) doubling and tripling down on “taking” law-abiding Americans’ AR-15s, including with a tweet advertising a campaign T-shirt, on sale now for $30. The shirt says: “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15.” Nowhere is there any mention of voluntary buybacks.
This is not an accidental slip of the tongue during the heat of a debate, with passions flaring. This is intentional. This is planned. This is mandatory forcible door-to-door confiscation.
We need to go beyond calling R.F. O’Rourke’s proposal unconstitutional (which it certainly is) and anti-American (ditto). We should ask ourselves: Why is he proposing this now, when it’s certain to inflame already high tempers?
One possibility is that he wants to shift the Overton window toward Swalwell-esque mandatory gun confiscation. Another is that he wants to keep poking and prodding and jabbing at the bull, until the horns come out–creating a situation that he thinks he can use to his political advantage.
I posted something like this on the Twitter today:
Sadly, I am overcoming my reluctance to believe my political opponents are just misguided, rather than evil. I’m pretty sure that since their policies include using violence to take my property, that they already believe I am evil.
So in addition to being sad, I’m alarmed because all this invites the question: Where is this leading us?
Your political opponents view you as evil. You’re a deplorable bitter clinger, in thrall to a racist Constitution, and in the words of an almost-president, “irredeemable” and “not America.” Now the left has declared the NRA to be a “domestic terrorist” organization–well, what do we do to members of terrorist organizations?
As for where this is leading us, an obvious read of Robert Francis O’Rourke’s confiscatory proposal is that he’s trying to provoke the right, in an attempt to elicit an overreaction that will work to his political advantage.
I’m reminded of how a terrorist will try to provoke governments, also in an attempt to elicit an overreaction that will work to his political advantage…
If Robert Francis O’Rourke said merely he wanted to spend taxpayer dollars on voluntary AR-15 buybacks, and if he actually meant it, that would be one thing.
But that is not the case. He’s fired off a series of Twitter posts (three so far) doubling and tripling down on “taking” law-abiding Americans’ AR-15s, including with a tweet advertising a campaign T-shirt, on sale now for $30. The shirt says: “Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15.” Nowhere is there any mention of voluntary buybacks.
This is not an accidental slip of the tongue during the heat of a debate, with passions flaring. This is intentional. This is planned. This is mandatory forcible door-to-door confiscation.
We need to go beyond calling R.F. O’Rourke’s proposal unconstitutional (which it certainly is) and anti-American (ditto). We should ask ourselves: Why is he proposing this now, when it’s certain to inflame already high tempers?
One possibility is that he wants to shift the Overton window toward Swalwell-esque mandatory gun confiscation. Another is that he wants to keep poking and prodding and jabbing at the bull, until the horns come out–creating a situation that he thinks he can use to his political advantage.