Skip to content

The Prophet Jeff

17 February 2013 @ 18:55

Jeff Goldstein warned us lo those many weeks ago and he is right to mention it:

I hate to say I told you so — oh, who am I kidding; it’s what I do — but the Senate GOP is set to “compromise” on gun-control, enacting the one proposal I predicted they would enact (while proclaiming victory for beating back the rest of the Feinstein agenda), so-called universal background checks.

Which of course are no such thing, because the only people forced to comply will be law-abiding citizens.

He then proceeds to explain how the rationale for such checks is based on blatantly false statistics/data.

Jeff follows up with another prediction:

Now, let’s walk through this so that we know just who the GOP members who’d support such a measure are:

1. You are pulled over for a busted tail light and the patrolman sees a rifle in the back seat of your car.

2. The patrolman asks you to furnish proof that you went through a universal background check to purchase the rifle.  You reply that after 24 hours those records are destroyed, and besides, the specific weapon isn’t listed on the paperwork anyway.  Since you’ve owned the gun legally for over 24 hours, there is no way for you to prove you underwent the check.

3.  The officer can either believe you or decide that he’s not taking any chances and confiscate your weapon.

4.  You have a right then to go prove your innocence, having been preliminarily found guilty.

5.  This will require lawyers and legal fees and you will be deprived of your weapon in the interim.

6.  Eventually some court will rule that you were denied due process — that the police cannot presume you guilty until you prove your innocence, especially when no mechanism is in place for you to prove your innocence.

7.  At which point, the “common sense” reformers will note that their universal background check — indeed, any background check in the context of showing you have a right to own the weapon (because the same scenario illustrated above can play out now) — is worthless after the initial check (which itself produces tens of thousands of false positives every year, and so is problematic insofar as it keeps law-abiding citizens from obtaining weapons in a timely manner, and at least a percentage of these citizens probably face an imminent threat) unless and until it is tied to paperwork that allows you to show that you aren’t a criminal.

8.  And that will be a gun registry.  Kept by the government. To protect you!  Meanwhile, you’ve been forced to pay legal fees, have been deprived of one means of defense, and have been compelled to surrender your time to the state in order to prove yourself worthy of state sanctioning.

9.  Gun violence ended!  Career criminals unable to get guns because there’s no way they can pass a universal background check!

Sarcasm justified, I think you will agree..

Do you have any doubt that this is exactly the way it will play out?  It seems to me we’ve seen this play before.

Getting a bit Biblical [as a Prophet is wont to do], Jeff suggests a brilliant way for us to handle the situation:

How should I put this delicately:  any lawmaker who supports an unenforcible law — one that serves only as a precursor to a gun registry — just so they can say they reached across the aisle and “did something,” should be tarred, feathered, and then booted from office.  If they be Republicans, there names should become expletives.

Their names should be cursed whenever free men speak of them.  They should be made, as Psalm 63 says, a portion for foxes.

Enough is enough.

8 My soul followeth hard after thee: thy right hand upholdeth me.
9 But those that seek my soul, to destroy it, shall go into the lower parts of the earth.
10 They shall fall by the sword: they shall be a portion for foxes.
11 But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.



  1. M. Thompson permalink
    18 February 2013 @ 00:18 00:18

    In a rare bit of good news these days, Makers Mark will not be cutting the bourbon down any more.–abc-news-Recipes.html

  2. 18 February 2013 @ 13:25 13:25

    “…they shall be a portion for foxes.” Wouldn’t that poison the foxes?


  1. There’s A Lot We Can Do…If Only We Would #SecondAmendment | That Mr. G Guy's Blog

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: