by Skip


No, that is, in a lot of cases, the WRONG thing to do.

The only knock that I have on Tucker Carlson as an interviewer is that he allows his guests to talk over him especially when they are refusing to answer a pointed question that they know will ruin their narrative.  Other than that, he does really well in getting the Liberal “I can beat Tucker at his own game” in either slipping up or making fools of themselves.

This is one of those latter cases.  Richard Painter, law professor in Minnesota, was an “ethics” lawyer in the Bush Administration and it is clear that at least on the topic of guns, believes that Big Govt, especially the part with guns, should know every detail of your life if you own guns.  And, truth be told, as a Progressive Republican, he’s no better than the Progressive Totalitarians like Democrat Diane Feinstein.  In this case, it is clear that he doesn’t want ANYone to have them.  Yet, this raving nitwit (don’t believe me?  Just watch the whole thing) of a lawyer is absolutely fine with disregarding that whole “shall not be infringed” bit from our Bill of Rights:

OK, let’s parse and unwrap what he wants:

  • Tired of “NRA blood money” funding politicians’ campaigns – DO SOMETHING!
  • Fix our permissive gun laws and protect us – DO SOMETHING!
  • Those of us that disagree with him have blood money on our hands

Is that last bit akin to being a “climate denier”?  Those of us that don’t agree with him are morally bankrupt?  That seems to be the standard M.O. – accuse their opponents on any issue of not just being wrong but morally corrupt – “Othering” those that simply disagree, especially those than can quote real facts that put their emotionally laden talking points to shame. His remedies?

  1. Police should know about people who purchase “dozens of weapons” in a short amount time [What, like register like sex offenders? -Skip]. He won’t tell Tucker how many weapons and the time period. But that should be up to the police – just like for loud music?
  2. Police should know if such a person is identifying with known terrorist groups (mentions KKK but not Antia or Islamists)
  3. Police should know if this person has any psychological problems
  4. Police do not need a law to go pay you a visit and ask “what is going on?”
  5. Police need to know if he is a gun collector or dealer (an implied “good” reason for numerous gun purchases)?
  6. Police know how many cars you have, right?
  7. Well, who determines “good” vs “bad”?  Once again, the police?
  8. And silencers, too!  “Why do we need silencers on guns? Is that for the Mafia?”
  9. Refuses to pursue the Muslim issue that Tucker asks – slides off to Christians with the KKK
  10. Make a damning, yet unproven, allegation that if you have dozens of weapons, you ARE a threat to public safety. “They don’t care about our families, my family”

But yet he never answers Tucker’s question, even under the conditions of this clip, of “And then do WHAT?” As I played this back, it wasn’t a case of “And then do WHAT?” for me (although I really wished he had answered the question) but “What is WRONG with Painter?

First, the obligatory Progressive “tell” of “You don’t need that”.  It is clear from listening to him, especially on suppressors (it seems he’s convinced that the movie “silencers” actually exists), he knows little of guns. What concerns me the most is Painter painting (heh!) anyone with more than a couple of firearms as delusional, psychological insane, member of some terrorist group that NEEDS police action NOW!

But he’s a coward in that he won’t answer Tucker’s question.  He paints the scenarios, colors it with nuance, and then broad brushes right to the edge of the canvas, but never signs his name to his half done scene (yes, I couldn’t help myself).  He refused to go to that next step.

That step, however, is clear:

  • Haul that guy’s butt into prison
  • Confiscation of his private property.

I don’t know what Painter’s threshold of gun ownership is for others (he refused to answer Tucker’s question on that)  but I don’t have “dozens” but I also don’t know if I’d get included.  I do know people, a lot of veterans, that do have far more than I have.

Would they be included in Painter’s round up?  Would they be subject to a warrantless search by police? Should it be mandatory that people who own “dozens” of firearms to see psychiatrists and psychologists (who often lean to the anti-gun crowd) that would then report them to the police?  Does he want a registration system?  And is he ok with the aftermath of that, as he certainly is greasing the skids for that slippery slope.

Painter is almost pushing a Minority Report view of criminology – that because you MIGHT be a mass killer, we need to stomp on you now because: SAFETY!  So much for the lawyer keeping the Constitution safe via Amendments 2, 4, and 5 for starters:

  • A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
  • No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Painter summarizes his argument on “They don’t care about our families, my family”.  Yes, we do – we want you to be rightfully defend your own family (and sometimes, other).  You want real safety?

Then stop attacking the fundamentals that keep you truly safe – Constitutional Rights. Instead, defend them.



Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: