No one needs... - Granite Grok

No one needs…

biden shotgun joe

During his recent address to Congress, Joe Biden said that ‘there’s no possible justification for having 100 rounds’ when you have a firearm with you. How does he know this?  From talking to ‘responsible gun owners’ and ‘hunters’?

First, he didn’t ask me.

And if you’re reading this, I’m guessing he didn’t ask you, either.

Second, try telling that to these guys:



What’s their justification for having so much ammunition, and in “high capacity” magazines no less?  Pretty simply, it’s that someone might be doing something bad, and it might be necessary to use force to make him stop.

Related: A Government Employee Shoots a Civilian and the Solution to That ‘Problem’ Is to Disarm More Civilians?

Guess what?  My justification turns out to be exactly the same — with the important provision that the people ‘doing something bad’ might turn out to be the police themselves, or other agents of my own government.

Since they work for me, and not the other way around, if someone is going to run out of ammo first, it should be them.

And while Biden pointed out that deer don’t wear Kevlar vests, these guys are wearing them.

Second, imagine telling these guys that they only need enough ammunition for hunting:



Their justification for wanting to be armed at least as well as the soldiers of their own government was the same then as mine is now.

Third — and most important — if you’re upset with Biden’s rhetoric, stop to consider that it ought to sound familiar. Any differences from conservative rhetoric over the centuries are differences of degree, and not of kind.

That is, conservatives routinely claim that ‘there’s no possible justification’ for having more than one spouse… or having an ounce of pot, or accepting money in exchange for sex, or playing poker for money, or viewing pornography, or being able to enter a courthouse or an airplane without being searched, or carrying excessively large amounts of cash, and so on.  And they’ve demonstrated a willingness — in some cases, an eagerness — to destroy the lives of people who disagree with them.

The justification for the restrictions that conservatives want to place on everyone else is exactly the same as the justification for the restrictions that progressives want to place on everyone else:  We know what’s best for everyone, and doing what we think is best for everyone trumps letting you decide what’s best for you.

Here’s what conservatives need to understand:  Any rationalization that you invent for putting shackles on others, will eventually be used to place shackles on you.

I’ll bet a lot of you are thinking:  But we’re right, and he’s wrong.  Sure, but he’s thinking exactly the same thing about you.  So how can we settle this?  By putting it up for a vote?

It cannot be pointed out too often that the GOP platform has, since 1854, contained some form of the following statement:

We believe our constitutional system — limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and the rights of the people — must be preserved uncompromised for future generations (2016).

‘Uncompromised’ isn’t just an ideal.  It’s a necessity.  When you put any rights up for a vote, you put them all up for a vote.  It may take a while for all the chickens come home to roost, but eventually, they will.

When the colonies declared independence, Benjamin Franklin said:  ‘We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.’

The same is true of rights.  You can have all of them, or none of them.  Those are the only choices.  You want Biden and his friends to stay out of your gun safe?  You only get that if you agree to stay out of their bedrooms, their bank accounts, their backpacks — in short, out of their private business.