This Changes Everything!

Lest you were in doubt about the left’s motives re the 2nd Amendment:

Watch out – it’s Andrew Minck, “Educator, News Connoisseur, Marathoner, MinnPost News Quizmaster”, on Twitter.

Promptly chirping in to support Minck was MnPost “journalist” Beth Hawkins:

That’d be “education” reporter Beth Hawkins.

I think we can give ’em and education…

16 thoughts on “This Changes Everything!

  1. They’re going to raise ten million dollars to somehow deprive two million Minnesota gun owners of their rights, then? Good luck with that one.

  2. That’s trump change for Bloomberg, BB. Didn’t “Protect” MN already get nearly that much to fail?

  3. If I posted a Tweet proclaiming that I intended to deprive Black people of their civil rights, I suspect Liberals would not only deplore it, they’d ask my employer why such a hateful person continues to work there. They might post my home address on the internet.

    Andy words for The Anton Group which provides advisory and accounting services to schools. and lives in Minneapolis But I don’t think gun owners should picket his neighbors or start a secondary boycott against his employer. I don’t think we should ambush school boards demanding to know why they hire a firm with such hateful employees. I don’t think we should try to get him fired for expressing a political opinion.

    That’s how you can tell I’m not a Liberal.

  4. If I posted a Tweet proclaiming that I intended to deprive Black people of their civil rights

    Joe, if you ever posted anything in support of Voter ID, you already have. At least, that’s what the lefties keep telling us. Not sure how requiring valid photo ID to protect voter disenfranchisement is racist, but I’m sure DG will be along to FACT-CHECK us.

  5. You know, there are a couple of former and current Minnesota GOP politicians that have appeared at the Minnpost’s yearly fundraiser. Petulant, disgraced scumbag Michael Brodkorb’s side piece can be overlooked, because well, Brodkorb right? But what is up with Tom Emmer? Why has no one taken him to the wood shed? A simple WTF, Tom? for starters.

    This kind of collaborating with the enemy, and make no mistake, the reprobates behind the Minnpost are real America’s enemies, is the kind of shit that is pushing Trump’s campaign. If it is too much to ask that you not provide your services to help raise money for a pack of leftist scumbags, then do not come knocking at my door in November, pal.

  6. “I am coming for your guns. That’s it. I’m figuring out away to come for them.”
    But you can’t use a gun to take them. Better do some real good figuring.

  7. Sef, perish the thought!

    He’ll have Obama bring in the baby-blue helmeted UN troops to collect them all.

    I wonder, has anyone ever raised the question to Stanek, “Will you follow the paths of your other rural county sheriffs across the country and forbid the federal government to step foot into Hennepin County for the purposes of gun control/collection activities?”

  8. and forbid the federal government to step foot into Hennepin County

    Alas, nobody is going to be asking their permission. Once pliant courts grant Feds the authority, the only way to prevent confiscation will be force on force. The big question is, on whose side will Police and National Guard will be on? We all know whose boots civilian militarized agencies are licking. Hmmm. Maybe that is why they are being militarized.

  9. I can’t find the exact quote, but I’m thinking of that scene in Bull Durham.

    “C’mon Meat. Throw some more of that weak shit in here. C’mon Meat, Do it.”

  10. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 07.18.16 : The Other McCain

  11. All they have to do is repeal the second amendment. Should be easy, right? The Left is always telling us how the vast majority of Americans want to repeal the second amendment.

    To discover what the founders thought of rebellion and insurrection, we can consult that invaluable commentary on the thoughts of the founders found in the Federalist Papers. I give you Federalist 28 (Hamilton):

    THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes arise in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government), has no place but in the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.

    Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.

    So the militia exists to put down insurrection!
    Not so fast . . .
    Later in Fed. 28, Hamilton writes:

    It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.
    . . .
    When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.

  12. When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations?

    A collection of sovereign states; another casualty of the Civil War.

  13. Swiftee, you occasionally can spot a Southern sympathizer by their careful use of language.

    Before 1860, “The United States ARE going to war.” All of the individual states are going.

    After 1865, “The United States IS going to war.” The federal government is going, the states be damned.

    It’s a tiny difference in diction but an enormous difference in political philosophy.

  14. I think that Lincoln was correct about the insolubility of the Union. He believed that the rule against secession was meta. The constitution itself made no sense if states could quit and rejoin. We are seeing something like the chaos of that kind of system with the fallout from the Brexit vote. You really have no union at all.
    But that is not an endorsement of Wilson and Roosevelt era centralized government. I am afraid that the only way that the US, given its unique history and diverse population, can have a strong federal government is if that government is autocratic. You can have a federal government that dictates the chemical formula in laundry detergent, or you can have a representative government, but you can not have both.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.