12308784_1205025219525041_5257093117203081611_n

Remember the Vietnam War era slogan, ‘America, love it or leave it’? That was the retort used by conservatives against flea-bitten hippies protesting America’s involvement in southeast Asia. It actually was first popularized back during the McCarthy hearing days by columnist Walter Winchell who thought the Wisconsin commie hunter was the bee’s knees. Now, though, the tactic is being employed by the other side of the political spectrum to further their civilian disarmament agenda . . .

The ALIOLI ethos (above, from their Facebook page) has been taken up by none other than the spittle sprayers at the CSGV (née National Coalition to Ban Handguns) as a part of their never-ending campaign to tar America’s tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners as ‘fetishists’ and ‘insurrectionists’. They’re apparently of the questionable Constitutional opinion that the Declaration’s preamble supersedes anything enumerated in the Bill of Rights — especially (and probably only) the one that recognizes the individual’s right keep and bear arms. If you disagree with them, well, you can just GTFO.

Some of us are old enough to remember when dissent was considered the highest form of patriotism (as long as the policy you’re protesting was put in place by someone sufficiently distasteful to the media and deep state elites). But the ‘love it or leave it’ world view was always a mindlessly simplistic, distasteful way of countering an opponent’s arguments, no matter which side spouted it. By using ALIOLI to other-ize gun owners, the CSGV only highlights the mindless, reactionary, Stalinist streak that underlies their anti-Constitutional, anti-gun campaign. But you probably already knew that.

[h/t DrVino]

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

95 COMMENTS

  1. Another history fail.

    Looking back over history, when the clash is between those with guns and those without, it isn’t the people with guns that are forced to do anything.

    And this is before we get to the point that without guns, society would eat people like this wholesale.

    • We would not eat them. Maybe use for bait? Nothing like a live-caller to bring in wolves and coyotes. : )

    • Apart from this being just more incessant yammerings of the historically challenged there’s a deeper legal meaning to the words “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Those words represent first the freedom of the individual to live their life free from the capricious or arbitrary imposition by the state. The Constitution doesn’t spell out laws about what a person may not do, that’s not its job. It defines a framework under which government may pass laws and attend to the wider administration of the state in such a way as to always try to preserve the dignity of the individual. The laws themselves, whose authority is derived from the Constitution, are what provide for a mechanism of legal recourse if your rights are transgressed by the state or a person. The laws are not there to stop anyone doing anything. They’re there to tell us what happens if someone does something society says we may not do. There’s no protection in the Constitution, only sanctioned revenge.

      • The Bill of Rights, spells out rights (it recites them, it doesn’t bestow them). All recited rights are protections from government. Thereby, all rights are protected by an armed society [sic] the Second Amendment [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012].

  2. That’ll take firearms.

    Further, if you use our a-hole neighbors needing jobs (our “gov’t”) to do the job [thereby chucking the Constitution] you and yours, your heirs, representatives, successors and assigns will be held personally responsible.

  4. Can we just get the CSGV declared a terrorist organization and ship the whole lot of them to GITMO already? Me thinks most of them could use a good rigorous bath.

    • No, not any more than it’s okay for them to label the NRA as a terrorist organization. We’re the ones with guns, they can try to make us leave but I have a feeling it won’t work out so well for them.

  5. But we have the guns. How will they get me to move? Do stern words, looks of derision and hashtags trump bullets when they attempt to enforce their will?

    By the way, they have plenty of gun control utopias to over too. We have no where to go. Shouldn’t they be the ones moving?

  7. Left/libtards: Tyranny for Social Justice– because nothing is as oppressive as having to responsible for one’s self! (Obviously, terrorists don’t think being helpless secures anyone’s life, liberty or happiness.)

  8. You see, in this world has two kinds of people, my friend. Those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.

    • I recently read a nighttime prayer

      Now I lay me down to sleep
      Beside my bed a gun I keep
      If I awake and you’re inside
      The Coroner’s van will be your last ride

  10. If they choose to live in fear that’s fine with me. What they do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my business.

  11. I haven’t used my guns to threaten or harm anyone’s life or liberty. Due to your irrational fears, they obviously impose on CSGV’s pursuit of happiness. Tough. Get over it.

  12. Uh, why would we want to move to a less gun friendly country? She is the one with many gun restricted options available.

    • This times a million.

      Plenty of places for these anti-gun retards to move to. We are one of the few places besides Switzerland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Slovenia where citizens have somewhat decent gun rights instead of being only allowed to own a double-barrel hunting shotgun or nothing at all.

      There are tons of anti-liberty, anti-gun, fascist countries to choose from, dumbasses. Pick one!!

  13. I’m not afraid of you, so I’m not leaving. Nanny-nanny boo-boo! If you are afraid of me, don’t let the door hit you …

  15. I think GSGV is winning. I can come up with a coherent argument to counter just about any anti gunner, but these people always manage to hit the right switch to get me all fumbly and twitchy….

  16. This is why I say civil war is inevitable. They want to impose their will on everyone, now admittedly through the force of government and hence government arms (i.e. a military force turn on its own citizens). Sadly the evil folks at CSGV are cowards and want to send nameless faceless expendable humans to do their dirty work. Thus it is unlikely to happen. But more importantly, this uncontrolled child-like emotional tantrums is out there and one never know when the supporters of CSGV or Brady will decide to go Vester Flanagan or Dylan Roof. CSGV and other like groups want us dead because we disagree. That is why I carry daily.

  17. This CSGV statement is so laughably ignorant and specious as to be unworthy of any considered response.

    So, molṑn labé, CSGV!

  18. When the left dissents, it’s patriotism even though it’s just the opposite. When the right dissents, it’s insurrection even though it’s just the opposite. And in the left’s Bizarro America, CSGV is the new Ministry of Truth.

  19. “How about YOU buy a gun so you are able to defend your and your childrens rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Isn’t that what the right to own a gun is for ?”

    • EXACTLY!!!

      “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” involves owning stuff (not to mention your own rear end) and on a planet where the chief activity is competition for resources, you better have a way to keep other folks from taking your shite and or your arse. At this point in time that is a firearm.

      The problem with these CSGV folks (like a lot of folks) is that they no longer have an accurate perspective about the planet they live on. Skulking around in the slivers of civilization that we have carved out of it has made them ignorant.

  20. I’m so *done* with these self-centered folks that do not respect other people’s rights, yet wail like banshees when it comes to “their” rights. Me, me, me is all you hear from them.

    CSGV can kiss the darkest part of my caramel bee-hind. Go ahead and try to make me leave without hiding behind the guvment’s skirt, you freaking cowards.

  21. When facts are not one your side, use hysteria anger, and petulance.
    –Osbama/Bloomberg Playbook

    Score: 0 – 1,000,000. Obama still losing…

  24. Blah, blah, blah, do it. Stop bloviating and do it.

    Just remember that if you call the cops to help you, the person who shows up will be much more like me than you.

  25. But, if I stay, I’ll get to keep my guns and piss you folks off some more…

    I think I’ll stay put.

  26. My Second Amendment right to own and carry firearms trumps your right to be a sniveling, spoiled coward.

  27. He should really watch the part in Fight Club where Tyler Durden talks about the illusion of safety. In his case he may want to go as far as the delusion of safety.

    There was a 9 YO killed in Chicago a bit ago, they took him into an alley and shot him in the head point blank. Evil doesn’t need a gun to be well armed, and doesn’t care about the laws of men either.

    What a lemming.

  28. The original poster of this (on CSGV) seems to lack the acuity to fully process a portion of his statement. Yes, you DO have the right to life, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness) as the framers of the constitution laid out. What seems to have eluded the OP is that protecting those rights is his responsibility, not the governments. The fact that he has given up his rights to control his own life does NOT mean that all others should do the same so he can continue his love affair with The Cowards Gamble.

  29. better yet give them a free plane ride so they can further their cause with a round trip to ISIS land
    probably save a few bucks on the return tickets

  30. So much fail.

    First: false premise. I don’t have a “gun fetish”, nor do I harbor a “treasonous desire” to overthrow my government. Thus, those non-existent conditions are not in conflict with anyone else’s rights.

    Second: false dilemma. Even for one with a gun fetish or for one who harbors a “treasonous desire” to overthrow his government, those conditions are not in conflict with anyone else’s natural rights.

    Nice try. Better luck next time.

    • I always enjoy the clarity of your answers Mr. Bennett, and the intelligence with which they are given, bravo.

    • Speaking of fail. I couldn’t get past the email puzzle at your website, Chip.

      Click on my username here or just hit me up through nfaisnotok.com so I can tell you about that thing from weeks back.

  31. What are they gonna do to defend those rights from us gun “fetishists”? Shoot us? Have the police shoot us? Write another strongly worded letter?

    • To achieve even a reasonable facsimile of their ultimate vision of the world, they’d have to have people with guns come around to go after the other people with guns.

    • Your disgruntled liberal neighbor can, in some states, have you SWATed with a phone call: “I know he has guns & I heard shots and screams coming from his house. I’m afraid for my life.”

      This probably happens more often in FOID states where the police won’t call your home & ask if everything’s all right. They have to justify all that fancy war-gear somehow.

      Just my embittered cynical opinion.

      • A 15 year old who Swatted another gamer recently got 15 years for it. I’m hoping that trend continues.

  32. Someone needs to remind them they don’t have the right to safety. No one does. You have the right to life, sure, but not the right to safety. Your right to life’s insurance policy is the right to self-defense.

    What gets me is how naïve the CSGV is – do they really think harsh words are going to make a bunch of gun owners pack it in and move overseas? They don’t see the inherent foolishness in telling an armed population what to do. If they really want to have a go at it, they’d have to call on guys and girls with guns to do the dirty work. And, as an above poster said, a significant percentage of those people will be “gun fetishists” and not likely to follow those orders.

    • There is no right to safety. On the planet earth no living organism has that right, whether real or imagined.

  34. Soooo…Your(more or less) pie in the sky pronouncements from the non-binding Declaration of Independence trump my 2nd amendment RIGHTS? I don’t think so-and how the hell will you enforce your musings??? Always threatening people with weapons…how droll.

  36. What an intelligent and well thought out arguement from CSGV. Allow me to retort with an equally intelligent and well thought out reply.

    I’M NOT GOING ANYWHERE AND YOU CAN’T MAKE ME SO GO FORNICATE WITH A CACTUS YOU LAME-BRAINED STATIST SCHMUCK!

  37. In law, pretty sure that my Constitutionally defined rights interpret your Declaration of Independence described rights.

  38. Sure, I’ll leave along with every other Patriot, who supports the constitution, pays their taxes, works hard and protects their interests by exercising their god given right to keep and bear arms.

    Surprise! You just woke up in Somalia.

    Idiots.

  39. Nothing could be more patriotic than preparing to defend against tyranny. It’s how our nation was born. Nothing could be more treasonous than nullifying the Constitution and it’s protection of universal human rights, legally interpreting it to void it by the force of the government without the legitimate legal process of formally amending the Constitution. It is a usurpation of authority.

    If gun haters want to live in a land with more gun control they can move to any other state in the world, or at least half of the USA at this point. We’re defending the last regions of the last country in the world under the rule of law protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense. They don’t even want us to have a smidgen of the planet as a refuge of liberty. They want to stamp it out across the entire universe, to eradicate it into extinction. They look upon us as a disease. We’re polio. But we’re not a disease, we’re people. I’ve seen this “people as a disease” rhetoric before. What’s the Final Solution? The so-called scourge of the earth must be eliminated forever, and our extinction is promised to be a panacea.

  41. We are all free to pursue happiness. However, happiness is not guaranteed. Sometimes we succeed in that pursuit and sometimes we fail. Learning from our mistakes and failures increases our chances of eventually succeeding.
    I assure you, blaming gun owners, for their miserable little lives, is not the road to happiness.

      • McCarthy’s biggest underestimation, was thinking that if he explained the problem, displayed the evidence, and extracted the confessions, and even boasts, from those creating and fostering the problem, that he wouldn’t have to convince the remainder of the American people that they had to do something about it.

        • Don’t kid yourself. Sen. Joseph McCarthy was a drunk, who played fast and loose with the facts. And he used his high political office to persecute others for his own political gain. Eventually, it caught up with him. But then, maybe you weren’t around to see it, but I was.

  45. The first problem is that modern folk simply do not understand what Jefferson meant by “pursuit of happiness,” and if they researched the issue, they would find it means nothing like what they imagine it to be. The phrase, originally, was “the pursuit of property,” but was subsequently broadened.

    “Jefferson’s intellectual heroes were Newton, Bacon, and Locke, and it was actually in Locke that he must have found the phrase. It appears not in the Two Treatises on Government but in the 1690 essay Concerning Human Understanding. There, in a long and thorny passage, Locke wrote:

    “The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.”

    Just the ideas that inspired our intellectual Founders were primarily European imports, so that defining American phrase, “the pursuit of happiness,” is not native to our shores. Furthermore, as the quotation from Locke demonstrates, “the pursuit of happiness” is a complicated concept. It is not merely sensual or hedonistic, but engages the intellect, requiring the careful discrimination of imaginary happiness from “true and solid” happiness. It is the “foundation of liberty” because it frees us from enslavement to particular desires.

    The Greek word for “happiness” is eudaimonia. In the passage above, Locke is invoking Greek and Roman ethics in which eudaimonia is linked to aretê, the Greek word for “virtue” or “excellence.” In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle wrote, “the happy man lives well and does well; for we have practically defined happiness as a sort of good life and good action.” Happiness is not, he argued, equivalent to wealth, honor, or pleasure. It is an end in itself, not the means to an end. The philosophical lineage of happiness can be traced from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle through the Stoics, Skeptics, and Epicureans.

    Jefferson admired Epicurus and owned eight copies of De rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things) by Lucretius, a Roman disciple of Epicurus. In a letter Jefferson wrote to William Short on October 13, 1819, he declared, “I too am an Epicurean. I consider the genuine doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” At the end of the letter, Jefferson made a summary of the key points of Epicurean doctrine, including:

    Moral.—Happiness the aim of life.
    Virtue the foundation of happiness.
    Utility the test of virtue.

    http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/46460

    The, “the pursuit of happiness” means the pursuit of civic moral virtue, not freedom from (irrational) fears.

  46. Did you notice how they think their rights trump everyone else’s? It’s like they truly believe that some animals are more equal than others.

  51. Dear anti-rights activists,

    You understand this, and understand it well.

    MY right – and the right of MY children – to defend OUR lives, liberties, and pursuit of happiness will always trump YOUR control fetish, and YOUR treasonous desire to prepare for war against YOUR fellow citizens using MY government as YOUR cudgel.

    And if that bothers you, well, YOU will never make ME go anywhere.

    • If they really wanted to try, they’d need guns to have even the slightest chance. Oh the irony. I’d love to see Ladd Everitt at his local FFL trying to tool up for that one.

  52. Admit that guns distress you then piss off the people who have guns. Seems kind of self-defeating to me.

  54. My having guns doesn’t threaten anybody’s life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. If anything, it helps to protect it, because I can help shoot anyone who would threaten their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Antis though think they have this made-up “right to feel safe.” An argument I always want to use to them, as they tend to be of a left-wing mindset, is that if there is such a right to feel safe, then my right to feel safe from terrorism supercedes a terrorist’s right not to be waterboarded, and therefore waterboarding is a-okay. The idea of a “right” to feel safe could be used to infringe on all manner of rights. On college campuses, where they are now claiming that speech they don’t like can be considered a form of violent attack, they are using the idea of a right to feel safe to ban speech.

  55. Yeah. Well, me and the babies are not going anywhere. What are you gonna do about THAT? And get off my lawn, you hysterical, worthless ninnies!

  56. Well, their.propaganda arm is wising up.

    The attack isn’t the “fetishist” slur, nor the “othering” which are both old news any more. By tying to founding doc wording, they’re trying to.steal the.positive argument – it’s a right – and make the other side look dumb and/ or hypocritical. They’re trying rhetorical judo. Not well.

  57. Funny how they call us “pro-gun activists” when all we’re trying to do is ‘splain somethin’.

    And no, nothing they have “trumps” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is the right to life and liberty. They can “understand that well”, or not – it makes no difference to the principle of an armed populace nor to the outcome of any challenge to it.

  58. Ok, I’m coming in late to this discussion, and I see a number of valid points in the comments above.
    I wonder though if it has occured to anyone that if these individuals wish to follow along the lines of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, then what they are suggesting is that they declare independence from a government that doesn’t represent them. I suppose they are welcome to do so if that is what they wish to do. Shoot, I’ll even bring a six pack and a bag of popcorn to see how that plays out.

    The part that confuses me is how it follows from wanting to declare independence, to telling everyone that doesn’t agree with them to get out. Maybe I could understand it if the majority of people agreed with them, but then again, if the majority of citizens of this country agreed with them then they wouldn’t need to declare independence as they could just change the laws and add Amendments.

    I’m told I’m a little slow, so I’ll ask, Am I missing something here?

    • They fully believe the majority of right-thinking people agree with them; they are nearly correct. The current split between gunners and anti-gunners is nearing 50-50. A president lacking in morals can calculate that with a near even division, and a senate that will block any bill attempting to curtail that president’s executive powers, it is now, or soon will be, the time to take steps to end gun ownership. By the time the petitions wander through the courts, the damage will be done, and cannot be undone.

  59. Dear anti-gun fanatic,

    Understand this, and understand it well:

    My right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will always trump your childish need to “feel” safe without actually being safe and your fascistic insistence that feelings and insistence on being dependent upon others for your safety and survival.

    And if that bothers you, well, maybe you should move out of your parent’s basement and to another country.

  60. If they really believed in that BS they would post a sign in front of their house: ” This is a gun free home!”

    Every last one of us knows they won’t, and it is because they cynically depend on the bad guys not knowing they are willfully disarmed. That way they can depend on you to protect them without having to even admit it. These are folk you can count on to support any attempt to limit freedom and destroy this country.

  61. The notion that a person has a “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is a statement in a non-binding document. No where in the US constitution is the right to life, liberty and pursuit enumerated, no where. Interesting that the RTKBA is a specific right, identified, and completely restrictive in what the government is allowed to do, “shall not be infringed”. While the constitution may embody the concepts of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit, 2A is explicit.

    But then, to the child-like mind of anti-gun enthusiasts, words mean what we say they mean…..Alice.

  62. Gotta love liberals, they are all for liberty, theirs anyway, sort of.
    Ethnic, weight related, sexual humor….not OK for us, but OK for them, since we are the problematic ones.
    Quotas in hiring, admission to schools, etc….they can call for them, if we did it would be wrong.
    If they are coercive, it is a force for change, if we exert pressure it is bullying.
    We keep allowing them to control the conversation, that is the problem

  63. Dear CSVG:

    I do not think those words mean what you think they mean. “Rights” are for everyone – your pursuit of happiness, and mine. “Rights” are the freedom to do what you will, not the guarantee to get what you want. So, you are free to pursue happiness. I am not required to modify my life to guarantee you, your happiness.

    Good luck with that. BTW, I’m doing pretty well with pursuing my own happiness, not that you asked.

    Other words misused in your missive are … er … everything but “the, it” and “and.”

    Sincerely,

    Other Citizens of the Same Republic

  65. Dear Naive Gun Grabbing CSGV:

    UNDERSTAND THIS.
    I”M NOT GOING ANYWHERE! MOLON LABE
    The British tried to confiscate American guns in 1775. The Battles of Lexington and Concord followed. Since then, generations of free men and women with arms have fought, bled and died for the resulting Constitution. And that Constitution includes the Second Amendment.

    My fundamental Constitutional right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. My fundamental enumerated Constitutional right trumps your so called “right to feel safe” What you want is both irrelevant and a cowardly, naïve illusion.

    If you want to take my guns, MOLON LABE.
    But keep in mind what happened in 1775 when the British tried it.
    [email protected]

    Marksmanship: The art and science of hitting your target every time

  66. One could argue that my right to life, and access to the tools occasionally needed to preserve my life, trumps your right to irrational fears of inanimate objects…

Comments are closed.