Roberts: All This Talk of Gun Control and Confiscation is Hysterical Overreaction and a Phantom Fear

sanctuary flag protest

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

The Arizona Republic‘s Laurie Roberts thinks a statewide sanctuary bill for Arizona is just a bunch of kooky talk. It’s just an insane response to a non-threat. There’s nothing to worry about and no one wants to take away anyone’s guns.

And if the tables were turned, there would be no shortage of smirking columnists at the Virginian-Pilot or the Richmond Times Dispatch willing to argue exactly the same thing.

The whole thing is, of course, a hysterical overreaction to a phantom fear.

No president, no Congress – not even Leo Biasiucci and the Arizona Legislature, should they be so inclined (they aren’t) – can take away your Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The U.S. Supreme Court – assuming we in Arizona are still subject to the rulings of that august body – has ruled that our right to bear arms is protected. But in writing that landmark 2008 decision, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia noted, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”

“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” he wrote.

Except, apparently, in Arizona, if Rep. Biasiucci has anything to say about it.

“This bill sends a clear message to the federal government that if they try to pass any laws that challenge our 2nd Amendment rights and/or the Arizona Constitution, they will be null and void within the State of Arizona,” he said.

Our very own Declaration of Independence … from federal laws we don’t like.

– Laurie Roberts in Here comes the crazy: a bill allowing Arizona to ignore federal gun laws

comments

  1. avatar Harry Flashman says:

    It’s apparent that this bitch doesn’t pay attention to the gun grabbers’s own actions.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      She doesn’t pay attention to history. Her argument was the same one made by the Framers who were against a “bill of rights”. Those Framers thought it was absurd that anyone would ever think to infringe on rights like speech or the right to own firearms.

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        Even our bill of rights hasn’t been able to protect our liberties. The tendency of man towards tyranny is strong. The struggle to maintain liberty is a constant battle.

        1. avatar Bingo says:

          Then there is this;

        2. avatar Bingo says:

          And this, from the Democrat’s current leader in their presidential primaries;

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq4vPgyRQY8

        3. avatar Bingo says:

          Feel the Burn;

        4. avatar Bingo says:

          How about destructive taxation;

        5. avatar Bingo says:

          Bans by Executive Order;

      2. avatar David says:

        Laurie Roberts clearly has paid no attention to the hoops we Californians must jump through in order to avail ourselves of our 2d Amendment RIGHT to arms AND ammunition. Has she not listened to the governor of Virginia, Pelosi, or any other left wing politicians?

        We Californians even have to pay for availing ourselves of our 2A right. What other constitutional right requires citizens to pay to use that right? The SCOTUS ruled long ago that things like poll taxes are unconstitutional.

        Red Flag laws allow the state to take away the 2d Amendment rights of individuals based only on someone’s word. No due process required. Citizens have lost their lives without due process. An angry ex-spouse can get even by a Red Flag report, without requiring any proof, and the subject is denied due process and any form of appeal. Your anti-gun neighbor can do the same.

        San Francisco drove out the last gun shop by legislation. Not even cops can get arms or ammo in the city.

        I am thankful that I live in a 2A sanctuary county, but I still have to go through the same maze in order to obtain arms and ammunition.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      WTF has the Arizona Republic‘s Laurie Roberts been in just the past six months, perhaps another glass of the kool aid or shove her head deeper in the sand.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And if everybody’s rights are already protected, as she seems to claim, what is her objection to this action? I mean, “common sense” gun laws overlap and repeat themselves continuously, 22,000 of them, why shouldn’t a Constitutional Carry state declare that further Federal gun laws will be ignored? I am forced to conclude the bitch is lying.

    3. avatar screwtape says:

      An apt analogy (not G-rated) for this is “Don’t worry. I’ll only put the tip in.”

      Consider VA’s just passed ban on guns in the Capital. Umm…isn’t that the house of the people of VA?

      I’ll leave with this

  2. avatar No one of consequence says:

    The mask is off for all to see.

    But please, keep trying to close that barn door. It just helps clarify your position for the casual observer.

    1. avatar 41mag says:

      So true.

      The Liberals don’t have any way to mask their intentions.

  3. avatar Bdyhvfyh66 says:

    Phantom fear? Can she show me where I can legally buy a SMG kriss vector as a citizen? There is ready massive infringement on the 2nd.

  4. avatar Eric O says:

    Libel, defamation, inciting a riot… Those are limitations on the right to free speech.

    Murder, assault with a deadly weapon, armed robbery… Those are limitations on the right to bear arms. The only limitations on any right, are when the exercising thereof causes the rights of another to be harmed.

    Scalia’s need for Kennedy’s vote

    1. avatar Dr Schmancy says:

      So if someone owns a nuke, should we wait till this person commits suicide and takes a million people with him or should we interfere earlier?

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        Any one person who wields enough power, influence, and money to possess a nuclear weapon will be a national/international threat long before they ever possess a nuke. The difference between a gun and a nuke is like the difference between owning a house and owning the moon. The shallowness of your rhetoric is a sign of your incompetence.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          The argument would make more sense with various forms of field artillery and mortars and even then I would lean towards making it as available to community ownership as possible.

        2. avatar Dr Schmancy says:

          Take Jeff Bezos as an example. He could certainly afford a nuke (if those were legal to acquire, their price would come down significantly), while not posing any national or international threat. Unless you assume having such a weapon by itself poses a threat, which justifies my argument. Who is a shallow thinker now?

        3. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Doc you are thinking too small. If Elon wanted to do damage he wouldn’t need a nuke just a few launches that have a payload that would shut down space exploration for a century or two. For bonus points satellite communication would be unavailable for a hot minute.

        4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Take Jeff Bezos as an example. He could certainly afford a nuke…”

          Bezos actually may need a nuclear weapon to use on the moon, for mining or regolith excavation uses…

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Dr,

        Don’t be absurd. The 2A clearly mentions the right to keep and bear “arms”. WMDs are not the same thing, and are treated differently for good reason.

        Your argument is null and void.

      3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “So if someone owns a nuke, should we wait till this person commits suicide and takes . . .” In argumentation and debate this is called a “straw-man” strategy. While it is a favorite gun-controller oh-yeah-well-what-if kind of comment, overuse in countless discussions has made it pathetically threadbare. If you want to make a point you’ll need to do better than this. You’re dismissed.

        1. avatar Dr Schmancy says:

          Instead of calling my argument straw-man you could’ve honestly said you don’t have a counter-argument and give up. You didn’t because you wanted to feel good about yourself.

          A nuke example is an extreme but it forces you to answer the question whether arms should be entirely free of any regulation. Once you make an exception, you admit some regulation is necessary and the question then becomes where you draw the line.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          “Arms” denote what a single person can carry. A nuclear weapon (as that appears to be your example of choice) is not the same thing. Conflating the two doesn’t help you make a valid point.

          If I have an AR-15 and decide to shoot up my neighborhood, others can stop me by using their own guns. There is a check against my bad actions. However, if I possess a nuke and decide to use it, there is no check against me, and the question of whether or not I should have it in the first place is valid. That same question does not apply to “arms”.

          If you have a gun, I should have the ability to own one too, if I choose to do so.
          If you have an MRAP or tank, I should have the ability to own one too, if I choose to do so.
          If you have a bazooka, I should have the ability to own one too, if I choose to do so.
          This is not the same as WMDs (chemical weapons, biological agents, nukes, etc.)

      4. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Hey, Doc Smartass, feel absolutely free to kick off a drive for a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit private ownership of nukes. Especially by legislators named Suckswell, or something like that, since that jackass has actually threatened to use nukes on gunowners. Thus far, it does not seem to have been a problem, although you are correct that 2A does, in fact, guarantee me the RIGHT to own a nuke, and even to transport it around the country.. Pony up a few million bucks to get started, pardon me if I consider the effort too stupid to contribute my money to.

      5. avatar Hush says:

        Dr Schmancy, you been talking to Eric again?

        1. avatar Hush says:

          Dr Schmancy, further, your use of the word “nuke” is a metonymy or “straw-man” as Garrison Hall pointed out. Your question is like asking your neighbor if he is Still sleeping with his wife’s sister? In short, your question using “nuke” is bizarre and irrelevant to this discussion.

      6. avatar Someone says:

        Here goes the nuke argument again. But I will bite.
        As a matter of fact I don’t think that mere ownership (as opposed to misuse for harm) of any item should be a reason for criminal prosecution. Owner should be able to prove that his property is safe for his neighbors though.

        Governments killed huge numbers of innocent people, why should they be the only ones allowed to own nukes? How is a group of people involved in politics better nuke owner than say Mr. Bezos?

    2. avatar Mark VII Ltd says:

      Don’t be stupid. Murder, assault, and armed robbery are CRIMES in and of themselves. They can be committed with other weapons, or without any ‘weapons’ other than your fists.

      Your argument is a non-sequiter, and completely invalid.

      Regardless what the gang of nine says (supreme court) the 2A IS AN UNLIMITED RIGHT. “Shall not be infringed”, in plain english. ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional, illegal, and unenforceable in a free society. I don’t need some idiot in a robe to tell me what “is” is.

  5. avatar NullifyThis says:

    Obviously ignorant on the legal concept of Nullification.
    Either that, or it’s doesn’t fit her statism narrative.

  6. avatar AlanInFL says:

    She forgot that DiFi said it in the 60 Minutes interview. If I could get 51 votes, we would take them off the streets.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      They don’t forget they just rely on the public being easy to manipulate.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Except that things are different now. When DiFi said that, there was no Internet yet (it was in its infancy) and a person had no chance of finding archived evidence. Nowadays, it’s all out there and easily searchable, to be brought to light again, and again, and again…

  7. avatar Shire-man says:

    Wait, wait, wait.
    After all that has happened. After threats of nuking of gun owners and sending the National Guard to round up non-compliers people are still willing to drag out the dead and tired “nobody wants your guns” line?

    Well, if “nobody wants your guns” and even if they did “nobody could ban your guns” shouldn’t the Dems just give it a rest and stop trying? I’m sure they would rather focus on wealth redistribution and universal healthcare than this apparently impossible and improbably crusade to ban guns, right?

    1. avatar John says:

      First things first. It’s much easier to redistribute the wealth of unarmed people.

      1. avatar Someone says:

        /\ This guy gets it.
        Step 1. Public disarmament.
        Step 2. Glorious socialistic revolution.
        Step 3. Profit (for those at the top)

    2. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      They are angy we believe what they are saying

  8. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    “Our very own Declaration of Independence … from federal laws we don’t like.”

    Obvious question, but I wander what she thinks about immigration sanctuary cities?

  9. avatar drunkEODguy says:

    Our very own Declaration of Independence … from federal laws we don’t like.

    Like immigration or narcotics scheduling.

  10. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    Seems to me there are basically 2 types of journalists out there now, in regards to 2A issues:

    The blindly and willfully ignorant- These ones don’t follow, or care, about guns or 2A issues and just assume that because you can still buy a gun of any sort (no matter how restricted the ‘approved’ list may be) there is no real ‘infringment’ of the 2A going on. They see red flag laws, magazine restrictions and the such as a ‘common sense’ (though they themselves are lacking in such) solution to a problem they’re too lazy to try to understand. They completely fail to see the bigger picture, or wider scope, of what the laws, and proposed laws (restrictions), are actually pushing us towards because they simply don’t care. They see us as ‘crazy’, ‘paranoid’, or any number of other insulting adjectives, because they don’t understand and they don’t care enough to try.

    Then, of course, there are the narrative pushers; the faithful to ‘the party’. These are the downright deceptive, crooked, lying pieces of rotted feces that will do anything to be rid of us because they genuinely hate us and what we stand for. They see us as a barrier to what they want (power, control, etc) and will hurl everything from lies, insults and propaganda to actual physical objects (rocks, bottles, bullets) at us given the opportunity.

    The writer of the artical in question, I believe, is the former, not the latter. It’s unfortunate that she has a platform with which to spew her ignorant opinion from.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. If they genuinely hate us and want to see us murdered by the state or if they’re simply too willfully stupid to see that’s the logical endgame of what they support, well… either way they are PERSONAL enemies of all who support the concept of freedom

  11. avatar enuf says:

    The Arizona Republic newspaper nd its website AZCentral.com have long taken the approach of hiring political shit stirrers, flamer fanners and gasoline tossers. Laurie Roberts is among these morons.

    The principle idiots though are Robert Robb and EJ Montini. One takes the conservative/libertarian side, the other the liberal side. Neither of them or any of the lesser bloviating talking heads at the Arizona Republic has ever suggested a solution to any problem. They spew upon party lines, fanning the flames of mutual distrust and hatred, competing to tell the bigger lies, shovel the bigger load of crap, throw the most gas on the fire and fan the flames of discord higher and higher.

    Years ago I was invited to write a column for them. But with my low opinion of that newspaper and it’s designated Partyist commentators, I just could not stomach the idea.

  12. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    Typical tired leftist deflection. The truth ain’t in her!

  13. avatar Scooter says:

    “…shall not be infinged.”
    INFRINGE: “act so as to limit or undermine”

  14. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    I thought we were past this. Like way past this. This is like in They Live where all the billboards say “SLEEP.” I mean it’s literally written for Democrats and perhaps the last couple dozen fudds who believe this stuff.

  15. avatar dwest says:

    Really? When I read some politician saying “no one is trying to take your guns,” I KNOW that is precisely what they’re trying to do
    Molon Labe, I declare my wallet a tax free sanctuary. FTG.

  16. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Libertarians Liberals and the Left really don’t understand why a Horse thief was hanged when caught. After all “it’s just property” they say. And you never kill a person just because they steal your property.

    For those that don’t know history having your horse stolen was a death sentence. You would be miles from any source of food and or water. No one nearby to come and help you.
    Assuming the indians would help you???

    So when someone comes to take your Arms what do you think will happen?
    When the police response time is several minutes when seconds count, and you have called them for help. And you have no gun. Because they took it.

    I think every LEO is just “rolling the dice” when they walk up to a house, to take a law abiding person Arms. Because it won’t be just guns. They will take your bow and arrows. And any other Arm will be taken as well. If they feel like it.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Republicans always say it’s just property, it’s not worth a life, call the police for them to handle it and insurance will cover your loses.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        If the Libertarians were as worked up over the property rights of churches and religious property owners as they are for Mrs Kelo I would have more respect for them. But they are hypocrites when it comes to defending private property rights in general.

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        btw
        The Libertarians Democrats and Republican are all three terrible on Private property rights.

      3. avatar Dave says:

        Not sure what you mean. Most states allow *nonlethal* force for defense of property.

        Defense of property and recovery of the property after its loss in a successfully completed crime are different things, so I’m not sure how insurance applies here.

  17. avatar Chief Censor says:

    Arizona has been turning blue. The zoomers are coming. It’s going to take some time, but it will happen like it did in Las Vegas.

    Don’t detach yourselves from the youth and assume you know the future.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Nevada was inevitable. You just can’t run your largest metro area with an “anything goes” attitude (with an official motto of “what happens in Vegas…”) and not expect conservative values to withstand the overwhelming influx of progressive mantras.

      Arizona is not the same.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “…and expect them to withstand…”

      2. avatar KenW says:

        Give the folks from the coast time and they will change things to what they fled from.
        You get west coast folks we get our infestation from up North.
        I suspect within my lifetime both states will change to blue.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Probably time to codify Constitutional Carry in the state constitution, to make it a bit harder to cancel.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Every state needs their own bill of rights put into their constitution if it’s not there.

        California has in their constitution a line saying they will follow the U.S. Constitution. However, because the human rights listed in the U.S. Bill of Rights isn’t written in their constitution they claim they can do whatever they want and they do.

        Every red state needs to shut down any possible route to tyranny before it gets used. Fortify the state from internal and external attacks.

        Texas is a state that is wide open for a take over. They are already taking it over without anyone noticing the massive police state and phony Republicans being put in.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          “California has in their constitution a line saying they will follow the U.S. Constitution. However, because the human rights listed in the U.S. Bill of Rights isn’t written in their constitution they claim they can do whatever they want and they do”

          The racist state of California has no 2A in its state constitution because they didn’t want to give gun civil rights to Mexicans and chinese immigrants in the 1800s.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        There already is the 2A in Bill of Rights. Look how deep we have fallen by politicians simply ignoring the clear prohibition of infringements of our RTKBA. More words on paper don’t help if breaking of the supreme law doesn’t have very dire personal consequences.

  18. avatar Jane says:

    This cunt is an idiot.

  19. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    I find it interesting that the Gun-Grabbers only read the part of the Second Amendment that they think allows them to try and control the guns. How many times and in how many different ways have they said only the militia get to have guns….

    And then with the SCotUS decision and Scalia’s words “..“It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..” They quote that like it somehow justifies them adding more gun control. See! Even the court agrees! they crow while pointing and cheering.

    Like I said, interesting. These are the people that, when children, would ask Mom and Dad if they could do something, then when caught doing something else would say ‘you didn’t say we *couldn’t* do it.

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    See, this is what happens when you write a column while having PMS.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Nah, that’s a legitimate and temporary biological condition. This woman is simply either straight up evil or too stupid to walk and breathe at the same time

  21. avatar todd says:

    “There’s nothing to worry about and no one wants to take away anyone’s guns.”

    She must not have gotten the memo that say “nobody believes us anymore when we say that, so we might as well be honest”.

  22. avatar J.D. Smith says:

    Oh I heard a disturbing bit of news about the AZ Department of Public Safety proposing a mandatory licencing program for all gun owners to “end gun violence” Anybody wanting to buy a firearm would have to go through an extensive training program (at the applicant’s own expense) to obtain a permit. And those who already own guns will also be required to obtain said permit. Now as an AZ resident this worries me. A lot. I mean if this gets through, what’s next? And I haz another question – how come We The People don’t get to vote on this shit? Can’t these “proposals” get proposed when election time comes around, either the Presidential or the mid – terms? So every 2 years they can put this shit on the ballot like a prop whatever and then We decide what’s best for Us.

    Well why the hell not?

    1. avatar I Haz A(nother) Question says:

      I see what you did there. 🙂

  23. avatar Will Drider says:

    Are Dems going back to lying about their true intentions? Their honesty towards the 2A was actually refreshing for a change. Restrict, Ban, Confiscate.some “claim” to support the 2A but it is their “version/vision/interpretation” and not the origional “Shall not be infringed” 2A that was created to enshrine God given/Natural Rights.

  24. avatar Bemused Berseker says:

    In the 1870’s, two decisions by the Waite Supreme Court, effectively set the stage for the infringement of the 2nd Amendment by the States. Those decisions basically said the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federal government. Both decisions remain insupprtable to this day, but they’ve never been successfully challenged to this day. Following their logic would mean then, that the same would be true of every enumerated right in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Suffice it to say that the Waite decisions both violated the newly ratified 14th Amendment as well, which very specifically forbids the States from denying any and all enumerated rights under the US Constitution, regardless of the individual States Constitutions to anyone. Every piece of anti-gun legislation the States have cranked out, owes its genesis to those two illogical and Unconstitutional rulings by the Waite led Court.
    In truth, those decisions were as horribly wrong and illogical as the infamous Dred Scott decision made by the court many years before.
    Why have they been allowed to stand? Money.

  25. avatar JIM ABRAHAM says:

    Tell this ditzy dunce what you think.

    [email protected]

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email