The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
In Defense of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Ash Wednesday massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, seems to have broken more hearts than similar tragedies that preceded it. It was no more senseless than other American school shootings, but there is something about the innocence and bravery and eloquence of the youthful survivors that has touched the souls of Americans deeply.

After burying their dead, the survivors have mobilized into a mighty political force that loosely seeks more laws to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The young people, traumatized and terrified with memories of unspeakable horror that will not fade, somehow think that a person bent on murder will obey gun laws.

Every time I watch these beautiful young people, I wince, because in their understandable sadness is the potential for madness — “madness” being defined as the passionate and stubborn refusal to accept reason. This often happens after tragedy. After watching the government railroad Abraham Lincoln’s killer’s conspirators — and even some folks who had nothing to do with the assassination — the poet Herman Melville wrote: “Beware the People weeping. When they bare the iron hand.”

It is nearly impossible to argue rationally with tears and pain, which is why we all need to take a step back from this tragedy before legally addressing its causes.

If you believe in an all-knowing, all-loving God as I do, then you accept the concept of natural rights. These are the claims and privileges that are attached to humanity as God’s gifts. If you do not accept the existence of a Supreme Being, you can still accept the concept of natural rights, as it is obvious that humans are the superior rational beings on earth. Our exercise of reason draws us all to the exercise of freedoms, and we can do this independent of the government. Stated differently, both the theist and the atheist can accept the concept of natural human rights.

Thomas Jefferson, who claimed to be neither theist nor atheist, wrote in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Such rights cannot be separated from us, as they are integral to our humanity. Foremost among our unalienable rights is the right to life — the right to be and to remain alive.

And that right implies the right to defend life — the right to self-defense. If I am about to assault you in the nose, you can duck, run away or punch me first. If I am about to strike your children, you can strike me first. If I am about to do either of those things with a gun, you can shoot me first, and no reasonable jury will convict you. In fact, no reasonable prosecutor will charge you.

ORDER IT NOW

The reason for all this is natural. It is natural to defend yourself — your life — and your children. The Framers recognized this right when they ratified the Second Amendment. They wrote it to ensure that all governments would respect the right to keep and bear arms as a natural extension of the right to self-defense.

In its two most recent interpretations of the right to self-defense, the Supreme Court characterized that right as “pre-political.” That means the right pre-existed the government. If it pre-existed the government, it must come from our human nature. I once asked Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority’s opinion in the first of those cases, called the District of Columbia v. Heller, why he used the term “pre-political” instead of “natural.” He replied, “You and I know they mean the same thing, but ‘natural’ sounds too Catholic, and I am interpreting the Constitution, not Aquinas.”

With the Heller case, the court went on to characterize this pre-political right as an individual and personal one. It also recognized that the people who wrote the Second Amendment had just fought a war against a king and his army — a war that they surely would have lost had they not kept and carried arms that were equal to or better than what the British army had.

They didn’t write the Second Amendment to protect the right to shoot deer; they wrote it to protect the right to self-defense — whether against bad guys, crazy people or a tyrannical government bent on destroying personal liberty.

In Heller, the court also articulated that the right to use guns means the right to use guns that are at the same level of sophistication as the guns your potential adversary might have, whether that adversary be a bad guy, a crazy person or a soldier of a tyrannical government.

But even after Heller, governments have found ways to infringe on the right to self-defense. Government does not like competition. Essentially, government is the entity among us that monopolizes force. The more force it monopolizes the more power it has. So it has enacted, in the name of safety, the least safe places on earth — gun-free zones. The nightclub in Orlando, the government offices in San Bernardino, the schools in Columbine, Newtown and Parkland were all killing zones because the government prohibited guns there and the killers knew this.

We all need to face a painful fact of life: The police make mistakes like the rest of us and simply cannot be everywhere when we need them. When government fails to recognize this and it disarms us in selected zones, we become helpless before our enemies.

But it could be worse. One of my Fox News colleagues asked me on-air the other day: Suppose we confiscated all guns; wouldn’t that keep us safe? I replied that we’d need to start with the government’s guns. Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.

Copyright 2018 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Constitutional Theory, Gun Control 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Renoman says:

    Your country is toast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Da Wei says:

    Thank you for this thorough, cogent argument. QED.

    Carroll Quigley, the Georgetown professor, wrote that the times of greatest freedom were those when the populace had weapons commensurate with what their governors had.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal”.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’e need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need?”
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    Read More
    • Agree: E. Rekshun
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Interesting.

    One element is missing from your well thought out attempt to reason with "progs" (save the fact that reason has no relevance to them).

    Hunting, self-defense, comparisons etc. all fine points, but not The Point, as I understand the 2nd.

    Granted, I am not an American but I do know something about the topic/subject, and that's the very reason I look up to that achievement in "Colonies" there.

    So...why don't you guys bring that point as the very first point in any...ahm...discussion with "progs"?

    Now, I do have a decent theory, but I'd really like to hear you guys first.
    One theory with two, say, groups.
    One group doesn't want to bring that up because....say.....they aren't onto it, on the contrary actually.
    The another group, well, I do get why they don't want to bring that up ,just for a different reason. Like...."you know why, don't play dumb".

    And, that is the thing, isn't it?
    Would be funny if it wasn't serious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Quebecer says:

    I have no problem with people ‘keeping and bearing arms’ for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Igor Stravinsky

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?
     
    Do you really need to have an opinion on a subject about which you are so uninformed?
    , @bjondo
    Do people really need an I phone or 400 hp vehicle or a double-scoop ice cream cone?
    , @El Dato

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter
     
    That's the "Wehrmacht" and it also had horse-drawn carriages, "tanks" that would not withstand a sneeze by a lightly armed individual today, shitty crypto (on a level that modern governments today would LOVE to impose on the citizenry), barely any radio communication and not enough gear for the Russian Winter.

    But what has that to do with anything?

    Oh hey, no wait: Jimbo's Stupendous Stash Of Scrambled Info has this to say about the 30's submachine gun:


    At the outbreak of World War II, the majority of German soldiers carried either Karabiner 98k rifles or MP 40s, both of which were regarded as the standard weapons of choice for an infantryman.

    However, later experience with Soviet tactics, such as the Battle of Stalingrad where entire Russian units armed with submachine guns outgunned their German counterparts in short range urban combat, caused a shift in tactics, and by the end of the war the MP 40 and its derivatives were being issued to entire assault platoons on a limited basis. Starting in 1943, the German Army moved to replace both the Karabiner 98k rifle and MP 40 with the new, revolutionary StG 44. By the end of World War II (which ended in 1945), an estimated 1.1 million MP 40s had been produced of all variants.
     

    BRRRTTTT! So you be wrong.
    , @RadicalCenter
    If the police have it -- which they do -- then yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves as well. Or are the lives of police officers worth more than our lives?

    If gangs have such firearms -- which they do -- then again yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Do you really need to have an opinion on a subject about which you are so uninformed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quebecer
    Please enlighten me 'Igor', and I'm not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty 'serious', and I do think brandishing this in a robber's face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Quebecer says:
    @Igor Stravinsky

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?
     
    Do you really need to have an opinion on a subject about which you are so uninformed?

    Please enlighten me ‘Igor’, and I’m not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty ‘serious’, and I do think brandishing this in a robber’s face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @redmudhooch
    You as a Canadian should look into Ernst Zundel, a great Canadian-German, then think about what you said in your comment.
    We're free to talk about subjects like Ernst talked about in America, because of the 2nd amendment.
    Without fear of being thrown in jail for it.
    Without the 2nd amendment there is no freedom. You're welcome anti-gun America.
    You should also read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if you want to know why we defend the 2nd amend.
    Funny how its mostly dual Israeli citizens and "Jews" that push so damn hard for gun control. You would think they're planning another Bolshevik revolution....
    Just remember, criminals don't follow the law. Look at Mexico. If citizens shouldn't have them, then the military shouldn't either.
    Plus all of theses shootings are false flags, fake, same thing they do overseas, attack and kill civilians then blame it on Assad, or whoever is the target at the time. All false flags. Look into it and you'll understand.
    Mossad Black Ops and False Flags
    http://whale.to/b/mossad_black_ops.html
    , @RadicalCenter
    Doesn't sound like a good firearm for defense inside a home or other short-range situation / enclosed space. Shotgun would seem to be better for that, generally. But I'll defer to real firearms experts and shooters here.

    Your country, too, used to be a wonderful place. Even relatively recently I spent most of my time living in BC for two years and loved it, on balance.

    Let's hope the USA and Canada turn things around in time.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. I don’t oppose taking guns from the mentally ill…
    AIPAC, other Jewish lobbies support arming terrorists to overthrow govts. they don’t like, support throwing people in jail that wish to debate certain issues, clearly they are mentally ill, no guns for them.
    Politicians in DC are trying to start a war with nuclear Russia, so obviously they’re mentally ill, we should confiscate all their weapons also.
    The FBI can’t seem to do anything right, mentally ill, take their guns.
    CIA/Mossad/MIC killed 3000 Americans on 9/11, that tells me they’re mentally ill, take their guns now.
    We should also be given the ability to spy on all these folks, since they’re all criminally insane, just to be sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Rbel says:

    The American revolution was fought with flintlocks. The civil war was fought with percussion cap and ball rifles. So what is your point? Guns “like the AR-15″ are semi-automatic weapons and no different than any semi-automatic firearm. If you put a hood scoop and a loud exhaust on your car it’s the same car, it just looks faster.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @Quebecer
    Please enlighten me 'Igor', and I'm not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty 'serious', and I do think brandishing this in a robber's face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.

    You as a Canadian should look into Ernst Zundel, a great Canadian-German, then think about what you said in your comment.
    We’re free to talk about subjects like Ernst talked about in America, because of the 2nd amendment.
    Without fear of being thrown in jail for it.
    Without the 2nd amendment there is no freedom. You’re welcome anti-gun America.
    You should also read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn if you want to know why we defend the 2nd amend.
    Funny how its mostly dual Israeli citizens and “Jews” that push so damn hard for gun control. You would think they’re planning another Bolshevik revolution….
    Just remember, criminals don’t follow the law. Look at Mexico. If citizens shouldn’t have them, then the military shouldn’t either.
    Plus all of theses shootings are false flags, fake, same thing they do overseas, attack and kill civilians then blame it on Assad, or whoever is the target at the time. All false flags. Look into it and you’ll understand.
    Mossad Black Ops and False Flags

    http://whale.to/b/mossad_black_ops.html

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Excellent article.

    I would add that those who want to disarm “the people” in America are communists. Put simply, communism is a Satanic political ideology whereby the “state” = “god”, and “the people” exist only at the discretion of the state, and their proper place is to serve the state. The concept of individual God-given natural rights, such as the right to exist and the right to defend that existence, the right to own property (particularly residential property), etc., are an abomination to those who seek to disarm us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. peterAUS says:
    @anarchyst
    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possesses no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal".
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”.
    State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, use able by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made
    many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’e need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to consider what I need?”
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the time of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, citing “officer safety”, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

    Interesting.

    One element is missing from your well thought out attempt to reason with “progs” (save the fact that reason has no relevance to them).

    Hunting, self-defense, comparisons etc. all fine points, but not The Point, as I understand the 2nd.

    Granted, I am not an American but I do know something about the topic/subject, and that’s the very reason I look up to that achievement in “Colonies” there.

    So…why don’t you guys bring that point as the very first point in any…ahm…discussion with “progs”?

    Now, I do have a decent theory, but I’d really like to hear you guys first.
    One theory with two, say, groups.
    One group doesn’t want to bring that up because….say…..they aren’t onto it, on the contrary actually.
    The another group, well, I do get why they don’t want to bring that up ,just for a different reason. Like….”you know why, don’t play dumb”.

    And, that is the thing, isn’t it?
    Would be funny if it wasn’t serious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    I purposely left out the one real reason for the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny as many left-wing liberals (who cannot be reasoned with), all of a sudden now, are taking the side of government, insisting that only police and other government types should be allowed to have firearms. These left-wing types will make the accusation that "one wants to overthrow the government". Maybe not such a bad idea, BUT, in polite company...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. bjondo says:
    @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    Do people really need an I phone or 400 hp vehicle or a double-scoop ice cream cone?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Live in an area with lotsa dogs some of 'em are pit bulls and some of those not of the pit variety are vicious and wandering foxes some of 'em rabid and some humans of the wild variety. Maybe also rabid.

    I want a fast firing weapon with minimum 30 round clip.

    Regarding a rabid fox: took 2 deputies and a number of rounds to down one recently. Not easy to hit when running. And you don't want a rabid fox to get close. Never know.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Nope. Won’t work. Can’t work! You’re trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day’s (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can’t do it — they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer’s 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn’t say “now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance.”

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.

    And that “‘average # of breakups” (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it. Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: ‘yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!’ (Let them know that we, too, are outraged — anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling! Yes, that’s partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you’re aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets — and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them — some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect — but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to — from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over — but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to “effectively protecting our children”! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero — but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!
     

    (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it.
     
    Couldn't agree more.

    Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return.
    ...you must answer them with two feeling-linked points...
    ....try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) ....
    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings....
     
    Really?
    Why?
    I mean...why do you even need to engage with them?
    That is something of a puzzle for some of us watching all this.

    Is

    anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling!
     
    the reason?

    You, in essence, want to play their game.
    One does that when the opponent has an advantage. Are you guys in that stage/phase?

    You can not win that. Ever.
    You shall lose, just a matter of time.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    that lying on the floor under a desk... is a proof (way too young) that... the world is a dangerous place

     

    Ah, the memories of a half-century ago, under the desks with one hand on the eyes and the other on the nape. Our school district took these drills very seriously-- we were five miles from Pearl Harbor.
    , @Jonathan Mason

    Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.
     
    Better still you can protect your children by voting for politicians who are prepared to vote for sensible "people control laws" that will make it harder for bad people and idiots who think that they are living in a video game, or those who have been psychologically damaged in foreign wars, to get their hands on weapons in the first place.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Sage advice, sir.

    Here's another line of argument on gun rights that is both useful and true: without guns, most women have no chance to defend themselves against most men.

    Most of the elderly would also be helpless and could be robbed, tortured, and killed at will, even in their own homes.

    We need to emphasize that guns are the great equalizer that gives weaker, smaller people a fighting chance against aggressors.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. bjondo says:
    @bjondo
    Do people really need an I phone or 400 hp vehicle or a double-scoop ice cream cone?

    Live in an area with lotsa dogs some of ‘em are pit bulls and some of those not of the pit variety are vicious and wandering foxes some of ‘em rabid and some humans of the wild variety. Maybe also rabid.

    I want a fast firing weapon with minimum 30 round clip.

    Regarding a rabid fox: took 2 deputies and a number of rounds to down one recently. Not easy to hit when running. And you don’t want a rabid fox to get close. Never know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I spent time in rural-ish New Mexico, where there is a plentiful supply of rude, irresponsible morons who let their vicious dogs roam free on the back roads and paths. You need a handgun on you for that alone. My brother-in-law was attacked by a neighbor's dog there and would have been ripped to shreds if he hadn't pulled out his handgun and shot it.

    In rural areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect against animals -- though also because police can't reach a lot of places quickly enough if called.

    In urban and now many suburban areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect again human animals. No sense denying it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. peterAUS says:
    @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return.
    …you must answer them with two feeling-linked points…
    ….try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) ….
    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings….

    Really?
    Why?
    I mean…why do you even need to engage with them?
    That is something of a puzzle for some of us watching all this.

    Is

    anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling!

    the reason?

    You, in essence, want to play their game.
    One does that when the opponent has an advantage. Are you guys in that stage/phase?

    You can not win that. Ever.
    You shall lose, just a matter of time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little. Preemptive weapon seizures are similar in principle to mandatory mental hospital placement and make sense, so long as there is a process by which the person affected can go before a judge and make a case for the return of the weapons.

    That way, if there is another disaster, at least we can blame it on an elected judge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little
     
    In early America, many states had blackground checks.
    , @El Dato

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.
     
    Unfortunately, the record shows that this hasn't gone all that well so far, as is the custom with govnm't programs, which fail in various ways when it really counts.

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one's school companions. Although it would probably demand a stronger suppression of the instinct that tells us to refrain from killing people in horrible ways than the use of an assortment handguns.

    OTOH, maybe this is the killer application for AI+applied mechatronics. Literally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJBfReQF9Q
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. anarchyst says:
    @peterAUS
    Interesting.

    One element is missing from your well thought out attempt to reason with "progs" (save the fact that reason has no relevance to them).

    Hunting, self-defense, comparisons etc. all fine points, but not The Point, as I understand the 2nd.

    Granted, I am not an American but I do know something about the topic/subject, and that's the very reason I look up to that achievement in "Colonies" there.

    So...why don't you guys bring that point as the very first point in any...ahm...discussion with "progs"?

    Now, I do have a decent theory, but I'd really like to hear you guys first.
    One theory with two, say, groups.
    One group doesn't want to bring that up because....say.....they aren't onto it, on the contrary actually.
    The another group, well, I do get why they don't want to bring that up ,just for a different reason. Like...."you know why, don't play dumb".

    And, that is the thing, isn't it?
    Would be funny if it wasn't serious.

    I purposely left out the one real reason for the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny as many left-wing liberals (who cannot be reasoned with), all of a sudden now, are taking the side of government, insisting that only police and other government types should be allowed to have firearms. These left-wing types will make the accusation that “one wants to overthrow the government”. Maybe not such a bad idea, BUT, in polite company…

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Oh, I get that.

    The point of mine (and not only mine, of course) is that by not mentioning that element you've already given a lot and created a good debating environment for them.
    I know it's not so simple and clear cut and to properly address that would require more time/space, and, most likely, much smarter people than I am (and, well, most of people posting here).

    That element of the 2nd is the only argument, actually, preserving that right. All the rest can be "debated out". You know that.

    Self-defense, hunting, sport....all can be done, easily, without "AR-15 type weapon".
    Of course, as soon as you give that they'll go for the rest, one by one. So, you draw some sort of "defense line" on "AR-15", but they WILL chew that down. In time, no doubt about that.

    Now......I feel that you know perfectly well (and are reluctant to post it here, as I am ) WHY that element, really, can't be mentioned in "polite company".
    Paul Gotfried explained that well somewhere (can't post a link, unfortunately).

    I mean, it's easy to reply to

    ....one wants to overthrow the government...

     

    with

    one wants to defend against tyrannical government should it get into position of power...
     
    or similar. Easy.

    The true reason why that argument is not being used is...something else.

    And that is the problem here.
    A BIG one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. peterAUS says:
    @anarchyst
    I purposely left out the one real reason for the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny as many left-wing liberals (who cannot be reasoned with), all of a sudden now, are taking the side of government, insisting that only police and other government types should be allowed to have firearms. These left-wing types will make the accusation that "one wants to overthrow the government". Maybe not such a bad idea, BUT, in polite company...

    Oh, I get that.

    The point of mine (and not only mine, of course) is that by not mentioning that element you’ve already given a lot and created a good debating environment for them.
    I know it’s not so simple and clear cut and to properly address that would require more time/space, and, most likely, much smarter people than I am (and, well, most of people posting here).

    That element of the 2nd is the only argument, actually, preserving that right. All the rest can be “debated out”. You know that.

    Self-defense, hunting, sport….all can be done, easily, without “AR-15 type weapon”.
    Of course, as soon as you give that they’ll go for the rest, one by one. So, you draw some sort of “defense line” on “AR-15″, but they WILL chew that down. In time, no doubt about that.

    Now……I feel that you know perfectly well (and are reluctant to post it here, as I am ) WHY that element, really, can’t be mentioned in “polite company”.
    Paul Gotfried explained that well somewhere (can’t post a link, unfortunately).

    I mean, it’s easy to reply to

    ….one wants to overthrow the government…

    with

    one wants to defend against tyrannical government should it get into position of power…

    or similar. Easy.

    The true reason why that argument is not being used is…something else.

    And that is the problem here.
    A BIG one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Jonathan Mason
    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little. Preemptive weapon seizures are similar in principle to mandatory mental hospital placement and make sense, so long as there is a process by which the person affected can go before a judge and make a case for the return of the weapons.

    That way, if there is another disaster, at least we can blame it on an elected judge.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little

    In early America, many states had blackground checks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    that lying on the floor under a desk… is a proof (way too young) that… the world is a dangerous place

    Ah, the memories of a half-century ago, under the desks with one hand on the eyes and the other on the nape. Our school district took these drills very seriously– we were five miles from Pearl Harbor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Better still you can protect your children by voting for politicians who are prepared to vote for sensible “people control laws” that will make it harder for bad people and idiots who think that they are living in a video game, or those who have been psychologically damaged in foreign wars, to get their hands on weapons in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @t-gordon
    You forget to mention the sociopathic thugs of our urban enclaves who statistically commmit more homicides (by the thousands!) than any of the "idiots" and "veterans" mentioned in your comment. If the daily Mainstream Media onslaught wasn't a complete obfuscation and downright dishonest manipulation of minds and emotions, well maybe... While I'd like to believe that in time, sanity, honesty and transparency will return to our public discourse, I fear that hysteria and inevitable Coercion by Rule of Law will render any of these discussions mute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.

    “Four young porkers in the front row uttered shrill squeals of disapproval, and all four of them sprang to their feet and began speaking at once. But suddenly the dogs sitting round Napoleon let out deep, menacing growls, and the pigs fell silent and sat down again. Then the sheep broke out into a tremendous bleating of “Four legs good, two legs bad!” which went on for nearly a quarter of an hour and put an end to any chance of discussion.” [George Orwell: Animal Farm.

    Two guns good, four guns better. [NRA slogan].

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?
     
    In that context, the pigs are Stalin's Camarilla and the sheep are the benighted followers of the Bolshevik Party and random citizens, soon hanging from rafters in any case.

    Transposed to today, you know the answer as well as anyone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. El Dato says:
    @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    That’s the “Wehrmacht” and it also had horse-drawn carriages, “tanks” that would not withstand a sneeze by a lightly armed individual today, shitty crypto (on a level that modern governments today would LOVE to impose on the citizenry), barely any radio communication and not enough gear for the Russian Winter.

    But what has that to do with anything?

    Oh hey, no wait: Jimbo’s Stupendous Stash Of Scrambled Info has this to say about the 30′s submachine gun:

    At the outbreak of World War II, the majority of German soldiers carried either Karabiner 98k rifles or MP 40s, both of which were regarded as the standard weapons of choice for an infantryman.

    However, later experience with Soviet tactics, such as the Battle of Stalingrad where entire Russian units armed with submachine guns outgunned their German counterparts in short range urban combat, caused a shift in tactics, and by the end of the war the MP 40 and its derivatives were being issued to entire assault platoons on a limited basis. Starting in 1943, the German Army moved to replace both the Karabiner 98k rifle and MP 40 with the new, revolutionary StG 44. By the end of World War II (which ended in 1945), an estimated 1.1 million MP 40s had been produced of all variants.

    BRRRTTTT! So you be wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    Well, he said "mostly armed".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. El Dato says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Oh, no, he said. He just meant confiscation among the civilian population. I replied that then we wouldn’t be a civilian population any longer. We’d be a nation of sheep.
     
    “Four young porkers in the front row uttered shrill squeals of disapproval, and all four of them sprang to their feet and began speaking at once. But suddenly the dogs sitting round Napoleon let out deep, menacing growls, and the pigs fell silent and sat down again. Then the sheep broke out into a tremendous bleating of "Four legs good, two legs bad!" which went on for nearly a quarter of an hour and put an end to any chance of discussion.” [George Orwell: Animal Farm.


    Two guns good, four guns better. [NRA slogan].

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?

    Who are the sheep and who are the pigs?

    In that context, the pigs are Stalin’s Camarilla and the sheep are the benighted followers of the Bolshevik Party and random citizens, soon hanging from rafters in any case.

    Transposed to today, you know the answer as well as anyone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. El Dato says:
    @Jonathan Mason
    Yadda, yadda, yadda.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Things like raising ages and improving background checks may help a little. Preemptive weapon seizures are similar in principle to mandatory mental hospital placement and make sense, so long as there is a process by which the person affected can go before a judge and make a case for the return of the weapons.

    That way, if there is another disaster, at least we can blame it on an elected judge.

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.

    Unfortunately, the record shows that this hasn’t gone all that well so far, as is the custom with govnm’t programs, which fail in various ways when it really counts.

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions. Although it would probably demand a stronger suppression of the instinct that tells us to refrain from killing people in horrible ways than the use of an assortment handguns.

    OTOH, maybe this is the killer application for AI+applied mechatronics. Literally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions.
     
    If that is the case, then I would also be all in favor of making it illegal to cook up napalm regardless of which constitutional amendment supports the use of napalm as a weedkiller. I know you will think that a bad person will ignore the law, but all the same they are more likely to be reported to police in the preparation phase.

    I know that even presenting oneself at a police station or FBI office with a napalm truck bomb and asking to be arrested before one blows up a school probably has only a minimum chance of success with our lackadaisical police forces and FBI unless your name is Mo and you are wearing a turban adn you fail to call the policeman 'sir' or 'ma'am', but it is a start.

    Also, while we are on the subject of alternatives to guns, I am not trained in combat, but can you really kill multiple people by throwing a knife through a locked door as you can with a rifle?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @El Dato

    No one really want to disarm paranoid gun nuts, they just want to make it less likely that deadly weapons will get into the hands of mentally disturbed juveniles and other lunatics who want to go out in a blaze of gory.
     
    Unfortunately, the record shows that this hasn't gone all that well so far, as is the custom with govnm't programs, which fail in various ways when it really counts.

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one's school companions. Although it would probably demand a stronger suppression of the instinct that tells us to refrain from killing people in horrible ways than the use of an assortment handguns.

    OTOH, maybe this is the killer application for AI+applied mechatronics. Literally.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heJBfReQF9Q

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions.

    If that is the case, then I would also be all in favor of making it illegal to cook up napalm regardless of which constitutional amendment supports the use of napalm as a weedkiller. I know you will think that a bad person will ignore the law, but all the same they are more likely to be reported to police in the preparation phase.

    I know that even presenting oneself at a police station or FBI office with a napalm truck bomb and asking to be arrested before one blows up a school probably has only a minimum chance of success with our lackadaisical police forces and FBI unless your name is Mo and you are wearing a turban adn you fail to call the policeman ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am’, but it is a start.

    Also, while we are on the subject of alternatives to guns, I am not trained in combat, but can you really kill multiple people by throwing a knife through a locked door as you can with a rifle?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Quebecer
    Thank you M.Mason

    I was just trying to make a point, that I felt had some merit, but was greeted as an agnostic at a Jehovas' Witnesses Kingdom house.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. t-gordon says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Get your opponent’s feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children — and maybe a terrified adult or two — is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.
     
    Better still you can protect your children by voting for politicians who are prepared to vote for sensible "people control laws" that will make it harder for bad people and idiots who think that they are living in a video game, or those who have been psychologically damaged in foreign wars, to get their hands on weapons in the first place.

    You forget to mention the sociopathic thugs of our urban enclaves who statistically commmit more homicides (by the thousands!) than any of the “idiots” and “veterans” mentioned in your comment. If the daily Mainstream Media onslaught wasn’t a complete obfuscation and downright dishonest manipulation of minds and emotions, well maybe… While I’d like to believe that in time, sanity, honesty and transparency will return to our public discourse, I fear that hysteria and inevitable Coercion by Rule of Law will render any of these discussions mute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Quebecer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Plus the angry individual could always resort to cooking up napalm and throwing flaming gobs of death at one’s school companions.
     
    If that is the case, then I would also be all in favor of making it illegal to cook up napalm regardless of which constitutional amendment supports the use of napalm as a weedkiller. I know you will think that a bad person will ignore the law, but all the same they are more likely to be reported to police in the preparation phase.

    I know that even presenting oneself at a police station or FBI office with a napalm truck bomb and asking to be arrested before one blows up a school probably has only a minimum chance of success with our lackadaisical police forces and FBI unless your name is Mo and you are wearing a turban adn you fail to call the policeman 'sir' or 'ma'am', but it is a start.

    Also, while we are on the subject of alternatives to guns, I am not trained in combat, but can you really kill multiple people by throwing a knife through a locked door as you can with a rifle?

    Thank you M.Mason

    I was just trying to make a point, that I felt had some merit, but was greeted as an agnostic at a Jehovas’ Witnesses Kingdom house.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @El Dato

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter
     
    That's the "Wehrmacht" and it also had horse-drawn carriages, "tanks" that would not withstand a sneeze by a lightly armed individual today, shitty crypto (on a level that modern governments today would LOVE to impose on the citizenry), barely any radio communication and not enough gear for the Russian Winter.

    But what has that to do with anything?

    Oh hey, no wait: Jimbo's Stupendous Stash Of Scrambled Info has this to say about the 30's submachine gun:


    At the outbreak of World War II, the majority of German soldiers carried either Karabiner 98k rifles or MP 40s, both of which were regarded as the standard weapons of choice for an infantryman.

    However, later experience with Soviet tactics, such as the Battle of Stalingrad where entire Russian units armed with submachine guns outgunned their German counterparts in short range urban combat, caused a shift in tactics, and by the end of the war the MP 40 and its derivatives were being issued to entire assault platoons on a limited basis. Starting in 1943, the German Army moved to replace both the Karabiner 98k rifle and MP 40 with the new, revolutionary StG 44. By the end of World War II (which ended in 1945), an estimated 1.1 million MP 40s had been produced of all variants.
     

    BRRRTTTT! So you be wrong.

    Well, he said “mostly armed”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Quebecer
    I have no problem with people 'keeping and bearing arms' for self-defence or sporting purposes.

    This being said, the Wermarcht was mostly armed with bolt-action rifles with 5-round magazines during WWII, as was the Red Army for that matter

    Do people really need guns like the AR-15 to defend themselves ?

    If the police have it — which they do — then yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves as well. Or are the lives of police officers worth more than our lives?

    If gangs have such firearms — which they do — then again yes, regular citizens need it to defend themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Quebecer
    Please enlighten me 'Igor', and I'm not saying this in a sarcatic tone.

    I will be the first to admit I know little about guns in the context of self-defence,
    as do most Canadians.

    My father used to own a Lee-Enfield .303 bolter, with a 10-round magazine.
    It looked mighty 'serious', and I do think brandishing this in a robber's face would
    provide enough of a deterrent.

    Doesn’t sound like a good firearm for defense inside a home or other short-range situation / enclosed space. Shotgun would seem to be better for that, generally. But I’ll defer to real firearms experts and shooters here.

    Your country, too, used to be a wonderful place. Even relatively recently I spent most of my time living in BC for two years and loved it, on balance.

    Let’s hope the USA and Canada turn things around in time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Avalanche1956
    Nope. Won't work. Can't work! You're trying to reason people out of a feeling! Read Chapter 10 of Vox Day's (exceedingly excellent and educational) book: SJWs Always Lie and learn the difference between dialectic and rhetoric and how and when to use each. You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts -- FACTS do not answer their feelings!

    Dr Peter Sandman, in his risk communication teachings, suggested this, my annotations:

    Compassion vs. dispassion. When dealing with a situation, there comes a point where you must stop dealing with the hazard (facts, dialectic) and work with outrage (feelings, rhetoric). There’s a common misconception that engineers and scientists and technologists can't do it -- they retreat further into the tech specs, rather than deal with the emotionalism. But if an engineer's 18-yr-old daughter comes home in tears from college because she broke up with her boyfriend, the engineer doesn't say "now, honey, you must realize that the median teenager has an average of 3.7 breakups over the 4 years of college attendance."

    Teach your engineers when (and how) to address outrage, not just by throwing more technobabble at the outrage.
     
    And that "'average # of breakups" (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day's book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can't hear it. Instead of trying to "teach them the truth"; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return. That our rhetoric is based in the truth makes it easier for us to wince and stop trying to answer our opponents with logic and rational explanations, and deal with them where they are: emotionally overwrought and desperate.

    Since they are focused on (their emotional reaction to) the fear (and deaths) of the children in a gun-free shooting gallery, you must answer them with two feeling-linked points: 'yes, we agree: this is horrible, and we (gun owners) are AS horrified as you are; maybe more so because we know effective ways to lessen and even prevent these horrific events!' (Let them know that we, too, are outraged -- anything less leaves us seeming (to "feelers") crass and unfeeling! Yes, that's partly dialectic but it aligns with their primary emotions: you're aligning yourself with their direction, rather than trying to stand against them.)

    Then, try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) leaves the children frantically trying to hide under desks and in schoolroom closets -- and knowing their teachers (adult so-called protectors) cannot do anything to actually protect them! All the children are relying on their teachers; and seeing their teachers terrified and frantic, trying to protect them -- some of them even dying lying on top of the children they were trying to protect -- but nearly completely, close to 100%, UNABLE to -- from the madman who chose to attack the unprotected shooting gallery! (Yes, the brave and amazing gym teacher was able to protect the painfully few children he put his own body over -- but that was SHEER LUCK, nothing even close to "effectively protecting our children"! Once he was dead, the terrified children under him were just as endangered as they were before he gave up his life! Not effective! Braver than hell, a true hero -- but NOT effective for most of the children who died!) (Again; rhetoric, based in truth.)

    (Try to) Get your opponent's feelings to shift from only the children who died to the much larger number who now realize that (unarmed) adults cannot protect them; who have found out that lying on the floor under a desk or stuffed into a closet with other terrified children -- and maybe a terrified adult or two -- is a proof (way too young) that there is no such thing as unarmed protection from a gunman and the world is a dangerous place.

    Sage advice, sir.

    Here’s another line of argument on gun rights that is both useful and true: without guns, most women have no chance to defend themselves against most men.

    Most of the elderly would also be helpless and could be robbed, tortured, and killed at will, even in their own homes.

    We need to emphasize that guns are the great equalizer that gives weaker, smaller people a fighting chance against aggressors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @bjondo
    Live in an area with lotsa dogs some of 'em are pit bulls and some of those not of the pit variety are vicious and wandering foxes some of 'em rabid and some humans of the wild variety. Maybe also rabid.

    I want a fast firing weapon with minimum 30 round clip.

    Regarding a rabid fox: took 2 deputies and a number of rounds to down one recently. Not easy to hit when running. And you don't want a rabid fox to get close. Never know.

    I spent time in rural-ish New Mexico, where there is a plentiful supply of rude, irresponsible morons who let their vicious dogs roam free on the back roads and paths. You need a handgun on you for that alone. My brother-in-law was attacked by a neighbor’s dog there and would have been ripped to shreds if he hadn’t pulled out his handgun and shot it.

    In rural areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect against animals — though also because police can’t reach a lot of places quickly enough if called.

    In urban and now many suburban areas, regular peaceful people need guns mostly to protect again human animals. No sense denying it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @peterAUS

    You cannot reach someone who is basing their views, words, suggestions on their emotional views by giving them facts — FACTS do not answer their feelings!
     

    (facts, dialectic) is exactly how NRA, GOA, and most gun owners and 2nd Amendment defenders try to reach our emotionally charged opponents (feelings, rhetoric)! (And I did too, before I read Vox Day’s book: Facts are not persuasive to folks in the grip of their emotions.) You cannot successfully answer rhetoric-speakers with dialectic; they can’t hear it.
     
    Couldn't agree more.

    Instead of trying to “teach them the truth”; you must answer their rhetoric with rhetoric in return.
    ...you must answer them with two feeling-linked points...
    ....try to show them that their desire to do-something-do-anything (effective or not) ....
    (Try to) Get your opponent’s feelings....
     
    Really?
    Why?
    I mean...why do you even need to engage with them?
    That is something of a puzzle for some of us watching all this.

    Is

    anything less leaves us seeming (to “feelers”) crass and unfeeling!
     
    the reason?

    You, in essence, want to play their game.
    One does that when the opponent has an advantage. Are you guys in that stage/phase?

    You can not win that. Ever.
    You shall lose, just a matter of time.

    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Free will, brother.
    Your call. Hopefully, you are right, I am wrong and that "engaging" will work.

    I don't believe that, though.
    I believe sooner you realize that sooner you'll start developing different strategy.
    VOTING shall not work for your side. Can't. Just......can't.
    Demographics is against you.

    I believe you still don't get them. They aren't there because of guns.
    They are there to impose their will on people like you. They can't stand you. YOU.

    When they look at you they see how, really, weak and shallow they are. They can't have it. Ever.
    They want you down and to be kept down, to make them up. To make them feel strong. And to keep them feeling strong.

    Because behind all that erudite sophistication there is, at core, a weakling.
    And that's why they need a strong state; to have a tool to make you submit.

    On the positive side, nothing to lose.
    Keep doing what you think it's right. At least you'll get in touch with people on the same wavelength.
    And, also, learn a bit here and there in the process.
    Could prove useful, in future.

    And, I could be absolutely wrong.

    Good luck.

    , @peterAUS
    Here is the scenario for you:

    A "debate". You win all the rational arguments.
    And "they" take away "AR-15 type weapons" after that. Just to feel that..."victory".And your defeat.
    Then they relish that a bit. Just a bit.
    Then, they go for "high powered rifles". Oh, you put sterling debate and win.
    And, then, they vote again. And relish.....
    Then, they go for pump/semauto shotguns.
    Then semauto handguns.
    Then handguns in general.......

    And....each time they pull one out from you, they pass more surveillance and "hate" laws. One at the time. Nothing rush.
    And, not to miss a beat, militarize the police more and more.
    Frog in the .....

    The end game, brother, is Soviet Union type of society.

    Oh, and, yes, carefully selected part of elite will have all those guns that you can't. "Some animals...".

    Implausible?
    Perhaps......

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. peterAUS says:
    @RadicalCenter
    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.

    Free will, brother.
    Your call. Hopefully, you are right, I am wrong and that “engaging” will work.

    I don’t believe that, though.
    I believe sooner you realize that sooner you’ll start developing different strategy.
    VOTING shall not work for your side. Can’t. Just……can’t.
    Demographics is against you.

    I believe you still don’t get them. They aren’t there because of guns.
    They are there to impose their will on people like you. They can’t stand you. YOU.

    When they look at you they see how, really, weak and shallow they are. They can’t have it. Ever.
    They want you down and to be kept down, to make them up. To make them feel strong. And to keep them feeling strong.

    Because behind all that erudite sophistication there is, at core, a weakling.
    And that’s why they need a strong state; to have a tool to make you submit.

    On the positive side, nothing to lose.
    Keep doing what you think it’s right. At least you’ll get in touch with people on the same wavelength.
    And, also, learn a bit here and there in the process.
    Could prove useful, in future.

    And, I could be absolutely wrong.

    Good luck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. peterAUS says:
    @RadicalCenter
    We need to engage with irrational people who are led too much by their emotions, because there are many such people and many of them VOTE.

    Here is the scenario for you:

    A “debate”. You win all the rational arguments.
    And “they” take away “AR-15 type weapons” after that. Just to feel that…”victory”.And your defeat.
    Then they relish that a bit. Just a bit.
    Then, they go for “high powered rifles”. Oh, you put sterling debate and win.
    And, then, they vote again. And relish…..
    Then, they go for pump/semauto shotguns.
    Then semauto handguns.
    Then handguns in general…….

    And….each time they pull one out from you, they pass more surveillance and “hate” laws. One at the time. Nothing rush.
    And, not to miss a beat, militarize the police more and more.
    Frog in the …..

    The end game, brother, is Soviet Union type of society.

    Oh, and, yes, carefully selected part of elite will have all those guns that you can’t. “Some animals…”.

    Implausible?
    Perhaps……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?