The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Protect Kids or Confiscate Guns?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In days gone by, a massacre of students like the atrocity at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School would have brought us together.

But like so many atrocities before it, this mass murder is tearing us apart.

The perpetrator, the sick and evil 19-year-old who killed 17 innocents with a gun is said to be contrite.

Having confessed, he faces life in prison. For the next half-century, Nikolas Cruz will be fed, clothed, sheltered and medicated at the expense of Florida taxpayers, including the families of those he murdered.

Cruz’s punishment seems neither commensurate with his crimes nor a deterrent for sick and evil minds contemplating another Columbine.

It didn’t use to be this way.

On Feb 15, 1933, anarchist Giuseppe Zangara tried to assassinate President-elect Franklin Roosevelt in Miami. His arm jostled, he killed instead Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. Five weeks later, on March 20, 1933, Zangara died in the electric chair.

Swift, sure and pitiless, but that legal justice system worked.

With Cruz, the system failed up and down the line.

Cruz should never have been allowed to purchase or possess a gun. He was angry, alienated, isolated. Police had been to his family home to deal with complaints 39 times. Yet he had no arrest record when he purchased his AR-15.

Classmates at Douglas High had speculated that if there ever were a school shooting, Cruz would be the one to do it. The FBI was alerted a month before that Nikolas Cruz was a time bomb ready to explode.

The NRA was not responsible for the system-wide failure from Douglas High to the FBI. As the NRA’s Dana Loesch told CPAC Thursday:

“The government can’t keep you safe and some people want us to give up our firearms and rely solely upon the protection of the same government that’s already failed us numerous times to keep us safe.”

As for the AR-15, it is the most popular rifle sold. Five million to 8 million are in circulation. Veterans since Vietnam have trained with, and many fought with, the M16, which is first cousin to the AR-15. Veterans are among the millions who own them.

While all agree AR-15s should be kept out of the hands of crazies like Cruz, the establishment insists that it is the gun that is the problem.

We hear demands that AR-15s be banned and confiscated.

Proponents should put that proposition to a vote. But a prediction: The moment it is brought up for a vote, sales of AR-15s will explode, as they have before. If the weapon is banned, as alcohol was banned in Prohibition, millions of law-abiding Americans will become law-breakers.

And who will barge into America’s homes to seize and collect the rifles?

Moreover, if people have decided to mass murder classmates or co-workers, inviting “suicide by cop,” are they going to be stopped from acquiring a semiautomatic by a Congressional law?

Have our drug laws halted drug use?

ORDER IT NOW

Many of the guns confiscated by police are in the possession of thugs, criminals and ex-cons who have no legal right to own them. Yet, if we are going to prosecute the illegal sale or transfer of weapons severely, we will have hundreds of thousands more in prisons, at a time when we are instructed to empty them of nonviolent offenders.

As for mental illness, it seems more prevalent than it used to be, and the numbers of those on medication seems a greater share of the population.

Do doctors decide which of their patients are fit to own a gun, and which are not? Should doctors be held criminally liable if they fail to alert police and one of their patients uses a gun in a violent crime?

Who will maintain the federal registry of the mentally sick unfit to own a firearm?

The anger and anguish of those who lost family or friends in this atrocity is understandable. But passion is not a substitute for thought.

There are twice as many guns in America as there were just decades ago. And a primary reason people acquire them is because they believe they need them to protect themselves and their families, and they no longer trust the government to protect them.

They view the demand for banning and confiscating specific weapons as a first step down the inexorable road that ends in the disarmament of the people.

Most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, where crazed men of murderous intent know their chances of maximizing the dead and wounded are far better than in attacking a police station.

Our embassies are defended by Marines with M16s. Security guards with guns defend banks and military bases, presidents and politicians.

The best way to protect kids in schools may be to protect schools, and run down and incarcerate the known criminals and crazies who are the primary threats.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Gun Control, Guns, Mass Shootings 
Hide 109 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. And who will barge into America’s homes to seize and collect the rifles?

    Maybe teachers c0uld be given the job? Or how about seizing them at the factories where they are made, or where they are imported, or in gun stores? How about strangling the supplies of high velocity ammunition.? How about strangling the supplies of rapid-fire magazines for these weapons?

    Is the United States really like the tribal territories bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the gun rules and central government can only operate through proxy local rulers?

  2. Step #1: common-sense gun control. Step #2: common-sense Kulak control.

    • Agree: fish
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  3. Schools, like banks, only grow more toxic as they get larger. We don’t need gun control, we need school control. Break the damned things up to better fit their local communities. In fact, in the era of cyber-everything, why can’t we just ban schools? It would be easier than rounding up the guns.

    As for banning guns, look at the gun-free zone called the UK: Every day you get headlines about knife attacks, machete attacks, acid attacks, hammer attacks, etc. ad nauseun. The inanimate objects aren’t the problem; it’s the people who seem to be the problem.

  4. Renoman says:

    If Donald Trump got rid of the automatics and hand guns he would be hailed as the greatest President that ever lived. The vast majority of the population have had enough of the NRA and their retarded agenda, it’s nothing more than pure unadulterated corruption. Time for the politicians to grow a set and be leaders for a change.

  5. Randal says:

    In days gone by, a massacre of students like the atrocity at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School would have brought us together.

    But like so many atrocities before it, this mass murder is tearing us apart.

    It should never be forgotten that the reason these incidents tear society apart is that experience has demonstrated that people who want increased gun control will invariably seek to exploit any such event to push forward their political agenda, and as experience in other countries has shown, if they are not resisted they will succeed in winning by sentimental manipulation what they cannot achieve by reasoned politics.

    The only response to this is either to surrender to it, and lose liberty in this area probably irrevocably, as happened in the UK, or to resist, which means standing your ground and making the hard arguments in the face of the crocodile tears and shroud-waving emotional manipulation of the gun grabbers, and of course of the genuine tragic loss of the relatives of the victims.

    Inevitably, that means stirring bitterness and hatred, both on the part of the victims and their honest sympathisers amongst the gun controllers and on the part of those forced into the unpleasant task of denying people who have suffered real personal loss the spurious comfort of giving “meaning” and wider significance to their loss. That’s all very human and understandable on both sides.

    But we should never forget that the blame rests with those who see every tragic crime as a political opportunity, not with those who are forced to stand against them.

  6. Pat brings Libertarian views
    To The Subject That’s Now in the News.
    No conspiracist I,
    But I think he should try
    To examine the role of the Jews.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/02/17/jews-and-jewish-organizations-lead-the-gun-control-campaign/

  7. Alfred says:

    If you wish to protect kids, start by taking on the pedosadists.

    America’s Traffic in Child Pornography

    The lady being interviewed wrote this book:

    Epidemic: America’s Trade in Child Rape

    Don’t listen if you are the sensitive type. It might spoil your day.

  8. @Renoman

    The Founders could easily see
    We could not be the “Land of the Free”
    If Mugabe-like king
    Takes away every thing:
    No “refreshment” could be for the tree.

    tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100

  9. The “sick and evil 19 year old” is simply the patsy set up in the Florida event, the latest in a long line of staged deep-state operations. Buchanan is clueless on this point, just as he is with 9/11. There is no hope for us unless large numbers of people start waking up to this.

  10. @Renoman

    Every time I see a libtard use “The vast majority of the population….” in a sentence I have to laugh. Every time that theory has been put to the test, it fails miserably.

    The only retarded agendas is trusting government to protect anyone. Politicians are growing up. The problem is it isn’t the Dimocrat politicians that are doing so.

  11. KenH says:

    But passion is not a substitute for thought.

    That’s gold right there. And I’ll add raw emotion. The left only offers ideology and talking points but never thought.

    The NRA was not responsible for the system-wide failure from Douglas High to the FBI.

    Before the (((left))) and nervous Nellie Republicans start blaming the NRA and the second amendment and call for East Germany like gun laws it would be wise to find out exactly what went wrong at the local level and with the FBI. This is at least the third or fourth time the FBI has allowed a mass shooter to slip through their fingers. Gun owners shouldn’t be punished while the local, state and federal authorities get to ride off into the sunset like always.

    The left wants to repeal the second amendment by subjecting it to the death by a thousand cuts strategy which is how the Brits lost their right to possess firearms. After a few dozen or so “common sense” gun laws are enacted the second amendment will have been rendered meaningless just like NSA spying has rendered fourth amendment protections against warrantless searches meaningless.

    The other thing I find strange is that this occurred just as the “Russian collusion” investigation was imploding. So now it’s time to distract and manipulate the goyim with stories of gun violence and push for (((sensible))) gun laws.

    Just another example of Jews snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.

  12. fish says:
    @KenH

    The other thing I find strange is that this occurred just as the “Russian collusion” investigation was imploding. So now it’s time to distract and manipulate the goyim with stories of gun violence and push for (((sensible))) gun laws.

    …..which is still imploding but now imploding along with the “gun narrative” with revelations of CNN Townhall manipulation, government incompetence and law enforcement cowardice!

  13. The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues i not that these issues are so complex, but that the people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer – and they don’t want explanations that fail to give them that.

    Thomas Sowell

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  14. @KenH

    Now that we know that the FBI is a party to a conspiracy to undermine the democratic process in our country on behalf of those who bought and paid for Clintons, Obamas et al, it’s not a stretch to view their complacence in the matter of acting on the knowledge they had of the shooter as being part of a greater Leninist plan to push the gun debate to intolerable limits by allowing the murder of innocents.

  15. Rurik says:

    “The government can’t keep you safe and some people want us to give up our firearms and rely solely upon the protection of the same government that’s already failed us numerous times to keep us safe.”

    it isn’t a fear of the government not being able to keep us safe, rather the real reason for the Second Amendment is because of the very nature of government, and our need to be kept safe *from* it.

    there are gobs of these videos out there, where cops shoot defenseless citizens willy-nilly, and these anti-gun imbeciles actually believe that we’ll all be safe when only the uniformed thugs (and criminals) are armed.

    Vicky Weaver (an innocent and harmless citizen) was shot by a ZUS government sniper while standing in her cabin door, holding her baby in her arms, and the murderer was never charged with a crime.

    Millions of innocent men, women and children the world over have been murdered and maimed and had their villages and even nations destroyed by the ZUS government thug- because Israel didn’t like them.

    How well do Americans think they’ll fare when those ZUA, uniformed Zionist goons decide that Israel has no use for right-of-center (white supremacist) Americans?

    just watch how giggly ((Bill Maher and his guest)) are over the murder of a 12 year old boy. Shot in the back by a ZUS government thug. And they can’t stop laughing…

    the last thing I’m worried about is the fecal government keeping us safe. What a joke.

    If anyone is stupid enough to think that it is only Iraqi (or Afghan or Syrian or right-wing American) men standing around in their towns associating – that could be in danger from the ZUS uniformed thugs, they’ve got a lot to learn about government

    they could just as easily be American patriot and citizen LaVoy Finicum, also shot in cold blood for being inconvenient to the zio-regime. And if the zio-regime is ever able to express its will over the American landscape unencumbered by gun-owning citizens, then it won’t be AR-15s that we’ll wish we had access to, but rather shoulder-launched munitions that could take out the helicopter gunships raining bullets down upon American patriots and their families just as casually as they blasted away at those unarmed Iraqi men.

    The guns aren’t to protect us from psychos like Cruz, (even if they’re vital in that role as well), but more importantly they’re to protect us all from the Cackling Hag, and the eternal bloodlust for raw power that Hillary/government represents.

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
  16. Pat, Giuseppe Zangara killed a member of the political class while trying to kill the chief member of the political class. Of course he was summarily executed. Your comparison is like comparing apples to elephants.

    The title makes it sound as though there are only two possible choices in how to deal with this kind of thing.

    “Many of the guns confiscated by police are in the possession of thugs, criminals and ex-cons who have no legal right to own them.”

    …And all the rest are in the possession of non-thugs, non-criminals, and people with no criminal record. How about explaining why police should be seizing guns from anybody?

    “The best way to protect kids in schools may be to protect schools, and run down and incarcerate the known criminals and crazies who are the primary threats.”

    Why not protect the schools, period, instead of running down anybody who isn’t already being sought for committing a crime? That way, when somebody like Cruz shows up at a school, he doesn’t get on the grounds at all and is arrested for trying to gain entry.

    You don’t have any answers, Pat. It looks as though you ain’t all that clear on what the questions are, either.

  17. @Hanoi Paris Hilton

    I’m exercising commonsense troll control on your ravings right now.

  18. peterAUS says:
    @Rhett Hardwick

    Nice quote.

    Happens to me all the time.

    Goes like this:
    “Have you heard about this/that?
    “Yeah”.
    “You know……”.
    I keep quiet. They cant’ have it. “What do you think?”.
    I start with simple facts and very short sentences. After three of those you can just see them losing interest.
    All…..the….time…..

    I really believe it’s psychological. It’s in DNA of a person.
    No amount of reasoning can help there and make any difference. None.

    People who want to preserve their right to bear arms should really understand that.
    There ARE two different species of humans when that subject is concerned.

    The specie that does want to retain the right to bear arms must organize and have a will to get into HARD confrontation.
    Time to keep nice is passing fast.

    I suspect that demographics will decide here. Which specie has more numbers.

    Simple as that.

  19. anarchyst says:
    @The Alarmist

    For those who insist that “other countries” have found solutions to violence problems, here’s one for you. Great Britain likes to lecture us Americans on our supposed “gun violence” problem. For one, a gun is an inanimate object which REQUIRES ACTION by a HUMAN BEING in order to operate as intended…Take away the murder rate involving firearms in Americas urban areas (cities), and we are at the bottom as far as firearms misuse is concerned.
    In Great Britain, there have been many cases of home invasions (which are common because of a disarmed populace) where the home dweller was prosecuted to a much greater degree than the actual intruder, as the “crown” (state prosecutor) made the determination that the home dweller used “too much force” against the intruder. There are many cases where the home dweller received a much harsher sentence than the intruder. That, my friends is British “justice”…

  20. anarchyst says:
    @The Alarmist

    We protect our money with people with guns
    We protect our politicians and celebrities with people with guns
    We protect government facilities and other valuable facilities with people with guns
    We protect our children with signs and gun-free zones

    What’s wrong with this picture?

    • Replies: @Rurik
    , @The Alarmist
  21. @Rurik

    No defense from the State? Not for me!
    I will stick to my guns, as did Lee.
    All things go awry.
    Though innocents die,
    Pay the butcher’s bill, Sirs, and stay free.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  22. Rurik says:
    @anarchyst

    Hey Anarchyst,

    here’s some memes to that effect

    • Replies: @Johnny Smoggins
  23. @anarchyst

    I saw this from Paul Nehlan (@Nick_732) on Twitter …

    Conservatives who conserve nothing
    Labour Party who hate the British working classes
    Liberal Democrats who’re neither liberal nor democratic
    UKIP whose reason for being no longer exists
    Green Party who’re little more than Reds

    The utter farcical state of UK politics

    • Replies: @Randal
  24. Randal says:
    @The Alarmist

    And speaking as a Brit, it’s pretty much on the bullseye.

  25. @Jonathan Mason

    This is what Americans think of your gun confiscations ideas:

    The American Revolution against British Gun Control

    By David B. Kopel*

    [MORE]

    Administrative and Regulatory Law News (American Bar Association). Vol. 37, no. 4, Summer 2012. More by Kopel on the right to arms in the Founding Era.

    This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

    Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.” A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

    The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

    Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.

    Modern “smokeless” gunpowder is stable under most conditions. The “black powder” of the 18th Century was far more volatile. Accordingly, large quantities of black powder were often stored in a town’s “powder house,” typically a reinforced brick building. The powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

    Before dawn on September 1, 1774, 260 of Gage’s Redcoats sailed up the Mystic River and seized hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house.

    The “Powder Alarm,” as it became known, was a serious provocation. By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775.

    Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County assembled on the Worcester Common. Backed by the formidable array, the Worcester Convention took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention.

    That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves complained about the Powder Alarm, and then took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.

    The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.

    Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”

    When the Massachusetts Assembly convened, General Gage declared it illegal, so the representatives reassembled as the “Provincial Congress.” On October 26, 1774, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted a resolution condemning military rule, and criticizing Gage for “unlawfully seizing and retaining large quantities of ammunition in the arsenal at Boston.” The Provincial Congress urged all militia companies to organize and elect their own officers. At least a quarter of the militia (the famous Minute Men) were directed to “equip and hold themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The Provincial Congress further declared that everyone who did not already have a gun should get one, and start practicing with it diligently.

    In flagrant defiance of royal authority, the Provincial Congress appointed a Committee of Safety and vested it with the power to call forth the militia. The militia of Massachusetts was now the instrument of what was becoming an independent government of Massachusetts.

    Lord Dartmouth, the Royal Secretary of State for America, sent Gage a letter on October 17, 1774, urging him to disarm New England. Gage replied that he would like to do so, but it was impossible without the use of force. After Gage’s letter was made public by a reading in the British House of Commons, it was publicized in America as proof of Britain’s malign intentions.

    Two days after Lord Dartmouth dispatched his disarmament recommendation, King George III and his ministers blocked importation of arms and ammunition to America. Read literally, the order merely required a permit to export arms or ammunition from Great Britain to America. In practice, no permits were granted.

    Meanwhile, Benjamin Franklin was masterminding the surreptitious import of arms and ammunition from the Netherlands, France, and Spain.

    The patriotic Boston Committee of Correspondence learned of the arms embargo and promptly dispatched Paul Revere to New Hampshire, with the warning that two British ships were headed to Fort William and Mary, near Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to seize firearms, cannons, and gunpowder. On December 14, 1774, 400 New Hampshire patriots preemptively captured all the material at the fort. A New Hampshire newspaper argued that the capture was prudent and proper, reminding readers that the ancient Carthaginians had consented to “deliver up all their Arms to the Romans” and were decimated by the Romans soon after.

    In Parliament, a moderate minority favored conciliation with America. Among the moderates was the Duke of Manchester, who warned that America now had three million people, and most of them were trained to use arms. He was certain they could produce a stronger army than Great Britain.

    The Massachusetts Provincial Congress offered to purchase as many arms and bayonets as could be delivered to the next session of the Congress. Massachusetts also urged American gunsmiths “diligently to apply themselves” to making guns for everyone who did not already have a gun. A few weeks earlier, the Congress had resolved: “That it be strongly recommended, to all the inhabitants of this colony, to be diligently attentive to learning the use of arms . . . .”

    Derived from political and legal philosophers such as John Locke, Hugo Grotius, and Edward Coke, the ideology underlying all forms of American resistance was explicitly premised on the right of self-defense of all inalienable rights; from the self-defense foundation was constructed a political theory in which the people were the masters and government the servant, so that the people have the right to remove a disobedient servant.

    The British government was not, in a purely formal sense, attempting to abolish the Americans’ common law right of self-defense. Yet in practice, that was precisely what the British were attempting. First, by disarming the Americans, the British were attempting to make the practical exercise of the right of personal self-defense much more difficult. Second, and more fundamentally, the Americans made no distinction between self-defense against a lone criminal or against a criminal government. To the Americans, and to their British Whig ancestors, the right of self-defense necessarily implied the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.

    The troubles in New England inflamed the other colonies. Patrick Henry’s great speech to the Virginia legislature on March 23, 1775, argued that the British plainly meant to subjugate America by force. Because every attempt by the Americans at peaceful reconciliation had been rebuffed, the only remaining alternatives for the Americans were to accept slavery or to take up arms. If the Americans did not act soon, the British would soon disarm them, and all hope would be lost. “The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us,” he promised.

    The Convention formed a committee–including Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson–”to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming, and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient” to defend the commonwealth. The Convention urged “that every Man be provided with a good Rifle” and “that every Horseman be provided . . . with Pistols and Holsters, a Carbine, or other Firelock.” When the Virginia militiamen assembled a few weeks later, many wore canvas hunting shirts adorned with the motto “Liberty or Death.”

    In South Carolina, patriots established a government, headed by the “General Committee.” The Committee described the British arms embargo as a plot to disarm the Americans in order to enslave them. Thus, the Committee recommended that “all persons” should “immediately” provide themselves with a large quantity of ammunition.

    Without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors. In Virginia, George Washington and George Mason organized the Fairfax Independent Militia Company. The Fairfax militiamen pledged that “we will, each of us, constantly keep by us” a firelock, six pounds of gunpowder, and twenty pounds of lead. Other independent militia embodied in Virginia along the same model. Independent militia also formed in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maryland, and South Carolina, choosing their own officers.

    John Adams praised the newly constituted Massachusetts militia, “commanded through the province, not by men who procured their commissions from a governor as a reward for making themselves pimps to his tools.”

    The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.

    The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18.

    At dawn, the British confronted about 200 militiamen at Lexington. “Disperse you Rebels–Damn you, throw down your Arms and disperse!” ordered Major Pitcairn. The Americans were quickly routed.

    With a “huzzah” of victory, the Redcoats marched on to Concord, where one of Gage’s spies had told him that the largest Patriot reserve of gunpowder was stored. At Concord’s North Bridge, the town militia met with some of the British force, and after a battle of two or three minutes, drove off the British.

    Notwithstanding the setback at the bridge, the Redcoats had sufficient force to search the town for arms and ammunition. But the main powder stores at Concord had been hauled to safety before the Redcoats arrived.

    When the British began to withdraw back to Boston, things got much worse for them. Armed Americans were swarming in from nearby towns. They would soon outnumber the British 2:1. Although some of the Americans cohered in militia units, a great many fought on their own, taking sniper positions wherever opportunity presented itself. Only British reinforcements dispatched from Boston saved the British expedition from annihilation–and the fact that the Americans started running out of ammunition and gun powder.

    One British officer reported: “These fellows were generally good marksmen, and many of them used long guns made for Duck-Shooting.” On a per-shot basis, the Americans inflicted higher casualties than had the British regulars.

    That night, the American militiamen began laying siege to Boston, where General Gage’s standing army was located. At dawn, Boston had been the base from which the King’s army could project force into New England. Now, it was trapped in the city, surrounded by people in arms.

    Two days later in Virginia, royal authorities confiscated 20 barrels of gunpowder from the public magazine in Williamsburg and destroyed the public firearms there by removing their firing mechanisms. In response to complaints, manifested most visibly by the mustering of a large independent militia led by Patrick Henry, Governor Dunmore delivered a legal note promising to pay restitution.

    At Lexington and Concord, forcible disarmament had not worked out for the British. So back in Boston, Gage set out to disarm the Bostonians a different way.

    On April 23, 1775, Gage offered the Bostonians the opportunity to leave town if they surrendered their arms. The Boston Selectmen voted to accept the offer, and within days, 2,674 guns were deposited, one gun for every two adult male Bostonians.

    Gage thought that many Bostonians still had guns, and he refused to allow the Bostonians to leave. Indeed, a large proportion of the surrendered guns were “training arms”–large muskets with bayonets, that would be difficult to hide. After several months, food shortages in Boston convinced Gage to allow easier emigration from the city.

    Gage’s disarmament program incited other Americans to take up arms. Benjamin Franklin, returning to Philadelphia after an unsuccessful diplomatic trip to London, “was highly pleased to find the Americans arming and preparing for the worst events.”

    The government in London dispatched more troops and three more generals to America: William Howe, Henry Clinton, and John Burgoyne. The generals arrived on May 25, 1775, with orders from Lord Dartmouth to seize all arms in public armories, or which had been “secretly collected together for the purpose of aiding Rebellions.”

    The war underway, the Americans captured Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York. At the June 17 Battle of Bunker Hill, the militia held its ground against the British regulars and inflicted heavy casualties, until they ran out of gunpowder and were finally driven back. (Had Gage not confiscated the gunpowder from the Charleston Powder House the previous September, the Battle of Bunker Hill probably would have resulted in an outright defeat of the British.)

    On June 19, Gage renewed his demand that the Bostonians surrender their arms, and he declared that anyone found in possession of arms would be deemed guilty of treason.

    Meanwhile, the Continental Congress had voted to send ten companies of riflemen from Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia to aid the Massachusetts militia.

    On July 6, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, written by Thomas Jefferson and the great Pennsylvania lawyer John Dickinson. Among the grievances were General Gage’s efforts to disarm the people of Lexington, Concord, and Boston.

    Two days later, the Continental Congress sent an open letter to the people of Great Britain warning that “men trained to arms from their Infancy, and animated by the Love of Liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.”

    The Swiss immigrant John Zubly, who was serving as a Georgia delegate to the Continental Congress, wrote a pamphlet entitled Great Britain’s Right to Tax . . . By a Swiss, which was published in London and Philadelphia. He warned that “in a strong sense of liberty, and the use of fire-arms almost from the cradle, the Americans have vastly the advantage over men of their rank almost every where else.” Indeed, children were “shouldering the resemblance of a gun before they are well able to walk.” “The Americans will fight like men, who have everything at stake,” and their motto was “DEATH OR FREEDOM.” The town of Gorham, Massachusetts (now part of the State of Maine), sent the British government a warning that even “many of our Women have been used to handle the Cartridge and load the Musquet.”

    It was feared that the Massachusetts gun confiscation was the prototype for the rest of America. For example, a newspaper article published in three colonies reported that when the new British generals arrived, they would order everyone in America “to deliver up their arms by a certain stipulated day.”

    The events of April 19 convinced many more Americans to arm themselves and to embody independent militia. A report from New York City observed that “the inhabitants there are arming themselves . . . forming companies, and taking every method to defend our rights. The like spirit prevails in the province of New Jersey, where a large and well disciplined militia are now fit for action.”

    In Virginia, Lord Dunmore observed: “Every County is now Arming a Company of men whom they call an independent Company for the avowed purpose of protecting their Committee, and to be employed against Government if occasion require.” North Carolina’s Royal Governor Josiah Martin issued a proclamation outlawing independent militia, but it had little effect.

    A Virginia gentleman wrote a letter to a Scottish friend explaining in America:

    We are all in arms, exercising and training old and young to the use of the gun. No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols. . . . Every plain is full of armed men, who all wear a hunting shirt, on the left breast of which are sewed, in very legible letters, “Liberty or Death.”

    The British escalated the war. Royal Admiral Samuel Graves ordered that all seaports north of Boston be burned.

    When the British navy showed up at what was then known as Falmouth, Massachusetts (today’s Portland, Maine), the town attempted to negotiate. The townspeople gave up eight muskets, which was hardly sufficient, and so Falmouth was destroyed by naval bombardment.

    The next year, the 13 Colonies would adopt the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration listed the tyrannical acts of King George III, including his methods for carrying out gun control: “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our people.”

    As the war went on, the British always remembered that without gun control, they could never control America. In 1777, with British victory seeming likely, Colonial Undersecretary William Knox drafted a plan entitled “What Is Fit to Be Done with America?” To ensure that there would be no future rebellions, “[t]he Militia Laws should be repealed and none suffered to be re-enacted, & the Arms of all the People should be taken away, . . . nor should any Foundery or manufactuary of Arms, Gunpowder, or Warlike Stores, be ever suffered in America, nor should any Gunpowder, Lead, Arms or Ordnance be imported into it without Licence . . . .”

    To the Americans of the Revolution and the Founding Era, the theory of some late-20th Century courts that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” and not an “individual right” might have seemed incomprehensible. The Americans owned guns individually, in their homes. They owned guns collectively, in their town armories and powder houses. They would not allow the British to confiscate their individual arms, nor their collective arms; and when the British tried to do both, the Revolution began. The Americans used their individual arms and their collective arms to fight against the confiscation of any arms. Americans fought to provide themselves a government that would never perpetrate the abuses that had provoked the Revolution.

    What are modern versions of such abuses? The reaction against the 1774 import ban for firearms and gunpowder (via a discretionary licensing law) indicates that import restrictions are unconstitutional if their purpose is to make it more difficult for Americans to possess guns. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits the import of any firearm that is not deemed “sporting” by federal regulators. That import ban seems difficult to justify based on the historical record of 1774-76.

    Laws disarming people who have proven themselves to be a particular threat to public safety are not implicated by the 1774-76 experience. In contrast, laws that aim to disarm the public at large are precisely what turned a political argument into the American Revolution.

    The most important lesson for today from the Revolution is about militaristic or violent search and seizure in the name of disarmament. As Hurricane Katrina bore down on Louisiana, police officers in St. Charles Parish confiscated firearms from people who were attempting to flee. After the hurricane passed, officers went house to house in New Orleans, breaking into homes and confiscating firearms at gunpoint. The firearms seizures were flagrantly illegal under existing state law. A federal district judge soon issued an order against the confiscation, ordering the return of the seized guns.

    When there is genuine evidence of potential danger–such as evidence that guns are in the possession of a violent gang–then the Fourth Amendment properly allows no-knock raids, flash-bang grenades, and similar violent tactics to carry out a search. Conversely, if there is no real evidence of danger–for example, if it is believed that a person who has no record of violence owns guns but has not registered them properly–then militaristically violent enforcement of a search warrant should never be allowed. Gun ownership simpliciter ought never to be a pretext for government violence. The Americans in 1775 fought a war because the king did not agree.

    * Research Director, Independence Institute, and Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. This is article is adapted from How theBritish Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution, 6 Charleston L. Rev. 283 (2012), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1967702.

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html

  26. @The Alarmist

    We also need lunatic control. In a healthy society, an obviously-dangerous defectoid like Dejesus Cruz would be locked in an asylum where he can’t threaten the rest of us. It’s not hard to spot freaks like him, and the Newton shooter, and CO theatre shooter — basic physiognomy tells the tale.

    But we’re obviously not serious about preventing these entirely predictable mass shootings, since we allow these two-legged weapons to walk freely among us.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  27. @KenH

    It’s almost like a confluence of MOCKINGBIRD and MKULTRA…

  28. @KenH

    Ken, are you counting the FBI connection to the Columbine killers?

    http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0513b.htm

    Things that make ya go “Hmmm…”

    • Replies: @KenH
  29. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    We need to address the issue of soul-murdering. A person can be bodily alive but dead in soul. And our rap, gore, slut, skank, filth, degenerate culture murders souls of children in cradle. And feminism & male infantilism destroyed the family. Soul-murderers must be addressed.

    Because we live in an amoral and anti-spiritual age, we focus only on physical life.

    But as the likes of Ted Bundy and OJ Simpson proved, a person can be alive in body but utterly dead in soul.

    Murdering souls is, in some ways, worse than murdering bodies. Soul-dead people are worse than animals because humans must be more than animals. We can’t fault animals for being animals but when humans have souls of animals or zombies, it’s truly demented. And soul-dead people can easily turn into sadists or murderers. In Deep State, they stop at nothing to destroy nations. They will even hire Nazis in Ukraine and ISIS in Syria. Sick people. Or, if they’re losers, they will to fix all problems by shooting innocent people in schools.When Obama destroyed Libya and just called it a ‘mistake’, what a dead soul. When the likes of Nuland use nazis to pull a coup in Ukraine and then blame Russia, what a dead ugly soul. If Trump starts some BS war with Iran, he will be just another soul-dead punk.

    Our pop culture, feminist hatred, imperialist warmongering mindset, profit uber alles, wanton hedonism, and shamelessness have had a soul-murdering impact on so many children who grow up numb, drugged, or dazed.

    It is the elites who murder souls.

    I believe in gun rights, but a gun is only as good as people who have them. If more and more Americans are soul-murdered creatures, then they will use guns in the most monstrous way.

    So, if we want a society with gun rights, we need a society of people with souls. We need to stand up against the forces that murder souls through excessive violence, degeneracy, sadism, nihilism, and etc. Southpark, Tarantino movies, violent videogames, culture of narcissism, sexual degeneracy, worship of homos and trannies, and neo-militarist jingoism all add to the soul-murdering of America.

    Save souls and save gun rights. We need to lock and load with MORAL AMMO against the scumbags of Hollywood, music industry, videogame industry, fashion industry, degenerate kiddie entertainment, and etc that are all meant to destroy souls with lies, filth, cynicism, radicalism, and decadence.

  30. @Randal

    “In days gone by” there were no mass school shootings.

    “In days gone by” the very idea of armed, commissioned “SRO” police officers stationed permanently in our schools would have been both repugnant and laughable.

    What changed and who changed it? Cui bono?

  31. @Jonathan Mason

    How about seizing some of the imports into Florida that should have been stopped from arriving from (formerly) Great Britain?

  32. @Randal

    … making the hard arguments in the face of the crocodile tears and shroud-waving emotional manipulation of the gun grabbers, and of course of the genuine tragic loss of the relatives of the victims.

    Yep, that is the hard part, and a consequence of the women’s right to vote, allowed very stupidity by Americans a century or so ago. Per Peak Stupidity, a few months back, in a post about that S. Texas church shooting, there is a big difference between how men and women deal with tragedies.

    What made me write the post in that link was seeing a headline on Drudge about “1 family member left out of 8″ (to paraphrase) that would be so terrible to be a involved with. The thing is, I’m not the one clicking on the headline, because more tears on my end ain’t gonna solve any problems. Those stories are for the women, who dwell on emotion.

    It takes hard reasoning to not just try to prevent another happening like these, but to look at the big picture and not destroy your country in the process. Women cannot do this kind of thinking.

    (No, I am not the premature reincarnation of Whiskey. Why do you ask?)

  33. @Eustace Tilley (not)

    Nobody does limericks (NOT) like Eustace Tilley! You are on a roll today.

  34. @SteveRogers42

    Truth is, they’ll never do anything to stop school shootings until they have succeeded in repealing the 2A and grabbing all the guns. They’ll just pile on more guards and security for themselves in the meantime.

  35. @David Bauer

    What do you make of this? A witness claims to have been talking to the alleged shooter while the shooting was actually occurring. Another claims there were at least two shooters, one at each entrance/exit at the school.

    https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/02/another-false-flag-shooting.html

  36. @Anon

    Thanks for the sermon, Anon.
    Let me say both “Amen!” and “Right on!”
    Seek the Kingdom within,
    Mighty Fortress from sin.
    Graham crackers won’t swallow the con.

  37. @Rurik

    Rurik, how do you post memes here?

    • Replies: @Rurik
  38. Zeppo says:

    Americans have guns to protect themselves from Americans who have guns.

  39. KenH says:
    @SteveRogers42

    Seems like just a coincidence but there are some similarities with the trench coat wearing student and the firefight although nobody got hurt in the video by the FBI agent’s son.

  40. Rurik says:
    @Johnny Smoggins

    how do you post memes

    copy the url and then paste it to the body of your coment

    they don’t always work for me depending on the URL, but if you allow cookies and such, you should be able to edit the comment once you’ve published it and make necessary changes.

  41. @Anon

    And Wayne LaPierre strikes you as a man with a soul? This is why I choose nihilism over the juvenile, ersatz garbage coming from both sides of the political spectrum. I agree on the soul-loss of modern Man but there is no ‘road to recovery’ from it, and yes, any attempt at recovery will be worse than the decadence itself. Our species has had its day and within a couple centuries will be replaced with something else. We were a bridge from one place to another. We had Shakespeare, Bach. We should be grateful.

    • Replies: @Anon
  42. This saved from the Memory Hole:
    The truth of the media’s role
    In coaching child actors
    With blood by Max Factor’s
    (And we’re still not too sure of the toll).

    https://steemit.com/news/@clarityofsignal/extensive-post-reveals-anomalies-and-child-actors-involved-with-parkland-school-shooting-in-florida-on-february-14-2018

  43. And Wayne LaPierre strikes you as a man with a soul?

    This is it, isn’t it?

    LaPierre could just a be a silly old man and a history buff who wants to preserve an old American tradition and present arguments in favor of maintaining the status quo, but in fact he spews right-wing extremist nonsense and he fails to see that he is arguing in favor of no restrictions on arming lunatics so that they can go out and kill and maim schoolchildren.

    This not a mature, erudite person making reasoned arguments on how to move forward for the benefit of all.

    There seems to be no information about whether he has children or grandchildren of his own, how old, and so on. Perhaps next time he appears in public someone could think to ask him.

  44. “This not a mature, erudite person making reasoned arguments on how to move forward for the benefit of all. ”

    Translation: “If you can only see how morally superior I am compared to your atavistic American thinking, you would see that surrender on my terms is to the benefit of all. Trust me.”

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    , @peterAUS
  45. @Jonathan Mason

    I’m just wondering if you happen to know how many defensive uses of guns occur in America each year. You must keep in mind when reading stats on this is that anything from reports are going to be low. Lots of people who may have brandished a pistol, or even taken a missed shot that got three thugs running like hell are 99% likely to NOT report it.

    Have you thought that many people with young children are much more safe having guns in the house to protect themselves than they would be otherwise? Yes, kids of mine have common sense and have never touched the gun (till they get to be at least 12). What about single women? You say we’d be better off with no guns, but women are going to get the bad end of any violence in that case. It would take a gun to have any chance against a violent man with any weapon or not.

    Possibly Wayne LePierre thinks of these things. Maybe not, I dunno, he’s only been involved in the NRA for a decade or two or three – I’m gonna guess “YES”. You haven’t and that’s OK, as there are men around that have to think logically to keep the world from falling apart.

    BTW, none of this has to do anything with the purpose of Amendment II. It’s just a bonus not available to your old country that you badmouth so much.

  46. @Jonathan Mason

    Were a man irretrievably mad
    With a soul irredeemably bad
    Given power divine
    By the Synod of Swine,
    Would a Mason perceive he’d been had?

  47. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @blank-misgivings

    He has a HARD soul on the issue of gun rights. He could be more flexible, but he’s up against people who push for control to eventually ban guns.

    It would be nice IF we could have more sane gun control, but the polarization isn’t only from the gun lobby but from the anti-gun lobby whose aim to eventually to ban guns, especially assault rifles.

    The fact that the anti-gun people focus more on assault rifles than handguns(that do most of the killing) give the game away.

    The Jewish elites who rule America fear guns mainly because it means assault rifles in gentile hands. If there was to be tyranny, people with assault rifles can cause lots of trouble, like the Viet Cong. People armed with only handguns are useless.

    Given handguns kill most people, you’d think the main agenda among anti-gun people would be handguns. But the main issue is about assault rifles. Why do they fear rifles more? It has more political power in resisting centralized tyranny.

    If the US government sends goons to a community where people only have handguns, the resistance won’t go far. But if everyone has an assault weapon, it can get hairy.

    Anyway, Lapierre isn’t the one spreading the kind of culture that destroys souls. He may come across as dead-souled because his hard position on guns makes him seem uncaring. But given the radical agenda of the anti-gun people whose ultimate goal is to end the Second Amendment, the NRA feels it must fight fire with fire.

    What the pro-gun people really need to do is accuse the other side for destroying souls with degenerate culture. The problem is not good Americans with guns. The problem is soul-dead Americans with guns. With a culture that degrades and sickens souls, the US increasingly has too many monsters with guns. That IS troubling.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  48. El Dato says:
    @David Bauer

    I think this highly unlikely.

    Everytime something happens, it’s a “conspiracy”. Tiresome.

    It’s like the car is already rolling downhill, then someone conspires to engineer a crazy complex scheme to push it downhill some more? If that guy were so competent, he would be having a smoke under the shady trees watching the car go by, fully knowing that he needs to do … nothing at all.

    Then the vast and complex conspiracy theory collapses as one swift look a bit further than the headlines shows a swamp of incompetence, dysfunction and sheer politicicking (same as with 9/11, really – and remember the REAL conspiracy was the Anthrax, without which history might have taken another turn. Now, where did that story go?)

    This case is as clearcut as possible, given that there will always be crazies coming out of the bushes claiming this and that.

    • Replies: @David Bauer
  49. @Joe Stalin

    Translation: “If you can only see how morally superior I am compared to your atavistic American thinking, you would see that surrender on my terms is to the benefit of all. Trust me.”

    Translation: As head of the NRA LaPierre is in a privileged position where people, including politicians, will listen to what he has to say and give him free media. Instead of using his position to form relationships with criminologists, law enforcement agencies and specialists, governors, legislators , educators, and parents, he uses the bully pulpit to spout tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

    For example about wanting to abolish the Second Amendment. Personally I do not think the Second Amenment, which deals with making sure that state militias have access to weapons is particularly relevevant to issues related to citizens having weapons that they use for sport, hunting, or defending themselves in their homes, but also I do not think that the founding fathers intended to facilitate lunatics buying high powered weapons and ammunition that they can use to kill and maim schoolchildren. Well, maybe they did, but I suspect not. In my view Childrens Lives Matter.

    Now Mr. LaPierre is so paranoid and secretive that it is not even publicly known whether he has children or grandchildren, so we do not know if he has skin in the game.

    I do, I have two daughters aged 5 and 9 and I do not want people coming into their schools with high-powered rifles to destroy their bodies. (Some people say that these rifles like the AR-15 are not really high powered rifles, more like toys, but all I can say is if you can look at the damage that they cause to children’s bodies. In the US the media routinely censor such photographs, but you can probably find them if you wish, possibly by looking at overseas Web sites.)

    Now, I do not care about the Second Amendment, and as far as I am concerned militias can keep their guns, but if abolishing the Second Amendment is necessary to get rid of people like Wayne LaPierre, or to reduce their influence on national debate, then I am all for it.

    Bottom line, there is no need to repeal the Second Amendment, but if that is the only way to ban easy access to high powered rifles designed or adapted to kill humans, then let it be.

    I was reading today about a case in Chicago where a known criminal bought a gun in a gunshop that he later used to shoot police officers. He took along with him a mentally retarded relative who had no criminal record to fill out the papers and nominally buy the gun for the criminal.

    When filling out the papers, the relative answered they question “Are you buying this gun for your own use, yes or no, as “No”. The gun store employee then directed him to change the answer to “Yes”.

    Gun store employees who facilitate the illegal purchase of weapons by criminals should be subject to the death penalty or life in prison, not a slap on the wrist.

    • Disagree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @anarchyst
  50. anarchyst says:
    @Anon

    The term “assault rifle” is a derogatory term used by the left to demonize ALL firearms–not just “scary-looking black modern-day rifles”. We have allowed the left to dictate the terms, which are not only confusing and ambiguous to most non-firearms owning people, but have done much to achieve their goal of demonizing firearms owners.
    A case in point:
    The AR-15 style rifle (AR meaning Armalite–not “assault rifle) is a medium power rifle firing a .22 caliber projectile in semi-automatic operation
    The Ruger Mini 14 is an identical operating rifle using the same caliber as the AR-15, but comes with a wooden stock and none of the “scary black rifle” features.
    Magazine capacity is the same for both rifles. Lethality is equal for both rifles.
    The anti-gun crowd wants them all; they don’t care if they get a few at a time…creeping incrementalism at its worst.
    Good examples of this are their past and current arguments, criticizing all aspects of firearms.
    Pistols–too small and easily concealable
    Semi-automatic rifles–”killing machines” good for only one thing “killing humans”
    AR-15 style rifles–”killing machines” only useful for” killing humans”
    Bolt action rifles–”sniper rifles, again, good for only one thing “killing humans”–”too accurate”.
    You see, they want them all and care not how they get them.
    The Second Amendment to the Constitution is the only “right” that is compromised and turned into a “privilege” by waiting periods, licensing schemes, and other infringements.

  51. anarchyst says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    “Doing it for the children” is one of the most dishonest arguments that anti-self protection people use to demonize defensive uses of firearms.

  52. DOG says:

    Perhaps if the Oligarchs and the rest of the 1% would quite trying to transform us into a very large plantation and shredding our social fabric and values to only benefit themselves at our constitutional expence. These tragedies would not occur

  53. “Personally I do not think the Second Amenment, which deals with making sure that state militias have access to weapons is particularly relevevant to issues related to citizens having weapons that they use for sport, hunting, or defending themselves in their homes, but also I do not think that the founding fathers intended to facilitate lunatics buying high powered weapons and ammunition that they can use to kill and maim schoolchildren. ”

    What an odd view of the Second Amendment. Who are the militia?

    10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

    Pretty clear the people constitute (2).

    What weapons should a militia be armed with? You argue that militia weapons must be inferior, that no technological progress is allowed, that the Framers of the Second Amendment could not see that advances would make the people to dangerous to themselves.

    “On April 10, 1790, President George Washington signed the bill that laid the foundation of the modern American patent system. This date marks the first time in American history that the law gave inventors rights to their creations.”

    https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/us-patent-system-celebrates-212-years

    Clearly, technological progress was foreseen by the Framers.

    In US vs. Miller it was stated:

    “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.”

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

    So, you are arguing that AR-15s are not within the purview of “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” because ” I do not think that the founding fathers intended to facilitate lunatics buying high powered weapons and ammunition that they can use to kill and maim schoolchildren.”

    (Note for gun controllers: no evidence was presented on the shotgun in question because Miller has DIED and so had no representation.)

    The US government believes that “high powered weapons and ammunition” are useful to the “well regulated militia” because there is a program where US citizens can purchase said items from them.

    http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle_sales/

    “Bottom line, there is no need to repeal the Second Amendment, but if that is the only way to ban easy access to high powered rifles designed or adapted to kill humans, then let it be.”

    We fought a Revolutionary War against the British like you, and even today, we use Redcoat targets in Project Appleseed (Revolutionary War Veterans Association – RWVA.org) semi-automatic rifle training (over 100,000 citizens trained).

    http://targets4free.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/RedcoatRevised-Resized.pdf

    “He took along with him a mentally retarded relative who had no criminal record to fill out the papers and nominally buy the gun for the criminal.”

    What a joke. In order to purchase a firearm in the People’s Republic of Illinois, your Second Amendment rights are violated for a month or more in order for you to obtain a government permit called a Firearms Owner ID card. On the application form ( http://www.channahon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Application-for-Firearm-Owners-Identification-Card-Illinois-State-Police.pdf ) under “Question 5″ it asks: “Are you mentally retarded?” So your “mentally retarded relative who had no criminal record ” committed a FELONY when he applied for the IL FOID card.

    And you want “death penalty” for the gun store employee because ““Are you buying this gun for your own use, yes or no, as “No”. The gun store employee then directed him to change the answer to “Yes”.”

    It’s illegal for a person to purchase a firearm for another person under a so-called “straw purchase,” but it’s not illegal for a person to purchase a firearm as a gift to give to another person. So the gun shop owner may have had that in mind. People buy guns as gifts all the time.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @peterAUS
  54. LaPierre is apparently an expert on education and recommends that teachers should carry guns. He is also an expert on domestic violence, and recommends, wait for it, that women should carry more guns. I guess this is called sticking to your guns, but although Mr. Lapierre may know something about guns, he clearly knows nothing about women–and you do not want to put a gun in the hands of an angry woman if you want to reduce domestic violence.

    Now if you look at who stands to profit from such violence-reduction strategies, it is clearly those who make and sell weapons and ammunition.

    Meet the British CEO of the firm behind the gun that brought tragedy to Florida

    s CEO of America’s second-largest gun manufacturer, James Debney – whose company made the assault rifle used last week to kill 17 people at a high school in Florida – makes $5.3m a year.

    As a second-amendment proselytizer, Debney, of American Outdoor Brands (formerly Smith & Wesson), has repeatedly made donations to political action committees opposing gun control in the United States.

    And as a top donor to the National Rifle Association (NRA), Debney wears a distinctive gold blazer with a crest designating his membership in the group’s elite Golden Ring of Freedom society, reserved for million-dollar backers.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/23/smith-and-wesson-gun-maker-behind-florida-ar15-james-debney

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  55. @anarchyst

    “The AR-15 style rifle (AR meaning Armalite–not “assault rifle) is a medium power rifle firing a .22 caliber projectile in semi-automatic operation
    The Ruger Mini 14 is an identical operating rifle using the same caliber as the AR-15, but comes with a wooden stock and none of the “scary black rifle” features.”

    Not quite accurate. The AR design is not the same as the Ruger mini14, let alone identical. The AR action has its own designation that is referred to as an AR action: an upper and lower receiver is part of that design.

    The Ruger mini14 is a modified Garand action in semi-auto like the M1A, which is the semi-auto version of the M14. The AR platform is very different from the mini14 action. The two types do indeed also look very different though they are both chambered for the same round.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  56. @Joe Stalin

    JS, you need to reply to the post with the reply button right below the comment if you intend to direct your reply to a particular commenter. Posting from the reply form at the end of the thread makes it appear that your reply is to the OP.

  57. @anarchyst

    The AR-15 style rifle (AR meaning Armalite–not “assault rifle) is a medium power rifle firing a .22 caliber projectile in semi-automatic operation. The Ruger Mini 14 is an identical operating rifle using the same caliber as the AR-15, but comes with a wooden stock and none of the “scary black rifle” features. Magazine capacity is the same for both rifles. Lethality is equal for both rifles.
    The anti-gun crowd wants them all; they don’t care if they get a few at a time…creeping incrementalism at its worst.

    I think there is a difference between a rifle that can have a vertical front grip attached that would make it easier to hold it in front of you and wave it around while letting off shots into a crowd of people rather than one that you would have to hold against your shoulder. While the AR-15 may be ideal for if you are surrounded by a herd of angry deer, it seems more likely to me that it is designed with killing people in mind.

    Look, some of these rifles were banned before. There was no collapse of militias necessary to prevent the British from reinvading.

    All I am saying that if gun enthusiasts and their lobbyists can’t come up with some better suggestions on effective checks for keeping deadly weapons out of the hands of lunatics and psychopaths and preventing regular massacres than arming everyone, then they have no one to blame but themselves if future sales of some weapons are blocked. And if they are, the world will not come to an end. The British will not come!

    The trouble is that ownership of a weapon seems to induce a kind of insanity in many people (like Mr. Lapierre) that makes them throw all reason out of the window.

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  58. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin

    “This not a mature, erudite person making reasoned arguments on how to move forward for the benefit of all. ”

    Translation: “If you can only see how morally superior I am compared to your atavistic American thinking, you would see that surrender on my terms is to the benefit of all. Trust me.”

    Very good.
    Especially that “trust me”.

    Can anyone with a grain of common sense trust “them”?

  59. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin

    You appear to be very deep in the “2nd”, apparently.
    Haven’t read, here, better posts/comments related to the topic.

    So, a comment/observation of mine:
    I feel that you guys, in the “2nd” will lose.
    Your approach to the problem is…….weak, and I don’t say this in derogatory sense.

    You are always on defense, explaining. Wrong.
    You quote, explain, reason….wrong. You do all that work….the other side can simply choose not to understand.
    You play their game, on their terrain, by their rules. You’ll win only by miracle.

    Why do you guys do that?
    Why do you explain and try to make other side understand?
    Why don’t you force the other side to start explaining and making you understand?

    You:
    The 2nd is for protection of the citizen against abuse of The State. THAT is the argument. Nothing more, nothing else.

    The opposition, then, must provide all that reasoning, explanations, charts, blah..blah…to prove that The State will never try to harm a citizen. Or…a politician will always have interests of a common citizens first and foremost. Or…power does not corrupt.
    Make them prove that.

    Of course it’s impossible. All human history proves otherwise.

    So…how do you guys miss that?

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  60. Svigor says:

    As for the AR-15, it is the most popular rifle sold. Five million to 8 million are in circulation. Veterans since Vietnam have trained with, and many fought with, the M16, which is first cousin to the AR-15.

    More like a fraternal twin.

    Proponents should put that proposition to a vote. But a prediction: The moment it is brought up for a vote, sales of AR-15s will explode, as they have before. If the weapon is banned, as alcohol was banned in Prohibition, millions of law-abiding Americans will become law-breakers.

    I bet sales have already seen a sharp uptick. Gun-buyers pay very close attention to the talk. As soon as it starts, sales go up. The longer the talk goes on, and the more likely a vote seems, the more the sales tick up. Etc., etc., etc., until the issue is resolved.

    We hear demands that AR-15s be banned and confiscated.

    Confiscation won’t work. Leftists love saying walls don’t work, but confiscation really doesn’t work, at least, not completely. Because the gov’t doesn’t actually track weapons. They track sales, and they track CC permits, stuff like that, but they don’t track weapons. In most states, Bob can buy an AR from a gun dealer, the dealer submits the paperwork, and then the next day Bob can decide he doesn’t like his new AR and sell it to any state resident of legal age in a private sale with no paperwork. Or Bob can just buy his AR in a private sale with no paperwork in the first place.

    And who will barge into America’s homes to seize and collect the rifles?

    Whose house will they even barge into? That’s the first question.

    As for keeping guns out of the hands of crazies, It’s a good idea in theory, that the gov’t will inevitably wreck in practice. Is a person eligible to be out on the street and vote? Be free, and not incarcerated? Is he eligible to join our military and kill on gov’t orders? Then he should be eligible to buy, keep, and bear arms. If the gov’t wants to declare someone unfit to bear arms, then it should at least be forbidden from drafting or allowing him into the military, or allowing him to vote. And it should also run the risk of taking this non compis mentis on as a ward/prisoner of the state.

    They view the demand for banning and confiscating specific weapons as a first step down the inexorable road that ends in the disarmament of the people.

    The first step is a comprehensive gun registry, gov’t tracking of guns. Then it’s only 1 step away from confiscation. Preventing a gun registry forms a firewall between gov’t and confiscation.

  61. Svigor says:

    The problem with keeping guns out of the hands of crazies is you’re giving shrinks (leftists) and bureaucrats (leftists) veto power over the 2nd Amendment.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  62. Svigor says:

    If Donald Trump got rid of the automatics and hand guns he would be hailed as the greatest President that ever lived. The vast majority of the population have had enough of the NRA and their retarded agenda, it’s nothing more than pure unadulterated corruption. Time for the politicians to grow a set and be leaders for a change.

    The usual leftist projection. The majority is against gun control. That’s why it keeps losing, and losing, and losing. Mass shootings make for great Big Media circle jerks for leftists, but they are statistically non-existent as a cause of death. They’re down there with bee stings. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year in car accidents. Americans have had enough! Ban cars!

    P.S., even though you’re probably just trolling – the automatics have been “got rid of.” There are just a few thousand, grandfathered in. I don’t think there has ever been a high-profile mass shooting in the USA in which an automatic was used.

    As for handguns, haha, no way are the leftist urban dwellers going to let you take their handguns away.

  63. Cyrano says:

    I think Trump has the right idea how to protect the schools – arm the teachers. Of course, this will only work until the first teacher goes bonkers and starts shooting everybody. The solution to this would be – arm the janitors, of course.

    Because let’s face it, nobody likes the kids like the janitors. Teachers can be mean, holding grudges against blockheaded kids for underperforming. There is no such a bias among the janitors, they have a unique perspective on the students – watching them run through the corridors, making fun at each other, playing practical jokes.

    The janitors love all kids equally. Actually I would say, skip arming the teachers, go directly to arming the janitors.

  64. Svigor says:

    Before the (((left))) and nervous Nellie Republicans start blaming the NRA and the second amendment and call for East Germany like gun laws it would be wise to find out exactly what went wrong at the local level and with the FBI. This is at least the third or fourth time the FBI has allowed a mass shooter to slip through their fingers. Gun owners shouldn’t be punished while the local, state and federal authorities get to ride off into the sunset like always.

    The FBI (retired bigwig interviewed on NPR, anyway) says this kind of thing isn’t their job – that it’s state/local police’s job. Now, before you say he’s just passing the buck, consider the fact that gov’t agencies are generally not in the habit of announcing that a job isn’t theirs, unless it really isn’t theirs, because otherwise it involves (at least the risk of) loss of power for the agency. In other words, agencies defend their turf, and if it says something isn’t their turf, it’s worth entertaining the idea that it isn’t.

    NSA spying has rendered fourth amendment protections against warrantless searches meaningless.

    Nonsense, hyperbole.

    Now that we know that the FBI is a party to a conspiracy to undermine the democratic process in our country on behalf of those who bought and paid for Clintons, Obamas et al, it’s not a stretch to view their complacence in the matter of acting on the knowledge they had of the shooter as being part of a greater Leninist plan to push the gun debate to intolerable limits by allowing the murder of innocents.

    Maybe. Or maybe local cops are just fat and lazy. Or maybe it’s just really hard to balance Constitutional rights and a free society with locking up nutjobs before they go ballistic.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  65. peterAUS says:
    @Svigor

    Good comments.
    Especially

    Is a person eligible to be out on the street and vote? Be free, and not incarcerated? Is he eligible to join our military and kill on gov’t orders? Then he should be eligible to buy, keep, and bear arms. If the gov’t wants to declare someone unfit to bear arms, then it should at least be forbidden from drafting or allowing him into the military, or allowing him to vote. And it should also run the risk of taking this non compis mentis on as a ward/prisoner of the state.

    and

    As for handguns, haha, no way are the leftist urban dwellers going to let you take their handguns away.

    and

    ..maybe it’s just really hard to balance Constitutional rights and a free society with locking up nutjobs before they go ballistic.

    As for cops, well…we are entering an interesting area here.
    As “progs” are irrational about guns in general, “gun nuts” are too hard on cops in this case.

    Admit, haven’t analyzed the event in detail (timeline in particular) , but I do feel that the cops there did according to SOPs.
    I …assume….it’s: get there->assess->make a judgment (this is the hardest, of course).
    I …suspect…the judgement was “too hard for a couple of us as we are (expertise, experience..TRAINING….equipment)”->CONTAIN the threat and wait for the SWAT.
    If..if they did that, as I feel they did…well, that’s it.

    Now…how much time takes for the SWAT to get there is another matter.
    And they don’t do the “immediate drill” as I understand. Maybe some of you Americans can clarify this.
    They also assemble, organize, ASSESS. TIME…………..is ticking……
    Then, they make a judgement to “advance to contact” or whatever is acronym today (to the sound of the guns before).
    I mean, that’s another fallacy from Hollywood bullshit.
    A squad of SWATs are just light infantry maybe walking into CQB with multiple assailants waiting to move them down. All that cool “combat glide” and cool gear don’t work against a determined guy with a semiauto who knows what’s he is doing. First two guys are down by default in that case.
    Which brings back the primary issue: cop motivation to, in essence, SACRIFICE for the common good.
    Hahahaha………….the last one just cracked me up.

  66. @El Dato

    Well, sir, do you accept the mainstream explanations of the JFK assassination, 9/11, the Boston “bombing”, and the Oklahoma City bombing (see the documentary “A Noble Lie” on the latter)? If so, you and I are living in alternative realities and I doubt that any argumentation that I put forth w/r/t this latest event will change your mind. If not, then why is it “very unlikely” that the people that engineered those events would stage this one and set up Mr. Cruz as the patsy?

  67. KenH says:

    A search for NRA and LaPierre on (((Google))) brings up all hit pieces from left wing sources, so their new kosher algorithm is working like a charm. The ADL is smiling.

    Leftards claim to care so much for dead children yet they say nothing about the 700K or so abortions every year and in fact are huge supporters of a “woman’s right to choose”. So since 2000:
    Abortion – 12.5 million
    School shootings – approx 220

    The left is fine with killing children as long as they’re in the womb but if they make it out of the womb and die by AR15 or AK47 in their pre-teen or teenage years then leftards mount their high horses and treat the rest of us to hypocritical moral posturing about protecting children and enacting “sensible” gun laws to achieve that end.

    Maybe we can talk about sensible gun laws when the left agrees to give us sensible immigration reforms by agreeing to a ten year moratorium on all legal immigration, no refugees unless they are beleaguered white Europeans like S. Africans and deportation only of illegal aliens.

  68. anarchyst says:
    @Twodees Partain

    You are correct. The technical aspects of both weapons ARE different. the AR-15 is “direct impingement” in which gases push the bolt externally whereas the Mini-14 uses a gas piston arrangement. Although the technical aspects are very different, both are “gas operated semi-automatic weapons” and function the same way.
    The gun grabbers hate the AR-15 while (for now) give the Ruger Mini-14 a pass.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  69. anarchyst says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Why are you blaming responsible gun owners for the actions of a few nut cases? You are wrong in stating weapons ownership changes a person. You are merely repeating the old, discredited gun control arguments…that have NO basis in fact.

  70. @anarchyst

    The hoplophobes are probably unaware of the mini14 (or Ranch Rifles as Ruger now labels them) since most of them are totally uninformed about firearms. I like my Ranch Rifle and have always preferred it to an AR, though ARs are very good, durable rifles. My .30 cal choice is an M1A, and I’ve owned one since about 2012.

    The Garand action seems slower and the recoil is more noticeable than that of an AR, but it fits my physique better and points much more quickly for me. I was already well used to the low mounted iron sights of standard rifles and carbines before the AR15 came on the market. I tried one AR way back then, didn’t find it comfortable, and have never owned one, but I understand the attraction to them.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  71. @peterAUS

    “I feel that you guys, in the “2nd” will lose. Your approach to the problem is…….weak, and I don’t say this in derogatory sense. ”

    That is certainly possible. We don’t have the support of billionaires like Bloomberg and Warren Buffet, as well the entire entertainment/news media megaphone. Everytime I turn on public radio, I am treated to a never ending stream of gun control propaganda. The push polls financed by gun controllers certainly point to the collapse of gun ownership, that the NRA is on it’s knees according to the news media THIS time, that demographics, with the Latins and other non-white immigrants will mean the end of the Second Amendment. That with just one more school shooting, our opposition will collapse in the face of “The Children’s Crusade,” that the suburban soccer women will kill us for sure.

    All true and possible. Like the advance of Communism across the world after the Democrats ceased funding of ARVN, it is very depressing.

    But we MUST fight on because we are getting through on some fronts. All US states now have some form of Concealed Weapon Carry, the People’s Republic of Illinois being the last to adopt such following a US judicial ruling on the Second Amendment. The ban on using pistol-arm braces as shoulder stocks has been reinterpreted by the BATF under POTUS as unenforceable because it is now legal to use an arm-brace as a shoulder stock. The Second Amendment has fairly recently been interpreted as applying to the States, rather than just a restriction on the Federal government. This has been made possible because scholars have been writing good history on our arms rights.

    And females are being targeted for gun ownership. That is a source of new voting power for the Second Amendment. If Trump can actually cause all the Mexicans and other Third-world illegals to high-tail their way South of the Border, this will cause a reduction in “Spoiled Districts” i.e. by reducing the number of Hispanics (Undocumented Democrats) in a district, we can reduce gun controller voting power. Thus, if Jeff Sessions could get off his ass and start wholesale deportation, gun owners will cheer.

    Anyway, it is a matter of individual voting power in the end. Getting a gunless person to buy AR-15 and enrolling in Project Appleseed (RWVA.org) is probably the very best outcome there could be on the matter of so-called assault weapons, because you create an immediate activist under gun controller/news media attack. (My first firearms purchase was a Colt AR-15.)

    • Replies: @anarchyst
    , @peterAUS
  72. CW says:

    Is Mr Buchanan suggesting that the US cannot fulfil the basic Hobbesian duty of a state, namely protecting its citizens from internal attack? Even the quasi anarchist Robert Nozick though that this was a fundamental duty of the minimal state.
    If the answer is ‘yes’ then maybe we should cease to regard the US as a viable state, and something more akin to organised chaos.
    Nearly all developed countries have states which are able to protect their citizens through controlling the supply of arms. The US is unwilling to do so.

  73. @Twodees Partain

    The M1A was the first gun I owned in the US, I traded a pair of speakers for it and it came with a couple of large mags. I once confronted an intruder with it and he bolted fast. I only fired it a few times and just kept it for home defense. I thought they were obsolete and bought a new Winchester 12G Defender. I didn’t realise the M1A had any value and sold it for $100. Did I do OK?

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  74. @Svigor

    ” Shrinks (Leftists)”
    Brilliant observation as leftist “shrinks” are behind immense injustice and within the whole legal system starting with their bogus “Expertise” (s) employed within contentious divorce proceedings which lead to millions of men having their kids taken away from them based upon phoney charges of “spousal or child abuse”
    I have always maintained that the phoney “science” of “Psychology” (and it’s partner in crime Psychiatry), is a major scourge of mankind, and where did it originate : Germany. Deutschland, the gift which never stops giving.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained uS Army Vet, and pro jazz artist.

  75. anarchyst says:
    @Joe Stalin

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt . . .”
    – Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  76. Svigor says:

    Pete, Jazz, thanks for the kind words.

    Nosey, I dunno about the price (you could probably get a Hell of a lot more than $100 now for one in good condition), but yes, they’re way obsolete. Way heavy too, I’m guessing. Hell I think AKs are way friggin’ heavy. Only thing I’ve handled that hasn’t felt heavy has been an AR15. They feel just right to me. 12 gauges aren’t bad, but they’re too damned long to handle well. But for home defense, never mind the gun nuts: anything that sends lead downrange is infinitely better than nothing.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  77. Svigor says:

    Anyway, it is a matter of individual voting power in the end. Getting a gunless person to buy AR-15 and enrolling in Project Appleseed (RWVA.org) is probably the very best outcome there could be on the matter of so-called assault weapons, because you create an immediate activist under gun controller/news media attack. (My first firearms purchase was a Colt AR-15.)

    Feels good, man. :)

    I really do love ARs. Can’t figure out why anyone would choose an AK anymore. I could understand it when they were half the price of an AR, when the commies were unloading all their surplus, but those days are long gone. Now they’re a shitty buy, IMO; heavy, ugly (I prefer good-looking guns, ceteris paribus; sue me), clunky, shitty sights, far less customizeable than an AR, and with the God-awful dust cover that means you can’t add proper rails on top. K so it might be more reliable than an AR after thousands and thousands of rounds with no cleaning – will it really kill you to drag a rod through your AR after a couple thousand rounds? If you want a heavier caliber or a very short-barreled gun, build an AR in .300 Blackout.

  78. TWS says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Every single thing you said was wrong, including ‘the’ and ‘or’.

  79. All of German media, is screaming and ranting 365, that the US must finally change it’s constitution and remove the second amendment, so as to install the very same totally restrictive guns laws as on the book in Germany.

    The megalomanical Krauts are also demanding that the US alter it’s election system by removing the electoral college and switching to a popular vote system, (as the loss by HC was the most traumatic event since the end of the war in Deutschland) even though these hypocritical assholes do not elect their own chancellor through the results of the popular vote, rather he/she is selected by the party with the winning results.

    They, the insane Germans, apparently also believe that the electoral college was initiated so as to insure a win for DT 150 years later.

    Apparently they think that they won the war and are now entitled to determine the internal policies of the US and other nations they “defeated” back in 45.

    WC’s ” Boots or throat” axiom is now just as relevant as it was at it’s inception.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    PS : Anti-Fa, blue-haired nutcases and “private-automobile-hate” being the latest additions to the endless list of German “contributions” to the furthering of world insanty.

  80. @Jonathan Mason

    Ah, British atavistic thinking from The Great War: is it Merchants of Death or is it The Arsenal of Democracy?

    You seek to cripple S&W by attacking them? S&W crippled themselves back during the Clinton Regime when they signed an agreement with the US government:

    “In an act of craven self-interest, on March 17, 2000, Smith & Wesson (S & W) signed an agreement with the Departments of the Treasury and Housing and Urban Development in order to be dropped as a defendant in a handful of reckless lawsuits filed by municipalities against the firearms industry. Only a day after the settlement was announced, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo and the mayors of Atlanta, Detroit and Miami moved to shore up the S & W maneuver by promising to contort their procurement policies and purchase only the company’s guns.”

    “Here are just some of the terms of the S & W/Clinton-Gore Administration agreement:

    “CONSUMER IMPACT . . .

    Prohibited from buying more than one handgun in a 14-day period.
    Prohibited from buying a firearm without passing an unspecified safety test.
    Prohibited from buying a self-defense handgun that did not meet arbitrary accuracy standards.
    Prohibited, if under age 18, from even walking into the firearms section of a sporting goods store unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

    DEALER IMPACT . . .

    Prohibited from selling legal semi-automatic rifles, commonplace ammunition magazines and firearms that do not meet the difficult standards established in the agreement.
    Prohibited from selling firearms at any gun show where any legal private sale is conducted.
    Required to include with every firearm sold, a false written statement in large bold-face type that hundreds of children die each year from firearm accidents.
    Required to carry $1 million in liability insurance and perform tasks properly handled by law enforcement to comply with the edicts of a new “Oversight Commission.”

    MANUFACTURER IMPACT . . .

    Prohibited from marketing any firearm in a way that appeals to young shooters and hunters.
    Required to dedicate 1% of revenues to a propaganda campaign promoting the dangers of gun ownership.
    Required to support legislative efforts to reduce firearms misuse and development of “smart” gun technology.
    Required to “ballistically fingerprint” every firearm, thus setting up backdoor national firearms registration.
    Required to meet certain unproven design standards for handguns sold only to civilians–guns sold to military and police would be exempted, thereby showing the intent is not to make guns safer or better, but to impose standards that will ultimately eliminate sales, to private citizens.
    Required to manufacture pistol with positive, manually-operated safety devices as determined by BATF standards applying to imported handguns. BATF has repeatedly handed down politically-driven misinterpretations of the “sporting purposes” importation law, to prohibit many semi-auto rifles and handguns.”

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20000320/the-smith-wesson-sellout

    This was followed by an immediate boycott of S&W by gunowners. Which is hilarious when you consider your continuous hobby horse of the Gun Makers/ Gun Lobby link.

    But even funnier is how Gun Control has crippled the UK smallarms manufacturing base. You had to get German Heckler & Koch to fix your British military assault rifles because you couldn’t build them right in the first place. You don’t have any capability to design and manufacture new handguns. But hey,your two little daughters are safe from legal firearms, right? (But to so much from illegal ones.)

    “Send a Gun to Defend a British Home”

    https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/5/28/throwback-thursday-send-a-gun-to-defend-a-british-home/

    Frankly, you British are too crippled to waste any efforts on today.

  81. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin

    Agree.

    How I see it, though, is simple.
    As long as one has an access to a single shot, bolt action, rifle, with a good scope, bipod, with adjustable stock and trigger, with skill and ability to make custom loads…..no problem re the true purpose of the 2nd.

    “They” will keep up on it, “you” guys will keep losing, one step at the time. No doubt about that in my mind. Well, save some true shift in reality perception of an average “person in guns” in USA.

    Still….a long way to taking away that rifle and ammo above.
    At some point along that way something will give.
    And then, all this will become really interesting.

    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
  82. @NoseytheDuke

    Duke, maybe you’re referring to the m1A1, which is the WWII/Korean War issue .30 cal. carbine. The M1A is the semi-auto version of the M14, 7.62×51 mm, and has always been pretty expensive ($1600-2400 retail) compared to the M1A1, which some regard as obsolete though ammo and parts are still available for it.

    I’d like to find one like yours for $100. Good used ones bring north of $1000. You did OK if you were happy with the deal, and BTW, the Winchester Defender is a great shotgun.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  83. @Joe Stalin

    Yeah, but see, Mr. Stalin, somewhere (Derbyshire or Dr. Paul thread?) Jonathan Mason told us how he’s been living in Florida now, been in the US since 1986 and HATES HATES HATES his old country. It’s dead to him. Now he’s down in Florida voting like a woman and helping to ruin the liberties of a (partially) Southern state.

    All the emotional discussion from Mason does not resemble arguments at all, and (s)he doesn’t learn from any of the logic brought forth by commenters here.

    I would understand a newcomer from England bringing this kind of ignorant attitude with him until learning something from neighbors and friends, but 1986, man? Come on! John Derbshire’s armed and good on him.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  84. @anarchyst

    Nobody has said this better. That’s what should appear on in a pop-up window any time someone clicks on the text of Amendement II, ANYWHERE.

  85. @Svigor

    Thanks, it was a while ago so prices were very different then. The Winchester Defender came with just an 18 inch barrel and a rubberised pistol grip instead of a stock so it was very short. They were “on special at Turner’s in LA for $199 when I bought it. It was quite a while ago.

  86. @Twodees Partain

    You are absolutely correct on the model, which just goes to show how little I know about guns but I do know how to point and pull a trigger so I always had one or two for self defense and support the 2nd. On the occasion of confronting intruders (in the Hollywood Hills) with the Defender, just the sound of a round being chambered was enough to send the two guys running.

    Living in Australia, we aren’t allowed to own guns and are forced to beat people to death. I did confront another intruder carrying a screwdriver whilst I had a hunting knife in one hand and a baseball bat in the other. It turned out that there were two of them and since I was butt naked (1:30 am) they didn’t know if I was going to kill ‘em or fuck ‘em (or kill ‘em AND fuck ‘em, which is a little kinky even for me) They ran.

    Now I mostly rely on my dog to protect the home but I still keep weapons handy, and I live in an upscale part of a mostly low crime city. Gun-crime is on the increase across Australia despite having some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  87. @NoseytheDuke

    A guy I knew in high school loved going to Australia to fish, once we were older, not while he was in school. The last time I saw him was about 35 years ago and he was just back from a fishing trip there. I’ve never been there. The trip is just too long for me.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  88. Ted Buila says:

    All: cut to the real gun issue on the table: make it illegal to own’ or sell AR 15s/family of guns and bump enhancers. Perhaps a 1k for turn-ins but that’s another topic.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    , @peterAUS
  89. @Ted Buila

    So we should preemptively surrender just to make you and every gun controller happy UNTIL next time when the nut bag uses a Glock 9mm? Why not show your hand and announce that all AR-15s must be turned in under penalty of death? Now THAT would be political honesty.

    “Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith
    Paris Nov. 13. 1787.

    the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

    http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100

  90. @Joe Stalin

    Prohibited from buying a firearm without passing an unspecified safety test.

    Gosh, how extreme.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/01/federal-agent-shoots-himself-in-foot-at-orlando-international-airport.html

    So a federal agent on vacation in Orlando was traveling through the airport with a loaded gun in a holster. What could possibly go wrong? Now if only he had had to pass a safety test, he would have said to himself “Tonto, you’re not in Kansas any more” and left the damn gun at home when he was on vacation.

  91. Ted Buila says:

    Joe, if it’ll start the discussion I’ll go with your Glock ownership death penalty suggestion but temper it a bit. Joe “take your choice”, your nuts for AR 15 or an assault gun ownership. Your call.

    [Alas, a 12' fence with a Garrett walk-through metal detector and an armed guard at every entrance is pretty much DOA as is my outlawing assault weapon ownership..neither will stop intrepids, the pissed-off, or loonies. ]

    Private ownership of modern weapons of mass destruction/assault weapons and 18th century Jefferson don’t wash. A cannon loaded with Jefferson’s grapeshot is no match against a vintage Kalashnikov.

    Joe, if it’s the “ability” to bring down the government you want to “constitutionally protect”, 17th-18th century guns, or 21st century AR15s won’t begin to get the job done.

    Joe, maybe we (in the States) have to just accept a few kids/children getting rapid fire whacked every once in a while by whomever. We just gotta get good at sucking it up with flowers and a couple of weeks of wailing…consider it an acceptable janissary tax (blood tribute) levied by Jefferson’s constitutional tribe on 21th century America to keep it great. Punt.

  92. @Twodees Partain

    It is a long way but there are few countries more welcoming to Americans. (It used to be almost everywhere was welcoming to Americans but ZUS foreign policy has fixed that)

    A popular way of seeing Australia is to buy a van, become a “grey nomad” and travel around the “top end” and see the more rugged side of Australia. It can be done relatively on the cheap as lots of European backpackers do.

    I think Australians are generally more laid back and easygoing so I prefer it here. I loved living in the US but things have changed for the worse in recent times, I’m sorry to say. Cheers

  93. peterAUS says:
    @Ted Buila

    All: cut to the real gun issue on the table..

    A very good idea. One problem. Just a little one.

    I, for one, do not trust you (or people speaking/acting as you).
    You can say, write, promise…whatever…anything you want about the 2nd and I simply do not trust you.
    I do not believe a word you are saying or writing about the issue.

    That’s the real gun issue here: the (not so) hidden agenda of your ilk.
    Taking all the guns from….”undesirables”. Then drop the pretense and start controlling the disarmed population by naked force.
    And, of course ,protect your own group by armed guards. Or…”special permits”, for “selected elite” to own firearms for own protection.

    I do think, though, that your ilk is smart. Smarter than the people in the 2nd. Better players of this game. Much better actually.
    So, you will, most likely, succeed.
    An “AR 15s/family of guns and bump enhancers” now, then handguns, then hunting rifles/shotguns, then sporting rifles. Hell, you won’t stop at air guns and/or crossbows.
    At the same time, of course, your ilk will keep militarizing the police, overall surveillance etc.

    There is a catch, of course.
    It’s not about guns; never has been. It’s about the will.

    Funny thing that will.
    I often come across guys heavily into shooting, having amazing gear and punching impressive scores at a range. People quite capable of lecturing me about fine points of that kit, marksmanship etc.
    And then I ask them just a little, basic, tactical question related to that very gear and their skillset. You can see most of them recoiling from the thought. Funny.
    Not all, of course.

    Some people believe that more your ilk pushes, higher is the chance of that will popping up. Humans are peculiar species.

    When there is will getting a tool is peace of cake.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  94. @peterAUS

    That old Moisin-Nagant in the shed,
    Like freedom itself, left for dead.
    But come 2050
    It will still work quite nifty
    Turning Idaho’s mountains to red.

  95. @peterAUS

    ” Smarter than the people in the 2nd”

    Nonsense : there is no such animal as a “smart” leftist. What they do own however is a neurotic, manic, persistance, an obcession with their issues with which they are driven 24/7/365, and this is their only
    “winning” attribute, otherwise they would never reach any of their oppressive goals.
    Leftsists are insane, and there is no other way to look at them, no compromise, no agreement, no concensus, rather dull sullen zeal, and sick idealism.
    They are infected with the disease of marxism, and there is no remedy therefore, other than their total defeat.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  96. @Achmed E. Newman

    Jonathan Mason told us how he’s been living in Florida now, been in the US since 1986 and HATES HATES HATES his old country.

    No I never said that, I just said that it doesn’t exist anymore. The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there. [LP Hartley].

    All the emotional discussion from Mason does not resemble arguments at all, and (s)he doesn’t learn from any of the logic brought forth by commenters here.

    I learned long ago that making ad hominem attacks on other posters has a boomerang effect that our Australian readers will understand.

  97. peterAUS says:
    @Authenticjazzman

    Be that as it may, how come they are able to, always, frame the argument?

    I feel you are confusing foot soldiers with Generals.
    While an average college kid, soccer mom or beta male do fit your description, the real movers of anti-gun movement aren’t that. They are like….say….Hillary Clinton and people around and behind her.
    Anyway….

    As this fellow: a terrible accident->we must restrict ownership of AR-15 type weapons. Sounds legit. Sounds….smart.
    And you guys start explaining. Funny?
    Tommorrow, as Joe said, it will be semiautomatic handgun.
    Next month….pump action shotgun. Then bolt action rifle.
    Hell….a sword, given enough time.
    And you guys will keep ………………….explaining.

    Why don’t you, always, start a discussion with:”Do you believe that power corrupts?” A very simple question. Yes or no?
    And go from there. History, abuses of that power, especially by politicians, checks and balances (or lack of it) etc.
    Hypocrisy too (guns are OK for us, but not for you). I mean, HC still has a Secret Service detail protecting her. And I wonder about all her backers….how do they manage their and their family personal protection. Animal farm and such I guess.

    Now…you don’t need to answer. Actually, you shouldn’t. I know the answer.
    And those smart among the anti-gun movement know it too. No need to write it here; we aren’t on their side I guess.
    Until that answer is clear to “people into 2nd”, well….you’ll keep explaining. Always on defense. Always losing.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  98. Svigor says:

    All of German media, is screaming and ranting 365, that the US must finally change it’s constitution and remove the second amendment, so as to install the very same totally restrictive guns laws as on the book in Germany.

    Geldings are offended by the existence of stallions, want them all gelded. If they weren’t geldings, it might occur to them to stand up for their own rights, instead of wanting others to surrender theirs.

    I feel badly for the geldings, but not so bad I won’t dismiss their irrelevant opinions out of hand.

    “They” will keep up on it, “you” guys will keep losing, one step at the time. No doubt about that in my mind. Well, save some true shift in reality perception of an average “person in guns” in USA.

    That would seem to be the math, if you reason from the general (leftist hegemony) to the specific (status of the fight over the 2nd Amendment). But in fact we see the opposite; we’ve seen steady gains, in recent decades, on the 2nd Amendment front, and seen those gains locked in by the Supreme Court, etc. Squaring the circle might involve the realization that the gun-grabbers are just a vocal minority, and the rest of the left are ambivalent, or even pro-2nd.

    All: cut to the real gun issue on the table: make it illegal to own’ or sell AR 15s/family of guns and bump enhancers. Perhaps a 1k for turn-ins but that’s another topic.

    Response: No.

    Private ownership of modern weapons of mass destruction/assault weapons and 18th century Jefferson don’t wash. A cannon loaded with Jefferson’s grapeshot is no match against a vintage Kalashnikov.

    It washes fine. Conflation of weapons of mass destruction and semi-auto rifles is probably the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.

    Joe, if it’s the “ability” to bring down the government you want to “constitutionally protect”, 17th-18th century guns, or 21st century AR15s won’t begin to get the job done.

    Soviet small arms did just fine for the Vietnamese who wanted the American superpower to leave. They didn’t need to overthrow the US gov’t to get what they wanted. I’m betting the Pashtun goatherds are going to do the same thing, long-run.

    Joe, maybe we (in the States) have to just accept a few kids/children getting rapid fire whacked every once in a while by whomever. We just gotta get good at sucking it up with flowers and a couple of weeks of wailing…consider it an acceptable janissary tax (blood tribute) levied by Jefferson’s constitutional tribe on 21th century America to keep it great. Punt.

    Exactly.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  99. Svigor says:

    Gun-grabber types:

    1) The Useful Idiot: American or European “moderate” or “normie” leftist who trusts Big Media to accurately rank and sort threats to civilization and lives. A dwindling demographic, but still the majority of the gun-grabber population. Big Media really runs these idiots around.

    2) The communist: leftist who wants to crush and disarm the right to further the hegemony of the left, and probably because gulag plan.

    • Replies: @Miro23
  100. Funny thing, nobody’s talking about who the gun controllers actually are; it’s though some amorphous force is driving all this. After all, who is providing all the money to coordinate the news media and paying for all those buses to move all the victims of Cruz around? Note the new phrase: “Gun Reforms” being used by the news media, as if the gun laws currently in place caused this criminal act. The language has even popped up military.com.

    We know that Billionaire Bloomberg is driving this through his organization “Everytown for Gun Safety,” (https://everytown.org/), with the news media delivering millions in free publicity.

    Advisory Board

    Art Acevedo Tom Barrett Stephen Barton Michael R. Bloomberg David Boren Eli Broad Warren Buffett Gloria Chavez David Chipman Michael B. Coleman Carlos Giménez Roxanna Green Nick Hanauer Geoffrey Henry Irwin M. Jacobs Ken Lerer John Mack Andrew Marks Marc Morial Mike Mullen Michael Nutter Annise Parker Cleopatra Pendleton Nathaniel Pendleton Gilles Rousseau Christy Salters Martin Shannon Watts

    I think we can bring up the obvious nexus:

    Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign
    Kevin MacDonald on February 17, 2018 — 35 Comments

    [MORE]

    Given the Parkland shootings, I thought it appropriate to rerun this article, originally posted on January 1, 2013. See also Andrew Joyce’s article, “Jews and gun control: A reprise.”

    In Cooper Sterling’s TOO article (“Guns, profiling and White males“), he notes

    The Left’s irrational obsession with gun control goes beyond the latest mass shooting. It is endemic among the cosmopolitan literati, who loathe Middle America, to dwell on the risks associated with firearms while disregarding or minimizing the benefits of firearm ownership. …

    Anyone monitoring the national scene since Newtown is witnessing an emotional antipathy toward the last trace of political leverage among an identifiable demographic: an overwhelmingly White male gun culture. What the MSM and gun control advocates ultimately detest is the gun culture in America, which is too White, too male, and too conservative. …

    The tradition of gun ownership is as old as the Republic. It reflects the pre-1965 demographic of America as an overwhelmingly White—and more civilized—nation. As a native Midwesterner, guns were rampant in our neighborhoods where few homes didn’t have some sort of firearm. We came of age hunting with our fathers, uncles and cousins, acquiring rifles and shotguns in our mid-teens.

    An article from The Forward notes that the Jewish community has taken the lead in gun control and that part of it is hostility toward the gun culture of White America that is especially apparent in rural White America. Jews “instinctively recoil” from this culture (“After Newtown Jews lead renewed push on guns“).

    Jewish organizations pride themselves on gun control stances that date back to the early days of the debate, following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and of President Kennedy. Most played a supportive role in passing legislation then limiting access to weapons, and have since reaffirmed their commitment to reducing the availability of guns.
    One reason for broad Jewish support of gun control, Mariaschin said, has to do with the community’s sense of security, “which perhaps leads us to feel that the possession of assault weapons is completely unneeded.”
    Rabbi Eric Yoffie, former head of the Reform movement, listed in a recent Haaretz article several reasons for Jews siding with supporters of gun control: the community’s affiliation with the Democratic Party; the fact that Jews are urban people and detached from the culture of hunting or gun ownership, and suspicion toward the NRA, which is “associated in the minds of many Jews with extremist positions that frighten Jews and from which they instinctively recoil.”

    Although Jews certainly attacked and eventually overcame the elite WASP culture of pre-1965 America (e.g., by displacing WASPs at elite universities), another critical point of conflict between Jewish organizations and the main Jewish intellectual movements has been with rural America. This conflict can be most clearly seen among the New York Intellectuals, a group that is discussed in Chapter 6 of The Culture of Critique.

    The New York Intellectuals were attacking populism in favor of themselves as an intellectual elite. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with

    nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Cooney 1986, 267–268; italics in text)

    The last line bears repeating. The New York Intellectuals were engaged in a profoundly anti-democratic enterprise given that they rejected and felt superior to the culture of the majority of Americans. The battle between this urbanized intellectual and political establishment and rural America was joined on a wide range of issues. Particularly important was the issue of immigration. In this case and in the entire range of what became mainstream liberal politics, the New York Intellectuals had the enthusiastic support of all of the mainstream Jewish organizations. (Review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo America“)

    The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America. For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America. In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas.

    And by successfully changing immigration policy, Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males.

    Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network) and the SPLC (Law Enforcement Training and Law Enforcement Resources) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America.

    Further, it has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education (see here), notes that “Jewish voters … prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.”

    Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/02/17/jews-and-jewish-organizations-lead-the-gun-control-campaign/

    For counter-anti-gun Jewish views, check Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership: JPFO.org.

    And since the enemy seeks to destroy the NRA economically, perhaps we need to find out the anti-gun businesses and people:

    Second Amendment Check

    “Too many companies have made it their business to discriminate against our natural right to bear arms. Without even knowing it, you may be rewarding a company with your business that would strip you of your rights. We will identify companies that would disarm us and present alternatives that respect our Second Amendment Rights. Below are a few links to pages on our site you will find helpful and interesting:”

    http://www.2acheck.com/

    http://www.2acheck.com/the-boycott-list/

    http://www.2acheck.com/the-boycott-list/nras-list-of-antis/

    • Replies: @peterAUS
  101. @peterAUS

    ” I think you are confusing foot soldiers with generals” : I don’t ever confuse anything with anything elsa, basta.

    “They are like say HC and the people around and behind her”

    I was aware of this before you were born.

    Otherwise I agree with the basic viewpoints of your post.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro Jazz msuician.

  102. peterAUS says:
    @Svigor

    That would seem to be the math, if you reason from the general (leftist hegemony) to the specific (status of the fight over the 2nd Amendment). But in fact we see the opposite; we’ve seen steady gains, in recent decades, on the 2nd Amendment front, and seen those gains locked in by the Supreme Court, etc. Squaring the circle might involve the realization that the gun-grabbers are just a vocal minority, and the rest of the left are ambivalent, or even pro-2nd.

    That’s an interesting point.

    Joe, if it’s the “ability” to bring down the government you want to “constitutionally protect”, 17th-18th century guns, or 21st century AR15s won’t begin to get the job done.

    Oh, yes, they 21st century AR15s will, most definitely, begin to get the job done, should it come to that.
    Put a sprinkling of American ingenuity (devices, contraptions), accurized bolts with scopes and custom loads and it will work just fine. Just fine indeed.

    The point is, which is always missing in discussions, prevention of that scenario.
    “You don’t push us so much that we have to resort to that”.

    The nature of power is always to acquire more power.
    A firearm in hands of …..useless eaters…..is the check on that drive.
    Take that tool away…the drive can be easy. Have that tool, well, the desire to keep driving dampens. Could ruin a golf game. Or sipping scotch on veranda. Or……plenty of scenarios.
    That’s why the first thing all autocracies and totalitarian regimes did first was to disarm the general population. And, of course, well arm the layer in power. Never fails.

    Gun-grabber types:

    1) The Useful Idiot: American or European “moderate” or “normie” leftist who trusts Big Media to accurately rank and sort threats to civilization and lives. A dwindling demographic, but still the majority of the gun-grabber population. Big Media really runs these idiots around.

    2) The communist: leftist who wants to crush and disarm the right to further the hegemony of the left, and probably because gulag plan.

    Yup.
    Although it wouldn’t be called gulag. “Re-education facility” or similar. Wouldn’t be any starving, beating to death, freezing to death….too crude. But, overall, I believe it would be worse.

  103. peterAUS says:
    @Joe Stalin

    A serious post.
    Names, organizations. A face, a clear picture of the opponent.

    Now, just a feeling of mine. Wouldn’t have brought it here but for the seriousness of the comment.

    Jews are overwhelmingly in the picture, BUT, I do not feel that reflects the reality of the opponent.
    The best organized and vocal part of the opponent, true, but, not quite sure they are the true driving force and prime mover here. The tip of the spear if you will. But the rest of the blade and the shaft are bit more…complicated.

    Now, I don’t want to get, here, in the usual “Jews this/that” as in most related articles/comments here. I am well aware of the organized Jewish power in US, Commonwealth etc.

    I feel this is important:

    …..the cosmopolitan literati, who loathe Middle America…..

    That is, I feel, the core of the opponent.

    When I have “gun” conversations it’s always them. Regardless of ethnicity, race, even gender.
    The cosmopolitan literati.

    Bottom line, I believe the issue goes beyond the organized Jewish power in USA.
    I believe that focusing on “cosmopolitan literati” would be more beneficial to he effort.

    Just a vague idea.

  104. @Renoman

    The vast majority of the population have had enough of the NRA and their retarded agenda …

    LOL.

    My response to all these proposals–open borders, gun control, “disparate impact”, LBGQWERTY whining, feminism whining–by “progressives”: You go have your progressive utopia and leave the rest of us to our oppressive white patriarchy … and let’s see who gets better results, has a better nation.

  105. H.S. says:

    Protect kids, not guns

  106. Miro23 says:
    @Svigor

    Gun-grabber types:

    1) The Useful Idiot: American or European “moderate” or “normie” leftist who trusts Big Media to accurately rank and sort threats to civilization and lives. A dwindling demographic, but still the majority of the gun-grabber population. Big Media really runs these idiots around.

    2) The communist: leftist who wants to crush and disarm the right to further the hegemony of the left, and probably because gulag plan.

    That’s to say, High Trust societies and Totalitarian societies (all types) are gun grabbers.

    The US totalitarian left is trying to enlist high trust Anglos into their gun grabbing project . High trust only works in a society where high trust is justified. After repeated failures (e.g. official WMD story or the WTC collapse by fire story) “High Trust” people can now only be described as Useful Idiots.

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 Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Jewish-American anti-Zionist journalist
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored