But if they are, it is too often lost in the whole wrap-yourself-up-in-the-flag rhetoric. I definitely think that the cultural representation of armed violence as a quick, effective, and attractive solution for all kinds of personal and social problems, which is ubiquitous in America, is ridiculous and pernicious.
The answer to that is to do a lot of determined political and cultural work, not to pass a law and call in the armed police, the courts, and the penal system to enforce it on people who have done nothing wrong. The moment you say "I think there should be fewer guns," the conservatives erupt into apoplectic rage, which just adds to the unease the liberals have.
I think "right" is not the correct word, more like an ability than a "right". If a cheetah chases down a gazelle, the gazelle's means of defense is to run. It doesn't have the "right" to run, as in, there is someone or something out there that is allowing the gazelle to run, but more like it has the ability to use it's defense mechanism as it feels necessary. I'm saying that no one has the right to infringe on my god-given ABILITY to defend myself with whatever tools I choose are necessary in that particular situation although there is a lot of gray area when it comes to the extreme end of the spectrums ie total disarmament or using a rocket launcher.
In saying that, defending yourself is a God given ability. All that aside very well written piece!!!!! Stereotyping all gun owners and magically linking them to this tragedy is not indicative of a moral high ground but instead a sign of irrational logic. We shouldn't paint people with one brush merely because the narrative spun by MSNBC demands it of you.
As They stated to Britain - " Unlike France or anyone else! Absolutely the best article on the gun control issue I've ever read. Said right is not guaranteed by cops with badges or a scrap of paper called the Constitution, but ultimately by one's individual ability to deal lethal force against any aggressor.
Looked at this way, I do consider it a "God given" right. Also, a semi-auto is not all that much less effective than a full auto weapon. The latter is really most useful when a laying down a suppressive fire or b repelling human wave attacks.
Neither function is especially needed for insurgent warfare though, curiously, the latter can be useful against home invasion type attacks. Remember, in the early phases of the Afghan resistance to the Soviet invasion in , they had little more than antique WWI bolt actions, and yet caused significant damage to the Soviet army, in spite of all its tanks, aircraft, machine guns, etc. Incredible intellectual and moral clarity. Much like the rest of your posts, which I have been reading subsequent to discovering this blog via a friend passing on the link to this article.
If your perception of warfare revolves around 'the rifle' and 'the machine' gun, then it's possibly time to pick up a book and read a little, because you're about years out of date.
You must have a very very low opinion of your country's armed forces if you think citizen militias armed with pistols and rifles pose any meaningful impediment against an out-of-control government.
FYI, the rest of the first world has been living without the constitutionally enshrined right to own a shooting toy for a very long time, and so far we've done an okay job of not having that tyranny thing. Armed citizenry can make things very uncomfortable for, and grind to a halt the machinery of, the state.
Even though the military superiority of the state would prevail in an open and direct conflict. This should be turned into a seminar or a 3-unit PoliSci or History class. Good on ya, mate! Occupying forces in Afghanistan and Iraq are directly supported by aircraft, UAVs, and armoured vehicles. In addition, real insurgents reply on bombs, anti-tank, weapons, machine guns, and automatics to make a dent, not the kind of crap you could find in a walmart.
Lanza's mother was a law-abiding gun owner until her son killed her and took her guns. The Aurora shooter obtained his guns legally, which meant that he was also a law abiding gun owner until he wasn't.
In a pitched battle, of course the power of the armed State would prevail. But in an asymetrical conflict, an insurgency, the situation could be very different. For all its undeniable power, the effectiveness of the American military against insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been In any case, a superbly well-researched, well-thought-out, and well-written article, Messr le Polemicist.
Suggesting that any gun owner has the tool-set needed to become an insurgent of any stripe because they have guns is very, very, very silly. The ones in Afghanistan and Iraq use bombs, rockets, and occasionally machine guns along with fully automatic rifles to make a nuisance of themselves, not with the sort of kit allowed under the second amendment.
Despite that type of of heavy armament however, casualty ratios are still hilariously lopsided in favour of coalition forces. Am I the last person in north america who even vaguely remembers either war?
Because seeing as most gun advocates seem to have totally forgotten about the last 10 years, I figured I also might bring up Mali, where the french army woefully less powerful compared to their US counterparts , totally routed the rebel forces in a matter of weeks without losing more then a single man. Incredible, thought provoking, lucid and extremely well thought out You have my admiration sir. One of my readers pointed out an essay from the Washington University Law Quarterly, " Of Holocausts and Gun Control ," which everyone interested in the subject should take a look at.
You might consider expanding your view of racism in the equation in light of FBI uniform crime statistics on gun violence and the huge micro-climate effects on its distribution. The neighborhoods in which they live are hugely more dangerous than those in which they don't. The white urban gun control advocate lives next door to these centers of violence and is simultaneously scared.
As an aside, if you colored Zip codes red which were in the upper decile of gun violence, the map you would get is essentially identical to Obama's "landslide" map. When and where have you seen this discussed? Not in the press, which is capable of reporting only anonymous or decidedly white gun violence.. And certainly not from Obama's bully pulpit, which ignores the decidely racial makeup of gun violence. And absolutely not from the pulpits of the Reverends, that seem to notice only in those rare instances of white-on black violence.
The attempt to form a linkage between genocide and gun control is probably the worst mis-use of history I think I've ever seen. I loved your article. You should correct one fact, however. M-1 rifles are, indeed, semi-automatic, not bolt-action as you suggest, even though they use clips, not magazines there is a difference. That aside, great article! Changing weapons simply requires one to change tactics. Weapons and tactics go together. The trick is never to fight the other guy's fight.
It is also possible to win the battles, but lose the war. I robbed them of life, personally. What a silly, infantile, and visceral reactionary statement. I guess it depends on who you think the Conservatives are. Conservatives think Tea Party people and libertarians are Liberals.
In our society, it seems that both left and right want violence, just for different reasons, but that was pointed out early on in the article.
Max, if your point is to illustrate the technical, strategic and tactical superiority of the US armed forces over an untrained group of people with some rifles, I would agree with you. But that's not really an argument against The Polemicist's piece, or gun rights. I believe that the argument being made is that gun control is a metric in the balance of power between the citizenry and a government that may not have the citizens' best interests in mind.
Now, I think "smart meters" sound kind of neat, and don't object to them. But there a couple stories about women objecting to their power companies coming on to their property and installing them. And when the police are called, whom do the police haul off to jail? Of course, the power company owns the meter, and contractually I believe has the right to service their property.
If anything, you'll call the police with a complaint of trespass, and likely neither of us will be inconvenienced by a trip "downtown". Now, if I have to take you to small claims court, why shouldn't the power company? Is it that the company's corporate counsel is too white shoe to deal with the lunch pail public?
Wouldn't an attorney really be better suited to come along with the meter installation crew, not an armed sheriff? Better, but not faster. These women's taxes go to paying the police that enforce corporate claims against them. And don't get me started on the armed marshals hounding the bankrupted seed dealers who by no fault of their own had some Monsanto-patented seeds in their silos.
Corporate attorneys win the case, and taxpayer-funded armed police enforce with muscle. Finally, if AR 15s and Glocks don't confer an advantage, why do our police carry them? In this national "conversation" about gun control, I say, "you first". I don't know how I missed that. I removed the incorrect statement and added an update.
Doesn't change the argument. I appreciate all your positive comments. This was super helpful, it aligns with a lot of my feelings on this topic and I will be re-reading it again. Next time one of my more liberal friends tells me they can't respect the 2nd Amendment, I'll just smile and walk away. OTOH if they ask me to defend it, I'll have plenty to say. Keep up the great work. First, if guns confer no power to people as democratic citizens, then any point about 'the balance of power' is very wrong, because no 'power' is really being transferred.
Secondly, so then what? Should you stick a gun in the faces of the company workers? Smash one in the face and hold them hostage until the power company bends to your demands and stop doing something you don't like? Or do you drive over to their head corporate offices and hold the board of directors at gunpoint? Or are they just supposed to be afraid of your gun? Because that has nothing to do with your rights or your power as a citizen living in a liberal democracy, that's just twisted vigilante justice.
Third, AR15s and Glocks provide 'power' over your fellow citizens, not over government, and that's completely antithetical to the whole idea of democracy. Police do and should carry them because it is their role in society to ensure that law and order is upheld.
Is someone refusing a new power meter a real threat to public safety, or is it an inconvenience to the corporation? Is this the "order" that armed police are trying to uphold? No, guns are not, or should not be, required to solve non-violent dispute. The solution isn't hostage taking or threats of death.
The solution is for both parties to come to some sort of legal resolution peacefully. If the power company wins, then the person could either allow the meter to be installed or accept canceling the contract and having the power shut off. That's what happened in one case. And a single gun can have power over government. Look at what Chris Dorner's gun is doing to LA. The question of gun ownership is totally and completely divorced from the issue of your rights as a citizen, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.
A 9mm will not make you less of a victim to asshole traffic cops, or make the power company somehow less likely to screw you over. A glock will not 'ensure that both parties come to an equal solution'. It's not a deterrent, and the power company isn't going to think 'boy, we'd better not cut off this guy's power because he has a gun! Max, you really need to up your meds.
Every post I've read by you is mis - construed and twisted to fit your own biases and world view. Clearly, there is no reasoning or talking with you. Facts presented will be denied or you will claim that is not what they really mean. You try to come across as some intellectual, who's knowledge and grasp of the human condition exceeds everyone else's. What you fail to realize is you come off as immature, smug, arrogant and egomaniacal. Quite the opposite of your own self image. You contribute nothing to the conversation and, quite frankly, hold everyone back.
Individual liberty wins every time. That is, if you are really concerned about children and the world they will inherit. If not, you are just using the children as an emotional base to your collectivist arguments.
Great article, thank - you for the effort you put into this piece! From an anti - State, anti - War "gun nut. Excellent article, but to those who keep awarding it "the best" honors, I would recommend they google Jeff Snyder's column not the book "A Nation of Cowards," first published in ANOC comes at the philosophical and moral question differently, but I'd say both this column and that one provide a more balanced view of why free men and women would be armed.
Being armed is actually FAR MORE about attitude and the respect it must engender on the part of both freelance and state criminals than it is about firing small pieces of lead through the body parts of others. So the author threw in a bunch of stuff about genocide for the sake of trivia did he?
He didn't just post a link saying 'Of Holocaust and Gun Control'? Dear me, maybe it is time to take my meds, because I'm hallucinating like crazy. France is considered the 6th most powerful military force in the world behind only the US, Russia, China, India and the UK and many would put them ahead of the last two - not numerically, but "effectively".
Not so sure I'd call them "woefully less powerful" than anyone. And I think it could be argued that sheer casualties don't necessarily translate to political victories. Viet Nam comes to mind I am dumbfounded by the fact that I have to tap-dance around this issue more often than not in NYC. I am reminded of this piece: But you're quite right in that political victory is something else entirely, and that an armed insurrection would be indicative of some very serious problems.
The thing to realize is that throwing American citizens into a meatgrinder against the singular most advanced and powerful military in the history of humankind in a misguided attempt at revolution is probably the worst method to create political change possibly imaginable, even in the worst case scenario where the government goes full on national socialist and America has changed it's name to the FSA.
You must have a very low opinion of the average US service-member if you think the majority of us will enforce such a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional order. Most of us serve because we value freedom and the American way of life, not out of blind loyalty to either the president of the government.
You also underestimate just how easy it is to fabricate this "advanced hardware" you speak of. Middle Easterners with little to no education have been using it to blow us up for a decade now, often simply with home-made explosives.
Even still, the objective would not necessarily to win strategically or militarily. Just like the initial revolution, it would be a battle of attrition. Not that I'm saying that we're at the point that this is necessary. But it's not that hard either. Yes, but you compared 6th place to Mali, which doesn't even rate.
A rocket launcher is nothing but a metal tube and a trigger. The numbers are significant in certain locales. That means they already have full-auto weaponry. It's not that hard. It's a bye-product of our glutinous consumerism. If any people had a chance of "winning" an asymmetric conflict against anyone, it would be Americans.
I also think you're forgetting about the sympathetic police forces there are already Sheriffs that have stated they wouldn't enforce another "assault weapon" ban , many of whom are militarized, as well as the number of actual military units that would "defect" to fight against a tyrannical government.
I think any "insurgency" here would quickly degrade into a full-blown civil war, assuming it did in fact have just reason to begin. Are you talking about the Patriot Act? I guess I missed the patriotic insurrection that erupted when the federal government threw out the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments out like so much bathwater, so you'll apologize if I'm a tad skeptical of your oath to the constitution.
As for explosives, I mentioned those in the post you quoted. Now, I'm not qualified to pass judgements on how hard a real insurrection would be against the U.
The suggest that a rebellion could just materialize out of nowhere from a population with exactly zero experience and take down the most powerful government in history taxes the suspension of disbelief. First, making a metal tube that can launch a shooty rocket made of explodey stuff is not the same thing as making a military-grade anti-tank weapon capable of reliably penetrating AFV armour and effectively assaulting infantry The chinese were doing it back in the goddamn 12th century , because there's plenty of such weapons developed in military RND departments that fail to do even that.
Second, yes, a few hardcore collectors. I'm sure the folks pentagon are quaking in their shiny booties. Third, I very much doubt american citizens have 'more at their disposal' then gigantic stockpiles of soviet firepower at your average walmart.
Fourth and finally, if the space nazi's have been elected to the senate, the house of reps, and the whitehouse, they will most definitely have the support of the pentagon and probably the majority of the population. Never forget that Hitler was elected. I know, and neither does a non-existent rebellion from a well-fed and sedentary population with zero experience with any sort of military campaigning. A rebellion against the US government isn't feasible, realistic, or even possible, especially with civilian firearms, so people should get the idea out of their heads.
If you're worried about tyranny, then beat it before it even begins by lobbying and voting, because that's sort of the whole point of democracy in the first place. THAT'S the power you have, not your gun.
The only thing that will guarantee and safeguard it's continued existence is it's continued use. I'm actually debating these points in earnest. So, if you want to be snide I'm sure I can find someone to make a "shooty rocket with explody stuff" that you can stand in front of and we'll see if it matters whether or not it penetrates reactive armor. That's not the point here.
Having an armed populace is much more than just about that. And don't be silly, I single handedly nuked all the space nazis with my 40 watt phased plasma rifle. All your base will belong to us. Indeed, I've made that point a few times as well, and any real life insurgency relies primarily on IEDs of some sort.
The problem is that the ability to make a bunch of illegal explosives with chemicals doesn't really relate to gun rights or how that may or may not affect the populace's ability to contest the government's monopoly of force. At the same time saying that some determined patriots could rustle up anti-tank missiles with a few trips to the supermarket is a tad silly, so I apologize if I have difficulty taking the notion seriously.
I think it does, because IEDs aren't the only issue or means at play here. Guns certainly do factor into the equation, as does ammunition and maybe even more so for the ammo. I've no inclination to build such a device, or to test one one's effectiveness. But the idea that building weapons, IEDs, guns or otherwise isn't silly in an insurgency. The sort that's sold to your average citizen definitely are. You can talk about machining semi-autos into full autos and the occasional die-hard with a browning all you like, but it's not even remotely comparable to the firepower groups like the Taliban have to bring to the table if they want to have any chance of doing anything.
If talk of building rockets out of stuff from home hardware wasn't about effectiveness then why bring it up? Sure you could get together some model rocket engines, throw together some stuff that goes 'bang' from a high school chemistry set and stick it all into some plastic tubing and have a serviceable 'rocket launcher', but pretending that it's anything like making a HEAT warhead is pretty ignorant.
As an Army veteran, the whole talk of needing a rocket, homemade or otherwise to stop an armored vehicle is silly, and is a straw man. Most combat veterans know this kind of stuff, and we're technically part of the 'civilians' who would be potentially opposing the state in this fantasy.
This is a straw man, and a very bad one at that. Despite the fact that firing on civilians is an unlawful order most combat soldiers will refuse to follow, soldiers have families. Those soldiers would come from those same communities, they eventually leave service back to those same communities. Among the solders who would fire on civilians Whos going to enlist knowing they'll be asked to fire on their friends and family? Who in the military is going to train them, knowing that they will be firing on THEIR friends and families?
Where are you going to safely rearm these soldiers who would fire on their countrymen? For the sake of argument, lets assume that those in the military who won't obey an unlawful order simply disappear i.
Those have to be piped, trucked, and railed into the bases, and whos going to secure those vital supplies in transit?
US Military installations are designed to withstand prolonged seige, not to operate under seige, and not with a diminished military, and not surrounded by armed countrymen. You're talking about a logistical fantasy. Its simply not a rational or realistic outcome. Thats why the 2nd amendment works. The mere superposition of an armed populace is what stops any idea about turning on the population in it's tracks. And again Max ignores the fact that veterans outnumber the standing military by about a factor of 4 to 5.
Explain to me again why you think that the population has zero experience fighting? Do you really think that all of the soldiers who have been fighting in the sandbox from Desert Storm to present day are ALL still in uniform? What do you suppose those veterans are going to do if the shooting starts?
Or are they merely a convenient vehicle now for the sake of your argument? No, I'm just stating the sorry facts as they are. Individual liberty does not in fact win every time. Or even most of the time. You're right, comparing an insurrection against foreign occupation and an insurrection against a domestic government is a bad comparison, because in the former the government isn't fighting an existential battle for it's own legitimacy and survival, and therefore it won't be pulling literally all the stops, especially since this is apparently a super-evil Nazi Stalinist government that orders it's soldiers to just mow down unarmed civilians for no real particular reason.
In that case, they'll probably just track down every able-bodied veteran and firearms owner with any significant armouries and blow them up with drones while patrolling the streets with robotic death squads, because hey, EVIL! If something like that happened, semi-automatic rifles and pistols would literally be worse then useless. Meanwhile in real life, the government is not an evil comic book organization, and voting and lobbying is a million billion infinity times more effective then at controlling or curbing the power of government then a million saturday night specials or hunting rifles could ever possibly be.
I imagine the actual active army knows this too, which is probably why they wouldn't actually let people near an airfield during a time of war, even assuming that half the country rose up in a glorious revolution all over against rather then the tiny and marginalized minority it would actually be. You hit on several of the most important points implied by gun-ownership that I wish those who have been supporters of gun-ownership for decades would realize.
It's not that people will always find a way or that only criminals will own guns, it's the freedom of the individual and not the state to wield power and the criminal notion that placing responsible, non-violent individuals in prison will somehow reduce incidents of violence. Did you bother to even read the essay? There is little to no debate that political and judicial actions are far more effective and desirable alternatives to an armed rebellion when trying to repress tyranny.
Violent revolution is the last resort and even then, it is only a single albeit large variable in a very complex equation. The entire point is that freely surrendering your "last resort" would not only be asinine, but it might actually even invite tyranny.
As for a population with zero military experience, you must live either outside of America or in one of the "gun free" parts of the country to honestly believe that.
There are millions of veterans here that take the Constitution VERY seriously, not to mention a large segment of our military that would never fire on their own friends and families.
Your assertion that our own government would be able to do to us what the French did to Bali is completely devoid of logic. And what do you suppose the government would be fighting here in America with the killing of her own citizens and the wanton destruction of her own land?
You think the public will have a taste for that? Just thought I'd throw out this nugget. Here, and not that long ago: I'd imagine you're assuming then that the military would either move all non-navel air power underground or out of country. The bulk of us airfields are very exposed, domestic sabotage has never been much of a concern. By "letting people get near an airfield" I assume you know that means not letting people be within about 2 miles to be sure none of the staged aircraft are within range of small arms fire, right?
Aside from a few of the more secure desert airfields, thats impossible with displacing a good segment of the population. And that wouldn't affect the public perception, right?
One straw man for another! How many do you have? I haven't seen anyone here try arguing the US military would morph into some comic book police state, but thanks for the hyperbole. Voting and lobbying is a million times more effective, you're right about that. Have you noticed which direction gun control laws have been going for the past decade? Here's a hint, its not making the Brady campaign happy! The people have spoken via their state legislatures.
They got expanded concealed carry and no extension of the assault weapons ban. You're also trying very hard to miss, ignore, or redirect what the point of the 2nd amendment actually is there for Here's a why, because a majority of veterans remember the oath they swore to uphold the constitution and protect it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Here's a when and a who, right now there are Veterans tend to be firearms owners. Do you see the lopsided numbers game you're dealing with? What percentage do you think would arm up and fight if the government descended into Tyrany? If you studied history, you'd see that in fact, individual liberty tends to suffer occasional setbacks, only to be won back and expand.
Slavery was made illegal. Woman's suffrage became a constitutionally protected right. To argue otherwise makes no sense, we as a society have more protected individual liberties now then we've had years ago.
You come up with straw man argument after straw man argument that inevitably gets shot down in the light of real facts. You offer emotional arguments based on conjecture which read little more than "nuh-uh" or "i don't think so" with little to no factual merit. Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot all followed the roadmap It comes close, though, illustrating what HAS happened in America already what has happened to the Native Americans in the course of our history was at the most charitable, a strong brush with genocide.
The fact that we displaced Japanese and Italian citizens from cities to internment camps in WWII, while not genocide, does show how close we're willing to come to that as a people when push comes to shove. Thats not exactly a slippery slope, but judging from your reaction to the article, it's clear you didn't bother to actually read it.
The point it DOES make is that an unarmed populace is a lot easier to control, and it makes that point again and again. You didn't read this article, did you? Thanks for making these very important points that the author omitted in his otherwise great piece on the subject.
These inalienable rights do not come from government no matter how many politicians may think they do they come from God and are as you stated natural rights. And yes, we must remain vigilant, always. It's a people's duty to protect their rights. I'm not someone who would consider myself on the "left" and most of you that are would consider me pretty far on the "right" Texas RNC delegate pledged to Ron Paul, if that simplifies it and I have to agree with Matt, "this is the best-articulated and most honest discussion of gun rights in the United States I've ever read.
I will be sharing this page widely, and for a very long time to come. It's a shame that most of those leading the charge for more gun control will dismiss this piece outright. I do want to thank the author for putting this piece together. As a Black Man in America, I am a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment, yet, a great number of Blacks blindly follow the rhetoric of our so called 'leaders' Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc that toe the line of the liberal white establishment.
I always like to point out that if one looks at a map of the US, where you find the most stringent gun laws, are also where the highest concentrations of African-Americans reside.
The 'Black Codes' are alive and well. Thank God someone finally brought up the "state of mind" issue that is the central cause of these horrific mass shootings. Like the author said, it's not about pistol grips and magazine capacity, it's about what is making these people desire to kill as many innocent people as they can. We need to figure that out, not spend all our time and energy tearing our country apart into anti-gun and pro-gun sides.
Although I no longer have fire arms of any sort in my home, I believe this writer, an avowed "leftist," whatever the hell that is , hits home.
Non-violence in the face of a culture such as that of England had great potential for working because of the moral consciousness of the average British citizen.
The same thing is apropos of MLK, Jr. The culture has a moral conscience and it would not be denied. We could engage in a long discussion of the validity of this, with someone, no doubt, bringing up the Germany of the post-WWi Part A era and why the citizenry not so clearly bought into what was taking place Auschwitz, Buchenwald, et al. Check the facts, the groups which were denied ownership of guns in that period were of a very specific type.
Can we say ghettoized here? The point is, the 2nd Amendment should not be expurgated from the Constitution; changed, perhaps. The saving grace is those who use the "Bushmaster" and other such weapons do not have the technical expertise to turn them into the automatic weapons they could be; and thank god for that!
Blame that on the education system which was rid of vocational education classes as everyone became enamored of all students attending college. I can guarantee this, my brother, a gifted mechanical genius, given time could turn a Bushmaster or these model AKs into full auto weapons. And wouldn't we have a good time then. Extended ammunition magazines, extended clips, "assault-like weapons," why would a civil society need them? Is this darkness in you, too? Have you passed through this night?
Sadly, I think most of you reading feel the same way. While talking to my mom on Saturday morning I casually mentioned how there was spree killing a few hours before.
I, regrettably, have not. Always curious as to what people other people think about such extreme events, I started to read various news sites and blogs with posts already up about Rodger. For such an extreme situation, I was foolish to think that the comment section for this tragedy would be unbiased.
The top comments in terms of likes were a mixture of those who blame guns for everything and those exposing the worst cultural attribute Canadians possess—our holier than thou attitude toward Americans.
When are the American public going to realize that the fight against terrorism has to begin with the NRA, the biggest urban terrorist group in the US or possibly the world?! The rant by the father of the victim was well put and well needed. May he be granted peace and justice in his loss. This guy was suicidal, but why the hatred, the lust to kill?
Is this what America is about—blame others, externalize your problems, kill? I think America is one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world. Three legal semi automatics and legal rounds legally sold to a 22 year old legal wacko. What about your theory of good people with guns being able to stop these?
Not much for soldiers. To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere…. The fact that everyone would start shooting is also laughable when statistics are examined.
While President Putin pushes through reforms, the local authorities, especially in our vast hinterland, do not feel they need to act like they work for the people. They do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room.
Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position.
In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. They throw acid Pakistan, UK , they throw fire bombs France , they attack. The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly.
So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture? No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed.
Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear. So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.
The article reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina. It proposes legislation turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of into a RICO predicate offense, allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses. Senator Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill — S.
Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S. The law will later be struck down in court as unconstitutional. It bans specific semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date. The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns, becomes effective.
Senator Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House was Rep.
Senator Metzenbaum introduces S. Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the Gun-Free School Zones Act of , an amended version of the school-zone law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.
The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law. It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever owning a gun. It was introduced by Dianne Feinstein and Senator Hatch. Senator Kohl introduces bill S. It would to require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun. Senator Lautenberg introduces bill S. Senator Feinstein introduces bill S.
It is a plan for a national firearms licensing system. It is a nation-wide gun registration plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill]. Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer and others introduce legislation that would reauthorize the federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.
The ban is scheduled to expire in September, You believe the military will one day stand up to them. You believe a Ron Paul is a one in a million guy, a superman, that will save you…..
They own both sides of the argument. Always having a horse in the race. Where does it come from? What seed, what root did it grow from? Robbing us of life and light. Does it help the grass to grow, the sun to shine? Is this darkness in you, too? Have you passed through this night? Whose side are you on anyway? The Jews are stealing every resource from the American people. If you call on them for who they are; then you are an antisemite.
The Old Testament laws are not functional due to the covenant of New Testament laws. There is no difference between a Jew, Greek, slaves, and Gentiles.
They are one in Christ Jesus who died for all. Your recent comments about me on your blog have been noted. In my experience, aggressive, abusive Nazi-boys like you tend to crumble like men of straw when real life intrudes on all that cyber-hatred that you like to display.
And you will be no different. Happy New Year, Mr Friend. Sorry Charlie, your totally defeatist attitude here is bordering on the demonic! We have the Truth, dammit, and that is all any of us should need! Did Gandhi need more than that to defeat the entire British Empire in India, without a single shot being fired? Take your negative, defeatist attitude somewhere else. Someone saw a man I think may be Mossad?
Then Police came after 1 hour after the shooting and police took captive Martin Bryant and believe Martin Bryant did it. He went straight to jail without Court or without lawyers help him.
He has life in prison. One of my favorite quotes of his is where he stated that the biggest mistake the British ever made was to disarm the Indian people. Bro Nathanael are you aware your videos are being censored in many countries, primarily European France, Germany, Poland etc. The sword and the lance shall come again to this land and to others as well. War is coming and this will be the longest and most bloody in all history. One of your best! Watch this testimony before a Senate committee Sen.
Schumer appears in the background:. The young lady presenting her experience before the committee here provides the most galvanizing testimony for gun ownership. Furthermore, send Piers Morgan to the Republic of South Africa and see how he manages without a personal weapon. Only armed conflict can change things now. They use brutality on you at every turn.
They are not going to sit down at the table and negotiate. They have the blue chip. They have already clearly stated with the Sampson Option that they will see Earth lifeless before they give up power! And they mean that. They have armed themselves to the teeth both here and in Israhell and they intend to use the weapons they have.
Keep in mind Matter as we know it can be neither created nor destroyed, only converted. Judaic evil is all around us. They have Satan on their side and he is a formidable foe by any measure. We already have a tremendous advantage in this war, which I am not disputing may prove to be quite bloody, if indeed it ever does.
That already gives us a tremendous advantage, and I believe the bad guys know this. So they are doing their best to force US We the People to fire the first shot, which could very well happen if they come for our guns. This is still very much a psychological war, and we should strive to keep it that way, which is to our advantage more than theirs. But they are going to end up losing no matter what, because evil will always destroy itself in the end.
They, being a parasitic culture, will not know how to survive if they kill off their host. Another thing they probably know and are worried about. The long and short of this we should have no reason to fear, as long as we keep our faith in Christ, and in the Truth. Not so with the bad guys, and maybe they are starting to contemplate this as well.
As I deal and talk with people, I find more and more are starting to know the truth. I believe the Jews believe that time is of the essence and that they need to seize final control ASAP before they are exposed to all. A small match can turn into the biggest fire. We need to retain our guns while we spread the truth, for mightier is the pen than the sword. If they could win, they already would have. A few more years more or less is nothing to them now. They want to insure when they go for their victory that it is complete.
They have worked slowly but surely to destroy AmeriKwan society and Christianity worldwide before moving forward. They are not going to proceed like they did in post WWI Germany and find themselves again in the work camps on the out. However, there is one and only one chance. We can only wait and see but unless it ends with a total banishment of them, it will only be a matter of time before they creep back in to power. They have been up and down the ladder 80 times in history.
Each time resulting in them kicked back to the gutter from whence they came. Better a live friend, brother or sister, than a dead foe who just rots and stinks up the battlefield. Is it not so? Great videos, great writings and good conversation all along. Maybe it is, that US is still number one, but not in school shootings. Similarly here as in the US, all the media and politicians blamed private gun owners, or maybe too little constrained internet, but never themselves.
You might not be allowed to see Your relatives, but You can watch the TV, why? In US, Jews own the media and the Government, in here, a handful of Finns owned them both with catastrophical results. White Americans well know the white guilt, but we know also the black guilt, that is that we refused to work as slaves, but we demanded some dollars per hour.
But Chinese are not that happy with the situation either. Lots of talking about his attitude about international banking, ruled by Jewish bankers, in order to forget his most important vision: They would be on the internet, TV, radio and the newspapers calling truth-tellers antisemitic conspiracy theorists and terrorists.
All the brain deads out there would accept it as the truth. In the beginning of the United States it was not the broad mass of the public that fought the Jew and mason controlled British Empire. It was a small minority of determined patriots that fought the enemy and through their sacrifice on the battlefields of America they gained liberty for their descendants. People let their guard down and became too open minded and tolerant, and now the enemy is not only back they have been in charge for far too long and now they want your guns, then they want all that you have and then they want your life.
Energy is a different thing as it just shifts form. Only the Maker of all things can destroy energy and lay the Universe to rest if so chosen. Brandon Morgans welcome home kiss with boyfriend Dalan Wells…. Thus, for example, it would be worthwhile trying to upload short clips from various members reminding the awaken ones that there is a man who is giving everything to expose The Synagogue of Satan. Can a spider stop being a spider because of political correctness?
Can a snake stop being a snake because of political correctness. They know it genetically. It is hardwired for hatred and destruction. It like every other animal on the planet is designed for something, a niche.
Whites are designed for building societies and Jews are their counter balance to destroy societies.
You give them far too much credit about taking over all at once. They have to do it through deceit. Like take a politician a shabbos goy. They groom a politician over time to do their will. They know people that seek power are moral weaklings and retrobates and deviants and scum and trash and human debris and garbage phew! So they take advantage of these people lust for gold. They give them a whiff of the gold stuff and put them in office.
The Juden will lure them to a hotel room for a hookup with a pre-teen boy and all the while the Juden is hiding in the closet taking pictures. Then later the Juden presents these photographs to the retrobate along with their list of demands.
It happens over a matter of time. I grew up Irish-Catholic. Satan was in the house and the Boomers let him in the backdoor. Well, before you know it the Satan and the Juden were buying up everything on the monopoly board and now the Baby Boomers are owned by Satan. The Boomers are owned. I would never go to a Catholic Church nowadays. Not to say that there might be one or two Catholic Priests in the world that are still good men but most are bought off and corrupt and spread lies and nonsense about Jews being are brethren and Jesus was Jewish and sort of other things that you expect in the end times.
You know I have to say about growing up in AmeriKwa is that it sure is sad having to watch as the nation you live in is destroyed by the most evil tribe in the history of mankind. There is no sense of guilt or remorse or compassion or kindness or generosity or ethics…. In us they see those as weaknesses and they exploit every virtue mankind has.
Sure you want to take that position here, Charlie? Are you trying to start a fight? Do you want to fight me? Why do you hate Catholics? Why do you hate me for being White? Yes, the Jews have all sorts of earthly power. But is that the only form of power there is? But, alas, for the Jews this is like death itself, to admit that they have sinned. But the reward for doing so, and accepting Christ as their Savior, is eternal life instead!
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the Jews over the last 2, years have rejected and refused to accept Jesus as their Messiah. In other words, use the brain God gave you and avoid the evil the Jews would do. And if you have no wisdom, pray in faith and God will give it. Focusing the blame right where it lies. Either way, this homicidal catastrophe will still serve as a prop to attempt to further their goals. Crime skyrocketed as the law-abiding were disarmed. The English citizens have a message for Americans.
Britain wants to ban fox hunting [in ], meaning taking away the long guns. Politicians ignore the facts, while police officers face it every day. Anonymous British police officer: They can buy whatever they want on the black market. We had a wooden truncheon and a set of chainlink handcuffs.
Why do we still need this [bulletproof] equipment? Because the criminals have the weapons, and are prepared to use them. Farmer, Tony Martin, who killed burglar and injured another was initially sentenced for life, and then with outcry, his sentence was reduced to manslaughter. Surviving burglar, sentenced to three years for burglary, is suing Tony Martin for damages at tax payers expense.
The law is on the side of the criminals. British libs got what their American counterparts can only dream about, a complete handgun ban and confiscation of existing guns and look at what the results were.
GUN CONTROL PERSUASIVE ESSAY. Persuasive essays are largely similar to argumentative ones, so much that it may be difficult to pinpoint the difference at first.
Debates on gun control are fraught with emotion and personal opinion. Statistics are easily manipulated, and gun control debate questions arise with each new tragedy.
Essay, term paper research paper on Gun Control. Gun Control Gun control is an action of the government that is supposed to reduce crime. The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state.
Essay/Term paper: The second amendment and the right to bear arms Essay, term paper, research paper: Gun Control. Journal of Contemporary Law; Gun Control: Separating Reality from Symbolism, by Don B. Kates, Jr.