22 Dec

The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

                                       

“I don’t think legitimate sportsmen are going to say, ‘I need an assault weapon to go hunting,’” Cuomo said, according to the New York Times. “There is a balance here — I understand the rights of gun owners; I understand the rights of hunters.”

Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.

Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” the governor said.

constitutionThis is the governor of one of the largest states (population-wise) in the country! We have devolved to a point in the gun rights argument that we’re reverting back to the very thing from which e sought independence. The Declaration of Independence lists several grievances that led to the Revolutionary War.

King George was an oppressive ruler. He quartered troops in private homes to keep the citizens in check. He forced sailors to take up arms against fellow contrymen. He taxed them into oblivion without any representation. He made up laws on the fly to deal with trouble makers and denied them due process.

In Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker, a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia offcer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the 2nd Amendment that, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

Yes, I’m a nerd. I read and RESEARCH the meanings of the Constitution, especially the most fundamental and important of our rights. Delving into the Appendix, Tucker explains further the meaning of the 2nd Amendment (emphasis is mine).

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty …. The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.

secondamendmentSound familiar? Today’s progressive movement has sought to turn the 2nd Amendment’s meaning into something it isn’t. Our lofty politicians – protected with their throngs of security guards, armored vehicles, and other protections – and their lapdog media have succeeded at convincing the “low information voters,” as Rush Limbaugh likes to say, that this right is meant to apply to hunters only. Or in your home only.

In addition, they have tried to tell us that even if we were hunters, we “don’t need those kinds of weapons for hunting.” Nearly every argument I have with a progressive gun grabber usually incorporates the statements that there is no use for any type of magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds or to own a weapon that looks black and evil. Personally, I think that’s racist that they are trying to ban so-called “black rifles.”

Another constitutional scholar to our Founders, William Rawle, wrote a book in 1829 called, “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.” In this book, he talks about the reach and authority of the 2nd Amendment while also discussing the limitations on those that would attempt to circumvent it. He, rightly so, points out that the 27 words that make up the 2nd Amendment are composed of two, separate clauses; not one run-on sentence. Of the first clause (a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state), he writes:

Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Some would point to the National Guard and say that this is what constitutes the “well regulated Militia” of the 2nd Amendment. However, such is not the case. The National Guard is frequently called upon to take on standing military operations. Our politicians and government have done a stellar job at preventing “the people” from forming their own “well regulated Militias” by labeling such groups as extremist, hate, or seditious collections. Can anyone honestly say that if our government became so corrupt as to turn on its own people that the National Guard would be in place to oppose the regular military forces? We all know that the Guard’s troops are equipped with mostly secondhand equipment and arms. If – and this is a very long shot – the country was ordered into martial law either the National Guard would be called up to augment the active forces or would be defeated without support if it stood up for the people.

This is why militias comprised of “the people” are included in the Constitution. Imagine if the people were allowed to form these militias in Los Angeles before the LA riots. Neighborhoods of people could defend their homes and businesses. Heck, one only needs to look at this picture from the riots of what property owners were doing to defend and protect their property. These citizens were protecting Korea town.

Korean-men-defending-Koreatown-during-the-1992-LA-riot

There are videos online of the LA Riots of literal gun battles between looters and armed merchants protecting their assets. There were no police officers anywhere nearby and it was left to the citizen to protect himself and his belongings.

But, Rawle pointed out the distinctions in his book between the two clauses in the 2nd Amendment and there are two. Of the second clause – the right of the people to keep and bear arms – he said the following:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious (ie: criminal – CJ) attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle also understood that such rights are encumbered with certain responsibilities. Just because you have a right to “keep and bear arms” doesn’t mean you have a right to be an ass. Obviously, there is a certain etiquette to exercising all of our rights. For example, you can’t shout “FIRE” or “BOMB” in any crowded environment so as to induce panic. Rawle identified the limitation to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights this way:

This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments.

In other words, ordering a Big Mac with fries and a Diet Dr. Pepper with a pistol in your hand would probably be defined as a “disturbance of the public peace.” Walking around the mall with an AK strapped to your back would probably also qualify as “an indictable offence.”

Rawle makes it quite clear that “the People” refers to individuals and not the military, or Militia. This isn’t someone over 200 years after the amendment was written trying to opine as to the true meaning of its words. This is of a man who was present during the debates and knew what the Founders meant when it was written.

onenationundersocialism

Another founding contemporary was Justice Story, a Supreme Court Associate Justice appointed by James Madison in 1811. He wrote a book called “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” in 1833. Again, this is a man that was present for the ensuing discussion and explanatory speeches by the Founders and writers of our Constitution. He obviously never imagined that we would have such Constitution-hating liberals filling offices to which they were sworn to protect and defend the very thing they hate.

The modern-day Democrat party talks more about the need to change the Constitution – and specifically the need to change the 2nd Amendment – than they talk about defending and supporting it. Without studying the words of those actually present during the 1880s to 1890s, they deign to just make up stuff and simply define that sacred document as “living” and “breathing.” Mayor Bloomingturd and Governor Cuckuomo obviously never “duly reflected upon the subject” of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

In his essay “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” which was published in the Federal Gazette on June 18, 1789 Tench Coxe wrote that it is the responsibility of the people (again, speaking as individuals) to be the final check on government. He writes:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

I could go on and on. There is simply no factual basis behind the 2nd Amendment referring specifically to hunting or even that it was intended to restrict certain arms simply because of their physical appearance. Today’s liberal elite and their zombie-like followers won’t “carry [them]selves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed” as Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Johnson in 1823 (please read the great book, “The Complete Jefferson” to find other nuggets of intellectual knowledge on the founding of this country). Instead, they assign new and evolving meaning that suits their collective agendas.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson

Perhaps, this is really why the rulers in Washington are so intent on taking away our weapons. Let there be no doubt now as we engage our intellectual inferiors on this subject about the true meaning and intent of our Founders when they debated and passed the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. It’s time to put gun control to bed once and for all.

And as for the belief that “if we just ban high capacity magazines, the shooter won’t kill as many people” I offer you the following video on just how long it takes a trained or practiced shooter to change the magazine on these so-called “assault rifles.”

YouTube Preview Image
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Mass Murders. Bookmark the permalink. Saturday, December 22nd, 2012 at 10:02 pm
| 2,482 views

339 Responses to The Truth About The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

  1. Tom says: 51

    @Wm T Sherman:

    There are about 10,000 homicides per year that use guns.

    Is that it? Since you claim to want to have a fact based discussion, how does that compare to other industrialized nations? Is it not an egregious total by any measure? Yet you find my suggestion that regulation of who might own a firearm is spurious, as if there is no basis for questioning the wisdom of the current arrangement.

    My parlance, you say. I wrote no such thing.

    Fair enough. My apologies for that characterization if you feel I’ve misrepresented you.

    Nobody on this side of the argument wants the conversation suppressed. It has been discussed at length and you are no doubt perfectly aware of that. We disagree about how to prevent it in the future and would like to see reasoning, facts, and empirical evidnce applied to the problem, and not your preferred mode: emotion, hysteria, and demonization of people who have reached a different conclusion from you.

    You’ve (plural) been given the empirical evidence on gun deaths in the US, and you’re (plural) response is a resounding “Second Amendment”. I’ve had this discussion for a week with people, and I’ve heard every possible reason against gun control, from the Second Amendment and freedom from tyranny, to they’re “fun”. Those aren’t arguments how to stop mass shootings, they’re arguments how to stop gun control. Tell me how I should view the fact you (plural) can’t offer one sensible suggestion on how to regulate guns better?

    Shoot this suggestion down: No gun shall be sold in this country, by licensed dealer or private citizen, without a background check performed. If one is sold without a background check, and that gun ends up being used in a crime, the seller will be held responsible (whether criminally or othewise is up to further debate).

    ReplyReply
  2. Jake Witmer says: 52

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    I highly recommend that all gun owners do exactly what Julian Heicklen has done (JURY RIGHTS ACTIVISM), repeatedly, in defense of proper jury trials. Jury trials have been slowly degraded and eroded, just like every other protection of individual rights, but jury trials are the most extreme limitation of government power. To get a proper jury trial, only ONE person on the jury needs to be informed. Read about the historical loss of jury trials here, and

    Understand this: the 2nd Amendment has been eroded as well, but ultimately, its practice can still be both USEFUL and OPTIMIZED.

    Example of USEFUL: You can go out and buy a handgun, and then you’ll be much safer than someone who is disarmed, when it comes to defense against rape and assault. When it comes to an unconstitutional stormtrooper telling you to fetch your wife and kids from inside the house, and line up on the sidewalk, you’re not in a good situation, but you’re in a far, far, far better situation than someone who is completely disarmed. (The Jews in the warsaw ghetto uprising first used crappy little black market revolvers to shoot guards, and take their rifles. In that case, their possession of black market revolvers saved their lives, and they held off an entire German army division for longer than the entire nation of France did. Untold lives were saved by that fact: they occupied the time of murderers of men, women, and chilren, so they could not be murdering others who were entirely disarmed, for this entire three month period.)

    Example of OPTIMIZED: Even though you cannot be equally armed to the general infantry man as Federalist Paper #46 (Madison, the author of the 2nd Amendment) indicates (for that to happen, you’d need to be able to own a select-fire AR-15, a fully auto BAR, etc…), you can own something close: a semi-automatic battle rifle, which you have practiced with to proficiency at up to 300 yards. Even if you live in IL, you can buy such a tool, and practice at Maxon’s gun range in Des Plaines. Further, you can own several revolvers, enough for each family member, so that noone in your family needs to “get on the truck.” “Useful” is at the beginning of the scale, the end of which is “optimized.”

    It might seem “far fetched” or “paranoid” to the emasculated, whiny, unphilosophical, uneducated, whimpering fiat-currency serfs (socialists who, not knowing the history of the word liberal, call themselves “liberals”) who are now bleating to be rendered completely defenseless. But SCREW THEM. They’re too uneducated to know that “gun control” is already responsible for over 4,000 murdered (“lynched”) blacks in the South –the first “Jim Crow” law passed in the South (in several states, immediately following the civil war) required a Sheriff’s permit to carry a firearm. Guess what race got permits from the (always) white (often) KKK-member sheriffs? Whites only! Guess what turned the tide in the battle for civil rights in the South? White, liberal, anti-racist “civil rights attorneys” who all carried guns, came down South from the North to protect black families. Don Kates, a white, liberal lawyer states that “We all carried guns.” (See: “In Search of the Second Amendment” by David T. Hardy Without guns, those civil rights attorneys simply would have been lynched as well.

    The pathetically-misinformed gun grabbers never got an education in history in the government youth propaganda camps, and they’re too dishonest and stupid to have read the Federalist Papers, or to have watched David Hardy’s documentary “In Search of the Second Amendment.” So, they are bleating to be stripped of a right they don’t understand, and to be stripped of tools they know nothing about, and they are bleating to strip those who do understand these tools of them as well. That’s the same kind of mindless evil that sent 6 million innocent Jews to their deaths, before and during WWII. If the USA hadn’t entered the war, it would have been many millions more. (Good thing the Jews weren’t negroes, like the Tutsis in Rwanda! The USA under the gun-grabber Clinton administration didn’t give a rat’s ass about them. Also, he didn’t want to get sucked into another Somalia. So, when we could have at least spoken up about the genocide, and placed pressure on the world to disallow the genocide, the USA was silent and uninvolved. Moreover, the USA’s anti-gun policies made it impossible to send private relief and private defense to Rwanda. But the US knew what was going on –they had very accurate reports of the genocide as it began, and as it unfolded. When the “Hutu Power” majority enacted a universal gun ban against the Tutsis, those who obeyed the law were all murdered by the Hutu “soldiers.”)

    What Bloomberg is championing is totalitarianism: a government with absolute power. I’m amazed he defends that position (albeit lyingly and inconsistently) in public.

    Here’s another example from history: In the early 1970s, my father’s draft number came up. But he understood the appeals process. An army truck appeared one day, in Charleston, IL ( Where Eastern, IL University is, and where Lincoln once gave his famous racist speech, stating that his goal was not to make negroes equal under the law, but to “preserve the Union”), and a military man in uniform told my father: “Get on the truck.” Several people already on the truck looked on in disbelief as my father refused to board the truck, destined for bringing newly-aquired military slaves to a military induction center.

    My father had done more research into his rights, and he knew that he had yet to exhaust the appeals process. So, to his immense credit, he didn’t get on the truck. And he THEREFORE wasn’t sent to Vietnam. Because the USA was nation with a solid gun culture at that time, he also wasn’t summarily executed in front of the other draftees. He certainly would have been shot dead, or imprisoned, in Soviet Russia (where private ownership of guns was banned at the same time period) for a similar refusal. He certainly would have been shot dead, or imprisoned, in communist China (where private ownership of guns was banned at the same time period) for a similar refusal.

    Now, morons will miss the point and take this as their cue to defend the Vietnam war, and that’s their right. But I didn’t mention my father’s unwillingness to “get on the truck” to argue against the Vietnam war. I mentioned it to note the difference between what happens to someone in a country of gun owners who disobeys an unlawful order, and what happens to someone in an unfree country of disarmed victims who disobeys an unlawful order.

    Jews who didn’t obey nazi orders to get on the cattle cars were promptly shot, or forced onto the cars to be murdered at their destination. Their lives were over in an instant, and their public murders were a message to anyone who might be likewise tempted to resist. That message was “The government holds absolute power. Disobey us, and you will be murdered. The individual is nothing, the collective is everything.” They openly said as much, once the public was disarmed. (“Du bist nichts; Dein Volk ist alles.” Translated: You are nothing; your people is everything. German Nazi Führer (Leader) Adolf Hitler. Note that this core premise, collectivism, is the opposite of the American premise, individualism.)

    …One might expect the legal heir of Ayn Rand to comprehend this fact. He wrote an eloquent and 100% truthful book about how the decline of the Weimar Republic (in 1920s, and 1930s Germany) is similar in many ways to the decline of our own Republic. That book is called “The Ominous Parallels,” and I highly recommend it. However, he later agreed with the US government’s massacre of a church of innocent people in Texas, when the BATFE massacred the Branch Davidians, in Waco Texas. He bought the government’s story, hook, line, and sinker, with seemingly no investigation into the legitimacy of the warrants. On a radio show, he repulsively agreed with their massacre (even of the innocents who the government was allegedly trying to save). You can read all about it at ARI Watch

    What am I getting at here? Why mention “The Ominous Parallels” and then criticize Peikoff for his “about-face” support of the Branch Davidian massacre?

    Authorities, even legitimate ones, sometimes come to the wrong conclusions about what is best for INDIVIDUALS. They have a wrong opinion, and, when they’re siding with collectivism, and government over-reach, their opinions can have disastrous “unintended consequences.” Authorities have the microphone, and they can direct hordes of uncritical thinkers to that same wrong conclusion. In Germany, those who sympathized with the ostracism and legal inequality of the Jews were wrong, and evil. But those championing “the final solution” had the microphone. They had the political power. …And the German citizenry went along with the 1938 Nazi Weapons Act, which disarmed the Jews, and Germans who were not members of the Nazi Party. In America, where the public had a right to keep and bear arms, the individual decides for himself what path he’ll follow.

    Here in America, we have not made the FATAL MISTAKE of ceding individual choice to the government. Here in America, we own the weapons necessary to say “No. …I refuse.”

    So, my father can be a “peacenik.” He can refuse to go and die for a bullshit false cause, when his country wants him to make a fatal mistake. He can disagree, and he can LIVE TO TELL THE TALE. Any criticism of the USA must note its superiority to a nation where there are only disarmed subjects. Because, even though the promise of America may be false, America retains its ability to back away from the precipice of total destruction —so long as it retains its right to private firearms ownership and target practice. With a restriction of either of those rights, the gun culture and American freedom with it, are only temporary. With a restriction of firearms ownership, there can be no reliable gun culture. With a restriction of “backdoor” firearms bans on shooting ranges, there can be no reliable gun culture. America’s gun culture is what ultimately guarantees our individual freedom. America’s gun culture is the ability to say “I insist you leave me alone,” after the “Please leave me alone” is ignored.

    I never use the term “gun control,” and I correct people who do use it. I say “Do you mean ‘gun chaos’? …Or do you mean ‘slave control’?” Because the phrase ‘gun control,’ as you’re using it, contains two false premises. The first false premise is that government restrictions on firearms ownership results in increased control of firearms. That’s not true, it’s never been true, and you cannot factually point to any instance in the history of mankind where it has been true. In 100% of the cases where private gun ownership has been restricted, those who have refused to give up their firearms (the police and the criminals) have increased their illegitimate power over the law-abiding citizens who had given up their firearms. In the best examples, this has made the Yakuza superior in power to the average japanese civilian. It has lowered japanese women under the power of male rapists, and allowed rapists to accurately and correctly predict that Japanese women are inferior in power to them, increasing rape and sexual assault. It has resulted in humiliation and defeat for women who were put in a position to be raped. Similarly in the UK and in Australia, criminal aggression, rape, and assault all skyrocketed after the bans on firearm carry and ownership. (Watch the movie “Romper Stomper” for good examples of the kind of grotesque violence of white supremacists and other street thugs that resulted from their victims being disarmed, and law-abiding citizens being cowed into inaction. It’s the same kind of violence that now emboldens street thugs in Chicago, New York, and Washington D.C.) In cases where a dangerous snake was in someone’s house, or a razorback was menacing someone in Australia, it lowered the citizen in power below even the wildlife. This disgusting lowering of human integrity, the debasement of man to dangerous animals, further empowers the government: they want you to be defenseless. Rather than being able to shoot a coyote that attacks your child, they’d prefer you call 911, or “animal control.” After all, that makes legislators and bureaucrats important. Legislators and bureaucrats are as important as a case of athlete’s foot to an armed and independent free man. This is what really galls people like Bloomberg: the idea that we’d be able to solve our own problems without their regressive social engineering.

    Governments like a nation of inferior humans, disarmed and begging to be kept safe. It’s a power trip for them. It’s a power trip for disgusting bullies like Bloomberg, who don’t go anywhere without an armed escort. (“For me, but not for thee!”) And the net effect is to make every law-abiding individual in the entire USA less capable of defending themselves from armed aggression. How much less? Let’s hope we never find out.

    Hitler steered clear of Switzerland, and the nazis laundered their money in the Swiss banking system. Many Swiss were appalled at the nazis, but they remained neutral, and capable of defending themselves, and never had to deal with them. So are we to believe Hitler avoided Switzerland because he didn’t want enough gold to arm every regimen in each of his occupying forces to the hilt? Are we to believe that, when photos of camp guards towards the end of the war show that many of the guards’ rifles are UNLOADED, due to lack of ammunition, that Hitler wouldn’t have wanted to confiscate Switzerland’s gold? That’s simply not credible. Hitler avoided marching into the Swiss Alps because snipers armed with automatic weapons from Cantonal militias would have safely turned his troops into Swiss cheese from mountainous cover positions.

    My father was appalled at the North Vietnamese. …But he knew better than to put his life under the control of someone else who might not value it as much as he did. He knew better than to surrender autonomy over his own destiny. He lived to raise a family, and lead an enchanted life in a relatively free market economy. 58,000 of his fellow citizen-peers (young men) were not so lucky, and perished in Vietnam, for a war we didn’t need to win. Now, we trade with Vietnam, and they can honestly claim to have fewer people, per capita, in prison than the USA does. Do they now have a right to march into Chicago, and liberate Chicagoans from an oppressive regime? No. …But the Vietnam war was still a pointless, foolish sacrifice of American life. And my father was right to avoid it like the politicians’ plague that it was.

    NEVER GIVE UP YOUR FIREARMS. YOUR FIREARMS ARE YOUR FREEDOM. EVEN IF YOU ARE A DEFENSELESS COWARD, OTHER PEOPLE’S FIREARMS HAVE BLESSED YOU WITH A HIGH STANDARD OF LIVING. GUN RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE, BECAUSE WITHOUT THEM, THERE IS GOVERNMENT-ENACTED TOTALITARIAN CHAOS.

    Which brings me to the difference between “control” and “chaos.” In the roaring 1920s in the USA, there was “chaos.” The mob had a lot of machine guns, because owning one only required paying a $200 transfer tax, and a “lawful” registration. This situation continued even after the supply of machine guns was limited by the “Gun Control (Gun Chaos) Act of 1968.” After the GCA 1968, there was a one-month amnesty registration of all machine guns, and buying a new machine gun became illegal for everyone besides the police. (So, the police have new automatic weapons, and the submitizen slaves have automatic weapons that get older, and older, and older, and eventually fall apart or are bought by collectors. This is creeping, incremental gun prohibition of weapons that make the individual equal to government soldiers.) It was still possible for anyone who wanted to buy an old machine gun to do so, if they agreed to submit 14 sets of fingerprints, and register themselves as the machine gun owner. Many otherwise law-abiding citizens were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for such violations, as were many violent criminals (who had a greater “every day” need for extreme firepower). Later, the mislabeled “assault weapons ban” (signed into law by George Herbert Walker Bush) banned semi-automatic rifles that that were cosmetically different than other weapons that had the exact same functionality. For instance, if a rifle had a flash suppressor (which makes it easier to shoot in low-light) it was mislabeled an “assault weapon” and banned. This introduced confusion and chaos among law-abiding people who owned rifles that were cosmetically different from a normal .30-o6 hunting rifle. For several years, those who owned such weapons were technically felons, even though very few people (to their credit) turned in their “scary looking rifles.” When George W. Bush allowed this onerous ban to expire, those felons once again became regular old law-abiding citizens. Would we have been better off if the police were able to perfectly enforce that ban, and send those 300,000 (estimate) Americans to prison? We already have more people in prison, per capita, than any other country in the entire world. (…But we’re a free country, right?) So, a whole bunch of otherwise non-criminal Americans were branded felons, and some of them had their lives ruined, because of a law that later wasn’t deemed worthy of keeping on the books.

    OK, so that’s what “weak firearm restrictions,” mislabeled “gun control” look like, and this is what is labeled unacceptably “chaos” (the opposite of control) by the establishment. This situation is deemed so chaotic that further government controls, including possible confiscation, are necessary. What about stronger gun control? What does that look like? Well, the Nazi Weapons Act forbade anyone who wasn’t a Nazi Party member from owning weapons. The result of the Nazi Weapons Act was 6-8,000,000 innocent Jews murdered during peacetime, not including battle deaths. Another 10-12,000,000 innocent German civilian dissenters, gypsies, homosexuals, artists, and other non-party members were also murdered while there was “100% gun control” in Germany. In Russia, where non-police were banned from gun ownership, 50,000,000 innocent civilians were murdered, with 20,000,000 of them murdered because Stalin’s military carted off the food they needed to survive the harsh Ukrainian winter. In Mao’s China, a similar 60,000,000 innocent civilians were murdered, and in Pol Pot’s Cambodia, over 95% of the entire country’s population was murdered, for offenses such as “wearing eyeglasses.” You can get all these statistics and more at the website “The Democratic Peace” website of Professor R. J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii

    So, if we have a moderate amount of “gun control” we can expect, at minimum, rapists and violent criminals to be emboldened, and for assault, robbery, and rape levels to increase (as they have in all areas of the USA where guns are banned, such as Chicago and Washington D.C.). Moderate levels of “gun control” have the opposite effect of passing a “shall issue” concealed carry handgun permit law, as several States have done over the past 20 years. Each time such a “shall-issue” law is passed, rape, assault, and robbery rapidly decrease, and unoccupied car theft increases, because unoccupied cars can’t shoot back (According to the landmark study of county-by-county violent crime data by sociologist Gary Kleck). I don’t know about you, but I’d rather that my car was broken into, than that a woman in my family was raped by a rapist who presumed that she was law-abiding and therefore not carrying “the great equalizer.”

    So we can encourage rape, if we give Bloomberg and his regressive gun-grabbers part of what they want. We can confuse people who want to own rifles that are cosmetically different than normal hunting rifles, and that will result in some of them being caught by the police state and prison system, their lives ruined for no good reason. We can further embolden cowardly, ineffectual young male murderers, by posting signs on our schools that say “gun free zone,” which is interpreted by them as “welcome to the shooting gallery.” Such signs indicate, to the deranged multiple murderer: “If you want to kill us, we have call 911, and wait for the police to get here, while you shoot us. We are defenseless victims, and even if you only have a pump shotgun, you can kill us as fast as you can reload. We’re a shooting gallery of defenseless targets. So, if you have a deranged hatred of all teachers, or feel they have wronged you, you can take away the one thing that is precious to them: the lives of the children who they are entrusted to protect.”

    That’s a moderate level of “gun control,” and a level that totalitarians like Bloomberg might actually succeed in enacting into a law that contradicts the highest law of the land, the 2nd Amendment. This would then result in the legal chaos that we’re experiencing right now, where the Supreme Court and States have made it clear that gun control is unlawful, but the regressive socialists in the Federal Government and various regressive socialist cities now contradict the law, and enforce self-contradictory statutes, rather than obeying the law of the land. (Guess which law the police –who all took oaths to uphold the U.S. Constitution as the highest law of the land– will enforce? That’s right: the kind of person who signs up to be a cop will typically follow whatever law their watch commander says will result in them getting another paycheck. Otherwise, no cop could ever write a victimless traffic ticket, confiscate and arrest people for drug possession, arrest people for tax evasion, etc.)

    And if we allow Bloomberg and his regressives to win? To enact sweeping gun control? An extreme level of “gun control” results in mass murder of innocent civilians by a totalitarian government. Of course, mass murder of innocent civilians by all-powerful uniformed bureaucrats might seem like “order” or “control,” but it really is CHAOS. It is chaos to have an unpredictable environment, where at any time, a few armed stormtroopers can begin ordering your neighbors onto trucks. In Rwanda, many Hutus –who were not subject to gun control– objected to their Tutsi neighbors being ordered out of their houses, and shot to death, or hacked up with machetes. They objected to the systematic rape and then genital mutilation of Tutsi women (so they couldn’t reproduce). But the bands of armed “Hutu Power” uniformed thugs knew that those Hutus were in the minority, and they killed them, too (Such Hutu voices of dissent were labeled as “traitors” and executed along with the Tutsi minority). Those unelected government thugs had been shipped rifles, machetes, and uniforms by the United Nations’ former leader, Boutros Boutros Ghali. Those thugs were “the law.” Now, they weren’t the legitimate law. There were laws on the books forbidding murder in Rwanda. But once the guns were confiscated, and the orders were given, the Tutsis and their few Hutu defenders didn’t have the ABILITY to fight back.

    The lesson history teaches us is this: Legitimate laws create predictability and emergent order (true “gun control,” because individual law-abiding citizens are then, except in limited cases of theft, in control of their firearms). The supreme law of the USA, the 2nd Amendment, has prevented the total centralization of power in the USA. Therefore, even though a moderate level of gun control has made us much more of a police state, there is still a fairly orderly and fairly controlled society. The fact that power is still more or less decentralized has not created the chaos of mass murder. It has not created an environment where US civilians would be forced to sit by while their neighbors are ordered onto trucks for “orderly” deportation or murder. (Forced government deportation and murder is closer to chaos than millions of law-abiding citizens being armed, and this would be true even if one in ten of them was a psychopath, since even psychopaths are disincentivized to act out their psychopathy if it will mean their death at the hands of law-abiding gun owners.) There are simply too many guns in the hands of private citizens for “democide” (mass murder by government during peacetime) to be possible.

    The US government, cannot, tomorrow, order all negroes to report to the local trainyard. The US government cannot send trucks full of uniformed “homeland security” agents to our neighborhoods to collect all firearms, and shoot all dissenters in public, as a message to the general public. Although the US public stupidly has allowed door-to-door searches in black neighborhoods, for “drugs,” the government cannot treat all civilians this way. …It would result in a successful armed rebellion against the incumbent government.

    BACK DOOR GUN GRABS:

    So, crafty totalitarians like Bloomberg and Obama are pursuing a different strategy. They are trying to make gun ownership appear “uncaring” and “indifferent” to the murder of innocents. The opposite is true, of course. …But there are millions of “fairweather” friends of individual freedom. There are millions of civilians (voters) whom libertarian legal philosopher Lysander Spooner termed “dupes, knaves, and cowards.” Such people wrongly assume good intentions when government trots out a new policy that is horribly mislabeled. They are duped into thinking “It’s just what they say it is. It’s a ‘middle of the road’ compromise that doesn’t really hurt anyone. I can still have a gun, I just can’t have a gun that makes me equal in power to a soldier.” Others are the knaves, such as people who work for homeland security, or have other bureaucratic posts with the government. They think to themselves “Well, this ‘gun control’ stuff is going to be bad for the gun owners, but who cares? I’m not one of them, and I can carry a gun while I’m at work. Plus, it’s a guarantee that I’ll have job security, processing the paperwork of all the poor bastards I’ll be helping to send to prison.”

    Which brings us to the last category: the cowards. The thinking of the cowards is much the same as the first two groups. But they know in their hearts that when they try to write off gun control as “harmless” that it’s enabling future Newtown shootings, or far worse. They say to themselves at work: “I better not let my political views be known. My boss might fire me, or someone might report me to the ‘Department of Homeland Security’ which seems to have more power and unconstitutional authority as every day passes. How did things get this bad? Oh well, I guess I’d better not make waves. I’d better not raise a stink in public. I might be one of the poor bastards they retaliate against.”

    Nazi Germany had those kinds of cowards, too. Here’s a quote from one of them:
    First they came for the communists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
    Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

    Pastor Martin Niemoller said this. He was sent to a death camp, but managed to survive the war. Do you think he would have described the bombing of Dresden as “controlled” or “orderly?” What about the rape of disarmed German women by Hitler Youth soldiers, who were encouraged to “Get women pregnant so that Germany would have an strong, increasing population of Aryans”? Would that be considered “order”? What about the disarmed, starving Jews who were shot in public by strutting totalitarian sociopaths, or pushed into mass graves? What about the parents who had to whisper around the Hitler Youth (their own children!), lest they be reported as “unpatriotic.” (Much like the DEA and ONDCP encourage American kids to turn in their parents for drug use! Such kids are the USA’s own “Hitler Youth.” The twisted grotesquery of uneducated children ruling adults on behalf of a police state.) All of the prior represent “chaos” in my mind. Yet, each one of the prior cases is a case created by lawmaking! Could it be that the results of laws don’t live up to their promised effects? And who is promising all the wonderful effects of enacting gun prohibitions? It is career politicians, the economically uneducated, and the tools of the central bankers. …All groups whose paychecks rely on your continuing ignorance!

    What about you? Are you smart enough to see that legislative attempts at centralized control do not increase control, but instead, result in first pushing market behavior into uncontrolled and chaotic “black markets,” and later, into uncontrollable government-orchestrated devastation?

    Mass impoverishment, and laws that have large rates of disobedience, do not result in “control.” Such “gun control” laws are only the COMMAND of control. They are not the control itself. In fact, such laws result in an imbalance of power that encourages death and destruction, to the extent they are implemented and enforced. The more strictly they are enforced, the more disordered chaos results.

    In the USA, we are now creating our own generation of future murder victims and future Martin Niemollers. In one possible future, the dupes, knaves, and cowards of America allow the government to pass sweeping “slave control” laws. After the slaves are brought under control, as the German population once was, the government will then have the power to pass “gun chaos” laws (a complete ban on effective defensive weaponry that can be used to resist groups of armed soldiers). If we allow this to happen, and we survive, we might be able to write our own version of Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous quote:
    First they came for the unlicensed lawyers,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t an unlicensed lawyer.
    Then they came for the drug users and dealers,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a drug user or dealer.
    Then they came for the rifle owners,
    and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a rifle owner.
    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

    If you’ve read this entire post, thus far, then congratulations! You’re a truth-seeker. You’ve found the truth on a dusty corner of the internet. Although I’ve said that we shouldn’t accept tyranny in this post, I haven’t given too many alternatives. But I did give the most important first step possible: learn your rights and responsibilities as a jury member. Understand, that, as soon as you are seated on a jury, you are SUPERIOR in power to the judge, according to the successfully appealed verdict of “Kriho v. Colorado.” (Read the book “Send in the Waco Killers” by Vin Suprynowicz, for more on this subject.)
    Laura Kriho was a jury member who was punished for not volunteering information that would have prevented her from being seated on a jury in a drug case. Laura was a strong-willed American with a backbone (amazing how few of those are men, these days! Marcy Brooks is another, who refused to convict Illinois resident Whitey Harrell for income tax nonpayment). Kriho refused to convict one of her fellow Americans for a drug offense. She had read the Bill of Rights, and the 4th amendment, that says we have a right to “be secure in our persons, papers, and effects” and the 9th and 10th amendments which reserves those rights not enumerated in the Constitution to the people. She reasoned that without property rights, there are no rights of any kind. …And she didn’t take the grotesque imprisonment and punishment of a fellow American lightly. Moreover, she had once been the victim of a drug prosecution as well, so she understood the injustice they were asking of her, and she didn’t comply. She resisted! She didn’t bow down to the unconstitutional and thus unlawful instructions of the prosecutor and tyrant judge (himself a former government-licensed prosecutor). She voted “not guilty” and refused to change her vote, even under the pressure of the brainwashed jurors the prosecutor and judge had selected to sit with her on the jury.

    The defendant went free. The benevolence of one single juror saved them a terrible government punishment (for owning plant products that were legal 100 years ago).

    SO WHAT IS THE JURY? …WHAT ARE JURY RIGHTS?

    The jury is the entire body of the American people. Unlike what you may have “learned” in your “government” class in highschool, the jury is not a group of people that “blindly obeys the judge.” Nor is the jury “a part of the judicial branch.” Nor is the jury subject to the balances of the other three branches of government.

    The Jury is the 4th Branch of Government, the supreme branch of government. The jury is “We, the People.” The Jury includes every gun-owner, pot-smoker, and tax resistor in the USA who is a part of the voter rolls. The jury box is the final line of defense against injustice, before the cartridge box. In the USA all juries have a right to vote their consciences, even if their consciences be in direct disagreement with the law. (In fact, the prior sentence was read to jurors all across the nation, prior to 1895.)

    Now, if you stand in front of your local courthouse disseminating this truth, the prosecutors and judges inside the courthouse will send out a bailiff or cop who will threaten you with arrest for “jury tampering.” They’ll be operating under the incorrect assumption that not every person in the potential jury pool is a member of “The Jury, The Fourth and Superior Branch of Government.” For their purposes, they’ll assume that you’re there to influence a specific court case (which is illegal, even though such illegality amounts to a ban on speaking the actual truth in public). In short, they will threaten you with arrest, for simply telling people the plain truth, in front of the courthouse. They may even violate your First Amendment right to free political speech, especially if they profile you as someone who cannot afford a solid legal defense, as they did Frank Turney, in Alaska. Of course, as evidence in your case, they’d be forced to hand the jury copies of your pamphlets, so ideally, you’d have pamphlets that taught the history of jury rights, and how juries are currently hand-picked by the prosecution, against the letter and intent of constitutional law.

    SO, HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO GUN RIGHTS?
    It makes gun prohibition unenforceable. …Frank Turney, a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska, spoke the truth to incoming jury members in front of the Fairbanks courthouse, and a man accused of unlawful possession of a firearm was acquitted by an informed jury.

    Frank was arrested for “jury tampering” even though he only told those jurors the truth about the power they possessed. He was prosecuted under Alaska’s unconstitutional “jury tampering” law, and found guilty by a jury that was hand-picked by the judge and prosecutor during the unconstitutional pre-trial practice of “voir dire.” The jury that sentenced him was comprised of obedient, mindless conformists who believed that “the judge and prosecutor wouldn’t lead us astray” and “they do this for a living, they must know best.” (The opposite is true. Those prosecutors, and prosecutors with black robes have sought careers of collectivist political power in a time-degraded democratic republic. They are the very last people whose opinion you should trust.)

    Frank served his prison time, (about half a year), and then went right back to speaking the truth in front of the courthouse. He refused to be dominated by injustice. ..And they refused to arrest him again.

    The same resistance to unlawful arrest and prosecution is true of Julian Heicklen, whose many videos of civil disobedience and jury rights activism are posted on youtube. The same is true of Julian’s young friend, activist Antonio Musumeci. In Chicago, liberal jury rights activist Mike Kalas and his friend have been informing the public of their jury rights in front of the Cook County Courthouse (Video available at the Fully Informed Jury Association website). They were also threatened with arrest, and they also ignored those threats and continued their outreach. They were not arrested, the threats were a bluff (perhaps one that will be acted on in the future if they continue their activism). The point is this: all of these people risked imprisonment to uphold the supremacy and literacy of their local Jury. They decided not to accept the universal miseducation being taught to our children in the grotesque and unenlightened government propaganda camps that the bureaucrats and politicians lyingly call “public schools.”

    There are a growing number of these jury rights activists in the USA. They are the ones who are saying “YOU CANNOT TAKE MY FREE COUNTRY AWAY FROM ME WITHOUT A FIGHT.”

    They are liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. They are politically involved, and (otherwise) politically uninvolved. They are not from any one single Political Party. They are all AMERICANS who understand that the government has gotten too powerful, and it is abusing its ability to punish innocent people. They are the people who, whatever their opinions on social order, or organization, disbelieve in the punishment of innocent people for victimless crime offenses. They are the people who believe that if a jury believes a punishment is not deserved, then THEY KNOW BETTER THAN THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR, SINCE THE JUDGE AND PROSECUTOR ARE PAID AGENTS OF THE STATE, AND ARE THEREFORE CORRUPTED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER.

    In the recent past in Montana, 40 people called for jury duty stated that they would refuse to enforce the state’s marijuana laws (the defendant was set free with only a slap on the wrist, rather than risking the judge calling a mistrial, and ordering a new trial date). In other cases, rather than be kicked off a jury, individual jurors kept their mouths shut until they were on the jury, and voted NOT GUILTY and refused to change their vote to one that would fill another tax-financed prison cell.

    We’re all paying taxes to the government-connected prison profiteers for prison cells. Those cells contain conservative gun owners, and conservative tax resistors. Those cells contain liberal drug users, and liberal drug dealers. Those cells contain libertarians and other people like marijuana seed seller Marc Emery, who dared to criticize the DEA and ONDCP. (At first, just to show you how evil the prohibitionists are, they were seeking the death penalty for Marc Emery, for selling marijuana seeds that are now perfectly legal to own in Colorado and Washington States. Would the USA have been better off with Marc Emery being murdered by the government? Are we now better off with him in prison? Only a pig-headed conformist could answer “yes” to those questions.)

    If you want to prevent the system from further decaying, you should buy at least one rifle and one side-arm, become skilled with their use, always make sure you have more than enough ammunition for both, and make an oath to yourself: “I will never allow my government to arrest or kill people in my neighborhood during door-to-door warrantless searches.” This is a good “line in the sand.” If the civilians in Nazi germany had taken such a stand, the democide (mass murder by government) of late 1930s and early 1940s Germany might have been entirely avoided.

    If you want to IMPROVE or RESTORE the system, then the methods used by Julian Heicklen (libertarian), Frank Turney (conservative libertarian), Antonio Musumeci (libertarian), and Mike Kalas (liberal) are leading the way. They are the ones who said “To hell with sitting by and watching the destruction of America, the transition of a free country into a police state populated by prisoners and overseers.” Maybe you can’t put in as much time to such outreach as these (true) patriots have, but you can do something to educate your local jury. …Even if you only educate one person, if you educate them fully, you will have taken one small step. If you take to the courthouse steps or door-to-door canvassing, you will have taken one large step. My point here is only to show you that there is more that you can do than sitting passively by while your American heritage is stripped from you by an army of faceless bureaucrats.

    You can still speak the truth in public. You can speak in defense of those who are being maligned, not because they are irresponsible and don’t take personal responsibility for the defense of the innocent, but because they DO take responsibility for their own defense and the defense of the innocents around them. You can explain that it would be morally wrong to send someone to prison for a victimless crime offense (including a gun offense), if there was no clear individual victim whose rights had been violated by that “offense.”

    You can speak out to your family, your friends, or random strangers in front of your local courthouse. You can carry a notebook with you, for when you meet like-minded people who want to join you.

    BUT ISN’T THIS ENCOURAGING LAW-BREAKING? ISN’T THE APPROPRIATE MEANS OF CHANGING THE LAW TO LOBBY LEGISLATORS?
    Well, no. Legislators have figured out ways of winning the allegiance of interest groups, many of which are bought-off by unconstitutional government largess. Many legislators are licensed lawyers, who support the unconstitutional licensing racket that puts their free market competition out of business. They are corrupted by unconstitutional power. (Neither Abraham Lincoln, nor Lysander Spooner were licensed lawyers, but both were practicing lawyers.)

    The government schools encourage the view that electoral participation and lobbying are the only proper way to influence the law. But this view makes legislators all-important to the process, when it is supposed to be “We, The People” who hold the right to determine when government has become destructive to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If that’s the case, the Declaration of Independence (the document that told the colonists why they were rebelling against British rule) states that we have the right to “alter or abolish” our government. Our only means of altering a government that has become unconstitutional is to prevent it from enforcing those unconstitutional laws. The legislators, government bureaucrat school administrators, and others who are politically-connected like to encourage you to “get involved in politics” because they know that that doesn’t work. They know that interest groups of bought off voters determing the outcome of elections.

    Moreover, jury supremacy is THE LAW. It is 100% legal to ignore judges’ instructions, and return a verdict in accord with your conscience. If it were not legal, you could be punished for the verdict you return. This is not the case. Moreover, to make it the case would be to throw out the Supreme law of the land, the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution. The politicians and legislators make millions of unconstitutional laws, and they rely on the ignorance of the general public to enforce these laws. Consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    The Founders of America predicted that government would eventually overgrow the limits they had placed upon it. This is simply what happens when legislators have time on their hands. They figure out ways to trick the public into parting with their freedom, for personal financial gain. Also, legislators, being self-interested have a “first rule” that makes the expansion of government unavoidable: don’t oppose the overreach of other lawmakers, and they won’t oppose the overreach that you propose. It’s an unwritten law of (sociopathic) legislative action. Maybe one day, we’ll figure out a way to keep sociopaths out of the legislature. Until then, our primary protections are: free speech, jury trials, and gun rights.

    In India, during Gandhi’s civil disobedience campaign, once the crowds of people listening to Gandhi became large enough, the British oppressors simply gave up and withdrew. The vocal pressure, the media pressure, the public civil disobedience, showed the world that their rule was illegitimate, and wrong. Gandhi learned his methods of organization from reading Henry David Thoreau, who counseled individuals to “cling with your whole weight against the system.” I’ll leave you with a quote from Gandhi.

    Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
    ——-Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 (Beacon Press paperback edition)
    (Note: Gandhi did not believe in violence, even for resistance to abject tyranny. He even counseled that the Jews should nonviolently resist the Germans, even if it resulted in their slaughter. …But he knew that when power is centralized, those who lack power will be murdered and oppressed. His path was similar to the jury rights activist of the USA: to resist actively, but nonviolently. Moreover, this presents a pathway away from tyranny, since the more the authorities crack down on jury rights activism, the more they call attention to the truth that the system no longer functions as designed. The author does not share Gandhi’s dedication to nonviolence, but I do share his belief that if nonviolent methods can be used offensively, those methods are far better than being forced to resort to even justified and defensive violence. For more on nonviolent political organization, read “The Politics of Nonviolent Action: vol I-III” by Gene Sharp)

    In Pursuit of Freedom,
    Jake Witmer
    2012-12-24

    ReplyReply
  3. Jake Witmer
    like other so gifted here give us so much,
    this is complete and so interesting to read,
    how can one be not inform with what people like you give us free,
    just to educate the mass of civilians, who don’t want to be educated in schools
    because they find it too boring,
    thank you for all you put in without any restraint.
    you are giving us a must read

    ReplyReply
  4. retire05 says: 54

    @Tom:

    You made the claim that about 32,000 people are killed a year by guns. I would certainly like to know where you get your information since you are so far off the mark. According to the FBI web site, the number of firearm murders per year are:

    2007 – 14,916
    2008 – 14,224
    2009 – 13,752
    2010 – 13,164
    2011 – 12,664

    Do you see a trend there, Tom? In spite of record gun sales for the last four years, homicide by gun incidents are trending downward, not upward.

    Now, let’s look at another comment you made:

    Or states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence than states with weaker gun laws?

    Your quoted source is The Atlantic that for some reason, while it is a recently written article, written after the Newtown tragedy, used 2007 stats. Why is that, Tom? Could it be, perhaps, because the latest stats didn’t hold with the agenda of the author? California has strict gun laws, yet in 2010, there were 1,257 gun homicides there, compared to Texas, which would be one of those states you would claim has lesser gun laws, with 805 total gun homicides. The population of California is not that much greater than Texas to make up for the wide spread in gun-related homicides between the two states. Never mind that if you take the number of murders in California that were committed by the use of a rifle, shotgun or “other” (unspecified gun) the total comes to 354, compared to those murders committed using knifes, “other” (which would include any weapon such as a baseball bat, a hammer, a chain saw, an axe or any other item that can be used as a weapon) at the rate of 570, 60% more than long barrels or “other” guns.

    It is quite obvious that you have no intention of being honest in your argument against people being armed. You want to make gun dealers responsible if they sell a product that is used in a murder. Do you want to apply the same standard to knife makers, automobile makers, baseball bat makers? Do you want everyone to register their fists since there are many murders committed where a person is beat to death by someone using their fists, hands and feet?

    As I said; you fear what you don’t understand or know about. But instead of educating yourself about firearms, you go off like a cheap one, generally firing blanks. You are a gun grabber, someone who wants the rest of the nation to be responsible for your safety, because you lack the courage to learn how to defend yourself, and reducing the ability of others to defend themselves. You have no argument, only hyperbole, spouted by the rest of your left wing crowd.

    Funny, it is well known that in California, there are few who are allowed CCW permits. One author claims that in order to get one you have to be white, wealthy and politically connected. Perhaps that is why Dianne Feinstein has a CCW permit. She is white, wealthy and politically connected. Odd that Ms. Feinstein feels the need to be able to protect herself, yet would deny others that right. She is, and always will be, a typical lefties who thinks her life is more valuable than mine.

    No one is responsible for your safety, Tom, not even the police, according to the SCOTUS. And your bigotry is not going to protect you against a bad person who wants to harm you or take your stuff. That is up to you; but if you decide to remain unarmed in a society that is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket, don’t blame anyone but yourself if you are injured, or even murdered.

    You blather on how we want to maintain the Second Amendment. That is very true, because without the 2nd, all other amendments are useless. You rail on gun owners, the NRA and states with “lesser gun laws” yet say not one word about the trash that comes out of Hollywood, or the video game makers, as they demand their First Amendment rights. Why don’t you hold them responsible for the violent trash they produce? Or did you not know that the Columbine shooters referred to themselves as “NBKs”, taken from the movie Natural Born Killers?

    What about the guns that our own government was running? Do you think those guns are not going to make their way into El Norte via the same drug cartel members they were sold to? Where is your criticism of that? Seems your beloved Obama is the biggest gun runner in the western hemisphere. Yet, you are mute about that.

    You need to deal with reality, not how you want things to be.

    ReplyReply
  5. Hard Right says: 55

    So according to tom, FIREARMS cause violence.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

    Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.

    All that gun control sure prevents mass shootings eh?
    http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

    ReplyReply
  6. CJ says: 56

    There were over 118,000 automobile deaths (including those that died of injuries related to automobile accidents) last year; let’s ban cars.
    There were over 4000 drowning, mostly of children; let’s ban water.
    There are approximately 250,000 deaths each year due to hospital and doctor mistakes; let’s ban hospitals.
    There were over 15,000 deaths because of aspirin or ibuprofin overdoses; let’s ban them both.
    There were over 20,000 deaths from prescription drug overdoses; ban prescription drugs.
    There were approximately 38,000 deaths from illegal drug use; ban illegal drugs. Oh wait….

    ReplyReply
  7. Tom says: 57

    @CJ:

    As noted multiple times, those are all false analogies: accidents do not equate to homicides. Do you think if this was just about gun owners accidentally shooting themselves, as tragic as that is, that we’d be having this conversation?

    You bring up cars, but are you willing to have a conversation about car regulation vs. gun regulation? Cars are safer now than ever, much safer than they were even 25 years ago, and that’s largely due to government regulation. Do you think your car would have an airbag now if it were not for the government? By the way, what’s the last significant, universally adapted safety measure taken by the gun industry? Don’t bother trying to dig too hard for gun safety data though. The NRA has effectively fought against that research to take place. What fighting against safety research has to do with the Second Amendment, I have no clue, but it’s nice to know they’re looking out for you and your families’ interests.

    ReplyReply
  8. CJ
    yes that is quite a research to be face with,
    why is that so many died of all those friggen things,and it all goes
    in the same box of excess from the citizens, the so call good citizens
    who make fits for gun legally own by the responsible citizens,
    wile they are responsible for killing those multi thousands citizens,
    thank you for those infos which are priority for OBAMA TO LOOK IN AND FIND A PREVENTION WAY
    TO FIX IT. THAT IS 400,000 DEATHS TO PREVENT

    ReplyReply
  9. Hard Right says: 59

    Yeah, salon is such a reliable source. (Roll eyes.)

    I saw the studies the NRA had a problem with, and they were right to. Shoddy science and conclusions that were arrived at first, then had data created to support that predetermined conclusion. Much if not all of it done with taxpayer money.
    That is what it has to do with gun control, but we know you know that.

    And since you seemed to miss it, European massacres. They have far stricter gun control laws and THEY can’t stop them from happening either.
    http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

    ReplyReply
  10. Wm T Sherman says: 60

    @Tom:

    Shoot this suggestion down: No gun shall be sold in this country, by licensed dealer or private citizen, without a background check performed. If one is sold without a background check, and that gun ends up being used in a crime, the seller will be held responsible (whether criminally or othewise is up to further debate).

    Background checks are performed by all licensed dealers, including at gun shows — did you not know this? For sales by non-dealers — there are already laws about providing guns to felons. These are ignored by other felons. Change the law for all the good it will do. As far as holding individuals responsible for future problems caused by products sold in good faith — do you support holding gas station owners liable for acts of arson committed with legally sold gasoline? If so, why? I really want an answer.

    I see that you had no response to the Harvard study that I linked — the one that concluded that gun control does not reduce crime. Completely ignored it. Explain.

    ReplyReply
  11. Hard Right says: 61

    William, I’ve noticed tom ignores that which proves him wrong and repeates the same things over and over. I’ve told him 2-3 times about backround checks and gunshows. Either he’s gone completely mental, or he’s trolling.

    Here’s a good quote from AOS
    http://minx.cc/?post=335922

    In the wake of the Newtown murders, acting President Obama has announced that he wants to have a “national conversation on guns.” I don’t know about you, but I really love these “national conversations”. Of course, we all know that when a liberal says he wants to have a “conversation”, it means he wants those who disagree with him (i.e. us) to shut up and listen to a lecture by him consisting of roughly equal parts of contempt, ridicule, insults, and threats.

    tom has done the above in spades.

    ReplyReply
  12. Tom says: 62

    @Wm T Sherman:

    Evasion and misrepresentation. I think you know I’m referring to the 40% of guns sold without background checks. I’ll make it very simple. Do you support mandatory background checks on all gun sales, yes or no?

    I will get back to you on Harvard when I have time to give it the attention it warrants (travelling today). I think that’s more respectful than the non-response you just afforded me.

    ReplyReply
  13. Hard Right says: 63

    Speaking of evasion tom…
    Mass shootings in Europe
    http://www.expatica.com/be/news/local_news/mass-shootings-in-europe_195344.html

    ReplyReply
  14. Hard Right
    I have that feeling of the MUSLIM KILLING ,
    SPECIALLY ON YOUR LAST LINK
    we know their death wish on the JEWS, SINCE THEIR BEGINNING, STILL
    WELL ALIVE.
    and they might be screwing up the young minds
    with their propaganda in the schools,
    which is the first one to be ban,
    forget the guns, they only are tools in the hands of humans,
    for two different causes,
    the good and the bad causes.
    and we know their causes already, even if they try to hide it.

    ReplyReply
  15. Wm T Sherman says: 66

    @Tom:

    Do you support mandatory background checks on all gun sales, yes or no?

    Any sale whatsoever between two private citizens? Between me and my neighbor? Not necessarily. It’s open to discussion, but you have to demonstrate that it’s an actual significant source of crime, not something you imagine to be a problem. Facts.

    Show me a mass murder committed by a perpetrator who would have been prevented from such a rule. In every case I am aware of the perpetrator either passed a background check or broke an existing law. In the case of Jared Loughner he should have been barred from his legal purchase but his decidedly alarming record was cleared, apparently as a favor to his mother who worked for the Sherriff’s Department.

    According to the ATF about 95% of criminals caught with weapons obtained them by violating the law. You are proposing another law that will affect me and not them. They don’t obey the law. They’re criminals.

    Again –give us some reason to believe that this is a real problem. Given the lack of evidence it comes across as just another leftist talking point intended to create the impression that law abiding gun owners created a problem.

    ReplyReply
  16. Ted C Burhenn
    hi,
    interesting and your type of weapon is as far as giving you the ability to shoot
    a pack of wolfs attacking your animals which ever you would have, and from a distance far enough to prevent even one loss of them,
    also if you had some employees working in the field far from voice range alert,
    again you have a chance to protect them or what ever one or more so to warn them of danger, farther on the 300 feets distance you see, and again this before a kill.
    that weapon is handy in my mind for sure.
    and more of,
    there are illegals hiding in wide space area, and they won’t hesitate to kill you if discover, they also can fake a wound to get the rancher close enough to shoot him.
    as it was told by other ranchers, and too bad for the one rancher with compassion to be shot in the back
    by the fake wounded illegal hiding the drugs on his land

    ReplyReply
  17. Tom says: 68

    @Wm T Sherman:

    Thoughtful response, which I appreciate. I unfortunately cannot at this time respond in kind as i’m about to board a plane and on my mobile. Would like to pick this up again after the holiday. I wish you a merry Christmas and my thoughts will be with Newtown.

    ReplyReply
  18. CJ says: 69

    I think I’m going to start a website called “Diary of an AR.” It will only have one page which will have a live webcam feed pointed at my AR. Next to the video will be a counter that records every person it runs off and kills while I’m not looking. Viewers will be able to keep track of my AR and let me know when it tries to slink off and commit mass atrocities. What do you think?

    ReplyReply
  19. Scott in Oklahoma says: 70

    @CJ: heehee… good one CJ… Should you ever find yourself in Oklahoma with some spare time, first round is on me.

    ReplyReply
  20. Tom
    have a good trip and MERRY CHRISTMAS, HOPE YOU HAVE A GOOD ONE
    BEST TO YOU,
    BY THE WAY
    WHERE ARE YOU GOING LIKE THIS?

    ReplyReply
  21. CJ
    DON’T VIEWERS GET KILLED BY THE AR?
    WHAT IS A AR?
    AREN’T YOU COMPLICATING OUR LIFE OR DEATH?
    WITH YOUR AR
    MERRY CHRISTMAS SIR,
    I SUPPOSE WE BETTER START TO BE POLITE WITH YOU OR ELSE.

    AR= arm, armony, arithmetic, arrival, aryouwithme, around
    areo chocolat bar,
    I give up

    ReplyReply
  22. Hard Right says: 73

    @CJ:

    CJ, I keep my Chinese AK locked up tight. Can’t risk it going out and killing hundreds, now can I?
    Merry Christmas.

    ReplyReply
  23. Tom says: 74

    @ilovebeeswarzone:
    Thanks bees. Having my holiday in southern Illinois, right along the majestic Mississippi.

    ReplyReply
  24. Tom
    I know you will make the best of every second of it.

    ReplyReply
  25. Tom says: 76

    @CJ:

    If my sense of humor could take a time machine back to the 1950s I’d congratulate you on your tasteful and hilariously innovative comedy stylings. It really begs the question why there aren’t more famous conservative comedians.

    ReplyReply
  26. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 77

    Most of these people are living in the 18th or 19th Century. I don’t feel like reading through the diatribes on gun rights, and the usual invalid reductio ad absurdums, in respect to autos, for example—if guns were actually used everyday, like cars, then there would probably be even most gun deaths than those resultant from cars. Did anyone give a solution to the problem of gun violence? That’s the problem with the right-wing: They don’t care that people are being killed needlessly. All they are concerned about is some trumped up conspiracy of government against them. No need for a solution—just let the continuous distrust of government.

    But this situation is understandable. I distrust government when there is a conservative government. But, until this bifurcation is lessened—and a new social contract is agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of the members of this schism—then there will continue to be conflict, impeding progress.

    ReplyReply
  27. Scott in Oklahoma says: 78

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): I gave a partial solution in another post, I’ll let you hunt for it.

    Merry Christmas.

    ReplyReply
  28. Redteam says: 79

    @Tom:
    Why not just pass a law that prohibits persons from using them to commit a crime? That’s what we’re after isn’t it. It should be okay to sell one to a person that is not going to use them to commit crimes. Anytime one is prohibited from selling to a law abiding person, the constitution is being violated.

    ReplyReply
  29. Scott in Oklahoma says: 80

    @Redteam: heh heh… made me spit beer on my laptop…

    ReplyReply
  30. Redteam says: 81

    @Jake Witmer:

    Witmer, this didn’t happen:

    Here’s another example from history: In the early 1970s, my father’s draft number came up. But he understood the appeals process. An army truck appeared one day, in Charleston, IL ( Where Eastern, IL University is, and where Lincoln once gave his famous racist speech, stating that his goal was not to make negroes equal under the law, but to “preserve the Union”), and a military man in uniform told my father: “Get on the truck.” Several people already on the truck looked on in disbelief as my father refused to board the truck, destined for bringing newly-aquired military slaves to a military induction center.

    At that time, anyone failing to report as ordered would be arrested by civilian police, they would not have been rounded up by the military. I don’t know what point you were trying to make by this misrepresentation, but truth is more important than ‘points’ at times. I didn’t read much after that point because you comment was way too long and rambling.

    ReplyReply
  31. Skookum says: 82

    @Redteam: Thank you, it’s hard to fool people who lived through the era, but I wasn’t up for raining on his parade. Like you, I was confused as to motive and objective.

    ReplyReply
  32. Tom says: 83

    I’m glad to see a ton more morons got their hands on AR-15s this holiday season. Thank you, NRA, for keeping the bar so low thus protecting us from tyranny!
    http://m.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/look-all-these-guns-people-got-christmas/60306/

    ReplyReply
  33. Scott in Oklahoma says: 84

    @Tom: And what does the NRA have to do with the sale of guns Tom? They aren’t a manufacturer or a retailer. Being a member of the NRA isn’ a prerequisite for gun ownership, for example, I own guns and am not a member. Do you have a legitimate complaint, or do you just like to bitch and troll?

    ReplyReply
  34. Tom says: 85

    @Scott in Oklahoma: @Scott in Oklahoma:

    What do they have to do with…. Well let’s see, their primary benefactors, funding wise, are gun manufacturers. They fight all gun laws, regulations, mandatory training, etc. regardless of merit. They fight against research into gun safety. Basically all they do is promote gun sales for their masters regardless for public safety.

    Stick around. This conversation will continue but I cant do it on a moble. Merry Christmas.

    ReplyReply
  35. Redteam says: 86

    @Tom: I disagree with your statement. I am a life member of the NRA and the only purpose I’ve personally observed is the preservation of your constitutional rights.

    ReplyReply
  36. Tom says: 87

    @Redteam:

    I respect your opinion. So please point out any law the NRA has supported that regulates sales for the expressed purpose of increasing safety. More simply, has the NRA ever supported any measure that would negatively impact the sale of firearms?

    ReplyReply
  37. Scott in Oklahoma says: 88

    @Tom: You have still failed to answer my question. You still haven’t explained how the NRA is directly involved in the sale of firearms. The have pushed for firearms safety and protection of our 2nd amendment rights, that is thier primary mission.

    ReplyReply
  38. Tom says: 89

    @Scott in Oklahoma:
    :
    They are the gun industries’ top lobbyists and work on their behalf. Do you deny this?

    ReplyReply
  39. Scott in Oklahoma says: 90

    @Tom: To the point Tom, first you refer to a large number of people buying AR-15′s as morons, when you have no real way to qualify that statement. Then you insinuate that the NRA was directly responsible for the sale of said rifles. When cornered and asked directly to qualify your statement, you choose to twist your answer around the supposed role the NRA has in the frearms industry, then you say you cannot answer right away because you are on a mobile. Then you post a few more time, trying to get distance from my original questions. And now you ask me to verify something that while being pretty much common knowledge, which still doesn’t show the relationship between the NRA and retail sales of a particular firearm.
    If you cannot answer my question clearly and honestly, that’s fine. An indicator of strong character and strength of princilples is having the ability to admit you cannot answer a question. Your inability to do so is quite telling.

    ReplyReply
  40. Tom says: 91

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    Yes, i am jerk. You win on that point.

    So lets talk about the NRA. Are you willing to answer the questions i posed now that you made your point about me?

    ReplyReply
  41. Scott in Oklahoma says: 92

    @Tom: You seem to have reading comprehension issues as well, I believe I already agreed with the NRA role as you described. I’m not out to win anything, I just don’t like it when people say things that are patently not true. When you finally get around to thinking up an honest answer, let us know.

    ReplyReply
  42. Tom says: 93

    Scott, while we’re waiting for you to answer (duck, ignore) the questions in post 87, let me ad – again – the unanswerable question: when has anyone needed an assault rifle to repel a home invasion?

    ReplyReply
  43. Tom says: 94

    @Scott in Oklahoma:

    If you have no point to make, don’t add static. Sad to hear you have no conviction.

    ReplyReply
  44. Scott in Oklahoma says: 95

    @Tom: I thought you were directing your question to someone else in post 87… that said, I don’t know the answer to your questin as I am not a member of the NRA. As for my convictions, no doubt a lot stronger than yours, and I have a proven track record.

    ReplyReply
  45. Tom says: 96

    @Scott in Oklahoma:
    You’re a brave man. It makes you feel tough to chuckle along with CJ when he mocks the destructive power of an AR-15. One that’s shot children in the face, but when asked direct questions about it, you feign ignorance. You’re a fucking coward

    ReplyReply
  46. CJ says: 98

    @Tom: You’re like the king of hoplophobes, aren’t you. And an uneducated one. What proof do you have that Lanza shot kids at all, much less in the face, with an AR?

    ReplyReply
  47. Tom says: 99

    @CJ:

    So CJ is calling CT State troopers and local law enforcement into question.i guess my buddy who is a CT cop is a liar because CJ says so. All those cops in CT are liars. Say it to their face, Asshole. Fucking NRA zombie.

    ReplyReply
  48. Scott in Oklahoma says: 100

    It appears Tom gets “brave” behind a keyboard after a few drinks, then he likes to call people names. Tom, you’re a piece of shit troll, no crediblity, no character, and I will no longer waste time with your crap.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>