ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

Guns and the slave mentality

Contrast New York Times columnist Charles Blow's call for gun control with Robert Heinlein's statement about freedom:
We don’t want to pass the point where society is so saturated with the most dangerous kinds of weaponry that people feel compelled to arm themselves or be left vulnerable, if indeed we haven’t already passed that point.

According to The Associated Press, a small Utah town is making a “gun in every home a priority.” The A.P. reported:

“Spring City Councilman Neil Sorensen first proposed an ordinance requiring a gun in every household in the town of 1,000. The rest of the council scoffed at making it a requirement, but they unanimously agreed to move forward with an ordinance ‘recommending’ the idea. The council also approved funding to offer concealed firearms training Friday to the 20 teachers and administrators at the local elementary school.”

That is not where we want to be as a country.
No, Charles, that is precisely where we want to be as a country.  America is a nation of armed free men who answer to no earthly power, it is not a nation of unarmed slave boys who cower before their masters in Washington D.C. lest they apply the whip.

"You cannot enslave a free man, only kill him." 
 - Robert Heinlein

Blow doesn't appear to realize that he is advocating a return to the evil that was inflicted upon his ancestors.  What is worse, not only does he not wish to be a free man, he doesn't want anyone else to be free either.

What was the point of freeing blacks like him when they use their freedom to beg to be returned to their chains?  Instead of obediently carrying water like a servile house negro on the NYT plantation, Blow should recall the words of the free man, Frederick Douglas:

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Those with the slave mentality of Charles Blow will quietly submit to the violation and elimination of their Constitutional right to bear arms.  Free men will never do so.  Nor should ever be so foolish as to do so, as Karl Denninger points out:
All told the count is somewhere north of 170 million citizens that have been executed not by combat in war or as "collateral damage" (accidental injury) but rather simply because once the government obtained an absolute monopoly on force it was able to slaughter people with impunity, and did.

170 million people is an extraordinary number.  Since we're only 330 million out of a world population of something like 7 billion, it is not fair to charge all of them against us when making comparisons.  We're about 5% of the world population, basically, so you could "charge" 8.5 million of those deaths (5%) to us in comparison.

How's that work out?

Well, we have 11,000 firearms homicides, more or less, annually.

Objectively looking at this issue it would take 772 years for civilians to murder 8.5 million people, most of them one at a time, but the comparison table only runs in the last century.

It is therefore nearly eight times more likely that you will be slaughtered by your government wholesale if you give up your guns than the risk you run of being murdered by a bad guy if you don't and this assumes that all of the 11,000 gun murders do not happen if we ban all or some firearms.
Guns in the hands of the American people are not the problem.  Guns in the hand of the American people are the PREVENTION of the problem.  If Charles Blow wants to return to slavery, then let him do so.  But he is a damned fool if he thinks free men, black, white, or any other color, are going to follow him there.

Labels:

262 Comments:

1 – 200 of 262 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Knarf January 10, 2013 9:13 AM  

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

- Mao Zedong

Anonymous Susan January 10, 2013 9:28 AM  

Excellent post here Vox. Liberals will never understand true freedom. It scares them too much, like a kid walking through the dark scary forest.

Have you read the article that Pravda ran recently advising us NOT to give up our guns? I couldn't get the link to work to read the whole thing, but in the snippet, the writer talked about how under the Tsar they had plenty of weapons in each house. But after the revolution, guns disappeared. Excellent article for what is going on right now.

Drudge had something on his page yesterday mentioning that registration is forbidden under Obamacare. If that is the case, it is very amusing and a little ironic that Obama would break his own law. But then we are talking about President Fingerman here.

Anonymous The One January 10, 2013 9:29 AM  

Really going to come down to the states. IF the Feds says NO SS, welfare, etc for you gun owners and the state then says we will no longer collect Fed income tax, it's on. If the state rolls over for the Feds, thats a problem.

Anonymous Stilicho January 10, 2013 9:32 AM  

It is, at its most fundamental level, a moral and religious issue. If you believe that you are endowed by your Creator with certain inalienable rights, then you have a moral and religious obligation to defend those rights. When any person or government attempts to forcibly deprive you of those God-given rights, a forcible response is required.

Anonymous The One January 10, 2013 9:42 AM  

Also, states allow outside support. A state withdrawing from the union can receive recognization from other nations that it is now a new nation. Individuals can not do that

Anonymous Tallen January 10, 2013 9:56 AM  

I don't think Karl's math is quite right. The 170m number he refers to occurs over a period of time but he measures it against a static number (the current global population).

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 9:56 AM  

But he is a damned fool if he thinks free men, black, white, or any other color, are going to follow him there.

Actually they will through tacit consent if they don't emigrate or fight. (Which might rapidly descend into "No true free man would give tacit consent.")If someone doesn't like the violation of rights they have two options a)emigration b)armed rebellion. You emigrated, good for you as you no longer gave tacit consent.

This is the decision Americans will have to face going forward and while people may own a lot of guns, I see no indication they want to use the guns against the government.

Just being armed isn't enough as you well know, one also has to have the will to fight. Military history is replete with examples of well armed peoples and armies rapidly giving up in the face of opposition. You assume that people will fight just because they are armed.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 10, 2013 9:58 AM  

Liberals want to be slaves. They want the comfort of "Big Daddy Gubmint" taking care of them and keeping other people in line so no one has to be offended and have their widdle fweelings hurt, and so others don't get more than they have. They always assume Big Daddy won't hurt them but just those they don't like, and are too stupid and prideful to admit they were wrong even when they feel the crack of the whip on their own backs.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 10:00 AM  

Are we suggesting that without guns there can be no freedom?

Anonymous Mr Green Man January 10, 2013 10:00 AM  

Let us not forget -- where they have registered, they have confiscated. Where they have confiscated, they have curtailed the Great Commission -- they have closed churches; they have set up official government-run churches teaching false gospel and denying the divinity of Christ; they have declared God to be non-existent; they have jailed priests and pastors and missionaries. There is a reason that La Rochelle had to prepare for assault from the king of France: They wished to practice a religion contrary to the official one of the day.

Blogger harry January 10, 2013 10:02 AM  

My father was a teenager living in The Netherlands during WW2. His father, my grandfather, was the prinicpal of the local high school. On May 17, 1940, a bright sunny morning, the german army entered his town 2 days after the Dutch army gave in to the Nazis. The Gestapo threw out every student and teacher in the High School and made it their headquarters. My father became part of the Dutch resistance and watched as several of his friends simply disappeared during the war. The Nazis did this simply because they could. That is the power of a gun!

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 10:05 AM  

Wyoming is in the process of making it illegal to enforce any federal ban on semi-autos or registration:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf

Anonymous ThirdMonkey January 10, 2013 10:09 AM  

We didn't fight in the primaries, and we didn't fight during the general election. We re-elected almost 93% of those tyrannical bastards. If it goes hot, there will be mabe 5% of the population willing to fight, and they are disproportionately in the red states. The tipping point for victory is around 10%.

What is also apparent is the silence of the red state governors.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 10, 2013 10:13 AM  

Stop and Frisk illegal

Couldn't have happened to a nicer city. Look to crime increasing in NYC.

Blogger Doom January 10, 2013 10:15 AM  

Who said slaves were freed? They simply weren't allowed to be owned by individuals. The north certainly didn't free their slaves or the war would have been lost. Businesses, from then on, could own slaves, just not individuals. Eventually, through unions, that practiced was ended. It looks like the government is making a real stab at taking over that practice now. It reminds me of the lottery. Long ago the state decided that numbers games were immoral and unfairly preyed upon the poor, so they outlawed it... then took over the racket. More, they take 50% of the winnings in "taxes" on top of it. hehe

As to what someone from a culture which believes learning and thinking are too white, while wanting nothing other than to become white through marrying up, I... wouldn't aim at his logic or thinking. Pretend you are trying to convince a hysterical woman, just dark of skin with whatever passes for manhood he has, and you might... find a hook that will work.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick January 10, 2013 10:18 AM  

I'm no army but if one forms, I will join it.

Anonymous AlexJonesIsJudas January 10, 2013 10:19 AM  

Why did [Alex Jones] he shout, and rant so much?
When someone watches the news, they expect certain things, usually - cool, calm, objective reporting. This is why they watch the news. People who like shouting will watch WWE, and we all know thats fake right? Imagine watching a political debate and Romney starts screaming in Obama's face. Obama of course just sits there, without fear, and takes it. This is taking the higher ground. Jones was there to look bad, and to make Piers look good. Jones was there to look like an idiot, a bully, and a psycho. Jones was there to be the patsy. Now whether or not what he said was true, it was the delivery that mattered. I cannot state this enough, Jones is an agent of the system, not of truth.
Why was this allowed to happen?
For exactly the reason William Cooper said "Because they haven't got the guns out of the hands of the American people". I'm not saying that Jones will single handedly bring down gun ownership. But he is a cog in a big machine. The idea is to uniformly present all patriots and gun owners as being like Alex Jones. Loud, boisterous mentally unhinged bullies. If anyone thinks that the founding fathers were anything like Jones you are sadly mistaken. If Jones was a founding father, the revolution would likely have never happened.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey January 10, 2013 10:20 AM  

they have curtailed the Great Commission -- they have closed churches; they have set up official government-run churches teaching false gospel and denying the divinity of Christ; they have declared God to be non-existent;

This will be easy, as most churches have been feminized.

they have jailed priests and pastors and missionaries.

This has already effectively been done. The pulpits have been neutered politically through the threat of losing tax-exempt status.

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 10:21 AM  

Something I was wondering about yesterday. Where are the militias? Back when Slick Willie need his ambition trimmed a little militias were all over the place.

Blogger Tiny Tim January 10, 2013 10:25 AM  

My secretary is the former girlfriend of a very large drug smuggler (now dead) and she used to be a gang banger. She is tatted up and down....found Jesus and is a great employee.

Her opposition to guns is her personal experience. She said "my husband and his friends all sit around and talk about "popping a cap" on somebody who disses them, especially when they are drinking".

When I explained why I like to be armed, my mentality, the tyranny of government, the true reason for the 2nd amendment, and my desire to never, ever have to use my guns, and then only to protect the life of an innocent, she said "I thought ya'll, like sat around, and talked about killing too. I never knew...."

She now supports my right to bear arms but not her husbands....

Anonymous The other skeptic January 10, 2013 10:27 AM  

They thoroughly clean up their messes

Blogger Tiny Tim January 10, 2013 10:29 AM  

Hey, "AlexJoneisNOTJuda": Alex Jones is the real deal. He got pumped up and over reacted. The guy isn't even 40 yet. Youthful indiscretion.

He is in the fight and as far as I know you are sitting in your mommy's basement eating Funyums....

There is going to be a whole lot that is not pretty about this struggle that upsets the Oprah generation.

Who gives a rip.....

Anonymous Stilicho January 10, 2013 10:32 AM  

Speaking of slave mentality, here's dh from the previous thread:

The differnce being I am happy to follow duly enacted laws that I disagree with, even if based on ideology I disagree with.

If the abject servility contained in that pathetic statement does not make you recoil in horror, you cannot claim to be a man.

Blogger Porter January 10, 2013 10:33 AM  

But he is a damned fool if he thinks free men, black, white, or any other color, are going to follow him there.

I doubt Blow's handlers would even disagree with that statement. They simply don't place significant freight on that adjective "free." It would not be the assessment of a "damned fool" to conclude that white men (the true targets of disarmament) have lost the appetite for freedom, self determination, and the conflict required to sustain them.

That we have come to prefer the pleasant weightlessness of marionette strings to the burden of free-standing gravity has not been lost on our enemies. They are not fools. They have noted our meek acquiescence to every encroachment. Free men? Consider those who want us dead to be citizens of Missouri.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 10:35 AM  

TinyTim

Does she really not realize that they would just as easily be talking about bashing in heads with baseball bats? Guns didn't make him a dick. He's just a dick.

Anonymous Curlytop January 10, 2013 10:40 AM  

Nate, you should consider compiling a book of pithy phrases or maybe posting them on your currently defunct blog :-)

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 10:42 AM  

It is quite clear that guns make it easier to kill other people.
It is quite clear that no one thinks that criminals and people with mental health issues should be allowed to have guns.
IT is quite clear that advocates for banning guns to NOT have a solution to the issue of illegal guns in the black market.
It is quite clear that keeping firearms from law abiding citizens will NOT keep firearms from criminals.
I think that everyone agrees that SOME gun control is needed ( not everyone should have a gun or access to guns).
The issue is the degree of gun control, yes?

Anonymous VryeDenker January 10, 2013 10:44 AM  

A petit little woman is never more equal to a big, burly would-be rapist (the real kind) than when she has the ability to shoot his dick off. Why is that so hard to understand? I know the talking heads have their agenda, but why can't one's neighbours understand this?

Blogger Tiny Tim January 10, 2013 10:47 AM  

Nate, she is fully aware of that. She has probably been pummeled with a baseball bat, to be quite honest with you. Her knows points sideways to a degree.

She did equate the ignorant losers in her life with everyone else. She is seeing the light. She knows there is a different way. She knows there are men who will come to the aid of the defenseless, the weak, and not see the defenseless and weak as opportunity, as low hanging fruit.....

Anonymous Stilicho January 10, 2013 10:48 AM  

The issue is the degree of gun control, yes?

Ah, you want to haggle over price before you have established that anyone wants to rent your sexual favors.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 10:48 AM  

"This is the decision Americans will have to face going forward and while people may own a lot of guns, I see no indication they want to use the guns against the government. "

Only the psychopath WANTS a bloody war. We do not WANT the war. We want the war to not be made necessary in the first place.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2013 10:49 AM  

It is quite clear that no one thinks that criminals and people with mental health issues should be allowed to have guns.

No, that is not clear. Criminals and people with mental health issues have the same right to self-defense as everyone else. It would be better to arm every criminal and lunatic in the nation with a fully automatic machine gun than disarm the general population. The body count would be much lower.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 10, 2013 10:51 AM  

Actually they will through tacit consent if they don't emigrate or fight. (Which might rapidly descend into "No true free man would give tacit consent.")If someone doesn't like the violation of rights they have two options a)emigration b)armed rebellion. You emigrated, good for you as you no longer gave tacit consent.

The question being, were is there left to go? While you might find a small nation or two that still could be called a land of free men, what is the likelyhood that it will allow you entry? Other than packing your bags for the wild alaskan wilderness there really isn't too many other places you can go.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 10:55 AM  

man... this place is littered with the dry bones of dead blogs... but I'm the only one that gets grief for it...

look guys...

I'll try. ok?

I'll try.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 10:56 AM  

VS said:
No, that is not clear. Criminals and people with mental health issues have the same right to self-defense as everyone else. It would be better to arm every criminal and lunatic in the nation with a fully automatic machine gun than disarm the general population. The body count would be much lower.

I reply:
I see your point BUT that kind seems to imply a "free for all" type of situation.
Almost anarchical.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 10:59 AM  

Stil said:
Ah, you want to haggle over price before you have established that anyone wants to rent your sexual favors.

I reply:
Are you suggesting or implying that NO gun control whatsoever is what is needed?

Anonymous DD January 10, 2013 11:04 AM  

Something I was wondering about yesterday. Where are the militias? Back when Slick Willie need his ambition trimmed a little militias were all over the place.

You're getting it backward. The "militias" never existed except as media creations designed to generate public support for gun control.

The question being, were is there left to go? While you might find a small nation or two that still could be called a land of free men, what is the likelyhood that it will allow you entry?

Get to work on those fungible skills so that they will allow you entry.

Anonymous Anonymous January 10, 2013 11:04 AM  

"Are you suggesting or implying that NO gun control whatsoever is what is needed?"

No gun control except for the "1 gun a month" thing.

Everyone should have to buy at least 1 gun a month.

Anonymous DD January 10, 2013 11:05 AM  

Are you suggesting or implying that NO gun control whatsoever is what is needed?

Um.... what does the Constitution say?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Seems pretty clear.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 11:06 AM  

The question being, were is there left to go?

Well if gun rights is your motivation for leaving Italy isn't the place to be.

Regardless of where one goes it is unlikely you will be able to vote right away so you will be choosing to live somewhere in which you will give explicit consent to be governed by the country's laws without representation.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 11:11 AM  

It would be better to arm every criminal and lunatic in the nation with a fully automatic machine gun than disarm the general population. The body count would be much lower.

Would the body count be lower if we armed them with Sarin gas grenades?

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 11:16 AM  

I don't know. I have a gun, and I don't feel any more empowered against the government than before I had one.

I spent 6 months in Japan, and after you get over the initial culture shock, you realize how much different the culture is. In a way it is a very passive place. But if you ask them, they don't feel they aren't free, or that they are slaves. And yet not a single Japaneese owns a gun.

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 11:19 AM  

No, that is not clear. Criminals and people with mental health issues have the same right to self-defense as everyone else. It would be better to arm every criminal and lunatic in the nation with a fully automatic machine gun than disarm the general population. The body count would be much lower.

How about prisoners in prison?

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 11:20 AM  

"I see your point BUT that kind seems to imply a "free for all" type of situation."

You say this like its some kind of argument in and of itself. Its not.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 11:21 AM  

" But if you ask them, they don't feel they aren't free, or that they are slaves."

You realize you're talking about people that think bukake isn't porn because they digitize the penises. Right?

Blogger Joshua_D January 10, 2013 11:22 AM  

dh January 10, 2013 11:16 AM
I spent 6 months in Japan, and after you get over the initial culture shock, you realize how much different the culture is. In a way it is a very passive place. But if you ask them, they don't feel they aren't free, or that they are slaves. And yet not a single Japaneese owns a gun.


WTF? I mean, have you read the history of the 20th Century. Does anyone read anymore? Does anyone remember anything?

People will feel that they are mostly free right up to the point that they are lined up and shot in the head. And only naive utopians have the audacity to think government massacres could never happen again.

I am surrounded by Pod People.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 11:24 AM  

So, no gun control whatsoever means that anyone can buy any type of gun anytime, anywhere, yes?
How is that a good thing?

Anonymous VD January 10, 2013 11:26 AM  

I spent 6 months in Japan, and after you get over the initial culture shock, you realize how much different the culture is. In a way it is a very passive place. But if you ask them, they don't feel they aren't free, or that they are slaves. And yet not a single Japaneese owns a gun.

You realize you're talking about the place with the proverb "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down", right? And that they have had very strict gun control for centuries in order to permit the samurai class to rule over the peasants?

Anonymous ridip January 10, 2013 11:27 AM  

Porter,

As a resident thereof, what's Missouri got to do with it?

Anonymous Tallen January 10, 2013 11:27 AM  

"the nail that sticks up gets hammered down"

This sounds like a topic for Alpha Game.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 11:28 AM  

"How is that a good thing?"

You don't read much do you? Its a good thing because it provides the only possible protection against the to most effective and dangerous mass murderers in the world... domestic government... and foreign government.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 11:32 AM  

"How is that a good thing?"

Another reason its a good thing. When government fears the people... there is liberty... someone said that... I am certain of it.

Anyway... give a few millionaires a few nukes... and suddenly the two wolves arent voting on having the sheep for dinner anymore are they?

Anonymous J. Doe January 10, 2013 11:34 AM  

Japan is not the USA in so many other ways besides their peaceful, unarmed peasants:

Chicago: Man threatened to blow up city bus in ‘jihad’

Anonymous DD January 10, 2013 11:36 AM  

How about prisoners in prison?

This is the basic philosophy of Leftism -- the people should be treated like prisoners in prison. Everyone fed, housed, cared for, and indoctrinated by the state, and (naturally) disarmed for their own good.

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 11:37 AM  

You realize you're talking about the place with the proverb "the nail that sticks up gets hammered down", right? And that they have had very strict gun control for centuries in order to permit the samurai class to rule over the peasants?

True. Comity was enforced, but it did seem to me at least to be at least as much enforced by cultural means rather than law.

So in your view the current residents of Japan are not free people?

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 11:39 AM  

WTF? I mean, have you read the history of the 20th Century. Does anyone read anymore? Does anyone remember anything?

People will feel that they are mostly free right up to the point that they are lined up and shot in the head. And only naive utopians have the audacity to think government massacres could never happen again.


In what way does this relate to Japan? Sorry I am a little bit dense.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 11:41 AM  

Nate said:
You don't read much do you? Its a good thing because it provides the only possible protection against the to most effective and dangerous mass murderers in the world... domestic government... and foreign government.

Actually I do read quite a bit, thanks but I don't try to guess at what other people mean, so I ask.
Arming everyone, including criminals and the mentally ill, is I guess one possible answer to dealing with a government with potential to be a mas murdering government.
Of course with everyone being armed the government would only be ONE of your worries, yes?
You'd have to worry about the criminals and the mentally ill and everyone else that has guns too,not just the government or police or military that MAY decided to attack you.
You'd be ok with that because YOU have your own guns, yes?

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 11:42 AM  

The issue is remaining consistent on the issue about registration to “bear arms”. If you think there is no know weapon in existence which should be off limits to citizens then nukes, sarin gas, etc., should be available at the local store like a pistol. Once you agree that there are certain weapons which citizens should be restricted from owning then we are at the point of negotiation the list.

I’d venture a guess that Vox wouldn’t be happy and might even move if he walked into the Italian equivalent of Home Depot this weekend and saw a display for plutonium and a do it yourself nuke kit on sale, and a two for one special on tanks of sarin gas.

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 11:44 AM  

You don't read much do you? Its a good thing because it provides the only possible protection against the to most effective and dangerous mass murderers in the world... domestic government... and foreign government.

I agree with this. I am having a hard time making the leap however that individuals with guns are going to keep the government in check. Certainly ownership of guns alone isn't going to keep the goverment in check. No one in Washington has changed their mind on anything they want to do because of lots of guns in America.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 11:46 AM  

"You'd have to worry about the criminals and the mentally ill and everyone else that has guns too,not just the government or police or military that MAY decided to attack you."

You are aware.. that criminals and the mentally ill... are already something we worry about... despite the fact that it is illegal for them to buy weapons? Yes?

You realize that it was an attack... by a mentally ill person... who obtained the weapons illegally... that spurred this debate in the first place... right?

You realize that Columbine happened in 1999... right in the MIDDLE of the last assault weapons ban? Right?

So...

Yes. Given that we cannot keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the dangerous people that want them... thus the dangerous crazy people and dangerous criminals are a perpetual worry... thus... I would just as soon be safe from the real danger... which is... mass murder by government.

Anonymous J. Doe January 10, 2013 11:48 AM  

Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 11:41 AM

You'd have to worry about the criminals and the mentally ill and everyone else that has guns too


Guns have no magical qualities to change people. Access to guns won't change a criminal nor insane person's propensity to commit violent acts anymore than owning an arsenal of hundreds of weapons won't turn a peaceful man into a violent criminal.

Blogger Joshua_D January 10, 2013 11:49 AM  

Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 11:24 AM

So, no gun control whatsoever means that anyone can buy any type of gun anytime, anywhere, yes?

How is that a good thing?


civilServant, is that you?

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 11:49 AM  

" No one in Washington has changed their mind on anything they want to do because of lots of guns in America."

Quite mistaken. its an untold story of history that Clinton's hard right turn... as well as the right turn taken by the justice department post Waco was the direct result of a state department briefing where they pointed out to Mr Clinton that the number of AKs coming into the US had spiked up literally 400%... despite the ban. Justice, the ATF, and the FBI totally changed their tactics and instead of antagonizing the militia movement that flared up at the time... they actively reached out to the movement and tried to woo it into the fold.

Anonymous Noah B. January 10, 2013 11:51 AM  

"No one in Washington has changed their mind on anything they want to do because of lots of guns in America."

This is an assertion with no basis whatsoever in fact. There is no way to know this with any degree of confidence at all.

Anonymous RC January 10, 2013 11:55 AM  

Ridip asks, "As a resident thereof, what's Missouri got to do with it?"

You're going to be embarrassed... "Show Me."

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 11:57 AM  

Things could really get interesting if Obama tries to bypass congress and issue an executive order.

Anonymous Amazing January 10, 2013 12:02 PM  

So in your view the current residents of Japan are not free people?

He asks if the socialist ant heap is free...

Blogger Porter January 10, 2013 12:04 PM  

As a resident thereof, what's Missouri got to do with it?

That is the state from which all treasonous totalitarians emanate.

Or perhaps it was a reference to the slogan on your license plates.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 12:04 PM  

"That is the state from which all treasonous totalitarians emanate"

Lincoln was born in Kentucky mate

Anonymous VD January 10, 2013 12:05 PM  

So in your view the current residents of Japan are not free people?

No, they most certainly are not. Even their "democracy" has mostly been one-party rule by the LDP.

Anonymous Mina January 10, 2013 12:08 PM  

The Government has an opportunity to kill us by the "death of 1,000 cuts" by making gun owner's lives miserable in order to avoid a watershed moment whereby it's clear to everyone that the threshold has been crossed and it's time to muster on the field at Lexington.

Seems that will be the tack they take, but I am watching today's meetings carefully and word has it Obama is going to announce his final plans during the State of the Union address which comes up at the end of the month.

Anonymous HongKongCharlie January 10, 2013 12:10 PM  

I feel like one of the three stooges knocking on one of the others head. But here goes.

Nukes, various gases and manufactured explosives are not part of the Constitutional restrictions. They weren't invested at that point in time. What part of arms as described in the "Right to Bear" don't you understand. Anything not prohibited by the Constitution is subject to management by those we elect, to manage these things for us. These things were invented and or developed for war and war only. The feds have plenty of power to interdict the ownership of these materials. I'm not commenting on the ability of the feds to do so. Just the point that they are empowered to do so. Take our guns, not so much.

HKC

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 12:13 PM  

Quite mistaken. its an untold story of history that Clinton's hard right turn... as well as the right turn taken by the justice department post Waco was the direct result of a state department briefing where they pointed out to Mr Clinton that the number of AKs coming into the US had spiked up literally 400%... despite the ban. Justice, the ATF, and the FBI totally changed their tactics and instead of antagonizing the militia movement that flared up at the time... they actively reached out to the movement and tried to woo it into the fold.
Interesting I had never heard that. Did they suceed?

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 12:15 PM  

This is an assertion with no basis whatsoever in fact. There is no way to know this with any degree of confidence at all.
Probably you are right.

I will put it another way. The 2nd amendment has not stopped government growing to all corners of life, or growing to it's current massive size.

Blogger Joshua_D January 10, 2013 12:15 PM  

dh January 10, 2013 11:39 AM
WTF? I mean, have you read the history of the 20th Century. Does anyone read anymore? Does anyone remember anything?

People will feel that they are mostly free right up to the point that they are lined up and shot in the head. And only naive utopians have the audacity to think government massacres could never happen again.


In what way does this relate to Japan? Sorry I am a little bit dense.


It doesn't really have to do with Japan. That comment is related to the concept of freedom in general and what it takes to maintain freedom when statist forces want to enslave people. History is full of government enslaving the people. That is pretty much the entire history of man, interspersed with brief fits of freedom.

Even in America we aren't free. Most Americans like to think they are free, but try not paying your property tax or federal income tax, and you'll find out just how free you are.

Anonymous Tallen January 10, 2013 12:17 PM  

"You'd have to worry about the criminals and the mentally ill and everyone else that has guns too,not just the government or police or military that MAY decided to attack you."

You are aware.. that criminals and the mentally ill... are already something we worry about...


To elaborate more on Nate's point - firearms are equalizers. With a bit of training, a 90 year old lady can be just as effective (more really) as 22yo gym rat or what have you, when it comes to self defense. By preventing citizens from owning firearms you reduce them to slaves, where the strong young men have a monopoly on force until/unless the state intervenes. That kind of world is tough on grannytunes and other less physically-capable people.

There are people in the world who actively seek to harm others by any means. Firearms level the playing field for all.

Blogger Joshua_D January 10, 2013 12:19 PM  

dh January 10, 2013 12:15 PM

I will put it another way. The 2nd amendment has not stopped government growing to all corners of life, or growing to it's current massive size.


Not yet.

Like all laws, words written on a piece of paper won't stop anything. Only people can stop other people. This argument is more like a barometer measuring the increasing pressure FedGov is putting on the People. The People are feeling it, and at some point the people may exercise their rights and relieve said pressure. Or they may not. We'll have to wait and see.

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 12:19 PM  

> You'd have to worry about the criminals and the mentally ill and everyone else that has guns too.

If it hasn't escaped your attention, criminals and the mentally ill already have guns.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

Anti-gun nuts: a simple question for you concerning schools: would you rather see teachers (as citizens) packing heat or kids packed in body bags?

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

> I’d venture a guess that Vox wouldn’t be happy and might even move if he walked into the Italian equivalent of Home Depot this weekend and saw a display for plutonium and a do it yourself nuke kit on sale...

Are you kidding? He'd probably buy two.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 12:23 PM  

The whole point to the civil right to be armed is to protect our inalienable rights, but the questions remain: What are arms? What laws could be passed that would not hinder people from possessing them?

These questions are important because as I’ve pointed out, and people seem to be ignoring because I’m guessing they can’t answer it and stay consistent, is that WMDs being ubiquitous in society would most certainly be detrimental to our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Anonymous ridip January 10, 2013 12:26 PM  

Show Me!

I knew it had to be something simple. Just missed it.

And why do so many insist on focusing on "guns". The 2nd says "arms". That is much more inclusive and diverse. The left keeps telling us those are good things.

Would "arms" cover body armor and other protective devices as well that they male so difficult for Joe Average to get?

If it's really about protecting you, why can't you buy the same protection the police and military can?

Anonymous Stilicho January 10, 2013 12:29 PM  

Lincoln was born in Kentucky mate

So was bourbon. Don't blame Kentucky, blame his single mother.

Anonymous Rally January 10, 2013 12:30 PM  

Anyone know what the crime rate is for Spring City, Utah?

With all those guns they must have murders and stickups all the time.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 12:31 PM  

Are you kidding? He'd probably buy two.

Utter rubbish. The idea that our inalienable rights would better be protected by your bi-polar, cat-lady, neighbor having a 1 kiloton nuke in her living room than our current restrictions on WMDs is completely absurd.

Anonymous DD January 10, 2013 12:32 PM  

These questions are important because as I’ve pointed out, and people seem to be ignoring because I’m guessing they can’t answer it and stay consistent, is that WMDs being ubiquitous in society would most certainly be detrimental to our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

People are ignoring this moronic non-argument because it has been crushed in previous threads about guns.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 12:32 PM  

I think I understand better what you guys are saying.
The issues is that we already have to deal with armed criminals and mentally ill people and a government with potential to attack and incarcerate ( or even worse) it's own populous, so firearms allows the law abiding citizen the ability to meet them on equal footing.
Yes?

Anonymous NewAnubis January 10, 2013 12:36 PM  

I believe the gun issue is going to disappear/be mitigated by the pinpoint accuracy of drone missiles. The sleazy elite needn't contend with the near impossible task of disarmament of the folks...just identify the likely troublemakers and have a missile visit them at the breakfast table. After 500 or so of these events who is going to buck the system then?

Anonymous Jake January 10, 2013 12:36 PM  

"Are you suggesting or implying that NO gun control whatsoever is what is needed?"

As Vox has already said, far far better to have everyone armed (everyone who wants to be) as you would have under zero gun restrictions than only those who are the nastiest and most evil armed as you would have under a strict gun control regime (i.e. the government and other criminals who don't care about laws).

It's not like a law saying "those who demonstrably do not abide by the law may not legally own firearms" is likely to be particularly effective anyways. And not all felons have committed violent acts or used a gun illegally. Very little justification to disarm these people.





Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 12:36 PM  

Anti-gun nuts: a simple question for you concerning schools: would you rather see teachers (as citizens) packing heat or kids packed in body bags?
Teachers for sure. Esclation is the only option we have at this point.

Anonymous Stilicho January 10, 2013 12:37 PM  

The idea that our inalienable rights would better be protected by your bi-polar, cat-lady, neighbor having a 1 kiloton nuke in her living room than our current restrictions on WMDs is completely absurd.

What Hillary Clinton would do with nukes is not the issue. We get it. You want gun control. All of this talk about nuke-control to justify gun control is not making your point. At best, you've made an argument for preventing governments from having nukes.

Anonymous civilServant January 10, 2013 12:37 PM  

So, no gun control whatsoever means that anyone can buy any type of gun anytime, anywhere, yes?

How is that a good thing?


civilServant, is that you?


No.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 10, 2013 12:37 PM  

Vox, I know you are enthused. I know that you are educated.

But I want you to think. Please think like a gamer and game this situation. You talk the talk, but have you thought this walk is going to take?

What happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge? They just burned the people out and then killed them. Most these agents on these two events were ex-military. Look, no one came to these people's defenses.

What happens is that they cordon off the area. You are dead before you can support or help in defense. One guy already made his own drone, put a paint ball gun on it and his friends could NOT escape it!

See, these agents are being paid to go after guns while the gun owner has to go to work! While this man is away, they just come in and seize guns. Nobody has to be around.

How long can a man stay up without falling asleep? Once you fall asleep--you're dead. One needs reinforcements, team work. Where is this all going to happen and how?

Have you gamed this situation? Have you strategized how this will be played out. I have.

It doesn't work.

Right now, the press is indoctrinating. You can't stop that. There is no social cohesion. Half of people will turn you in before you leave your driveway for work!

I see NO successful way of resisting. You talk the game Vox, but have you walked this walk, or at least thought about the numerous scenarios taking place?

What if the Feds just seize all the gun manufacturers and bullet makers? What happens then?

Anonymous Anonymous January 10, 2013 12:37 PM  

As much as believe in unfettered access to guns, it seems to me that in the last hundred years or so, gun ownership has been detrimental to liberty. The only people I know or follow who are concerned about the erosion of liberty use gun ownership as their “line in the sand”. As long as they have their guns they willfully accept 50% of their labor confiscated, begging and paying for permission to do nearly any job, and living under the threat of being thrown in prison for a laundry list of non-crimes, which includes the buying, selling, possessing, transporting, and modifying of their beloved guns in an unapproved manner. The illusion is that we can put a stop to this at any time as long as we have our guns. I’m not so sure about that.
If I ascribed more cleverness to the government, I would say it is a deliberate plan. Let the rubes keep their guns and systematically take every else. By the time they are motivated to do anything they will be so weak and beaten-down, the only thing they are going to do with those ARs is put them in their own mouths.

Anonymous dh January 10, 2013 12:38 PM  

I believe the gun issue is going to disappear/be mitigated by the pinpoint accuracy of drone missiles. The sleazy elite needn't contend with the near impossible task of disarmament of the folks...just identify the likely troublemakers and have a missile visit them at the breakfast table. After 500 or so of these events who is going to buck the system then?
I think you may be onto something. Between the branches of military they have approximately 10k drones, and can easily operate 2k of them *all at once*. Lots of R&D and engineering going into these things.

It will be hard to imagine fighting back against an redudant array of inexpensive drones. A hundred support staff can fight a drone war for extended period of time, it's pretty scary.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 12:42 PM  

We get it. You want gun control.

I do want arms control, and my point is to expose the people who claim they don't want any arms control, but really do. So Stilicho do you think citizens who have the money should be able to buy WMDs?

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 12:44 PM  

The Government has an opportunity to kill us by the "death of 1,000 cuts" by making gun owner's lives miserable in order to avoid a watershed moment whereby it's clear to everyone that the threshold has been crossed and it's time to muster on the field at Lexington.

This is not historical, Mina. Death of 1000 cuts was exactly the approach Britain took against her colony, and Lexington was not a clear cut moment for most, especially not loyalists who persisted in their "confusion" and "uncertainty" all the way through the war, even when it was clear their side was doomed!

The Boston Massacre, after all, was enough for some to harden the hearts of most Bostonians against the King, but New Yorkers scarcely cared (at least enough to think that the Brits were doing anything more than their part in rabble control.)

Sandy Hook sent some to the pews of the Church of the Faux Melchizidek. It sent many others to the gun store.

Tipping points tend to be a minor thing at the end of a string of minor things, such as Ft. Sumter at the "end" of S.C. secession, which followed Harper's Ferry in Va., which followed the defeat of of the Lecompton Constitution of Kansas, etc. etc. Every one of these "flashpoints" was controversial and seemingly of relatively minor (i.e. not grounds for total war) importance to those not closely involved or else well aware of the bigger picture. Tipping points are generally not a universal "a-ha" moment for all, or even most. But as each one passes, two things grow - the numbers of people who are finally convinced, and the depth at which their resolution plumbs.

At the time, few outside of non-influential business circles in the South realized that a Federal invasion of the South was practically inevitable following the popular rejection of slavery in Kansas.

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

I do want arms control, and my point is to expose the people who claim they don't want any arms control, but really do. So Stilicho do you think citizens who have the money should be able to buy WMDs?

You addressed Stilicho, but I wanted to note:

A) They already can and do and B) if the government has access to it hell yes the free man should have access to it.

Anonymous Jake January 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

I believe the gun issue is going to disappear/be mitigated by the pinpoint accuracy of drone missiles. The sleazy elite needn't contend with the near impossible task of disarmament of the folks...just identify the likely troublemakers and have a missile visit them at the breakfast table. After 500 or so of these events who is going to buck the system then?

Probably everyone. If "the gloves come off" in that manner what politician, drone pilot, bureaucrat, etc. is going to be safe from the uncle, son, brother, father, etc. of the people you just blew up? You can't target 20-50 million households with drones, and by the time you've hit 500 there's a a whole lot of people who know it's open season and they'd better get to hunting before they become the prey.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 12:47 PM  

"Interesting I had never heard that. Did they suceed?"

I think they would describe the effort as a failure. In the vast majority of the cases... and in all of the militias actually viewed as potentially dangerous... the feds were kept at arms length. There were individual cases where the militias got star struck because the FBI invited them to play with their toys and stuff like that.

Anonymous Alas January 10, 2013 12:48 PM  

@ W.Lindsay Wheeler,

Doesn't even need to go that far.

Turn off his lights, freeze his bank account, threaten his employer with sanctions for employing him unless he hands over the guns, and he'll fall right into line without any drones or arrests or breaking into his house while he's at work.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 12:48 PM  

"What happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge? They just burned the people out and then killed them. Most these agents on these two events were ex-military. Look, no one came to these people's defenses. "

Wheeler... given your long documented inability to grasp the concept of 4G war... you really should keep silent on these matters.

Anonymous DD January 10, 2013 12:50 PM  

I do want arms control, and my point is to expose the people who claim they don't want any arms control, but really do. So Stilicho do you think citizens who have the money should be able to buy WMDs?

Yes.

But nobody will be able to afford this, so this stupid non-concern evaporates.

Now shut up and go away.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 12:50 PM  

"Turn off his lights, freeze his bank account, threaten his employer with sanctions for employing him unless he hands over the guns, and he'll fall right into line without any drones or arrests or breaking into his house while he's at work."

Wrong.

He will give the appearance of compliance from the begining. He will turn in a few guns that they already know about... and play the grateful surf. Then he will go home... and bide his time.... and every so often... he will go to his stash.. get a weapon they DON'T know about... kill someone with it... put it back... then go back to work.

And they will never find him.

Anonymous Ha January 10, 2013 12:52 PM  

Between the branches of military they have approximately 10k drones, and can easily operate 2k of them *all at once*. Lots of R&D and engineering going into these things.

Ya mean the same pervasive blanket of drones that can't keep the goatherds in check in Afghanistan?

Blogger GX3Blogger January 10, 2013 12:54 PM  

At the same time Obama wants to disarm Americans, he wants to set up his own little private army and civilian security force. This does not sound promising. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGW136RLhSM

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 12:55 PM  

It will be hard to imagine fighting back against an redudant array of inexpensive drones. A hundred support staff can fight a drone war for extended period of time, it's pretty scary.

...since my nephews developed a redundant array of inexpensive drones one Saturday last summer, (setting a fairly fun, though minor, forest fire in the process), it isn't hard for me to imagine fighting back at all.

Those who lie down to SkyNet always claim that it is invincible. For god's sake, Afghans with a goat's education have fought inexpensive drones for 11 years, and it is the drone guys who are getting worn out!

You simply need to get a little more imaginative!

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 12:56 PM  

"I do want arms control, and my point is to expose the people who claim they don't want any arms control, but really do. So Stilicho do you think citizens who have the money should be able to buy WMDs?"

As has already been pointed out... nukes are EXTREMELY expensive. Those with the money to buy them... also have the money to buy senators. Lots of senators.

Given how much more dangerous senators are than mere nukes... I find your attempts at fear mongering laughable.

Anonymous Alas January 10, 2013 12:56 PM  

He will give the appearance of compliance from the begining. He will turn in a few guns that they already know about... and play the grateful surf. Then he will go home... and bide his time.... and every so often... he will go to his stash.. get a weapon they DON'T know about... kill someone with it... put it back... then go back to work.

Sure, you can thump your chest about that on the internet. But how many people are going to do that in real life? Jobs, mortgage, family > theoretical liberty.

If the government even gets rid of "just the guns they know about" via this soft method, that is a massive win for them.

They will endure attrition from the secret snipers, who will all eventually be caught.

OpenID tesseractive January 10, 2013 1:01 PM  

Why is it that one week American soldiers, police officers, federal agents, and so on are patriotic Americans who are willing to risk their lives to defend our way of life, but the next week they're jackbooted thugs determined to destroy our way of life unless we gun them all down first?

I really don't think that you can have it both ways on that one.

Anonymous Tallen January 10, 2013 1:01 PM  

can easily operate 2k of them *all at once*.
Not exactly, and the number of armed drones is more limited.

A hundred support staff can fight a drone war for extended period of time, it's pretty scary.
If they're not orphans and unmarried already, they might find themselves without a family next time they attempt to go home.

Likewise for seizing all domestic parts of the firearms industry, you either have to force people to work producing arms solely for the government, or (more likely) you wind up with hundreds of garage shops producing arms under the table. Heck, think of the guys overseeing missile production; all it takes is one or two thinking "gee whiz, I've seen these kill my friends, how long before one is used on me?"

Anonymous . January 10, 2013 1:03 PM  

Why is it that one week American soldiers, police officers, federal agents, and so on are patriotic Americans who are willing to risk their lives to defend our way of life, but the next week they're jackbooted thugs determined to destroy our way of life unless we gun them all down first?

There is no dichotomy. Armed servants of the state can be protectors or oppressors, depending on what the state orders them to do.

Anonymous patrick kelly January 10, 2013 1:04 PM  

PS: "I think that everyone agrees that SOME gun control is needed ( not everyone should have a gun or access to guns).
The issue is the degree of gun control, yes?"

Let me make sure, but do you believe there is not any gun control at all in the USA at the present time? Just checking, cuz' you use the word "SOME" in big italics as if you believe there is not any.

Let me assure you, there are thousands of "gun control" laws now in the US.

Now, if by "gun control", you mean absolute prohibition of possession of any guns, then be honest about it so we can understand and discuss what you really mean, m'kay?


Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

> ...is that WMDs being ubiquitous in society would most certainly be detrimental to our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Gunpowder is the original WMD. It's still widely available, and has been for ages. Bleach and ammonia mixed make toxic fumes. They're both available and have been for a long time.

Your position isn't supported by the available evidence.

Anonymous Stilicho January 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

I do want arms control, and my point is to expose the people who claim they don't want any arms control, but really do. So Stilicho do you think citizens who have the money should be able to buy WMDs?

You addressed Stilicho, but I wanted to note:

A) They already can and do and B) if the government has access to it hell yes the free man should have access to it.


I agree with Daniel. You also need to consider that the crazy cat lady from your scenario works for the government that controls the nukes. Nate makes an excellent point as well:

As has already been pointed out... nukes are EXTREMELY expensive. Those with the money to buy them... also have the money to buy senators. Lots of senators.


How many cats does Feinstein have?

Anonymous patrick kelly January 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

"After 500 or so of these events who is going to buck the system then?"

At less than a dozen of "these events" I doubt you will be calling the consequences mere "bucking the system".

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 1:05 PM  

"Sure, you can thump your chest about that on the internet. But how many people are going to do that in real life? Jobs, mortgage, family > theoretical liberty.

If the government even gets rid of "just the guns they know about" via this soft method, that is a massive win for them.

They will endure attrition from the secret snipers, who will all eventually be caught."

Only a tiny percentage will actually shoot back. About the top half of one percent. Which is over 1 million people.

So no. they will not "endure" any thing. The government will literally shutdown.

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 1:06 PM  

Sure, you can thump your chest about that on the internet. But how many people are going to do that in real life? Jobs, mortgage, family > theoretical liberty.

Alas, that's ignorant. Jobs, home and family are the products of liberty. That's what is under threat!

Please think again before you suggest to unemployed men losing a banker-owned house whose family is cracking under the burden of subsidizing the idiotic that those precise conditions are going to make him less violently minded against a government that hates him.

Anonymous VD January 10, 2013 1:07 PM  

Sure, you can thump your chest about that on the internet. But how many people are going to do that in real life? Jobs, mortgage, family > theoretical liberty.... They will endure attrition from the secret snipers, who will all eventually be caught.

A lot of people whose relatives have been killed. And they will create 10 more for every one they catch. Rumsfeld talked about this 10 years ago. Where have you been?

Why is it that one week American soldiers, police officers, federal agents, and so on are patriotic Americans who are willing to risk their lives to defend our way of life, but the next week they're jackbooted thugs determined to destroy our way of life unless we gun them all down first?

Who said anything about soldiers, police officers, and federal agents being patriotic Americans. Some of the soldiers are all right. The rest of them are the same jackbooted thugs they were last week and the year before, with the usual few exceptions to prove the rule.

Are you new here or something? What part of "NWA was right" do you not understand?

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 1:09 PM  

As a practical matter, I am in favor of gun control that mandates every household be in the possession of at least one gun. Now that the government requires you to buy health insurance, the least the dictators can do is require us to buy life insurance.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 1:10 PM  

But nobody will be able to afford this, so this stupid non-concern evaporates.

Nukes, only the super rich. But chemical agents can be cheap to build especially once there's a market for the ingredients in your WMDs for all world.

Given how much more dangerous senators are than mere nukes... I find your attempts at fear mongering laughable.

Nate, I already know you want WMDs available for all who can purchase them.

Gunpowder is the original WMD. It's still widely available, and has been for ages. Bleach and ammonia mixed make toxic fumes. They're both available and have been for a long time.

Yep, and they are both rightfully regulated. Go ahead and attempt to build a 10,000 pound gunpowder bomb, or make hundreds of gallons of chlorine gas and see how fast the government rightfully shows up at your door.

The reason why they are regulated is that if you screw up making them you not only kill yourself, but could take out a city block or more.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 1:11 PM  

"Sure, you can thump your chest about that on the internet. But how many people are going to do that in real life? Jobs, mortgage, family > theoretical liberty."

By the by... you are aware that we're in a depression right? we have literally millions of males out there with nothing to lose what-so-ever... and lots to be angry about.

Do you realize you haven't actually thought deeply about this at all?

Anonymous VD January 10, 2013 1:11 PM  

I’d venture a guess that Vox wouldn’t be happy and might even move if he walked into the Italian equivalent of Home Depot this weekend and saw a display for plutonium and a do it yourself nuke kit on sale...

You guess wrong.

Are you kidding? He'd probably buy two.

Assuming they only had two....

The whole point to the civil right to be armed is to protect our inalienable rights, but the questions remain: What are arms? What laws could be passed that would not hinder people from possessing them?

Anything that the military has. None.

These questions are important because as I’ve pointed out, and people seem to be ignoring because I’m guessing they can’t answer it and stay consistent, is that WMDs being ubiquitous in society would most certainly be detrimental to our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'd rather have them be ubiquitous than monopolized in the hands of the evil people most willing to use them. The genie is out of the bottle. Do you really think genetic science can be controlled too?

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 1:13 PM  

"Nukes, only the super rich. But chemical agents can be cheap to build especially once there's a market for the ingredients in your WMDs for all world. "

You realize these ingredients are available at every home improvement store in America already. Right?

Anonymous Jack Amok January 10, 2013 1:16 PM  

It would be better to arm every criminal and lunatic in the nation with a fully automatic machine gun than disarm the general population.

Fine, but I say we make member of Congress pay for theirs.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 1:20 PM  

So, it seems that what is being advocated is an armed population that can defend itself from criminals, mentally ill and a potential oppressive government, yes?
Sort of a "survival of the fittest" but more like "survival of the best armed"?

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 1:31 PM  

"Sort of a "survival of the fittest" but more like "survival of the best armed"?"

No.

what is being advocated... is Civilization.

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 1:33 PM  

So, it seems that what is being advocated is an armed population that can defend itself from criminals, mentally ill and a potential oppressive government, yes?
Sort of a "survival of the fittest" but more like "survival of the best armed"?


No. More like you won't be starting shit when you know the other guy could be armed. Because it isn't always the better armed that wins and the only way to not lose is to not play.

Anonymous Clay January 10, 2013 1:34 PM  

I just got this email from my Congressman:

January 10, 2013
Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hello--
New attempts to increase restrictions on gun owners are capturing headlines and consuming dinner conversations.
I firmly believe that law-abiding American citizens have the right to own firearms. But not only does the Obama administration seem to disagree with this view, they have now dispatched their campaign organization to rally the public behind new regulations on guns.
The Washington Post called this plan a “well-financed campaign in Washington and around the country to shift public opinion toward stricter gun laws…”
As an attorney, citizen, and your member of Congress, I will not stand for new attempts to further restrict your constitutional rights. Any law that seeks to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens from owning firearms is a step towards an out-right ban on firearms.
But the conversation cannot end with this note. With your help, we can spread this message from Mississippi to Washington. Please consider forwarding this to your neighbors so that our opposition to gun bans will resonate.
God bless,

Gregg Harper
Member of Congress


I love the South.








Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 1:34 PM  

Question to those favoring... "reasonable restrictions"...

If someone yells "fire" in a crowded movie theater... and goes to jail for it...

Does that mean that they shouldn't be allowed to author blogs on politics a decade later?

Anonymous Jack Amok January 10, 2013 1:38 PM  


Jobs, mortgage, family > theoretical liberty.

You may notice lately there's been a precipitous decline in the supply of all three elements on the left side of that comparison.


There is no dichotomy. Armed servants of the state can be protectors or oppressors, depending on what the state orders them to do.

And how many of them obey. Remember that in the Civil War, professional soldiers chose sides. Some went with the North, some with the South. Some followed their conscience, and some (like Bobby Lee) chose allegience over their conscience. But enough chose either side that the issue had to be fougth out on the battlefield at high cost.


They will endure attrition from the secret snipers...

Hardly. The vast majority of governmentalists chose that side precisely because they dislike risk. The Clarence Blow's of the world willingly enter servitude to a powerful master because they believe(incorrectly, eventually) that they are limiting their exposure to risk. Master will protect and provide... until he decides you're no longer necessary anyway. But in the meantime, no need to worry about the company going bankrupt and closing down (ha! well, that's changing, and it's one of the things unhinging leftists).

But anyway, the majority of government supporters are risk-averse and will flee if they find it suddenly becomes risky. Or simply collapse. They'll initially herd together in response to a threat, but if they percieve that Master can't protected them (or if he stops providing for them), game over and the route will be on.

Of course, there's no guarantee the force routing them will be noble or good. In history, most revolutions replaced one thugocracy with another. The American Revolution stands out as one of the very few exceptions of a successful armed rebellion producing markedly better government.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 10, 2013 1:41 PM  

"So in your view the current residents of Japan are not free people?"

The question wouldn't matter to the average Japanese. "Free" is not a thing they really think about, or care about. They care about being Japanese, mostly.

And in a hundred years' time, when America is completely poor, brown, stupid, greasy, and fatally enslaved, with gun battles erupting on every greasy mestizo street despite all the strict gun laws, the Japanese will still be Japanese. And they'll think, "The white people were once 'free', and look at what freedom did for them. They are no more. Oh well. Pass the sake, kudasai."

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 1:41 PM  

Nate and Giraffe, thanks for clearing that up.

I recall that when concealed guns were allowed in Texas that crime stats showed a drop, yes?

I do have one question though:
Shouldn't your first question to yourself be 'why'? Why are we such a violent society and if we can admit we are, then why are we so apathetic about it?

Anonymous Loki's AssGuard January 10, 2013 1:43 PM  

I really don't think that you can have it both ways on that one.

You sheep are really simpletons and desperate for certainty and "security", no?
Your ego-identity with an Authority structure that has trained you is noted.
Of course it is both ways.
Some are psychologically deranged jackbooted thugs extending the Orwellian Police State (you've followed the money and law changes over the last several decades I'm sure, being ever vigilant against government encroachment on liberty) and there are those (fewer in number no doubt - but we will see) who, when the time is right, will be on the side of Freedom and Liberty.
Nothing new about that. It will be - and is/has always been - the psychotic animals vs the real Human beings (the Producers of the decent).
Or to put it in your Fundamentalist Religious terminology: "Who built what - and what are the results?"

B) if the government has access to it hell yes the free man should have access to it. _Daniel

But the State and its Minions are Benevolent! They are truly working FOR you! Cede more to them so that the one, true GOD MARCHING THROUGH THIS WORLD (Hegel) can SAVE YOU!

Anonymous Jack Amok January 10, 2013 1:43 PM  

So, it seems that what is being advocated is an armed population that can defend itself from criminals, mentally ill and a potential oppressive government, yes?
Sort of a "survival of the fittest" but more like "survival of the best armed"?


Sure, assuming by "fittest" you mean "people who can get along with one another as equals without needing to bully or steal from their neighbors."

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 1:48 PM  

> Yep, and they are both rightfully regulated. Go ahead and attempt to build a 10,000 pound gunpowder bomb, or make hundreds of gallons of chlorine gas and see how fast the government rightfully shows up at your door.

You don't need 10K lb bombs to kill people. One pound of gunpowder with appropriate shrapnel is more than enough. Nor do you need hundreds of gallons of bleach and ammonia to kill a room full of people. You can buy chlorine bleach by the gallon at Walmart. Do you really think they report those sales to homeland security?

Blogger Joshua_D January 10, 2013 1:49 PM  

Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 1:41 PM
Nate and Giraffe, thanks for clearing that up.

I recall that when concealed guns were allowed in Texas that crime stats showed a drop, yes?

I do have one question though:
Shouldn't your first question to yourself be 'why'? Why are we such a violent society and if we can admit we are, then why are we so apathetic about it?


Concern troll will troll with concern, yes?

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 1:49 PM  

Since this blog seems to be very open in how people express how they feel about things, I am curious as to how many people have actually used a gun in the way they are advocating? maybe former or current military?

Anonymous bw January 10, 2013 1:51 PM  

Why are we such a violent society and if we can admit we are, then why are we so apathetic about it?

That's an easy one. It is because of cultural and religious Marxism/Totalitarianism, and the excuses it serves up to people, who then embrace those excuses for their own failed human behaviors - and further look to the State as their Savior.
In a word? Failed Religious beliefs.

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 1:51 PM  

I don't understand your question Joshua.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 1:51 PM  

You guess wrong.

I stand corrected.

Do you really think genetic science can be controlled too?

Yes, to a large degree. Chemistry has been around longer and the government has been able to regulate it because the majority of the people demanded it.

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 1:53 PM  

Yep, and they are both rightfully regulated. Go ahead and attempt to build a 10,000 pound gunpowder bomb, or make hundreds of gallons of chlorine gas and see how fast the government rightfully shows up at your door.

Oh, for pity's sake. Smart dumb kids will use a gallon of chlorine gas for field paintball. They are far more likely to get in trouble with their parents than the feds. Hell, even the dummies somehow can stand huffing enough of it to die, it is going to be a matter for the Sherriff.

Are you honestly suggesting that Pine Sol and Clorox aren't sold at the grocery store?

Anonymous Noah B. January 10, 2013 1:54 PM  

"Why are we such a violent society and if we can admit we are, then why are we so apathetic about it?"

If it makes you feel better, you can smoke some weed and sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya. That has a far better chance of working than more gun control laws.

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 1:54 PM  

Why are we such a violent society and if we can admit we are, then why are we so apathetic about it?

My ignorance of history is embarrassing, but I think compared to other times, we aren't that violent.

Blogger Joshua_D January 10, 2013 1:55 PM  

You know, I think some of the Peak X theories may have some merit. I think there is definitely a peak as to what humans can accomplishment at any given scale. Maybe we have seen many instances of "Peak Tyranny" in the course of human history. Surely there is only so much control that a small group can exert over a larger group before the tyrants peak and collapse. Unless of course, you include demons/supernatural forces.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 1:55 PM  

Are you honestly suggesting that Pine Sol and Clorox aren't sold at the grocery store?

Of course not, but they are regulated.

Anonymous RedJack January 10, 2013 1:55 PM  

JartStar

With a little bit of chemistry know how, you can make some nasty stuff. My old Organic professor once told me that by taking her class, the FBI would believe you could make a very deadly toxic gas.

Which, after Organic, you can. Of course you will likly die in the manufacturing also.

As Vox said, the genie is out of the bottle. There is no secret to it. The remarkable thing is that so few States and Terrorists have used it.

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 1:56 PM  

> Yes, to a large degree.

Well, that so nice to know. Obviously North Korea and Iran will never have nukes then, much less genetic weapons. These things are so well regulated, after all.

Anonymous bw January 10, 2013 1:57 PM  

I am curious as to how many people have actually used a gun in the way they are advocating? maybe former or current military?

Irrelevant. Yet another appeal to emotion.
You are a Naive fool if you think your ego-temptation would work on the "good ones" around here. That info would never be offered up, nor would it need to be.
No one has killed until the first time.
You tell us - have you ever killed what you eat, or do you let others do the dirty work? Have YOU killed another human being? Do YOU understand the FINALITY of death if you are killed? Are YOU ready? Is every single thing you do based on EMOTION?

As AP likes to point out correctly, it is a question of Justice.

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 1:57 PM  

Paul
I am curious as to how many people have actually used a gun in the way they are advocating? maybe former or current military?

That's an unusual thing to be curious about. I would imagine that nearly every advocate of his own position has used a gun in the way he advocates. It would be illogical to do otherwise.

I fail to see the relevance of military experience to the previous question. Do you intend for them to be related questions?

Anonymous Edjamacator January 10, 2013 1:59 PM  

Ooops. Looks like another potential reason to have teachers armed. Oh wait, no, I'm sure the gun laws in California already prevented this from happening.

Except they didn't.

Anonymous RedJack January 10, 2013 2:00 PM  

Paul Sacramento

We, as a civilization, are actualy much LESS violent than in the past.

There are few true blood sports out there, and very few armed uprisings. In this country, when was the last Range War (the guys from the Plains states may know). For that matter we had an ongoing insurgency with the American Indians for hundreds of years. Now they drink, run casinos, and complain about the Government.

What is different is the reporting and the population.

Anonymous Mina January 10, 2013 2:00 PM  

"Shouldn't your first question to yourself be 'why'? Why are we such a violent society and if we can admit we are, then why are we so apathetic about it?"

I actually did put some thought into exactly this question just the other day.

... Then I decided it wasn't worth pondering and I went back to shoveling horse shit out of my barn.

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 2:02 PM  

Of course not, but they are regulated.

How so? I know of no law that requires I register my stockpile of Pine Sol.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 2:05 PM  

Well, that so nice to know. Obviously North Korea and Iran will never have nukes then, much less genetic weapons. These things are so well regulated, after all.

I was referring to US citizens and not nations. In the international scene it is and always has been anarchy in regards to weapons.

Vox, I'm curious to know why you moved a country which has even more stringent gun laws than the US (I don't think the new, unknown US, legislation will even approach what's in Italy) if you take such a strident view on an armed populace.

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 2:05 PM  

OT:
Another school shooting:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449709-two-reported-shot-at-california-high-school?lite

And now we have to ban chili powder:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16449709-two-reported-shot-at-california-high-school?lite

The school shooting probably wasn't false flag, not enough dead. And I'll give up my chili powder only when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

Anonymous Mina January 10, 2013 2:06 PM  

"Are you honestly suggesting that Pine Sol and Clorox aren't sold at the grocery store? Of course not, but they are regulated."

Did he really just say that?

He should be voted off the island just on general principle.

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 2:07 PM  

Drat

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/10/16447443-murder-charge-for-woman-accused-of-feeding-toddler-chili-powder?lite

Anonymous Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 2:07 PM  

Thanks guys, I really appreciate your candor and honesty on these things.
Many times people tend to "PC" their views and it's hard to understand the American passion for guns.
You guys have helped quite a bit.

BW, my question wasn't any attempt at an emotional ploy.
As a former Canadian peackeeper who did active duty in the Balkans in the 90's as "long range recon", I was truly curious about it.
I can understand the military mentality in regards to firearms and was curious as to the civilian one.

Personally as a martial artist also, the lesson of the Satsuma clan's attempt to disarm the Okinawan population has always held fast for me.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 2:09 PM  

How so? I know of no law that requires I register my stockpile of Pine Sol.

Regulation doesn't mean complete restriction.

Anonymous J. Doe January 10, 2013 2:13 PM  

Paul Sacramento January 10, 2013 2:07 PM

it's hard to understand the American passion for guns.


You must be retarded then. Do you also find it hard to understand government's passion for guns?

Anonymous Noah B. January 10, 2013 2:14 PM  

"I can understand the military mentality in regards to firearms and was curious as to the civilian one."

They are one and the same, Paul. Or at least they should be.

Blogger Giraffe January 10, 2013 2:17 PM  

They are one and the same, Paul. Or at least they should be.

Sort of. The military probably thinks of them as just some sort of tool or something. I love my guns. Seriously. Like Private Pyle on Full Metal Jacket.

Anonymous JartStar January 10, 2013 2:17 PM  

Did he really just say that?

Of course they are regulated, that doesn't mean you are completely restricted from buying it, but before you get it in the store the chemicals where already regulated by the government.

Buy Pine Sol for your business for janitorial cleaning and there's immediately a regulated requirement for you to have an MSDS sheet available on it.

Anonymous Kickass January 10, 2013 2:17 PM  

A friend who is italian was telling me how they renovated their basement but did not report the renovation because they would increase their taxes. Once they sold the home, of course it was reported. However, they did not pay those taxes all that time. She said "hey, I am Italian, what do you want?"

It has been my experience among friends and extended family who are Italian that there are laws and then there are laws. I cannot answer for Vox, but I would think that is why he is in Italy where the gun control laws seem stricter then here.

And, I have yet to meet an Italian here without a gun. Including the Grandmas, especially the Grandmas.

But hey, that is just me.

Anonymous Noah B. January 10, 2013 2:18 PM  

"I love my guns. Seriously. Like Private Pyle on Full Metal Jacket."

As long as you stop short of a full frontal kiss to the muzzle, that's perfectly normal.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:20 PM  

"
Regulation doesn't mean complete restriction.
"

Now you're just being pedantic because you know damned well you've been proven wrong.

I can buy all the ammonia I want... and all the bleach I want. I have a whole warehouse full of each.

And then I can mix them together with impunity.

Anonymous Sol O the Pine January 10, 2013 2:21 PM  

Buy Pine Sol for your business for janitorial cleaning and there's immediately a regulated requirement for you to have an MSDS sheet available on it.

And buy 20 at Costco...nada. Or 40, or...

Anonymous J. Doe January 10, 2013 2:21 PM  

Americans have as much passion for guns as they do for any other necessary item. In other words, it isn't a passion, it is a recognition of its value.

I have zero passion for guns, cars, chain saw, or my toothbrush, but I have them all because I need them all, and do not accept a blithering jackass Leftist control freak attempting to take them from me.

It is your passion for your own bias that prevents you from seeing the obvious.

Anonymous Sol O the Pine January 10, 2013 2:22 PM  

"As long as you stop short of a full frontal kiss to the muzzle, that's perfectly normal."

Uh oh. Apparently I have some issues...

Anonymous Mina January 10, 2013 2:24 PM  

"Did he really just say that?

Of course they are regulated, that doesn't mean you are completely restricted from buying it, but before you get it in the store the chemicals where already regulated by the government. Buy Pine Sol for your business for janitorial cleaning and there's immediately a regulated requirement for you to have an MSDS sheet available on it."

Here is what you posted in response to a question:

"Are you honestly suggesting that Pine Sol and Clorox aren't sold at the grocery store?

Of course not, but they are regulated."

The question was specific and the context was "grocery store" - Ergo, your answer indicates that purchasing Pine Sol and Clorox as a "common citizen" would do at the local grocery store is an activity regulated by the Government.

You need to learn to be clear if you are going to play here.

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 2:24 PM  

Oh, and those who believe gunpowder is so well controlled might wish to check out the filk song "Gunpowder and Alcohol". Locating it is left as an exercise for the reader.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:27 PM  

We should also point out that every true gun nut (IE reloader) has literally POUNDS if not hundreds of pounds of modern smokeless gun powder in various forms already.

You think a fertilizer bomb makes a big splash?


sheeeeet homie...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 10, 2013 2:28 PM  

Nate!?! writes this cr#p:

He will give the appearance of compliance from the begining. He will turn in a few guns that they already know about... and play the grateful surf. Then he will go home... and bide his time.... and every so often... he will go to his stash.. get a weapon they DON'T know about... kill someone with it... put it back... then go back to work.

You can't do that Nate! You are living in, amidst, a hostile population that doesn't like you, even hates you! How are you going to "get away" with that amongst a hostile population that has ALREADY been indoctrinated that says "The Nates of this world are evil" and then in the age of Cell Phones with cameras and videos, how the heck are you going to get away with it?

You are going to jeopardize your family? There is a 95% chance of getting caught the FIRST time. Or how about someone stopping you?

Read "Alas's" comment. He has it right. How is this all going to play out? I would like to know. Because I know for sure right now the Pentagon is now gaming this situation for the ATF and and FBI!

You can NOT organize because there are traitors everywhere. Lone wolf actions just feed the propaganda mill.

It is a no win situation. Once cancer metasizes, you can't stop it. This country is Marxist and the Population and the Churches are Marxized. How are you going to end the Marxization of America? Because this is more than just "guns"!

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:29 PM  

"You are going to jeopardize your family? There is a 95% chance of getting caught the FIRST time. Or how about someone stopping you?"

BAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes...

Because we have a 95% conviction rate on murder!!! No murder is ever unsolved!!!

God you're a moron.

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 2:30 PM  

> How are you going to end the Marxization of America? Because this is more than just "guns"!

I'm not. I'm going to die. The government has the choice of taking things slowly enough that I die of old age or pushing the matter and making it somewhat messier. It looks like they're in the process of making that decision.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:32 PM  

" You are living in, amidst, a hostile population that doesn't like you, even hates you!"

No I'm not you blithering idiot. Maybe where you live. But the world is actually not uniform. Everyone I live around thinks pretty much exactly like I do.

Everyone is armed to the teeth. I haven't seen an Obama sticker since I drove through ATL 6 months ago.

Anonymous Noah B. January 10, 2013 2:33 PM  

It is a no win situation. Once cancer metasizes, you can't stop it. This country is Marxist and the Population and the Churches are Marxized. How are you going to end the Marxization of America? Because this is more than just "guns"!

I know, let's sacrifice a goat and then have us some child rape.

Anonymous Mina January 10, 2013 2:36 PM  

Alas January 10, 2013 12:48 PM:

Exactly, the death of 1,000 cuts ... Agree.

That way there is no "threshold moment" for the masses to come together with a meeting of minds and resolve.

They just nail us a little bit at a time at the DMV, at work, at our kids' schools, at the Doctor's office, and on and on.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:37 PM  

" Because I know for sure right now the Pentagon is now gaming this situation for the ATF and and FBI!"

The pentagon!!!

You mean the same ones getting their asses kicked by goat herders? Right?

Terrifying.

Anonymous Mina January 10, 2013 2:38 PM  

"How are you going to end the Marxization of America? Because this is more than just "guns"!"

On our way to the military state. This little guns thing is just the opening volley.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:39 PM  

> How are you going to end the Marxization of America? Because this is more than just "guns"!

- I'm not. I don't give a damn about "america". Its a crackwhore to be used up and kicked to the curb. I'll be on a beach somewhere watching from a safe distance.

Anonymous RedJack January 10, 2013 2:39 PM  

Nate,
You do know the rules of engagement will be much different in that case than in the Middle East.

Anonymous Alas January 10, 2013 2:40 PM  

Only a tiny percentage will actually shoot back. About the top half of one percent. Which is over 1 million people.

What percentage "shot back" when they confiscated the guns in Britain and Australia? As far as I know, there are exactly zero examples of libertarians in these countries violently revenging themselves on austhority using their secret gun stashes.

Alas, that's ignorant. Jobs, home and family are the products of liberty.

They don't (didn't) have jobs, homes, and families in the USSR and Red China? Oh wait they did. The population in police states is kept docile because they are given economic security for which they are willing to give up their liberty.

Please think again before you suggest to unemployed men losing a banker-owned house whose family is cracking under the burden of subsidizing the idiotic that those precise conditions are going to make him less violently minded against a government that hates him.

He will join the ranks of the 47% -- he will be given government housing and other government handouts. The tax-eating underclass does not attack the government, it only attacks productive citizens.

A lot of people whose relatives have been killed. And they will create 10 more for every one they catch. Rumsfeld talked about this 10 years ago. Where have you been?

Nah. The majority of the relatives will be disarmed and have too much to lose.

How ever did mass repression work in the USSR and PRC and other Communist states if this state violence "didn't work" and only created more anti-government fanatics?

By the by... you are aware that we're in a depression right? we have literally millions of males out there with nothing to lose what-so-ever... and lots to be angry about.

Poverty does not cause civil war, idiot. Plus the Angry Male won't have any way to sustain himself as a guerrilla, unless he's going to become a robber as well as an assassin.

You may notice lately there's been a precipitous decline in the supply of all three elements on the left side of that comparison.

The people with jobs and houses will give up their guns to prevent losing their jobs and houses.

The people without jobs and houses have most likely already sold their guns.

Hardly. The vast majority of governmentalists chose that side precisely because they dislike risk.

The vast majority of gun owners in this country dislike risk, too. They are law-abiding folk with jobs, houses, and responsibilities.

the majority of government supporters are risk-averse and will flee if they find it suddenly becomes risky.

Nah. Risk-aversion is precisely why they will KEEP their government jobs.

The American Revolution stands out as one of the very few exceptions of a successful armed rebellion producing markedly better government.

I couldn't disagree more. The British Monarchy was a far superior form of government. There is a reason many political scientists since Plato have looked down on republics, which inevitably degenerate into mobocracy and then (coming soon to the USA!) a tyranny.

"the American Revolution was, in my own personal opinion, more or less, basically, a criminal outrage of the mob - led by leaders who were either unscrupulous, deluded, or both." -- Mencius Moldbug

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler January 10, 2013 2:42 PM  

You are driving thru "ATL"? Atlanta? A black city? a minority third world hellhole?

Nate, who are you some 18year old punk kid?

You may live around, out in the country with a couple of people here and there, ...

They finally hunted down Osama didn't they? They got all the Mafia dons didn't they? They won at Waco and at Ruby Ridge. Every terrorist gets caught. The British tracked down most of the IRA.

War is in some sense attrition. You have a ton of young people to carry on. You have absolutely NO young people. We are all older Americans. The younger generation, the grand majority, couldn't care less, have no education and MTV has filled their heads with mush. Nate you are living in a fantasy.

The French Revolutionary troops marched from one end of the Vendee to the other and wiped out ALL resistance easily. In this age of drones, satelittes and cell phones, you don't stand an icecube chance in hell.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:43 PM  

"Nate,
You do know the rules of engagement will be much different in that case than in the Middle East."

Of course they will. Oh it will be far more brutal here certainly.

Now are you really so dense that you don't see the more brutal the response... the more enemy fighters they create? Man blows up a few things... kills a couple congressmen. Drone strike destroys his house... kills his whole family.. also happens to kill one of the neighbors... oops.

Now.. his whole extended family... several neighbors... their extended family... and the dead neighbor's whole extended family... or at least some of them... turn into enemy combatants. So you just took out 1... and created 2 dozen.

Great way to win a war!

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:45 PM  

"They finally hunted down Osama didn't they? They got all the Mafia dons didn't they? They won at Waco and at Ruby Ridge. Every terrorist gets caught. The British tracked down most of the IRA. "

You left out:

Got their asses kicked in Veitnam... Got their asses kicked in Cuba... and got their asses kicked in Afghanistan.

Now... why did you leave those out?

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 2:45 PM  

> There is a reason many political scientists since Plato have looked down on republics, which inevitably degenerate into mobocracy and then (coming soon to the USA!) a tyranny.

All governments eventually degenerate in tyranny, Alas. Until it does, a republic tends to be the best to live in.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:46 PM  

"The French Revolutionary troops marched from one end of the Vendee to the other and wiped out ALL resistance easily. "

Wheeler...

Why were they called... "French Revolutionary" troops again? oh... because the government doesn't always win. Right. Thanks.

Blogger James Dixon January 10, 2013 2:47 PM  

> In this age of drones, satelittes and cell phones, you don't stand an icecube chance in hell.

Wheeler, what makes you think any of us care? Re-read Patrick Henry.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:47 PM  

"What percentage "shot back" when they confiscated the guns in Britain and Australia? As far as I know, there are exactly zero examples of libertarians in these countries violently revenging themselves on austhority using their secret gun stashes."

Neither of those nations were founded in revolutionary violence. Neither has americas gun culture. Try again.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:49 PM  

"Poverty does not cause civil war, idiot. Plus the Angry Male won't have any way to sustain himself as a guerrilla, unless he's going to become a robber as well as an assassin."

We'll just let it be your little secret sweetheart. You can be the only one if the world to pighead ignorant to realize that wars and revolutions are related to times of economic depression.

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 2:49 PM  

JartStar

Regulation doesn't mean complete restriction.

It doesn't mean any restriction at all. Not on my personal right to own property. I could have a shed of Pine Sol

Mina, the threshold moment comes at some future "Sandy Hook Gun Show Incident" or the "Aurora Pistol Vigil" or the "Weapons Transfer Hijacking at the NEA" or any other small, seemingly minor exercise in preparation for for bigger things to come. The people involved won't understand the gravity, and the people outside it won't be aware of it. It will be the 999th cut.

And then the flood.

Technically, it will likely be a harmonic convergence of a couple of simultaneous events - a pair or trio of events that may be engineered or accidental, that bring the unintended (for some) and intentional (for others) consequences of war.

It doesn't have to be this way. Yes, the faux economy must wither away - it can do nothing else - and yes, old unions must, by necessity, fall apart. But this could be done relatively peacefully, if the power brokers would do what is moral with the power the wield. - and allow the dissolution of things. But they, unfortunately prefer war to peace, power to sacrificing their reputation for the righteous thing, and will play every cut like it is progress, until the knife circles back on them.

It is evident that history for these once united states is on the wrong side of the wave - it consists of 1000 cuts, but that doesn't mean the breaker isn't coming.

Blogger Nate January 10, 2013 2:50 PM  

Man...

Its Tard Day at Vox Pop...

Anonymous Daniel January 10, 2013 2:58 PM  

"What percentage "shot back" when they confiscated the guns in Britain and Australia? As far as I know, there are exactly zero examples of libertarians in these countries violently revenging themselves on austhority using their secret gun stashes."

...as far as you know must not be too far. 1 (of hundreds) example: Bikies have declared war on Aussie cops, over guns.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-news/police-car-set-alight-in-sydney/story-fn7y9brv-1226333926540

That is precisely the sort of war that is being projected - legal and illegal gun owners, both law abiding citizens and folks with a criminal angle being forced into a alliance against the powers that would be. Some will fight for freedom, some will fight for money, some will fight for fighting, but all of them are going to fight unless, by some miracle, the State realizes it needs to take a much different strategy in gaining its aims.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 10, 2013 2:59 PM  

Second Amendment advocates who attempt to “educate” the opposition by citing Constitutional authorities or providing facts about the difference between a semi-automatic and select-fire assault rifle are guaranteed to come away angry and frustrated by the experience. That’s because the “anti-gun” position isn’t really about guns at all. It is about preventing any exercise of personal responsibility for one’s condition, extending even to survival.

Too many generations of American men have been so thoroughly emasculated by decades of conditioning that the very thought of self-defense is alien, repugnant, and perhaps impossible. How could it be otherwise? Generations of boys have been taught that to physically resist an attack by a school yard bully is to earn a suspension. “No tolerance” policies make no distinction between aggressor and victim. Self-defense requires the use of force and that is not to be allowed. Toy guns—even pictures of guns—are forbidden by imbecilic administrators and school boards across the country. “Dodge ball” is banned because it encourages aggressive behavior. The Welfare State’s government schools have done their job well.

Many liberals genuinely do not understand that their calls for public disarmament are seen by the millions of Americans who own firearms and are proficient in their use as deliberate efforts to place their families in harm’s way. I do not believe that this divergence of views can be peacefully bridged.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 10, 2013 3:04 PM  

Are you suggesting or implying that NO gun control whatsoever is what is needed?.

Neither. I'm saying it flat out!

OpenID tesseractive January 10, 2013 3:06 PM  

> > Why is it that one week American soldiers, police officers, federal agents, and so on are patriotic Americans who are willing to risk their lives to defend our way of life, but the next week they're jackbooted thugs determined to destroy our way of life unless we gun them all down first?

> There is no dichotomy. Armed servants of the state can be protectors or oppressors, depending on what the state orders them to do.

So do I understand y'all correctly that you are claiming an unalienable Constitutional right to gun down, blow up or otherwise kill members of the government if you believe they are acting in what you consider to be an oppressive way?

Anonymous Noah B. January 10, 2013 3:06 PM  

Nate has got the right idea. If they don't like the Constitution they just need to secede. We won't make a big fuss about it like they did back in 1861.

Anonymous Noah B. January 10, 2013 3:09 PM  

"So do I understand y'all correctly that you are claiming an unalienable Constitutional right to gun down, blow up or otherwise kill members of the government if you believe they are acting in what you consider to be an oppressive way?"

That's an interesting idea, I think you're the first person I've heard who has mentioned it. Why do you think that should be the case? You don't think that's too radical?

1 – 200 of 262 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts