ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Remember when they said "no one wants to take your guns?"

They lied, of course.
It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them. 

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of gun control. Which is true, except that “gun control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain weapons and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-guns arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘take them away’ from people who currently own them, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.
Every vocal would-be gun banner needs to understand that this is what they are trying to make "a rhetorical and conceptual possibility". Their endorsement of disarming the people is every bit as evil and horrifically unacceptable in a civilized Western society as endorsing cannibalism, pedophilia, or necrophilia.


You can email your thoughts on Phoebe Maltz Bovy's call for disarming you to her here: maltzp@gmail.com.

Labels:

286 Comments:

1 – 200 of 286 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Samuel Nock December 11, 2015 4:58 AM  

Are they really that f*cking stupid? Even something as "moderate" as the New Republic?

Leaving aside the argument from natural right or constitutional right, purely from a logical point of view, can't they see how dumb it is? How did the war on drugs work out? How about the war on raw milk? Look at the state of countries that ban guns. Do they solve the problem liberals claim they want to solve?

They also need to look at the statistical breakdown of gun violence rates by race. When you look at the White rate, it is as low as Switzerland.

Again, I'm not even going to the more fundamental arguments about the obvious right to defend oneself and the constitutional right. Simply on the basis of facts and logic, it makes no sense even on their own terms.

Blogger Sun Xhu December 11, 2015 5:00 AM  

Woman - Check
Canadian - Check
Jew - Check
Writing a book about "privilege" that won't be out until 2017 - Check
Thinks guns are feel-bad - Double-check

If she were any more stereo-typical of an SJW, and what is wrong with them, they'd make her their poster-child.

Blogger Rigel Kent December 11, 2015 5:01 AM  

I found this hilarious: Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017)

Of course she's writing a book about the idea of privilege. Since she's just writing about the idea she can ignore any inconvenient facts that get in the way.

And for bonus points she lives in Toronto, so not even living in the US but feels she has the right to tell us how to run our nation regardless. Apparently ugly Canadian is a thing now.

Blogger VD December 11, 2015 5:02 AM  

Do they solve the problem liberals claim they want to solve?

Forget that. Do they realize that a statistically significant percentage of the armed public is ready and able to kill them if they try?

Blogger vashine December 11, 2015 5:09 AM  

No one is quietly convinced that guns are terrible. If you haven't been speaking out about your fear of guns, then you haven't been alive in this world for the past 50 years. It's like saying there is some "silent" majority of pro-homosexualists that have felt oh-so-scared until now to speak out. Are you kidding me?

These people, as they have always been, are dangerous, highly dangerous. Hillary called Trump 'dangerous' when it is extremist and ideological diversity fascism and open-borders policies that are extremist and dangerous and have already cause the rape, torture, murder, beheadings, and enslavement of innocent Westerners.

They are purposely amping up the rhetoric. Trump brilliantly mad them show their hand, for all to see. We here knew it, but so many 'good' and 'nice' Americans did not. They do not want to believe the other side is that vicious and evil. Now they have very clear evidence. It's on.

No quarter. None. Any who even suggest giving them quarter are stupid, ignorant, dangerous, and on the other side. Never compromise with evil.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy December 11, 2015 5:12 AM  

@1: the obvious right to defend oneself

As Vox has been emphasizing lately, that right is not obvious to a great many people. It is one of the rights of the Englishmen.

Why do you think the Englishmen have rights?

Blogger Samuel Nock December 11, 2015 5:14 AM  

@4 Agree, VD. They will start a civil war doing this.

Lesson from Magic Dirt theory: more people in the U.S. who come from traditions without respect for the freedoms that defined America, more attempts to curtail those freedoms.

Blogger Samuel Nock December 11, 2015 5:15 AM  

@6 Yep, agree. Just posted a comment on that in response to Vox. Magic Dirt does not produce people who respect, or even _understand, the rights of Englishmen.

Blogger Ron December 11, 2015 5:27 AM  

@VD

"Do they realize that a statistically significant percentage of the armed public is ready and able to kill them if they try?"

I think there are two questions here

1. How can your enemies be convinced that a statistically significant percentage of the population WILL hunt them down and gun them down like rabid animals in a ditch if they keep this up?

If the goal was to simply hunt them down and kill them, then convincing them that you will is the last thing you would want to do. If anything, you'd encourage them to keep this up so that they would get hunted down like animals. From everything you've written, I think you want to avoid that scenario. So in this case the ability to do the thing is less critical as the perception that one can do the thing.

2. How can this be done while at the same time not allowing your enemies to use that as propaganda to convince confused K-selected members of the society from taking up arms against you?

Impotent anger is not merely amusing to the sadistic, it's empowering. If their enemy desperately wants them dead but simply will not do it, then the lack of action must mean that the degenerate leftist is too powerful to be killed. Since these people are all psychologically damaged, they need that re-affirmation as much as possible. Which is why these degenerates keep on "pushing the envelope".

And hence all the "angry dad" memes like the execrable "what to say to your right wing uncle at the Christmas dinner" meme that the leftist filth put out a while back in Pajama boy era. The "angry right wing uncle" doesn't dare grab the little shit by the scruff and pound him into the ground because he is intimidated by the family power structure. Dad might cut the little shit off, but Uncle bob had better keep in line.

On the other hand, potent anger doesn't simply humble the arrogant. It is a mental hiroshima for them. Because it realizes their worst fear, that they have no control over the situation.

Blogger Sherwood family December 11, 2015 5:40 AM  

Good grief. This woman is emblematic of SJW insanity. She's an ideological Typhoid Mary, a diseased carrier of beliefs that cause death to those who come in contact with her. Let's follow the tortured logic here: Ban guns. Then what? Send armed guards through town to terrorize everyone into compliance? That's not getting rid of guns, that is restricting them to an elite group. This is aristocracy at its finest. Let's reserve to a special class the ability to inflict death and leave everyone else at their mercy.

This looks like an attempt to move the Overton window towards normalizing oppression.

Gun Control is Tyranny
Gun Control is Slavery
Gun Control is Genocide

Blogger JP December 11, 2015 5:43 AM  

As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns!

Wait, so because we can't violate people's civil liberties, we're gonna go ahead and violate their civil liberties?

Anonymous Mavwreck December 11, 2015 5:50 AM  

So, Ms. Maltz Bovy wants to starve and/or freeze to death.

Or does she think farmers, ranchers, and other rural/wilderness types can safely operate without guns?

Maybe she thinks the fox will leave the chicken coop after a stern talking to.

Blogger totenhenchen December 11, 2015 5:53 AM  

No comment section, of course. This is what female privilege looks like.

Blogger totenhenchen December 11, 2015 5:54 AM  

No comment section, of course. This is what female privilege looks like.

Blogger Gordon December 11, 2015 5:58 AM  

It's odd, isn't it, that we're talking about the rights of Englishmen? The typical English man nowadays meekly goes along with the government telling him he can't carry a *knife,* let alone a gun. Mind you, if you were to lop off Scotland, northern Ireland and Wales, the remainder would be overwhelmingly Conservative (political party, not ideology), and it's possible that a resurgence in the natural rights could happen.

Anonymous Strange Aeons December 11, 2015 6:05 AM  

She seems a most bigoted adherent of the Party, a swallower of slogans, an amateur spy, and a noser-out of unorthodoxy...

VFM17

Blogger James Dixon December 11, 2015 6:05 AM  

"I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning Jews urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right of Jews to to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Canadians who are quietly convinced that Jews are terrible speak out."

How does that sound Ms. Bovy?

Blogger MrA is MrA December 11, 2015 6:08 AM  

Images show her to be a frump; likely can't keep a man, so strikes out against "manly" objects (i.e. guns) in impotent anger, though too weak willed to do anything about it herself other than talk--er, write. Tsk tsk. Pictures of her are primarily shoulders and above, so she's obviously fat.

Why are you fat, Phoebe?

Anonymous MrGreenMan December 11, 2015 6:09 AM  

She must be one pampered princess to think she'll be safe in a post-gun world.

Her hate is palpable. She hates

The elderly
The infirm
The physically disabled
Single women
People living in rural areas
People living in urban areas
Heavy sleepers
The physically slight
The overweight
The underweight

I'm sure the list goes on and on. She wants to render all of these people unsafe and at the mercy of the physically strong and brutish.

What a despicable human being. She must hate her parents. I wouldn't want to deny my parents the ability to defend themselves when some young buck con artist arrives at their door to threaten them.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian December 11, 2015 6:17 AM  

Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017)


A member of ((((The Tribe))) who is Canadian, and a chick that is writing about the unbearable vileness of being white.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian December 11, 2015 6:17 AM  

@20 - Hello @2

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 11, 2015 6:18 AM  

Not as fat as I was expecting but she is under the tragic misconception that her face has a good side. Give her a six.

Probably way too Xanax addled to be capable of reason I'll just send her some lower shelf insults. She might open the E-mail if I praise her in the subject line for being "So Beautiful and So Fierce." She needs all the orbiters she can get at her age.

Blogger kudzu bob December 11, 2015 6:24 AM  

I vaguely recall reading that somebody bought The New Republic who planned to take it in the direction of clickbait designed to troll readers. That would explain this gun-ban piece.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian December 11, 2015 6:25 AM  

Remember when they said "no one wants to take your guns?"
They lied, of course.


It has ALWAYS been a lie. Reasonable Regulations/Restrictions has always been a lie too, whether the Popehat morons understand that or not.

Blogger Rek. December 11, 2015 6:26 AM  

I realize my comment is not in line with the current issue.

Since I am from a country where owning a gun is extremely restricted. I've always been in favor of illegal ownership. Hide your guns from the autorities and make it impossible for them to confiscate your fire power. So when the day comes and shit hits the fan, you'll be able to protect yourself in an environment where former rules will not apply.

Anonymous Aphelion December 11, 2015 6:29 AM  

I wrote her...

Brilliant idea. I hope that you are sufficiently read up on history, perhaps not. Being a gun-banner puts you in the company of most totalitarian despots, including Adolph Hitler. So think about that as you develop new and tasty Asian fusion soups and enjoy tarts with Diet Coke.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 December 11, 2015 6:31 AM  

I note for the record that this particular rabbit wants guns taken away from white men by other men with guns or killed outright if they won't cooperate. She then wants to disarm her armed minions except for a few ideologically pure who will remain armed to keep the others under her plump, privileged thumb.

Blogger Cataline Sergius December 11, 2015 6:37 AM  

The insane part is that the Democrats always get killed on Gun Control at the polls in any of the Blurple States. It only sells in Deep Blue states and it costs them there too.

There is terrible election year politics. I don't get why they are doing it.

The press sure, they are shallow idiots.

Obama, sure, see the above plus he is facing his impending complete unimportance and he can't stand that.

But why is Hillary cutting her own throat?

Blogger MrA is MrA December 11, 2015 6:40 AM  

Phoebe, Americans used guns to rescue your ancestors from the ovens and showers.

What will you use if that day comes again?

Blogger Rek. December 11, 2015 6:40 AM  

I've recently met two israelites of the jewish confession who told me that they could freely carry in their country. They were baffled at the fact that they had to disarm in Europe. On top of that the legislation in Israel is very lax about shooting a criminal. I have no reason to believe these two men were lying to me. This gives Phoebe's opinion a different perscpective. Disarming white christian men.

Blogger Hammerli280 December 11, 2015 6:45 AM  

@28 Cataline:

Hillary is dumber than a box of rocks, and arrogant in the bargain. Her husband possessed the same traits, but also low cunning and an instinct for survival.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 11, 2015 6:45 AM  

I go with what Ron says, she deserves little but a "shut up bitch" and the rabbits who listen to her need a warning to not listen to such a stupid bitch lest they pay the price for her stupidity (no rabbit wants to do that, very important point)

And honestly anti-semetism 101 needs to fade away, its fucking gamma IMO. How about just asking lumpske this stupid bitch a few direct questions. I mean is it something in her religious/cultural background that her stupidity is amplified with passive-aggressive psychotic undertones.

She needs fucking therapy, "Now dear where did the gun touch you?"

Anonymous Strange Aeons December 11, 2015 6:47 AM  

Rek -
I agree: guns they can't find or don't know about are much harder to seize. Private sales are presently still legal where I'm at, and help one stay off the books, although I'm finding that good SHTF rifles are becoming quite difficult to find via person to person...

Blogger Raziel Walker December 11, 2015 6:51 AM  

You equal gun control with cannibalism, pedophilia and necrophilia. While plenty of civilized countries have gun control laws to disarm their citizens I am not aware of any civilized countries endorsing cannibalism, pedophilia or necrophilia.

And while I am a huge fan of gun control laws I cannot possibly imagine a total gun ban in the USA. Guns are a huge part of US culture and that is not going to change any time soon.

Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?
You think a dozen shotguns, pistols and rifles with a couple of thousand ammo for each would not suffice to defend yourself?

Blogger Ron December 11, 2015 6:53 AM  

@Rek

On top of that the legislation in Israel is very lax about shooting a criminal.

http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Israel-tightens-rules-of-engagement-for-combat-troops-in-West-Bank-411868

We have the same enemies Rek.

Anonymous Stingray December 11, 2015 6:54 AM  

Do they realize that a statistically significant percentage of the armed public is ready and able to kill them if they try?

No. SJWs always project. They would never have the courage to do this so neither does anyone else.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 11, 2015 6:54 AM  

@4 VD:

Do they solve the problem liberals claim they want to solve?

Forget that. Do they realize that a statistically significant percentage of the armed public is ready and able to kill them if they try?


On the one forum I particulate in where the distribution of people is fairly strongly left of center the pushback and complaining I'm getting for "threatening violence" by pointing this out is getting strong. The moderator is sort of cool with it, but thinks it's off-topic even when I'm merely replying to those who bring it up. They also tell me that I'm encouraging "negative" "stereotypes" about US gun owners, I tell them it's no stereotype, its the truth.

They really don't like this.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy December 11, 2015 6:56 AM  

@19: She must be one pampered princess to think she'll be safe in a post-gun world.

She must not think. Anyone who believes that confiscation of guns is possible or desirable is either (a) unable to reason about the consequences of actions, (b) unwilling to reason about the consequences of actions unless forced to, or (c) unwilling to accept and act on the results of such reasoning.

People in category (b) can change their minds if they are mugged, literally or figuratively, by reality… but at this point, anyone the least bit politically active has received a reality mugging.

People in category (c) are beyond help, and will eventually lose their ability to reason (not that they would have used it).


@28: But why is Hillary cutting her own throat?

(1) She may know that gun confiscation is infeasible, be lying to potential voters, and believe that there are enough voters in the U.S. in categories (a), (b), or (c) above to elect her as President.

(2) She may be in one of the categories above, in which case she believes that gun confiscation is feasible, and cannot be deterred from attempting it if given the power to do so.

Blogger Dave December 11, 2015 6:56 AM  

It's always amuses me that our neighbors to the north think I give a fuck what they say or do.

Anonymous kawaika December 11, 2015 7:00 AM  

Ban Muslims, meanwhile, is not discriminatory in this way. It's not about dividing society into "good" and "bad" Muslims. It's about placing Islam itself in the "bad" category.

Sounds good to me!

Blogger Dave December 11, 2015 7:02 AM  

On the one forum I particulate in

That cannot be good for your health. You may want to get some help for that.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 11, 2015 7:05 AM  

Our neighbors to the North are toast 1.2 seconds after 'Murka descends into anarchy, their progressives are just plain silly.

Anonymous Bobby Farr December 11, 2015 7:12 AM  

This nicely summarizes what our leftist overlords would like to do and why gun confiscation is a non-issue. They would criminalize speech, deny voting rights and ultimately kill those who refused to adhere to their ideology. http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/colorado-aclu-board-member-shoot-trump-voters-before-election-day/

Anonymous Bobby Farr December 11, 2015 7:14 AM  

meant to say non-starter

Blogger pdwalker December 11, 2015 7:14 AM  

@34 Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?
You think a dozen shotguns, pistols and rifles with a couple of thousand ammo for each would not suffice to defend yourself?


What's it any business of yours? So what if I do want to have that all in my home, under my bed and flowing out of every corner of my room? And if I decide "too much" isn't excessive enough, you feel I should not be allowed to?

Well fuck you asshole. Feel free to live anywhere else and leave me the hell alone.

Blogger Sherwood family December 11, 2015 7:24 AM  

34) What is civilized about taking from citizens the most basic way to restrain a government that begins to use the powers delegated to it for tyrannical purposes? An authority that can compel will unless they are prevented from doing so. That prevention lies in an ability to resist compulsion with equal or greater force. Take that away and its gulags and death camps as far as the eye can see.

Anonymous MrGreenMan December 11, 2015 7:29 AM  

@34

Here's something to think about:

When the Boer valiantly fought against the British Invader, they gave much better than they got, because the Boer knew how to use a gun, and the British were conscripting random guys from the streets of London, Wales, and Leeds who had never handled in civilian life what they were supposed to be proficient in once in the army.

So, a benefit to having your non-military populace well versed in the weapons of the military is that they are proficient soldiers who minimize the kill ratio on our side and maximize it on the side of the enemy.

Your argument is one against military readiness; banning anything because it is "military style" is a vote for more American soldiers to die needlessly.

Anonymous VFM #39 December 11, 2015 7:32 AM  

#34

Yes, yes I do. Full stop.

Now, get some info. I can't have a machine gun, they are illegal unless you are a class III dealer. Tanks are military hardware and I can't have one of those with a functioning main gun.

But, I do need those to defend myself. Not from street thugs, but from a tyrannical government. Hence the reason for Amendment #2.

Read and learn and stop the shrieking about scary looking guns.

Anonymous Stephen J. December 11, 2015 7:33 AM  

You know, I used to feel the way this woman does. I still *feel* that way. Guns are terrible. But war is terrible: that does not mean it is not sometimes just and necessary. And I am past the point in my life where I think my neurotic feelings are a suitable basis for lawmaking.

I'd be happier in a world without guns. But I'd also be happier in a world where all women were 10s, they were all bi and they outnumbered men 3 to 1; that doesn't make that a good or practical idea or one I'm entitled to.

Blogger SouthRon December 11, 2015 7:34 AM  

Our neighbors to the North are toast 1.2 seconds after 'Murka descends into anarchy, their progressives are just plain silly.

Before I realized she was Canadian I thought you meant the Northern liberals. Fits either way.

New handle rather than going back to Ridip since we've inherited another Ron.

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 11, 2015 7:42 AM  

Ban guns.

#RapistLivesMatter

Blogger Myles December 11, 2015 7:42 AM  

@Raziel

Give it three years, every "civilized" person will be telling us it's morally imperative that pedophiles be allowed to fuck your children.

You do realize that "sniper rifles" are usually just mid-power hunting rifles, right? That there's nothing really special about the rifles issued to military personnel?

Also, what part of "shall not be infringed." don't you understand?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan December 11, 2015 7:50 AM  

I cynically hope the New Republic doubles down and the meme spreads till they roll it right up to the Cuckservatives doorstep.

Also I want leftist groups to fight other leftist groups "confiscation now, Chicago first".

Blogger JP December 11, 2015 7:50 AM  

You know which guns are "scary looking" to me? The ones that are old and just a tiny bit rusty. Because you KNOW the owner can shoot the wings off a fly with that thing.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 December 11, 2015 7:51 AM  

@49

I'd be happier in a world without guns

That world used to exist. It gave us men like Genghis Khan. You would be no safer in a world without guns. What you are asking for is a world without violence. But you can't have that world, and the world was much more violent before guns existed.

Blogger Rantor December 11, 2015 7:52 AM  

@50. Sorry she's not Canadian, American living in Toronto... So she may even vote.

Anonymous Godfrey December 11, 2015 7:53 AM  

Let's see...

1 Bomb the snot out of the Middle-East and parts of Africa for twenty-five years.
2 Open the borders to a massive Third World invasion.
3 Disarm the native population

Interesting isn't it?

The crony wealth global oligarchs are waging a class war.

Blogger pyrrhus December 11, 2015 7:56 AM  

Back in the Middle Ages, when there were no firearms, the murder rate was about 15 times today's, and rape was off the charts...

Anonymous Godfrey December 11, 2015 7:57 AM  

Interesting facts:

1 Slaves weren't allowed to carry weapons.
2 Feudal serfs weren't allowed to carry swords.

Why do the oligarchs want to disarm you? And once you're disarmed what does that make you?


Blogger Salt December 11, 2015 7:57 AM  

And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

I foresee an increase in sales of piano wire and a judicious use of lamp posts.

Blogger McChuck December 11, 2015 7:59 AM  

It's decently written, just needs a little editing for clarity. They might understand the thought behind it if it's written more like this.
-----
It’s Time to Ban Muslims. Yes, All of Them.

Ban Muslims. All Muslims. Get rid of Muslims from homes, and from the streets, and, as much as possible, from police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban Muslims! Not just Muslim violence. Not just certain Muslims. Not just already-technically-illegal Muslims. All of them.

I used to refer to my position on this issue as being in favor of immigration control. Which is true, except that “immigration control” at its most radical still tends to refer to bans on certain people and closing loopholes. The recent New York Times front-page editorial, as much as it infuriated some, was still too tentative. “Certain kinds of books, like the Quran found in California, and certain kinds of religious garb, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the paper argued, making the case for “reasonable regulation,” nothing more. Even the rare ban-Muslims arguments involve prefacing and hedging and disclaimers. “We shouldn’t ‘send them away’ from where they currently reside, necessarily,” writes Hollis Phelps in Salon. Oh, but we should.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning Muslims urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to personal faith—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that Muslims are terrible speak out.

Blogger Dave December 11, 2015 8:00 AM  

Stephen J have you ever used a gun? A gun is an inanimate object that if left untouched will not move, will not load itself, will not fire itself, will never do anything until someone picks it up. Can you not understand how foreign it is to many of us to hear that guns are "terrible"?

Are knifes terrible too? Bats? Sticks? Rocks? Yet all these objects have been used to inflict harm.

Anonymous Dyskord December 11, 2015 8:00 AM  

Only a fool mistakes kindness as weakness and caution for cowardice.

The underlying problem is people who think like her are convinced that anyone with a gun is a homicidal maniac just too cowardly to act on the impulse to mass murder. If the magic word is heard or right stars align the gun toting maniac will be shooting up the local school. Planned Parenthood or Mosque.
Muslims and the outspoken majority often referred to as Radical Muslims are fast to offense and proven to Kill indiscriminately anyone who opposes them. Naturally leftists bow, bend and scrape to appease them because their murderous intolerance is recognized as strength.
While civilised western men will seek common ground, an amicable resolution and if necessary be disadvantaged to facilitate agreement, this is considered weakness.
How else could we explain Feminists and certain gay communities showing solidarity with muslims and "radical" muslims despite the obvious disparate beliefs.
These people honestly believe that Americans will hand over their guns with a modicum of resistance and a lot of whining. They don't fear conservatives or nationalists.

Anonymous VFM #39 December 11, 2015 8:01 AM  

#34

On second thought, yes I do need those guns to defend myself from well-intentioned ignorant people like you.

Anonymous Godfrey December 11, 2015 8:05 AM  

Does this proposed ban include...

The State's guns?

The guns of the bodyguards of the ruling classes?

The drones the President uses to bomb wedding guests in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.?

Yes, let's ban guns and let's start with banning the guns of The State and the oligarchs that run it.

Blogger JC December 11, 2015 8:05 AM  

Depends on the criminal. Since the greatest muderer of men has historically been governments a few tanks couldnt hurt either

Anonymous Godfrey December 11, 2015 8:07 AM  

First comes GUN CONTROL

Then comes GENOCIDE.

Anonymous Stephen J. December 11, 2015 8:08 AM  

"What you are asking for is a world without violence."

True, or at least one where what violence there is is far away from me and mine and I stand a better chance of being able to run away from what violence does come my way. (I now have this absurd vision of medieval peasants holding "bow control" signs after a visit from Genghis Khan's Mongols.)

But as already admitted, what I would like and what is a good or practical idea have no necessary correlation.

Blogger Salt December 11, 2015 8:08 AM  

This poor woman is lashing out. She was jipped in life, denied what should have been rightfully hers, namely being Jewish and living in Berlin in 1938.

Blogger SouthRon December 11, 2015 8:09 AM  

@34 Dumb ass "a well regulated militia" necessarily implies military hardware.

Blogger JC December 11, 2015 8:12 AM  

If she wants to shift the rhetoric to the left we should shift the rhetoric to the right. Revitalize the militia and mandatory gun ownership and training for all. Even women. Wouldnt want to be sexist afterall.

Blogger Werekoala1066 December 11, 2015 8:19 AM  

@12 Hey, the rural folks don't need to worry. Once guns are banned/confiscated, the government will quarter "Safety Officers" in their homes to protect them.

Anonymous Stephen J. December 11, 2015 8:22 AM  

The first rule of gun safety is to treat all weapons as loaded until you have personally verified they are not. The second is never to point it at anything you do not intend to shoot. The third is never too put your finger anywhere near the trigger until you are ready to shoot. Given all those, is it so difficult to understand why someone not trained and familiar with guns, and why someone who has only ever seen the results of their abuse or negligence, may develop a neurotic aversion to them? If the only use I'd ever seen of a baseball bat was that scene with Capone in THE UNTOUCHABLES, I might think baseball bats were terrible too.

I gave up my anti-gun beliefs out of ruthless recognition that the evidence and the logic did not support them. Getting past my basic aversion is not something I've completed yet. I just think it's useful to understand why people have the issues they do in this area.

Blogger IM2L844 December 11, 2015 8:26 AM  

Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?
You think a dozen shotguns, pistols and rifles with a couple of thousand ammo for each would not suffice to defend yourself?


Good point. That's not gonna be nearly enough. Considering the armaments of my potential adversary, I should probably pick up a nuclear warhead or two to supplement my pitiful inventory.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 11, 2015 8:29 AM  

I'm with Anonymous Conservative on this; the rabbits sense the coming storm just like we do, but while we up-arm, train and condition our minds, they double-down on their phony rhetoric.

I no longer get exercised about literate fools expressing their deep-seated uselessness. This is a woman who is without merit in a world that requires it. She is virtuous only in a world that has no place for actual virtue.

Such people are very much like the scum that do home-invasion/rape/robbery/murder. They are less than human.

Anonymous BN December 11, 2015 8:31 AM  

Email sent:

How are my daughters suppsed to protect themselves from the rape culture that exists all around them if they can't use guns to do so? With this call for banning guns you do nothing more than perpetuate rape culture by removing the ability for women to prevent their own rape.

Blogger Dave December 11, 2015 8:31 AM  

You didn't answer my question, Stephen, have you ever used a gun?

Millons of children have used bats in Little League baseball and have annually for decades. But one scene in a fictional movie is what you choose to make a point.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 11, 2015 8:36 AM  

Getting past my basic aversion is not something I've completed yet. I just think it's useful to understand why people have the issues they do in this area.

Sounds like alcoholism to me; once an alcoholic...

I guess I don't get it. I wasn't raised around guns but had a fascination for them as far back as I recall. The genius of how a 1911 fits together like a 3-D puzzle, or the fascinating way a striker-fired Glock's ignition system differs from an M&P's striker fired system, just leave me in awe of the men whose minds conceived them.

Add in the skill required to make a pistol, notoriously more difficult to employ than any TV show teaches (and those taught by TV are truly village idiots), do what you want it to do and I just can't imagine why anyone would be afraid. It's like someone saying, "I don't like colorful sunsets."

The tool is a masterpiece. If you want to fear, fear the sub-human Orcs who would point it at you or yours, and take steps to see that they don't (or don't survive doing so.)

Blogger Raziel Walker December 11, 2015 8:37 AM  

@46 Then why isn't europe filled with gulags and death camps?

@47 I am definately not against military readiness. It's one of the reasons I was in favor of conscription.

@48 So there are already gun control laws in the U.S preventing you from owning machine guns? Where are the gulags and death camps then?

Seems the issue is mostly fear of tyrannical governments.

@45 If you stash too much ammo and you house explodes your neighbourhood has reason make it their business. When you decide to go postal it might become relevant.
Besides that, as long as you leave me and everyone I care about alone you can own as many guns and ammo as you want.

Anonymous Stingray December 11, 2015 8:42 AM  

If the only use I'd ever seen of a baseball bat was that scene with Capone in THE UNTOUCHABLES, I might think baseball bats were terrible too.

Really? Why? This makes no sense. Look I get what your getting at but it's a stupid argument. This is why the "does a spoon make you fat" argument was so funny when it came out. An argument that an object is so scary, especially one that can do nothing unless physically manipulated is weak. The person wielding it is scary.

Frankly I think people place the fear on the gun because it's easier to process. It's actually less scary to be afraid of a gun than an unknown person.

Blogger Jack Ward December 11, 2015 8:49 AM  

@28 But why is Hillary cutting her own throat?
Cataline, she is probably not cutting her throat. She knows KNOWS that the elections are rigged. Be it from illegal manipulations of electronic voting machines to black panthers intimidating voters at the polls. She knows she has this election wrapped up.
The important question is, when she is elected, will that be the trigger for civil war? It may well be.

Blogger paradox December 11, 2015 8:54 AM  

@29 MrA is MrA

Our grandfathers may have saved her ancestors, but if confiscation starts, she'll find herself in an oven.

Blogger Evil Brad December 11, 2015 9:03 AM  

"Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017)"

She does not speak for Canadians. There's a lot more gun ownership in Canada than American leftists realise. But she is welcome to continue justifying our "paranoia" about having our guns taken away.

Blogger dc.sunsets December 11, 2015 9:11 AM  

If you stash too much ammo and you house explodes
Correction, please. Ammo for small arms burns, it cannot explode. The only actual explosive used is the primer, and only primers in quantity represent an explosive risk. It seems extremely unlikely that even an avid reloader would have more than a case or two of primers in a home (5,000 to 10,000) and if those went up in a fire, I doubt it would have 1/10th the effect of a home detonating due to a malfunction in a natural gas appliance.

I find it a mark of pathological ignorance whenever some fiction-writer (for print or video) posits an "exploding cartridge."

Anonymous Big Bill December 11, 2015 9:12 AM  

Phoebe is a Jew living in exile. She shares the same mental illness that so many half-assimilated Exilic Jews have. Theodore Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, and many other Jews have written at length about it.

There is nothing that scares them more than a Gentile--any Gentile--with a gun.

It's sad, really. She calls herself a Zionist, yet is desperately afraid to move back home and make a life with her own people in her own land.

Neither fish nor fowl, she lives a shadowy, troubled life as a stranger in a strange land.

Anonymous Athor Pel December 11, 2015 9:12 AM  

"62. Blogger Dave December 11, 2015 8:00 AM
Stephen J have you ever used a gun? A gun is an inanimate object that if left untouched will not move, will not load itself, will not fire itself, will never do anything until someone picks it up. Can you not understand how foreign it is to many of us to hear that guns are "terrible"?

Are knifes terrible too? Bats? Sticks? Rocks? Yet all these objects have been used to inflict harm."



A rolled up paper magazine can be used to smash someone's skull. Weapons are everywhere.

You ban or try to outright ban all guns and thousands of people with machine shop skills will start manufacturing them, and most of them will be fully automatic. It will be a huge distributed capital expansion project. New machine shops will spring up in every area where people want to protect themselves. And it will all be unregulated.

Can you hear that? It's the anticipatory screech of the regulatory bureaucrats as they contemplate that future.

Anonymous VFM #39 December 11, 2015 9:15 AM  

@79

No fear here. Simply pointing out the reason for Second Amendment. But give you props for rhetoric. Love the gulag line! Well done!

Now, on behalf of all law-abiding gun owners, I will take you up on your offer and ask all those who frequent this boards to take the following oath standing in front of a mirror with right hand raised: "I, solemnly swear, that I will leave Raziel Walker and those she cares about alone in exchange for her letting me have all the guns I want. I further swear that I will not use my guns to intervene in any way when she or someone she cares about falls prey to evil. I further affirm, that I will crush my well trained instincts to rush into dangerous situations to protect the innocent and simply walk away while whistling "Firework" if she or someone she cares about cries out for help while being victimized by those who would do evil upon her or those she cares about, especially if my loathsome pistol/AR/"sniper rifle"/musket would end the event."

Now please help us all know whom we should not help by including a list on this forum. We would hate to make a mistake and break an oath.


Anonymous Big Bill December 11, 2015 9:17 AM  

@80: "An argument that an object is so scary, especially one that can do nothing unless physically manipulated is weak. The person wielding it is scary."

Believe me, when Phoebe goes home to Israel and is surrounded by gun-toting Jewish teenage soldiers on a bus, she breathes a sigh of relief and feels much more secure.

She doesn't fear guns. She fears Gentiles with guns.

Blogger Robert Coble December 11, 2015 9:17 AM  

Reason number 1 why a rational "conversation" on this subject with SJWs is NOT possible:

Quote: As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

This person is incapable of having rational thoughts, much less a rational discussion. Note the apparent (ONLY apparent) "concern" about "massively violating civil liberties" but apparently only the rights of the mentally ill. Given that the 2nd Amendment has NOT been repealed, a total gun ban is just that-a massive violation of civil liberties. How irrational is it to be so concerned about violating the rights of those mentally ill and yet to blithely ride roughshod over the rights of those who are NOT mentally ill?!? One can only conclude that she herself is mentally ill, being incapable of reason. Or is this just another case of SJW virtue-signalling?

Blogger Salt December 11, 2015 9:19 AM  

Phoebe is a Jew living in exile.

That makes it even better. Ignorance is strong in her.

Anonymous Athor Pel December 11, 2015 9:20 AM  

"80. Anonymous Stingray December 11, 2015 8:42 AM
...
Frankly I think people place the fear on the gun because it's easier to process. It's actually less scary to be afraid of a gun than an unknown person. "



Guns don't vote.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 11, 2015 9:21 AM  

Europe was filled with Death Camps just a few years ago and is importing Death Camps form the Middle East as we speak.

There are no Gulags in the US even though machine guns are banned probably because of that blowback due to the Waco fiasco. When people see women and kids burning inside a building surrounded by tanks that kinda puts the new order on the back burner until it is forgotton.

I think Hillary would like all the gun ban talk to go away just like Rubio, Ryan, and Bush would like the Planned parenthood videos to disappear. Banning abortion and guns is something they don't have the political will to do.

Now will Obama try something to bypass Congress and the Courts to improve his legacy? Perhaps. But he cares not a whit about how it impacts Hilary Clinton's chances.

Anonymous paradox December 11, 2015 9:23 AM  

So this cunt lives in Canada, looks like that ban on Muslim immigrants needs to expand to Jews also.

Blogger Benjamin Willard December 11, 2015 9:25 AM  

25.@ REK:

" So when the day comes and shit hits the fan, you'll be able to protect yourself in an environment where former rules will not apply."

If you don't know how to use a weapon (especially a ranged weapon like a rifle) they are just about useless.

If you have access to airsoft, that would help immensely.

Anonymous Rolf December 11, 2015 9:30 AM  

@1 - yes, yes they really are that stupid. But as that saying goes "I'm on your list? Hey, look at that... YOU are on my list, too!"

Are you SURE you want to play this game? I mean, we know how it ends, because it ends that way every time.

Anonymous Eric Ashley December 11, 2015 9:30 AM  

Of course they want to take our guns. They also want me down on my knees in their front yard picking weeds from their garden while they whip me.

Neither is likely to happen for the same reason.

Anonymous LurkingPuppy December 11, 2015 9:31 AM  

@86: A rolled up paper magazine can be used to smash someone's skull.

That's why They want to ban high-capacity magazines.


@89: Given that the 2nd Amendment has NOT been repealed, a total gun ban is just that-a massive violation of civil liberties.

We had the right to keep and bear arms before the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, and even before the Declaration of Independence. Repealing the Second Amendment wouldn't change that.

Anonymous buckeyecopperhead December 11, 2015 9:31 AM  

From a quick glance at Mizz Maltz-Bovy's Twitter, seems a good portion of it is whining about the lack of Hebrew foods in Toronto. Reminds me of a SJW acquaintance of mine who continually complains about the "bigoted Rednecks" where he lives in the Midwest but refuses to move to a locale more of his liking.

Anonymous That Would Be Telling December 11, 2015 9:37 AM  

@28 But why is Hillary cutting her own throat?

Hillary is a failure at almost everything she's set her hand to since she graduated from college, notably including her 2008 nomination campaign. There's no reason to believe this campaign is being run competently, and her husband seems to have a hangup on the issue of guns, so to the extent she even listens to him for advice he might not be making too strong a point about it (or who knows the dynamics in that relationship, I'm sure in part he wants her to fail).

Blogger borderwalker December 11, 2015 9:41 AM  

@79 Your original question was based on false premises, false equivalencies, (apparent) ignorance of firearms and the existing laws regulating them, a lack of understanding the difference between rhetoric and dialectic, and (I can only assume) a failure of basic reading comprehension.

Vox didn’t literally equate gun control with cannibalism, etc. If you read the two sentences preceding the one to which you refer, it’s clear he’s referring to her (the author of the original article) attempt to normalize the “ban guns” meme enough to make it part of the gun control debate. Things that couldn’t even be discussed a decade or two ago (like same-sex marriage or transgender rights) have been normalized using this very same rhetorical mechanism. There have been recent attempts to normalize pedohilia same way. Ms. Bovy is attempting to use the same tactic to normalize the discussion of banning guns.

When other commenters corrected you on terminology and law, you moved the goalposts. I’m beginning to think that you are not arguing in good faith, or are simply not equipped to/capable of doing so.

You continue to display your ignorance of firearms and ammunition with your comment about “ammo explod[ing]”. If what you thought you knew guns and ammunition didn’t come from movies and television, you’d know that ammunition doesn’t “explode” and isn’t even particularly flammable.

Think about it: The propellant is flammable, but centuries of SCIENCE have tried (and succeeded!) in making it remarkably stable (so it’s not dangerous to the user). That flammable-but-remarkably-stable propellant is encased in a freaking BRASS TUBE plugged with COPPER JACKETED LEAD. Just how flammable or explosive can that be? Also, bullets require a chamber and a barrel to develop the pressure and velocity that gives them their destructive force. Ammunition doesn't explode.

I've spent over thirty years designing and building commercial structures. Building codes have special requirements for bulk storage of spray paint in a retail store, but not for ammunition. If that's the case, how flammable can ammunition be?

There are about 320 million privately owned firearms in the US. Throw in the ones owned by the military and law enforcement. All those guns need bullets. How many rounds of ammunition do you think that represents? Billions? Tens of billions? Many of which are in warehouses or other mass storage facilities.

If ammunition regularly “exploded” (or was even more flammable than the shit most people have in the garage or under the sink in the kitchen), where are all the news stories about fires and explosions? There aren’t any. Because they don’t regularly, or even with any statistically significant frequency.

This is just one of the many ignorant or poorly-considered assumptions underlying your questions. Even if you mean well, do you understand why other commenters here might not take your ill-informed snark seriously?

Blogger Aeoli Pera December 11, 2015 9:43 AM  

...her husband seems to have a hangup on the issue of guns...

Rapist lives matter!

Blogger Benjamin Willard December 11, 2015 9:43 AM  

34: @Retard

"Do you really need machineguns..."

Machine guns are banned. There are approx. 135,000 registered machine guns in private hands( this number only includes "transferable" weapons). They are not used in crimes.

"... and sniper rifles..."
There is no difference between a hunting rifle and a "sniper" rifle; except the reticle, which doesn't matter.


"You think a dozen shotguns, pistols and rifles with a couple of thousand ammo for each would not suffice to defend yourself?"

I need none of those things to protect myself. I DO need an accurized( sub 2 moa), semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle capable of consistently hitting a 19 inch silhouette at 500+ meters.

Why? F#ck you. that's why.

Blogger VD December 11, 2015 9:43 AM  

Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?
You think a dozen shotguns, pistols and rifles with a couple of thousand ammo for each would not suffice to defend yourself?


It depends. The shotguns and pistols are sufficient to kill military and police personnel, and their families, in their homes.

But for open battlefield combat, yes, the machineguns and military are necessary. Which sort of war do you prefer? 4GW is a LOT nastier than the battlefield of order.

Then why isn't europe filled with gulags and death camps?

It has been multiple times in the last 50 years. Do you not know what happened in Yugoslavia not very long ago? Do you not know what is happening in Europe now?

Besides that, as long as you leave me and everyone I care about alone you can own as many guns and ammo as you want.

As long as you leave us alone, we'll leave you alone.

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 9:50 AM  

I am not a member of the NRA... because the NRA is a pro-gun control organization.

I am a member of 2 gun lobbies. Both are excellent... and but one is better than the other. The first is Gun Owners of America. Truly excellent, and they strive to live up to their claim as the only no compromise gun lobby.

The other however... is actually better than GoA. They are not only even harder in terms of ideology are... they are also an intellectual force.

yep... I'm a card carrying member of the Jew for Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Turns out they take gentiles. as long as you have 25 bucks.

Anonymous Athor Pel December 11, 2015 9:55 AM  

"92. Blogger Skylark Thibedeau December 11, 2015 9:21 AM
...
There are no Gulags in the US even though machine guns are banned probably because of that blowback due to the Waco fiasco."


Automatic weapons are not banned in the US. They are heavily regulated. I'm not getting into the details of it. If anyone is curious all relavant federal regulation is online.

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 9:57 AM  

"Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?"

Do you realize that the Second Amendment only applies to military hardware?

This is the historical view per the US courts. As late as US vs Miller.. SCOTUS explicitly states that only weapons with military value are covered by 2A.

Also... Sniper Rifles are just bolt action rifles. They are no different than your grand dad's hunting rifle. I'm sure you think they look scary because they are black. Likely because you subconsciously associate black with bad because deep down you're actually a racist.

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 9:57 AM  

#blackriflesmatter

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 9:58 AM  

It seems to me it would be more cost effective to arrest people attacking our Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights as traitors.

Than trying to somehow grab 100's of millions of guns.

Blogger borderwalker December 11, 2015 10:00 AM  

@79: As for “going postal”, it's none of your business what some hypothetical person has in his/her house until it happens. Which is very, very rare. The limited research that's been done indicates that gun owners as a group do not differ psychologically from the population in any significant way. (So much for the “fearful”, “paranoid”, “compensating”, etc., memes)

I’ll never understand how people can worry about what some dude with a lot of “scary” guns might do, yet ignore the constant drug- and gang-related slaughter of young men in a handful of big cities. Or how people who worry about what somebody somewhere might do are able to leave the house, much less blithely get into an automobile.

OpenID denektenorsk December 11, 2015 10:01 AM  

Or, the author of the piece could simply move abroad to any of the countries that have "effective" gun control and absolutely no gun violence whatsoever. Like France for example.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:05 AM  

@14 totenhenchen

No comment section, of course. This is what female privilege looks like.
---

They try and ingrain from an early age - Don't you be back talking me, boy!

BAHAHAHAHAA

Blogger Quadko December 11, 2015 10:06 AM  

I sense Trump envy - "if he can change the conversation on immigration beyond expectation, then surely we can do it with ours!" As if that weren't the modus operandi of the left for the 20th Century.

And replace references to "gun" with "human" to increase your comprehension of the author's true meaning:

It’s Time to Ban Humans. Yes, All of Them.

Ban humans. All humans. Get rid of humans in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, in the police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban humans! Not just human violence. Not just certain humans. Not just already-technically-illegal humans. All of them.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:08 AM  

@19 MrGreenMan

Her hate is palpable. She hates
---

Let's just wrap all that up into a nice package, and say she hates reality.

Anonymous JW December 11, 2015 10:08 AM  

Hi everyone. Please see Bill Whittles firearm video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:12 AM  

@27 Stilicho #0066

I note for the record that this particular rabbit wants guns taken away from white men by other men with guns or killed outright if they won't cooperate. She then wants to disarm her armed minions except for a few ideologically pure who will remain armed to keep the others under her plump, privileged thumb.
---

Her idea is a bunch of wasted time, energy, lives, ammo,etc.

It would only take 1 dude and 1 bullet to take her out behind the woodshed for an "Old Yeller"

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:18 AM  

@34 Raziel Walker

Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?
You think a dozen shotguns, pistols and rifles with a couple of thousand ammo for each would not suffice to defend yourself?
---

Like The Rock says, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK". Mind your own business. You aren't to decide what I think is necessary for my defense.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 11, 2015 10:19 AM  

@37. That Would Be Telling

particulate?


Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:27 AM  

@43 Bobby Farr

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/colorado-aclu-
board-member-shoot-trump-voters-before-election-day/
---

I thought trying to intimidate voters was a federal crime? Wish I knew how to spank this bitch, put it in prison with auto-dropping soap.

From the article:
“But see, most people don’t even know what reason is. They don’t use anything other than the lower brain,” Wirbel wrote, “and would no more make decisions based on logical conclusions than choose milk based on a theme song. The base of the Republican Party is unfamiliar with a cortex.”

And this is from someone on 2 boards of the supposedly civil rights champions ACLU.

If there really is a coming apocalypse, there may be more to eat than I thought. People like this will go down within a week and we can loot their stuffs :P

Blogger Student in Blue December 11, 2015 10:28 AM  

@Quadko
And replace references to "gun" with "human" to increase your comprehension of the author's true meaning:

How about we replace "gun" with "Muslim", and send the article back to her?

It’s Time to Ban Muslims. Yes, All of Them.

Ban Muslims. All Muslims. Get rid of Muslims in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, in the police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban Muslims! Not just Muslim violence. Not just certain Muslims. Not just already-technically-illegal Muslims. All of them.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:33 AM  

What is wrong with these SJWs? How can I work on a new game, Mosques and Muslims, based on Dungeon & Dragons, where you loot mosques, take their hidden caches of guns and ammos, gain levels of awesomeness, etc, if they won't shut up about my 2nd amendment rights!

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 11, 2015 10:34 AM  

I used to throw "only cops should have guns because they kill blacks for no reason" into leftists faces until I realized they don't want the cops to have guns either. They want disarmed cops like the UK has where cops have to act on the safari principle(not getting out of their vehicles around natives of Africa). The only reason UK cops are disarmed is they policed a Mayberry population. More people came into Briton in 2013 than from 1066 till 1960.


"As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill"

Perhaps an IQ test, oh what those are racist against non Asian minorities.

Blogger John Wright December 11, 2015 10:38 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:38 AM  

@54 JP

You know which guns are "scary looking" to me? The ones that are old and just a tiny bit rusty.
---

The Old guns are like old cars, made out of metal, wood paneling and awesomeness.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:41 AM  

@59 Godfrey

Why do the oligarchs want to disarm you? And once you're disarmed what does that make you?
---

It makes you an SCV instead of an Archon

Blogger John Wright December 11, 2015 10:47 AM  

@34 " Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?"

There is a gulf between free man and slaves that cannot be bridged.

To the free man, the military looks like himself and his neighbors, men like himself. He knows that they are no wiser nor braver than he. If he trusts them, it is because he trusts himself. He thinks himself worthy of being free, and he trusts the military to protect that freedom.

Far different is the slave. To the slave, the armed solider is a superior being of a strange and alien race. The soldier is some different order of beings. The slave usually hates the soldier for his virtues and bravery, but fears his strength and regards him as dangerous and irresponsible: a mad dog.

But at the same time (such is the slave mentality) the slave yearns for the soldier to protect him, and the slave thinks the leader of the soldiers, the commander in chief, is a semi-divine being, a Caesar, of awe inspiring wisdom, kindness, largess, and foresight.

That these two attitudes are directly in contradiction to each other is not a hindrance to the slave mentality. Logic is a thing free men use.

So, to answer the question: if the military and police and the ruling elite has machineguns, the citizens (who, in a free society are one and the same as the military, police and ruling elite) should have machineguns. The people should have the means to overthrow the government by force, and in overwhelming numbers, and when that means is removed from the people, the society is no longer a democracy except in name only.

So, for a free man, the only answer to "well, why do you need military hardware?" is "Why does the military? Why does the ruling elite?"

That said, the question as posed is bogus, and meant to be so. Machine guns are already illegal except to collectors with special licenses, and the number of crimes committed with fully automatic weapons is below detectable thresholds.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:47 AM  

@60 Salt
And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out.

I foresee an increase in sales of piano wire and a judicious use of lamp posts.
---

Awesome piano wire fight

Notice gun would have made this fight easier, but the gun was disarmed quickly. Gun grabbers, without guns you have no idea how much meaner and vicious we will become.

Blogger CarpeOro December 11, 2015 10:48 AM  

To further expound on the point brought up before for Ms. Razi and other, the issue of weapons is not limited to Western history. It is world wide. In any society where ownership hasn't been universal there is a caste system. No, amend that. In any society at all, those with weapons rule. Those with out are ruled. Period.
Now here is the scary part for all the gun grabbers, the thing they desperately ignore. Whenever the usual weapons are taken away from some, they create new ones from what is at hand. In earlier times farming implements were adapted (nunchucks are but one example). Martial arts or unarmed combat also was developed. When there is a void in ability to protect oneself it will be filled. You really don't want to learn what modern men can come up with. Zip guns? That is just the start. Look at games like Fallout 4 where there are a plethora of homemade guns - and go from there. There are also still copies of the Anarchist Cookbook floating around and likely versions online. You want to make us serfs? Don't worry, we will check your privilege for you. Because we find it wanting.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:54 AM  

@73 Stephen J.

Getting past my basic aversion is not something I've completed yet. I just think it's useful to understand why people have the issues they do in this area.
---

You can get past that by getting a couple buddies together, going to a shooting range, rent a couple pistols and let them help you try them out. If you do that no more than 2 times, you'll be completely over this fear of guns.

Blogger Student in Blue December 11, 2015 10:58 AM  

@Nate

yep... I'm a card carrying member of the Jew for Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

Turns out they take gentiles. as long as you have 25 bucks.


Why am I not surprised?

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:58 AM  

@79 Raziel Walker

Besides that, as long as you leave me and everyone I care about alone you can own as many guns and ammo as you want.
---

If that was the case then this would have not even come up. You were the one questioning what type of guns and such we need in the first place...

Blogger Krul December 11, 2015 10:59 AM  

@122

Excellent comment, saved.

It reminds me of Ayn Rand's discussion of the two basic irrational mentalities in For the New Intellectual. She identifies them as "Attila", the man of force, and "the witch doctor", the man of feelings, who both strive to live without thought. The catch is that either type is powerless by himself; they need each other to be successful in dominating the good and semi-good people:

"Attila’s fear of reality is as great as the Witch Doctor’s. Both hold their consciousness on a subhuman level and method of functioning: Attila’s brain is a jumble of concretes unintegrated by abstractions; the Witch Doctor’s brain is a miasma of floating abstractions unrelated to concretes. Both are guided and motivated—ultimately—not by thoughts, but by feelings and whims. Both cling to their whims as to their only certainty. Both feel secretly inadequate to the task of dealing with existence.

Thus they come to need each other. Attila feels that the Witch Doctor can give him what he lacks: a long-range view, an insurance against the dark unknown of tomorrow or next week or next year, a code of moral values to sanction his actions and to disarm his victims. The Witch Doctor feels that Attila can give him the material means of survival, can protect him from physical reality, can spare him the necessity of practical action, and can enforce his mystic edicts on any recalcitrant who may choose to challenge his authority. Both of them are incomplete parts of a human being, who seek completion in each other: the man of muscle and the man of feelings, seeking to exist without mind.
...
But the alliance of the two rulers is precarious: it is based on mutual fear and mutual contempt. Attila is an extrovert, resentful of any concern with consciousness—the Witch Doctor is an introvert, resentful of any concern with physical existence. Attila professes scorn for values, ideals, principles, theories, abstractions—the Witch Doctor professes scorn for material property, for wealth, for man’s body, for this earth. Attila considers the Witch Doctor impractical—the Witch Doctor considers Attila immoral. But, secretly, each of them believes that the other possesses a mysterious faculty he lacks, that the other is the true master of reality, the true exponent of the power to deal with Existence. In terms, not of thought, ; but of chronic anxiety, it is the Witch Doctor who believes that brute force rules the world—and it is Attila who believes in the supernatural; his name for it is “fate” or “luck.”"


On a deep, psychological level, I suspect that the Left of the US are "witch doctor" types, moved by feelings, who sense in militant Islam an "Attila". Hence they're ridiculous, never ending praise for the "Religion of Peace" and their insistent "Let's-not-jump-to-conclusions-here-NAMALT" routine after every Islamic terrorist atrocity, as contrasted with their bilious hatred and heretofore utterly baseless fear of rural right-leaning Christians who happen to own guns.

Anonymous DNW December 11, 2015 11:02 AM  

"Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. "

In other words, we all have to be deemed incompetent lest the incompetent feel singled out. The very essence of masochistic liberalism, the mental disease.

Blogger Stilicho #0066 December 11, 2015 11:06 AM  

@94 I have a nephew with your name...

@Nate- how's JPFO doing under its new owner? Lots of controversy about his support for universal background checks and some local gun grabbing legislation in Washington state.

Blogger bob k. mando December 11, 2015 11:07 AM  

124. Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 10:41 AM
It makes you an SCV instead of an Archon




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOb1QZlVlo

Anonymous Anonymous December 11, 2015 11:10 AM  

I think she points out an interesting dilemma...there appears to be a fundamental conflict between her free speech rights and our right of effective self defense. I think we need to resolve this conflict; after all, gun control is a premise and pre-condition for Hitler and his concentration camps, Stalin and his Gulags and reiterated across Mao, North Korea and virtually every massive scale and truly horrible human rights violations. We cannot tolerate the risk of advocates like this article.

We need to limit their freedom of speech to protect ourselves. And not a namby pamby partial "reasonable restrictions" half measure either. We need to outlaw any speech proposing any incremental infringement of our rights of self defense, or even any opposition to rolling back existing infringements. The penalty for, say opposing the repeal of the 1934 NFA, should be the complete loss of the ability to publish on any subject in any medium, in print or electronically, or address any gathering of more than 4 people. A second violation should be the cutting out of the tongue if verbal, or the loss of hands for anything written. A third violation is death...by firing squad.

We have to prevent the horrible potential human rights disasters that gun control advocates enable, even if it does have to abridge some of their rights! For the children!

Daedalus Mugged

Anonymous A Visitor December 11, 2015 11:11 AM  

@1 Never underestimate their stupidity.

@4 They're delusional; they honestly believe they can legislate this, like they can legislate an end to violence.

@12 I can see it now. "What's a chicken coop? What's a farm? Doesn't food come from grocery stores?"

@18 Fat, you say? Ahab, hand me the harpoon!

@30 Remember the recent stabbings in Israel? The government was calling on everyone who legally could to carry a firearm.

@34 Ok. Say it with me now, "Machine gun = FULL automatic fire. This means you pull the trigger and keep it depressed, the weapon continues to fire until the magazine or belt is finished. Furthermore, machine guns are typically full auto only. The M16A2 and AK-47 != machine guns. They are rifles with automatic fire capability. Machine guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1931." Second, at least one sniper rifle was co-opted from civilian use: the Barrett 82. If you're going to attempt to hold an indefensible position, at least get your terminology correct. To answer your question, yes, I would need a true machine gun and sniper rifle and military hardware to defend myself if the situation got bad enough. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

@40 Did you hear about the Texan Imam that got let go for supporting Trump? It's on Drudge right now.

@52 I remember reading back a couple years ago how that was the next big push for normalization. Slippery slope, indeed.

@53 Using their logic, Chi-town, LA, and SF must be some of the safest cities in the country.

@61 I was thinking of writing something similar. You beat me to it, sir.

Anonymous Jon Bromfield December 11, 2015 11:14 AM  

Mr. Wright, I wouldn't have thought I could be more admiring of your wit and intelligence, but after that post I am.

Bravo, sir. And thanks.

Blogger Unknown December 11, 2015 11:14 AM  

Those who think gun bans are possible, in either sense, should go to http://thehomegunsmith.com and download the plans there. Submachine guns from plumbing parts beats that 3D printing nonsense. Got ammunition? Google survival reloading.

Blogger John Wright December 11, 2015 11:14 AM  

@106
Kudos to Nate. In a discussion of the law about banning guns, he is the first to mention the relevant law, and cite the case: United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Ironically, the holding in Miller was that since a shotgun was NOT a military firearm, it could be regulated. This was simply an error on the part of the court: soldiers had been using shotguns in the trenches of the Great War (as WWI was called back then).

More significant was District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), one of the few times the Supreme Court has actually rendered a correct decision and correctly interpreted the law. It was a 5-4 decision.

Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

So, given that the Morlocks and barbarians of the Left routinely preen and announce that their latest scheme to rape our liberties and rob our wealth are 'the settled law' and 'the law of the land' and that 'the debate is over' by this same logic, why is it they will not let this debate rest as settled?

Why are they not as deferential to the opinions of Machiavelli (for example) when it comes to the consequences of disarming the people as they are to anonymous climate scientists about the consequences of carbon emissions?

Blogger OneWingedShark December 11, 2015 11:16 AM  

Ah, looks like it's time to break out my Stop, Drop, and Cower brochure... but maybe I ought to make one from these cowed subject's point-of-view.

Blogger Unknown December 11, 2015 11:16 AM  

A boy talking to a man.
http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2015/12/mild-mannered-wells-vs-irked-russell-on-terrorists-san-bernardino-gun-culture-gun-controls-etc/

Blogger OneWingedShark December 11, 2015 11:18 AM  

@4 "Forget that. Do they realize that a statistically significant percentage of the armed public is ready and able to kill them if they try?"

I honestly don't think that they do, and I'm honestly getting tired of telling the toddler not to touch the stove's heating-element... maybe it's about time to say "Ok, you won't listen? Go ahead, touch it."

Blogger Dexter December 11, 2015 11:25 AM  

Do they solve the problem liberals claim they want to solve?

Forget that. Do they realize that a statistically significant percentage of the armed public is ready and able to kill them if they try?


Liberals will not, themselves, participate in the confiscation.

Liberals envisage cops (who liberals hate) going door-to-door confiscating guns from conservatives (who liberals hate). If, during the enforcement of a liberal policy goal, two groups whom liberals hate kill each other, that is a PLUS from the liberal perspective. A feature of gun confiscation, not a bug!

Blogger Unknown December 11, 2015 11:29 AM  

@104 Nate: I became an NRA life member before I realized they are pro-gun control cuckservatives. I second your recommendation for GOA. I'm no longer certain about JPFO. Look into Zelman Partisans? http://zelmanpartisans.com.

@127: My father was a chemist, and he thought that the Anarchist' Cookbook was written to get radicals to blow themselves up. He was a little less worried by the army's Improvised Munitions Manual, but there was a lot in there that he considered unreasonably unsafe, too. He advised against making primary explosives, and against anything involving hydrogen peroxide.

@37: You particulate in forums? If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet December 11, 2015 11:31 AM  

I'd like to address some here who are commenting on the fear of firearms...

I was raised in a very anti-gun family. Imagine that for a moment. Guns are magicand you'vebnever seenone. Like never even seeing a car in real life and then suddenly one day someone throws you the keys to a race car. That's years of untapped adrenaline all in one go. It's eye opening, but for some, terrifying.

You KNOW the gun can't go off magically, but that doesn't change years of conditioning to believe it might. Years of conditioning are needed to become confident in your abilities and understanding with firearms to really chip away at those negative, irrational feelings.

I say, teach the newcomer to channel that fear into the respect needed to gain confidence through learning.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 11, 2015 11:32 AM  

@28 "The insane part is that the Democrats always get killed on Gun Control at the polls in any of the Blurple States. It only sells in Deep Blue states and it costs them there too. [...] But why is Hillary cutting her own throat?"

My theory is that there are two main contributers: first, that the SJW presence on social media is radically altering the perception of the demographics of support; second, that the rather quiet acceptance of homosexual marriages, and the NSA's domestic espionage, both indicate that "the silent majority" is a paper tiger, and not a sleeping giant.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis December 11, 2015 11:33 AM  

@144

I'd also suggest chipping a few bucks over to the Second Amendment Foundation. They exclusively focus on filing lawsuits against unconstitutional gun control. Added benefit is that they are right outside of Seattle so the progs go ape shit when they realize there is a gun rights advocacy group based just across Lake Washington.

Anonymous Wet duck December 11, 2015 11:34 AM  

Fuck!
We figured you'd never realize that Phoebe Bovy is the intellectual leader of the left. We follow her every word. And the fact that none of her proposals have been tested in a legislative context in 250 years is a mere smoke screen. Kudos to you for uncovering our leader.

Anonymous BigGaySteve December 11, 2015 11:36 AM  

is every bit as evil and horrifically unacceptable in a civilized Western society as endorsing cannibalism, pedophilia, or necrophilia

I guess someone isn't getting an invite to the penises of aborted babies tasting party at Barney Frank's house

can't they see how dumb it is? How did the war on drugs work out? How about the war on raw milk?

CA is bankrupt but conducts door to door raw milk raids because they don't want to admit evolution influenced lactose tolerance. The queen of England drank raw milk every day of her life, but don't give it to a Niggerian Prince.

That's not getting rid of guns, that is restricting them to an elite group. This is aristocracy at its finest

Schadenfreude= Liberal federal judge who outlawed racial profiling now a victim of black mob violence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UHtLTtFgiY

Pictures of her are primarily shoulders and above, so she's obviously fat. Why are you fat, Phoebe?

The govt already spent money on a study on why lesbians are fat, maybe being denied gay wedding pizza is a good thing.

Blogger Salt December 11, 2015 11:38 AM  

Ironically, the holding in Miller was that since a shotgun was NOT a military firearm, it could be regulated. This was simply an error on the part of the court: soldiers had been using shotguns in the trenches of the Great War (as WWI was called back then).

More than simple error, Mr. Wright. John Ross discusses that case in his book, "Unintended Consequences", a fictional work though describing what the gun culture is.

The government knew that, due to circumstances, Miller and Leyton had no representation before the court. The government outright lied to the court, hoping no member would challenge. Far from simple error, it's a case that should be revisited and corrected on its merits.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 11, 2015 11:42 AM  

@34 "Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?"

Yes.

"You think a dozen shotguns, pistols and rifles with a couple of thousand ammo for each would not suffice to defend yourself?"

No... in fact, during the revolutionary war there were privately owned artillery (cannon).

Blogger Krul December 11, 2015 11:51 AM  

@34 "Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?"

Do you really need freedom of speech? Do you really need all of the money in your bank account? I mean, you'd survive if some was taken away, right?

@148 See, this is exactly the reaction we want. Leftists distancing themselves from the extreme positions on their side, leftists outgrouping those who propose extreme positions, left moderates shooting at left extremists for us. It shifts the conversation to the right, one comment at a time.

Blogger John Wright December 11, 2015 11:51 AM  

@141
My respect for Kurt Russel just went up several notches. Note the pathetic, self serving way Wells introduces the topic by pretending he is the reasonable guy instead of the delusional nutbag. Good grief.

I am surprised Mr. Wells did not propose the solution might be to outlaw terrorism, or, better yet, outlaw violence altogether.

Blogger Jill December 11, 2015 11:55 AM  

This is a woman with a doctorate. I'm guessing she has a measurable IQ higher than average. I'm wondering--have for a long time--what the purpose of higher than average IQ is if it doesn't produce the ability to analyze the past (history outside one's own experience) and make intelligent future predictions. I really don't think she's thought this one through all the way. All guns? Everywhere? For every reason? Can't even have one to shoot the skunk getting in your chicken coop? Perhaps it is just a thought experiment like John Lennon's "Imagine". If so, it's a dangerously foolish one.

Anonymous BGS December 11, 2015 11:57 AM  

Do you really need machineguns and sniper rifles and military hardware to defend yourself?

Raziel Walker,Please explain the difference between a sniper rifle and what I have for J.C. Wright's 8 point deer/make horse?

On top of that the legislation in Israel is very lax about shooting an arab/moslem, if you wear a Yakima you can have a machine gun in each hand.

But I'd also be happier in a world where all women were 10s, they were all bi and they outnumbered men 3 to 1

I can't see how STR8 guys endure one wife let alone 3.

How else could we explain Feminists and certain gay communities showing solidarity with muslims and "radical" muslims despite the obvious

The free Soros kool aid is provided by paid Jewish lesbian Gatekeepers. When you get your gay card it offers protection from STR8 White Church Going Christian Men.

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 11:58 AM  

"
Ironically, the holding in Miller was that since a shotgun was NOT a military firearm, it could be regulated. This was simply an error on the part of the court: soldiers had been using shotguns in the trenches of the Great War (as WWI was called back then). "

The backstory to Miller is fascinating. They story is that Miller's attorney didn't even show up to argue Miller's case. They viewed it as so obvious, they said there was no point in bothering to point it out. So when then court went to deliberate... many of the justices knew full well that the sawed off shotgun had military value... but they believed since there was no testimony to that fact, they could not allow themselves to use that information in their decision.

Their own conservatism made them retards.

The even more infuriating thing... is that the laws were enforced in a way completely contradictory to the ruling. The ruling said the second amendment ONLY applied to military firearms. and it was enforced as if it said only military firearms could be regulated.

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 12:00 PM  

"Raziel Walker,Please explain the difference between a sniper rifle and what I have for J.C. Wright's 8 point deer/make horse?"

Sniper rifles are black and scary and have that scary Thing That Goes Up.

its always awesome to me that Leftists have to refer to specific parts of firearms in the same way the men of the Last Redoubt refer to the Evils around them.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:01 PM  

Not to be pedantic, but handgonnes and canons are firearms, and were used in the hundred years war.

The point still stands of course.

Blogger John Wright December 11, 2015 12:04 PM  

"its always awesome to me that Leftists have to refer to specific parts of firearms in the same way the men of the Last Redoubt refer to the Evils around them."

If you outlaw the giant psychic flaming pizza wheel buzzsaw war-ax, only outlaws will have the giant psychic flaming pizza wheel buzzsaw war-ax!

http://www.scifiwright.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/X4.jpg

Blogger Quadko December 11, 2015 12:04 PM  

@67 & @119 "replace guns w/ muslims"

Nice! How can she be so racist, I wonder? Good little leftist as she is?

Does that logic work for other things?
No more pussyfooting around, time for the radical rhetoric of the possible!
• Free speech must go, for thee but not for me!
• Free assembly must go, so inconvenient for liberal purposes to have unlicensed gatherings.
• Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness - so Christian, must fall to the atheist triptych of strength, slavery, and domination.
To say it is to achieve it! "We've always been at war with Eastasia!"

(*Cause they seem to think muslim is a race...)

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 12:05 PM  

"@Nate- how's JPFO doing under its new owner? Lots of controversy about his support for universal background checks and some local gun grabbing legislation in Washington state."

...

what?

God Dammit... don't tell me the Jews got infiltrated. The Jews have been awesome for decades.

I admit they'd been so good for so long I was just taking them for granted.

Now I have to dig. Dammit... I really hope I don't have to stop being the Gentile that the Jews accepted because they wanted his 25 bucks.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 11, 2015 12:06 PM  

@148 Wet duck

You just reminded me of an old school family game from Nintendo, Duck Hunt

Anonymous kfg December 11, 2015 12:07 PM  

@6: "It is one of the rights of the Englishmen."

It is a right that even a juvenile cockroach understands and practices. It is the primal natural right, by birth, from which all other rights are derivative.

Right to property?:

"This chocolate cookie crumb? Yeah, I found it; it's mine. You want it? Come and take it."

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 12:09 PM  

"If you outlaw the giant psychic flaming pizza wheel buzzsaw war-ax, only outlaws will have the giant psychic flaming pizza wheel buzzsaw war-ax!"

While I appreciate the giant psychic flaming pizza wheel buzzsaw war-ax... I would like to be able to shoot a hell hound from a safer distance.

perhaps a bolt-action psychic flaming pizza wheel buzzsaw war-ax?

Blogger Nate December 11, 2015 12:09 PM  

Preferably based on the Pre-64 Winchester Model 70.

OpenID Jack Amok December 11, 2015 12:10 PM  

Where are the gulags and death camps then?

Waiting for you and your kind, if you push this any farther.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:18 PM  

The carry of swords of war was generally restricted, at various times throughout the medieval period, even by knights and nobility. Serfs and freemen alike could carry fairly large seaxes which functionally are one edged arming swords, and were expected to, even at their poorest, furnish themselves (in England) with bow and arrows in times of war.

The sword of war comparison is more valid to select fire rifles and some lighter support weapons, but even then, wealthier freemen and serfs were required to supply swords for themselves in times of war.

I suppose my point is, as far as balance of power goes, we're already behind the freemen and serfs of much of medieval Europe. A good goal would be to go about setting up a responsibility to be armed according to your means, not just a right, such that those not fulfilling their responsibility forgo their right to vote.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:25 PM  

I'd say a few tanks owned by the citizenry in each town would be a good start. Of course, I'd hope people would train with and maintain them, otherwise they'd be expensive lawn ornaments when needed most.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:27 PM  

Mandatory armament ownership requirements based on ability to maintain them is a good idea.

I'd exempt women as they tend to be less effective militia members on average. However, if also exempt them from voting requirements as well. Since they disproportionately vote away freedoms.

Anonymous DavidKathome December 11, 2015 12:27 PM  

Submachine guns from plumbing parts beats that 3D printing nonsense.

Hey, some of us aren't that good at home craftmanship. I would prefer to get my gun printed while I do something else.

OpenID Jack Amok December 11, 2015 12:28 PM  

Or how people who worry about what somebody somewhere might do are able to leave the house, much less blithely get into an automobile.

I'm worried what some Grizzly bear out in the woods might do, so I'm going to hike miles out of my way to yell and throw rocks at it.

Of course, the problem is they don't really think we're dangerous, they just think they can win rabbit points for challenging us.

Blogger Krul December 11, 2015 12:30 PM  

@168 "I'd say a few tanks owned by the citizenry in each town would be a good start."

Haunted tanks.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 11, 2015 12:37 PM  

@97 "We had the right to keep and bear arms before the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, and even before the Declaration of Independence. Repealing the Second Amendment wouldn't change that."

Ah, but here's the thing we individualists value the [just] law -- this is why the political elite have been so successful in law-warfare, all the wile not realizing that as they erode respect for those institutions they erode the respect we have for the law.

An excellent example of the issue would be the case of ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY, LLC, v. VANESSA WILLOCK -- you remember the photographer from New Mexico and how the NM Supreme Court slapped her down for refusing to take pictures? If you read the case, you'll notice that while the look at legislative acts and a little at the US Constitution there is one thing conspicuously absent: the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. The reason is Art II, Sec 11, which states:
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

The courts have for a long while been picking and choosing what to consider in their opinions, often with the effect of elevating precedent over the actual text of the governing laws.

Anonymous Anonymous December 11, 2015 12:40 PM  

There is a phrase, I heard it referenced as an Irish/Gaelic one, "The difference between a citizen and a subject is a sword" I suspect this may be older, perhaps Roman. But it is worth noting that for all the 'rights of Englishmen' even they didn't extend it to non-English subjects (banning swords among the Irish and Scots).

Do any of the Ilk know the actual origins of the phrase?

Daedalus Mugged

OpenID Jack Amok December 11, 2015 12:40 PM  

Preferably based on the Pre-64 Winchester Model 70.

Odd you should mention that. I just bought one.

Blogger FP December 11, 2015 12:41 PM  

"yep... I'm a card carrying member of the Jew for Preservation of Firearms Ownership."

Nate, you know they're nothing but a marketing name now right? SAF bought them out. GoA is the only group nationally I trust now.

As for the gun grabbers. This makes what, 3-4 major articles on banning guns now in the past week? NYT, Huffpo, WashPost?

Most hilarious:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/needed-domestic-disarmame_b_8739712.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Oathkeepers on the latest Supreme Court denial of appeal on a gun case:
https://www.oathkeepers.org/even-friends-on-supreme-court-diminish-purpose-of-2nd-amendment/

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:42 PM  

You seem to be missing several relevant points here. First, Europe isn't filled with gulags and death camps because they're still not over World War Two, and because the tyrants there haven't chosen to go that direction yet because they can still achieve their goals through other, less obvious means.

Conscription conscription is a lot less useful if your conscripts have no idea how to handle a gun at all, and are in some cases actively afraid of their service weapons.

The Hughes amendment banning modern automatics doesn't mean people can't own them at all, and in fact, the widespread ownership of semiauto rifles and hunting rifles is a decent deterrent currently, though it'd be better to have parity, so as to make would be tyrants even more cautious. See my comments on Europe for an explanation of the lack of gulags and death camps.

It's not about fear, it's about insurance. It's much better to have the ability to resist and not need it imminently, than it is to need it and have no means as a squad of thugs is busting down your door to take you and your family to the cattle cars.

If ammo explodes, it's stores improperly. That's a crime of negligence already. The fact that you say, "when you decide to go postal," betrays your irrational position. Gun owners do not go postal in any significany numbers. Control your fear responses please.

Blogger Unknown December 11, 2015 12:42 PM  

@168 The maintenance requirements and expense for tracks is crazy. Armor on wheels is way more likely to be functional.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:43 PM  

Any property destroyed by the explosion or people injured would be crimes of negligence rather.

OpenID Jack Amok December 11, 2015 12:45 PM  

The shotguns and pistols are sufficient to kill military and police personnel, and their families, in their homes.

Also journalists and other enablers. Dexter's post points out why that might come to be. Especially since the po-po and .mil are generally smart enough not to want anything to do with this.

Blogger JaimeInTexas December 11, 2015 12:48 PM  

@144. Unknown
"You particulate in forums? If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate."

Well done!

Blogger Daniel December 11, 2015 12:49 PM  

"Her interests include nineteenth-century French Jews, Japanese cooking, and 1970s sitcoms."

So, basically Super Terrific Happy Hour.

I wonder if she's getting the 12-cent royalty checks, too.

Blogger OneWingedShark December 11, 2015 12:50 PM  

@125 "There is a gulf between free man and slaves that cannot be bridged."

TN CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I, Section 2.
That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Blogger VD December 11, 2015 12:54 PM  

Liberals will not, themselves, participate in the confiscation.

Who said anything about being limited to those who participate? We know who has been calling for it.

Anonymous Victor F. Michaelson December 11, 2015 12:57 PM  

@141, @153, It's not just a boy talking to a man, when he has to put what he perceives as Russel's intent in brackets, it's the Gamma tell of "What you mean to say is...". Russel's got a spine and a brain.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:58 PM  

And more privately owned warships than government warship sighting for the continentals.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 12:59 PM  

Who wants to throw together for an old heavy cruiser?

Anonymous Frank Brady December 11, 2015 1:04 PM  

Every politician, judge, bureaucrat and media propagandist advocating or upholding an infringement of the people's right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional criminal who poses an existential threat to life and liberty and should be treated accordingly.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 1:13 PM  

If only. I'd prefer some a bit more modern than that though.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 1:15 PM  

It would be costly, and wheeled armor would probably be more affordable, but where's your sense of style?

Anonymous BoysMom December 11, 2015 1:34 PM  

@151 There still are privately owned cannon. Though the one I know of personally is an antique, it's still used regularly: I'm told it's fun to fire.

Blogger CM December 11, 2015 1:37 PM  

The courts have for a long while been picking and choosing what to consider in their opinions, often with the effect of elevating precedent over the actual text of the governing laws.

This is why I get peeved when people here mention precedent that favors us. Or the rephrasing of the article as Muslim Immigration...

I have to remind myself that it isn't for our benefit, but to be used as a rhetorical weapon to bludgeon those who it does matter to.

Anonymous Victor F. Michaelson December 11, 2015 1:43 PM  

@190, The NFA laws are funny. There's a lot of things you'd think were illegal to own because they would qualify as destructive devices (DD), but the law on machineguns trumps DD's. You can't own a 40mm, because it's a cannon, a DD, but if it's fully automatic, it qualifies as a machinegun under the law and can be owned.

Blogger Tallawampus December 11, 2015 1:45 PM  

#blackriflesmatter

Win goes to Nate. I'm getting that on a bumper sticker.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 1:50 PM  

You can own destructive devices, it's just that for a lot of them, both the weapon and the ammunition would each require a $200 tax stamp.

It's post-'86 machine guns that are illegal to own.

Anonymous The Drones Are Coming December 11, 2015 1:52 PM  

I'd say a few tanks owned by the citizenry in each town would be a good start. Of course, I'd hope people would train with and maintain them, otherwise they'd be expensive lawn ornaments when needed most.

This is thinking trapped in a 20th century paradigm.

Remember the good ole "Why would you bring a knife to a gun fight?"

In the near future, it's going to be "Why would you bring a tank or a machine gun or any other piece of obsolete 20th century artillery to a drone war?"

Goat herders in Afghan hinterlands that possess an abundance of AK's and RPGs are finding out their right to own military grade guns and explosives are almost useless against drones with infrared scopes, GPS-enhanced remote control, laser-sight guns and hellfire missiles.

Blogger tenor_general December 11, 2015 2:02 PM  

It'd be a good start primarily because there are many surplus tanks available from various sources. Also, in a drone war, jamming the drones and then rolling over the now unsupported enemy is helped by having armor.

Of course, fighting on home turf here in the US against a domestic enemy would mean drone control centers are also decent targets to hit, which would result in a wider spread loss of drone support.

Given that it's only a start, I'd love to see private air squadrons, though those are a tad bit pricier. I'd bet even the older, slower, and cheaper Jets could take down drones fairly easily too.

Blogger Unknown December 11, 2015 2:08 PM  

This issue is always a non-starter. Not sure why they keep trying.

https://mises.org/blog/mistake-only-comparing-us-murder-rates-developed-countries

Anonymous PLC December 11, 2015 2:11 PM  

@136 BTW, thanks A Visitor for directing me to Tim's Shooting Academy. I stopped by earlier this week with my gf and we had a good time.

Blogger Cloudswrest December 11, 2015 2:15 PM  

"Phoebe Maltz Bovy". Sounds like a nice Irish name.

1 – 200 of 286 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts