ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, March 05, 2018

Silence the SJWs

Like all SJWs, Peter King reveals that he is not fit to live as a citizen in American society.
The AR-15 is a killing machine, and it will continue to be a money-making machine for gun companies unless our elected officials make it illegal to privately own. That has to happen. If you’re in favor of private ownership of the gun, you can say whatever you want to justify it, but you value a murderous weapon over the lives of Americans, and certainly over the lives of 17 children. Second Amendment, schmecond amendment.
He seriously wants to take YOUR unalienable right to self-defense away. He does not respect your Second Amendment rights. At all.

So, why should we respect his First Amendment rights? We should not, as NN Taleb advises in his excellent new book Skin in the Game.

Start by being nice to everyone person you meet. But if someone tries to exercise power over you, exercise power over him.

This philosophy means that every individual who attempts to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, in any way, has lost any claim to our consideration for their First Amendment rights.

Labels: , ,

138 Comments:

Blogger phunktor March 05, 2018 11:03 AM  

Just in case you missed it at the Grauniad:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/apr/20/billy-corgan-compares-social-justice-warriors-kkk?CMP=share_btn_fb

Is Hell freezing over, or does their primitive nervous system actually respond to pain?

Blogger Crew March 05, 2018 11:07 AM  

Ahhh, so he is OK with the AK-47 or ...

Blogger Looking Glass March 05, 2018 11:08 AM  

Clearly, the SJWs don't need the 4th, 5th or 8th Amendment rights. We're going to have some real fun with the lack of 8th Amendment rights. Maybe we can outsource ideas to /pol/.

Blogger Paradox March 05, 2018 11:10 AM  

His grandparents were Irish immigrants. He needs to go back. Oh... and all these gun control advocates are either dicks or peters.

Blogger Crew March 05, 2018 11:12 AM  

Peter King: "I really don't know why people need assault weapons"

http://www.rawstory.com/2013/01/peter-king-i-really-dont-know-why-people-need-assault-weapons/

Blogger Lazarus March 05, 2018 11:16 AM  

Florida House panel votes to arm teachers.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) March 05, 2018 11:16 AM  

Peter King the Starbucks travel writer or Peter King the NY representative?

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2018 11:18 AM  

The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.

Blogger Nate73 March 05, 2018 11:20 AM  

Wait a second, does Vox Day get most of his good ideas by reading good authors?!

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2018 11:21 AM  

Why do we need military weapons? It's an American thing - you wouldn't understand.

Blogger OneWingedShark March 05, 2018 11:24 AM  

This philosophy means that every individual who attempts to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, in any way, has lost any claim to our consideration for their First Amendment rights.
This would be particularly devastating to judges. (If acting contrary to the bounds of the Constitution stripped them of all legal protections, the judiciary would be a slaughterhouse [metaphorically].)

Blogger OneWingedShark March 05, 2018 11:24 AM  

This philosophy means that every individual who attempts to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, in any way, has lost any claim to our consideration for their First Amendment rights.
This would be particularly devastating to judges. (If acting contrary to the bounds of the Constitution stripped them of all legal protections, the judiciary would be a slaughterhouse [metaphorically].)

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 11:25 AM  

The Founding Fathers never envisioned traitorous cucks using digital media with global reach to undermine the security of the free states. There must be some common sense restrictions on speech.

Quality weapons in the hands of good people save lives, and anyone who wants to ban them wants children to die and women to be raped.

Blogger Jack Amok March 05, 2018 11:26 AM  

Start by being nice to everyone person you meet. But if someone tries to exercise power over you, exercise power over him.

This philosophy means that every individual who attempts to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, in any way, has lost any claim to our consideration for their First Amendment rights


Amen.

Blogger Anchorman March 05, 2018 11:27 AM  

The same idiots who want to ban the AR-15 shrug off the Ruger Mini-14.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:27 AM  

Second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Translation to modern English: "States will only be free if their militias have adequate skills*. Therefore, under no circumstances can anyone restrict the ownership of guns."

Now, the MOST relevant weapons to actual militia duty, are assault rifles. SJW's love to point to the first sentence, but it is the exact first sentence that tells you that not only must you allow semiautomatic rifles before any other weapons, you must absolutely allow legit assault rifles. Handguns are mere afterthought.

*Yes, this is what "regulated" meant. It does not refer to "regulations" by government.

Blogger Resident Moron™ March 05, 2018 11:29 AM  

I once saw a sign in a corner shop:

“Please do not ask for credit as a punch in the face often offends”

The equivalent here might be:

Please do not advocate illegal encroachment on our inalienable right to self-defense as a tarring and feathering often offends”

Blogger Salt March 05, 2018 11:31 AM  

Miller and Layton were found guilty, by SCOTUS, of violating the NFA of 1934 in that they were in possession of a Stevens double barrel shotgun of length less than NFA approved and (the real salient part) having no military application.

Had the short shotgun had military application it would have met the criteria, as stated by SCOTUS, of being a protected arm under the 2nd Amendment.

Regardless the short shotgun actually having military application, SCOTUS laid down the criteria of what arms are protected.

Peter King can go suck an egg.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 11:32 AM  

@15 "Arms" as defined when the Constitution was written included more than just muskets. Grenadiers were a vital part of our Revolutionary War so the Second Amendment unequivocally protects grenades and similar devices. Same goes for artillery. (Good luck making that case in an American court, though.)

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 11:34 AM  

Gun control logic:

It's not suitable for military use? Ban it.
It's a military weapon? Definitely ban it.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:34 AM  

Absolutely. Arms are armaments.

OpenID thenathanielm March 05, 2018 11:36 AM  

Peter "Lyin" King at it again. As if anyone doesn't see this for what it is, setting a precedent to ban more semi auto magazine fed rifles. At least some of these buffoons are honest about the dishonesty of referring to it as an "Assault Weapon"

Blogger Brick Hardslab March 05, 2018 11:36 AM  

That was always a bogus ruling because every military has carried short shotguns since the things were invented. Not standard issue generally but it's too useful to not have. It's like going into a kitchen without a can opener.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:40 AM  

Of course it's bogus. It's like people can't read English anymore.
What to do: Don't infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
Why do it, for the slow on the uptake: Because states need a wide array of skills to tap into, should they suddenly need militias.

What if you disagree on the rationale: Tough shit. The constitution is still clear on what to actually do: Not infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Blogger Salt March 05, 2018 11:43 AM  

Brick Hardslab wrote:That was always a bogus ruling because every military has carried short shotguns

Even if Miller were to be revisited, only correcting as to short shotguns would be viable. It would be hard for SCOTUS to go against what is a protected arm.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2018 11:44 AM  

The only time the Supreme Court ruled on the Second, they held that weapons with no military use can be infringed upon, but weapons with military use cannot. Artillery, machine guns, assault rifles, tanks are all protected. Elmer Fudd's nice double barreled duck gun can be banned.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 11:45 AM  

"Second Amendment, schmecond amendment"

So you're an enemy of the Constitution, then? Are you aware of the text of the military oath?

Blogger Salt March 05, 2018 11:48 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Elmer Fudd's nice double barreled duck gun can be banned.

Not true, as such weapons have been militarily used.

Blogger Lazarus March 05, 2018 11:51 AM  

Iran's Supreme Leader stands with Peter King:


Khamenei.ir
‏ @khamenei_ir

No one dares apply the clear solution to the promotion of guns and homicide in America. What's the solution? It's to make guns illegal.
5:22 AM - 4 Mar 2018

Blogger Not a lefty March 05, 2018 11:57 AM  

When Peter King cried (LITERALLY CROCODILE TEARS) about not receiving his share of a $100+ billion hurricane Sandy slush fund, I knew he was the corrupt, lying thief that he is. Anyway, this jerk is a camera mugger worse than Schumer.

Blogger Azimus March 05, 2018 11:57 AM  

There are so many countries out there with common sense solutions to gun violence problems. So... you have a lot of options. Move there.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 March 05, 2018 11:58 AM  

That's rich coming from a man with connections to Irish terrorism.

Blogger Not a lefty March 05, 2018 11:58 AM  

The clear solution: cut the hands off of gun owners so they can't pull the trigger.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira March 05, 2018 12:01 PM  

Take away the AR 15s and we will buy AKs and FALs. What a bunch of morons.

Blogger Bastion Harm March 05, 2018 12:07 PM  

Funny...when Micah Xavier Johnson gunned down 5 Dallas police officers with an AR-15, I don't recall shitlibs calling for their banishment.

Actually....I seem to recall them CELEBRATING the shootings, since the victims were white cops, and therefore, probably racists.

OpenID winstonwebb March 05, 2018 12:09 PM  

Slightly OT, but has there been any notable progress with the 3D printing of AR receivers?
That would make this whole national conversation quite moot.

Blogger Brett baker March 05, 2018 12:11 PM  

After the ARs, then all other semi-autos.

Blogger Brett baker March 05, 2018 12:15 PM  

Not currently. So yes, a FUDD's double can be banned, but not pumps and autos.

Blogger Brett baker March 05, 2018 12:15 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Brett baker March 05, 2018 12:16 PM  

After the ARs, then all other semi-autos.

Blogger Lance E March 05, 2018 12:16 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:@15 "Arms" as defined when the Constitution was written included more than just muskets. Grenadiers were a vital part of our Revolutionary War so the Second Amendment unequivocally protects grenades and similar devices. Same goes for artillery. (Good luck making that case in an American court, though.)

I thought the founders made it very clear that they wanted private militias to own their own frigates. Compensating for modernization (as leftists are wont to do), we should all be able and encouraged to own tanks, tactical nukes, and anti-aircraft weaponry.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2018 12:17 PM  

Salt wrote:Not true, as such weapons have been militarily used.

You're harshing my mellow and ruining my rhetoric. The Fudds are eager to ban everyone else's guns, as long as theirs are banned last.

Blogger Jack Amok March 05, 2018 12:17 PM  

Slightly OT, but has there been any notable progress with the 3D printing of AR receivers?
That would make this whole national conversation quite moot.


I wouldn't trust a 3D-printed part to hold the pressure (and I've printed quite a few things). I think a CNC milling machine is a more likely option.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2018 12:19 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Artillery, machine guns, assault rifles, tanks are all protected.
Lance E wrote:I thought the founders made it very clear that they wanted private militias to own their own frigates. Compensating for modernization (as leftists are wont to do), we should all be able and encouraged to own tanks, tactical nukes, and anti-aircraft weaponry.

Darn, I forgot warships, nukes and anti-aircraft artillery. All protected. If you don't want your neighbor to own a nuke, we're going to have to amend the Second Amendment. I say let the neighbors have nukes.

Blogger Jehu March 05, 2018 12:21 PM  

Was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty ever actually ratified by the Senate? If so, it takes precedence.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 05, 2018 12:29 PM  

KING+KUNTZMAN: MANGINAS HAVE NEVER BEEN SANDIER.

Blogger Nobody of Consequence March 05, 2018 12:32 PM  

Why we own firearms:

Story, Joseph, LL.D., 1833 (1991), Commentaries on the
Constitution of the United States, Book III, Pg. 746-747,
Paragraph 1889 - 1890, Rothman, Littleton, CO.
ISBN 0-8377-2646-8

"1889. The next amendment is: 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.'

1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be
doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon
the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a
free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic
insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by
rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people
to keep up large military establishments and standing
armies in time of peace, both from the enormous
expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile
means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled
rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the
rights of the people. The right of citizens to keep
and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it
offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and
arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if
these are successful in the first instance, enable the
people to resist and triumph over them. And yet,
though this truth would seem so clear, and the
importance of a well regulated militia would seem so
undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the
American people there is a growing indifference to any
system of militia discipline and a strong disposition,
from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all
regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people
duly armed without some organization, it is difficult
to see. There is certainly no small danger, that
indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to
contempt; and thus gradually undermine all protection
intended by this clause in our national bill of
rights."

Note that by 1833 the pussies were not wanting to do their duty.

Blogger tuberman March 05, 2018 12:38 PM  

I agree with this idea, or turn all the attempts by the Left on THEIR head... SHUT THEM DOWN IN EVERY WAY, AND PERMANENTLY.

Blogger StrongCoffee61 March 05, 2018 12:40 PM  

The civil right of gun ownership and the self reliance of personal and family protection is a frustrating barrier to the SJW racial objective of intimidating Whites into convergence.

It starts with mass immigration which, particularly, damages the labor value of blacks and mestizos resulting in exacerbating racial wealth gaps.
Pew Research showed that the net wealth of Whites in 2013 was $141,900, Hispanics $13,700, and Wakandans $11,000.

Then the Left inflames racial hatred against Whites by blaming the poor outcomes on White privilege, White supremacy, structural racism, etc.

The civil right of gun ownership is The Wall that already exists that they want to tear down to create another form of invasion.



Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 12:40 PM  

Taleb's quote is reminiscent of Mad Dog Mattis's famous statement: "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

Blogger Skyler the Weird March 05, 2018 12:42 PM  

The Founders did mean to include Privateers and their frigates in the Second Amendment.

Blogger Stilicho March 05, 2018 12:42 PM  

@42 I've heard there are some serviceable injection-molded lowers. The 3D printing is coming along for lowers, but the problem is durability of materials. As metal printing becomes better and cheaper, the home-printed lower will become practical. Barrels/chambers are a long way from printability due to the pressure issue.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 12:42 PM  

With regard to the AR-15 lower receiver, the greatest stresses are probably going to be on the pinhole areas where the upper and lower receivers connect. There are several plastic lowers out there that function wonderfully (although I don't know how well they hold up to sustained firing of tens of thousands of rounds).

But I would think that a 3D printed lower would probably last longer than most shooters can expect to fire.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 12:45 PM  

"The AR-15 is a killing machine"...All firearms are killing machines...By King's logic, all firearms, bows and arrows, and kitchen knives should be banned...Which is what Richie Daley tried to do in Chicago, all the while being guarded 24-7 by multiple armed policemen.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 12:46 PM  

@40 If we make allowances for modernization, then we have a right to own all sorts of contemporary military arms. If not, then the media should have to quit broadcasting and should go back to printing pamphlets on printing presses. And carrying them from town to town with horse-drawn carriages.

Blogger Geir Balderson March 05, 2018 12:49 PM  

I do wonder if Peter King weeps for the Abortion Doctor Killing Machines that have murdered over 50 million babies? Can he find courage to call for banning this awful procedure? How does 17 stack up to Millions. His hypocrisy is extremely distasteful!

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 12:51 PM  

@40 If we make allowances for modernization, then we have a right to own all sorts of contemporary military arms. If not, then the media should have to quit broadcasting and should go back to printing pamphlets on printing presses. And carrying them from town to town with horse-drawn carriages.

@42 The greatest stresses on an AR-15 lower are probably on the pinholes where the upper and lower receivers mate up. I would think a 3D printed lower could work reasonably well and probably last longer than most shooters would require. Still, until I knew what I was dealing with, I would inspect those pinholes for signs of creep failure or cracking (depending on what plastic is used) as often as I could.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 12:51 PM  

Of course, banning firearms has become much tougher since the Left has revealed its long term plan of eliminating whites. Compliance with bans by NY and CT has reportedly been minimal..I have a neighbor, formerly very liberal, who doesn't like guns but is extremely glad that people around her have them, and is all in for the 2d Amendment.......We're not getting in the railcars, period.

Blogger saintCrispee March 05, 2018 12:53 PM  

"every individual who attempts to infringe on our Second Amendment rights, in any way, has lost any claim to our consideration for their First Amendment rights"

There are limits:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
-ANTONIN SCALIA

Blogger Stilicho March 05, 2018 12:54 PM  

Liberalism is a killing machine, and it will continue to be a money-making machine for politicians, socialist-run companies, and other welfare recipients unless normal, patriotic Americans make it illegal to support it. That has to happen. If you’re in favor of banning guns, you can say whatever you want to justify it, but you value a murderous ideology over the lives of Americans, and certainly over the lives of 17 children. First Amendment, schmirst amendment.

Blogger Nate March 05, 2018 12:58 PM  

Since Parkland the NRA has gained over 500,000 new members.

just sayin

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 12:59 PM  

Lil Petey King is a bog hopping, potato eating Papist who hates the South which means he hates America.


As for tanks, artillery, rockets, missiles and other fun things, as long as you can buy the tax stamp it is legal now. The tank itself doesn't even require a tax stamp.

I had a long argument with a progressive about this last week.

He started out with anti air assets. I pointed out that with four tax stamps a quad 50 mount was entirely legal. He moved to rockets and missiles, again the tax stamp makes those legal. Then he tried to say that since you could not buy a stinger that all anti air was illegal.

He then tried the progressive's last ploy with nukes. Sure private citizens should not have nukes. They shouldn't have biological or chemical weapons either. But I have enough knowledge to know that anyone with a bathroom and access to cleaning supplies can make either with no government interference.

Blogger Stilicho March 05, 2018 1:03 PM  

@55 crispee, you might want to re-read the statement by Vox you quoted, then actually think about what it means before quoting government officials trying to limit the Second Amendment as if such statements limit the applicability of Vox's proposal.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 1:04 PM  

Miller and Layton were found guilty, by SCOTUS, of violating the NFA of 1934 in that they were in possession of a Stevens double barrel shotgun of length less than NFA approved and (the real salient part) having no military application.

Actually not...the case was appealed to the Supreme Court without notice to Miller's pro bono attorney(not kosher unless the case is rigged, which Miller was), who did not make an appearance or file any briefs. So it was a default judgment, and the "opinion" should not have been issued because both sides had not been briefed, and should have had no precedential value. But a certain (((Justice))) used the case to push his anti-gun bias.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 1:05 PM  

saintCrispee wrote:ANTONIN SCALIA

He was wrong.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 1:07 PM  

@55 "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." - Marbury v. Madison

Take your precedent and shove it.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:08 PM  

I've actually seriously considered donating to the NRA, but considering the American tendency to confure Finland with Russia, I've decided it counterproductive.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 1:09 PM  

@55 As an attorney, I continue to be amazed at the inability of SCOTUS or laymen to understand the simple words "Congress shall make no law..."
Scalia's opinion in a 5-4 case, however, may have been a compromise to get Justice Kennedy's vote, which was essential, so I don't think he necessarily believed the nonsense you have recited.

Blogger saintCrispee March 05, 2018 1:10 PM  

"crispee, you might want to re-read the statement by Vox you quoted, then actually think about what it means before quoting government officials trying to limit the Second Amendment as if such statements limit the applicability of Vox's proposal."

I read it and I understand it. It's not much of a declaration. Whether Scalia or anyone gets your or Vox's consideration of their constitutional rights is kinda beside the point isn't it. Nothing results from you not giving Scalia or anyone else consideration of their constitutional rights. In other words, how does that play out?

Blogger saintCrispee March 05, 2018 1:13 PM  

"Scalia's opinion in a 5-4 case, however, may have been a compromise to get Justice Kennedy's vote, which was essential, so I don't think he necessarily believed the nonsense you have recited."

It would not be the first time a justice wrote something in an opinion that was a compromise of their real thoughts in order to bring another justice on board.

However, Scalia new the impact of his words and he also new that what he was writing was not dicta. He also new that what he wrote was closely in line with constitutional jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment going back decades.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 1:16 PM  

Oh and the progressive also pulled out the "You can't buy an F-16". I did agree that you probably could not find an F-16 on the open market, but a simple Google search would bring up scores of military jets for sale to the public.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 1:19 PM  

@62 There are numerous legal precedents saying that all unconstitutional laws are null and void ab initio...The problem is that the government still has plenty of armed myrmidons and jailers who don't care....

Blogger Salt March 05, 2018 1:19 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:Actually not...

Technically you are correct, though the net effect was that short barreled shotguns were upheld as banned. Miller did, though, set the bar for what is protected. It's notable that the insane Left is progressing into the murky field of defining mental illnesses as a basis for denying the Right.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:19 PM  

F-16 carries arms. It's not in itself arms. Ability to buy F-16's should be left for states to decide, if we were to read the second amendment honestly.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 1:22 PM  

@66 However, Scalia new the impact of his words and he also new that what he was writing was not dicta.

Well, technically it was dicta because it was not essential or necessary for the judgment. But I take your meaning, Scalia was trying to harmonize the judgment with historical precedent.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:23 PM  

Note the difference between "congress shall make no law", and "shall not be infringed". It is deliberate. The scope of the first amendment is very specific. The second amendment has no scope.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 1:24 PM  

@66
You put way too much trust in judges. Judges, especially the Supremes, are often wrong and unable to understand plain words.

Anything a court says today can be overturned tomorrow. Otherwise Plessy v. Ferguson would still be the law of the land.

Blogger YIH March 05, 2018 1:25 PM  

The left doesn't give a flip about the first amendment. The only reason they did in the past was first due to Hollywood getting the Hayes Act (commonly called ''the production code'') made unconstitutional in 1951 then getting simple nudity in print or movies declared 'not obscene' in '61, then getting removed all restrictions on depictions of sex in the late 60's (paving the way for the pr0n industry). They continued ''fighting for free speech'' to defend/protect the gains in the porn industry through the 70's and 80's. Now that no real opposition to porn exists (and thanks to the internet, it's ubiquitous) the left sees no need for ''free speech'' - and in fact, it's become a problem for those shaping 'the narrative'.
In short, the ''free speech'' crowd were always simply the stalking horse for commercial porn - and nothing more.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 1:25 PM  

Markku wrote:F-16 carries arms. It's not in itself arms. Ability to buy F-16's should be left for states to decide, if we were to read the second amendment honestly.

The problem would be finding one for sale. Otherwise I don't know of any prohibitions on owning one. Of course various jammers and radars would probably be on a blacklist of some kind.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:25 PM  

Well, ok, technically the scope is the states that have seceded from the federation, vs. the states that have not. But in the latter group, the phrasing is absolute.

Blogger VD March 05, 2018 1:26 PM  

There are limits

No, there are not. The fact that someone said there are limits is irrelevant. And if they said as much, we are justified in taking away their rights to speech, to life, to liberty, and to happiness.

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 1:28 PM  

@69 Yes, it was a rigged case set up to sanitize the odious NFA...A similar rigged case with no opposition was Plessy vs Ferguson, later overturned in Brown vs. Board of Education.
Just shows that partisan Justices will trample on the established rules of jurisprudence whenever their side really wants a result. Which is why SCOTUS should have extremely limited jurisdiction.

OpenID zhukovg March 05, 2018 1:33 PM  

@VD: Let's not forget that they forfeit their property as well :).

In fact, a verbal/written attack on the constitution should, if intentional, be considered a defacto renouncement of citizenship and residence.

--ZhukovG

Blogger pyrrhus March 05, 2018 1:34 PM  

@77 "Congress shall make no law..."
No limits visible in those words! The "militia" which was basically all able bodied men, was intended to be a counterforce to the Government, as well as foreign invaders, so no weapons were off the table.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 1:36 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:@77 "Congress shall make no law..."

No limits visible in those words! The "militia" which was basically all able bodied men, was intended to be a counterforce to the Government, as well as foreign invaders, so no weapons were off the table.


That would be the first amendment, not the second amendment. The first amendment indeed has limits, and those limits are law by congress. The second amendment has no limits. Try to find even one word about WHO it is that can't infringe, in the second.

Blogger James Dixon March 05, 2018 1:43 PM  

> Slightly OT, but has there been any notable progress with the 3D printing of AR receivers?

Printing? Not really, as the material strength simply isn't there. On the other hand, https://ghostgunner.net/ has everything you need to make your own.

A single shot .22 pistol, on the other hand, is more than doable and can be fired a couple of times before the barrel needs to be replaced. See https://3dprint.com/73842/download-3d-printed-gun/

OpenID Mike Jackson March 05, 2018 1:45 PM  

you value a murderous weapon over the lives of Americans

Yes. The 2nd Amendment is more important than any person's life, including my own.

Blogger Salt March 05, 2018 1:50 PM  

you value a murderous weapon over the lives of Americans

Rational people go after the abortionist, not the vacuum cleaner.

Blogger John Henry Eden March 05, 2018 2:01 PM  

I really don't care that a Hispanic killed 17 "children" in a wealthy Jewish enclave in Florida. I'm more concerned about (((their))) efforts to disarm me.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 2:06 PM  

Would it be possible to use metal inserts at stress areas when doing the 3D printing.

Several injection molded polymer lowers include metal parts added during the manufacturing process.
If I remember correctly, the biggest stress
problem the injected polymer lowers had were in the area where the recoil tube was screwed in.

Blogger James Dixon March 05, 2018 2:09 PM  

> If you’re in favor of private ownership of the gun, you can say whatever you want to justify it, but you value a murderous weapon over the lives of Americans, and certainly over the lives of 17 children.

The lives of my friends and neighbors, who would never dream of taking a gun from me? No. The lives of Peter King and other gun grabbers? Most certainly.

Blogger Stilicho March 05, 2018 2:21 PM  

@86 I would expect so, in fact, I would think that the lower could be printed around metal parts at the attachment/stress points (front/rear pins, stock/buffer tube, mag well).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 05, 2018 2:34 PM  

@saintCrispee
There are legal limits, not valid ones.
You have to go back.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 05, 2018 2:51 PM  

I'll bet he owns a firearm.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 05, 2018 3:01 PM  

Anchorman wrote:The same idiots who want to ban the AR-15 shrug off the Ruger Mini-14.

Nah, they'll be coming for that one so thereafter. Gotta get the "scary" one first though. Then hope the slippery slope effect to kick in.

They want them ALL. They've told us that enough times now, it can't be denied.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 05, 2018 3:03 PM  

Markku wrote:Translation to modern English: "States will only be free if their militias have adequate skills*. Therefore, under no circumstances can anyone restrict the ownership of guns."

Now, the MOST relevant weapons to actual militia duty, are assault rifles.


A Finn who understands our Constitution better than most U.S. citizens. An honorary certified American certificate should be coming your way, Markku!

Blogger saintCrispee March 05, 2018 3:05 PM  

"No, there are not. The fact that someone said there are limits is irrelevant. And if they said as much, we are justified in taking away their rights to speech, to life, to liberty, and to happiness.”

You can find justification for taking away any number of rights and the Constitution gives you a viable vehicle for doing so. However, good luck with that. I await the winning argument that asks Americans to agree to remove a person’s right to free speech on the grounds they used their free speech right.

Blogger dienw March 05, 2018 3:11 PM  

Jehu wrote:Was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty ever actually ratified by the Senate? If so, it takes precedence.

Treaties do not take priority over the Constitution.

Blogger Hammerli280 March 05, 2018 4:01 PM  

Tip for those 80% receivers: Pay cash, no paperwork. Better yet, pay cash for the upper as well.

Seriously, right now lowers are dirt-cheap. The only reason for buying an 80% receiver is to have an unpapered rifle.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales March 05, 2018 4:28 PM  

@10

Shit, AR's aren't even military weapons. M16's and M4's are. They don't even use 5.56 like those two do.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 4:54 PM  

@86 It's not necessary to have metal inserts. The future is now - Youtube is full of videos of guys testing 3D printed AR receivers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz8mlB1hZ-o

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 5:00 PM  

Emmanuel Mateo-Morales wrote:Shit, AR's aren't even military weapons. M16's and M4's are. They don't even use 5.56 like those two do.

Most citizen owned AR's chamber 5.56. You have a few hunting guns that are 223 and then the odd ball 300's and other boutique calibers.

Blogger Chris Mallory March 05, 2018 5:02 PM  

@97
I am not really an AR guy. I trained on an M-16A1. But I prefer wood and steel to plastic and aluminum.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 5:18 PM  

@99 Me too. But a plastic, basically disposable gun is better than no gun.

Blogger Crew March 05, 2018 5:36 PM  

I wouldn't trust a 3D-printed part to hold the pressure (and I've printed quite a few things). I think a CNC milling machine is a more likely option.

Funny you should mention that. Defense Distributed has an automated milling machine for finishing 80% lower receivers.

Blogger AaMcavoy March 05, 2018 5:50 PM  

Lance E wrote:
I thought the founders made it very clear that they wanted private militias to own their own frigates.


Not only in the 2nd Amendment, but also in Article 1 Section 8, when they allowed the issue of Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Can't authorize privateers if regular citizens don't have warships.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 05, 2018 5:53 PM  

If you're starting with an 80% lower you don't even need a milling machine. All the remaining work can be done with a hand drill and reusable jigs, or if you want to get really fancy, a drill press.

Blogger Arthur Isaac March 05, 2018 7:06 PM  

Outlaw something I can file out of a billet of aluminum. Man's a genius.

Blogger Arthur Isaac March 05, 2018 7:09 PM  

Noah, get me a set of jigs and I could cut an 80% lower. Or if I want to get really crafty I could probably figure them out myself.

Are the going to ban machinists and gunsmiths too?

Blogger KC9ZNR March 05, 2018 7:40 PM  

@63 I've actually seriously considered donating to the NRA, but considering the American tendency to confure Finland with Russia, I've decided it counterproductive.

As an American who loves guns, I would take a Suomi KP/-31 over a PPSh-41 in a heartbeat.

Blogger tz March 05, 2018 7:43 PM  

@105 Or just get a Ghost Gunner.

Blogger SciVo March 05, 2018 8:54 PM  

Related: I think we should put Sen. Jeff Flake on a secret government list -- say, of people suspected of trying to undermine the Constitution -- and then use that as justification to take away his right to vote. It would make about as much sense as Flake's no-fly list ban on buying guns. (h/t Ace of Spades)

Blogger CoolHand March 05, 2018 9:00 PM  

This is what I do for a living, making semi-finished firearm kits for enthusiasts to finish at home.

It's a win/win, you learn about metal working while making gun control entirely untenable.

My stuff can be finished with a hand drill and a trim router from Home Depot over a weekend.

Just about ready to release an 80% Combat Shotgun kit that crosses the Mossberg 500 action with the ergonomics and (most of) the manual of arms of an AR15.

Still tube fed and pump action, but the next project after this one will be doing a magazine fed pump action version, and then if possible (engineering wise), a semi-auto mag fed version.

Doesn't matter what laws they pass anymore, millions of people simply will not comply. Even the squishes in NY and CT only complied at a rate of something like 5%-7%.

The leftists were gobsmacked, and quickly stopped talking about it, because even they realize that there are hundreds of thousands of people in their own cities who basically just said, "Come Take Them."

Blogger Hammerli280 March 05, 2018 9:08 PM  

I'm waiting for someone to go into the business of selling clean, never-assembled STEN parts kits. Just add a steel tube...because the receiver is a steel tube with some parts welded on and a few holes cut in it. These days, a Dremel and JB Weld job.

OpenID paulmurray March 05, 2018 9:39 PM  

"Start by being nice to everyone person you meet. But if someone tries to exercise power over you, exercise power over him."

Isn't this an almost direct quote from "The Satanic Bible"?

Blogger Sterling Pilgrim March 05, 2018 9:56 PM  

I'll think of Mr. king as I smile demurely at my new DD5V1(.308) and beretta M9A3

Blogger BlowMe March 05, 2018 9:59 PM  

"Start by being nice to everyone person you meet. But if someone tries to exercise power over you, exercise power over him."

Damn right. Sage advice there, Vox and Taleb.

That's how I roll.

All day. Every day.

Blogger CoolHand March 05, 2018 10:56 PM  

Hammerli280 wrote:I'm waiting for someone to go into the business of selling clean, never-assembled STEN parts kits. Just add a steel tube...because the receiver is a steel tube with some parts welded on and a few holes cut in it. These days, a Dremel and JB Weld job.

Sten Parts kits can be had from Sarco right now. They're de-mil's, but most of what you need is there.

The rest of the parts (including the new receiver tube, already marked out and ready to cut) can be bought from Indianapolis Ordnance.

Again, as you said, from there it's a weekend project with a rotary tool, drill (press or hand), and a welder (MIG, TIG, OxyFuel, or Spot, take your pick) to build yourself a functional semi-auto Sten gun.

Hell, Sarco even has 1919A4 parts kits (IE WWII vintage belt fed 30 cal medium machinegun, baby brother to the Ma Deuce M2), you supply your own Right Hand Sideplate (newly made for yourself semi-auto or registered full auto).

These fool lawmakers have no idea the depth of the talent pool when it comes to manufacturing new weapons to replace the ones they might be able to locate and seize.

If things were to go hot, I would expect our pool of available arms to expand, not contract, because many people who are now spending a lot of time and money to make legal closed bolt semi-auto versions of venerable old WWII designs would immediately switch over to making the much more simple and cheaper to make open bolt full-auto original versions.

The feds won't be fighting against just semi-auto AR15's and bolt guns, they'll be fighting against full auto AR's, Stens, Sterlings, Grease Guns, and whatever else we can put our fertile minds to constructing.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 06, 2018 12:10 AM  

CoolHand wrote:This is what I do for a living, making semi-finished firearm kits for enthusiasts to finish at home.

It's a win/win, you learn about metal working while making gun control entirely untenable.

My stuff can be finished with a hand drill and a trim router from Home Depot over a weekend.

Just about ready to release an 80% Combat Shotgun kit that crosses the Mossberg 500 action with the ergonomics and (most of) the manual of arms of an AR15.

Still tube fed and pump action, but the next project after this one will be doing a magazine fed pump action version, and then if possible (engineering wise), a semi-auto mag fed version.


I am interested.

Blogger Jack Amok March 06, 2018 12:19 AM  

It's not necessary to have metal inserts. The future is now - Youtube is full of videos of guys testing 3D printed AR receivers.

Interesting. I still wouldn't trust it, but good for him if he does. I'd rather mill it out of a block of metal on a Tormach - with something like that you don't need 80% (which I'm pretty sure the Obama BAT-effers were ready to ban). Just the file, the machine, and some skill.

But whatever home fabrication solution you want to use, you have to have practice at it. It's not like an ink jet where you just push the "Print" button and come back in a few minutes. You have to understand how the machines and the material works.

practice, practice, practice. Just like shooting.

Blogger Bobiojimbo March 06, 2018 12:25 AM  

@116 Look into GWACS lowers.

Blogger Arthur Isaac March 06, 2018 12:59 AM  

Which all makes me think the real bottleneck is ammo and it's components. If we can imagine the heaps we're sitting on to be a bottleneck.

Blogger CoolHand March 06, 2018 3:14 AM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:
I am interested.


I'll say something here when it's ready to go, hopefully I won't get banned for it.

There's a pretty good chance that you're not the only one here who might be interested.

I've got a couple of days of machine work left to do, and then I'll have the prototype up and running.

As soon as it's shooting and running smoothly, I'll take some video and announce the preorder.

RE ammunition, the bottleneck there is primers. Everything else can be synthesized or fabricated without much issue, but primers are a primary explosive, which is very dangerous and difficult to brew at home.

It can be done, but you've gotta really want it and have a very pressing need to undertake the risk.

The best bet right now, IMO is to stockpile primers and powder. A hundred thousand primers in their packaging only takes up a space ~48" cubed, they're just dangerous to store in those quantities in or near an occupied home (or in a neighborhood).

If stored properly, they'll last decades, it's just the storage part that makes it hard on folks.

It wouldn't phase me to sleep above a garage with that many primers in it, but I'm used to handling high explosives and know the risks.

I also live way out in BFE where my closest neighbor is a quarter mile away, so if I DO manage to blow myself up, it'd just be ME.

It'd be a pretty big dick move to make the decision to take that risk if I had a neighbor living 25' from my property line (IE I can elect to take that risk myself, but I shouldn't volunteer my neighbors for the same).

My advice is to learn how to reload, stockpile as many components as you can, and be smart about it.

It also doesn't hurt to stockpile loaded ammo. 1k rounds of 5.56 only costs ~$300 from just about any brand.

The best deal going right now is 420 rounds of Federal XM193 55grn 5.56 NATO, which is already loaded onto stripper clips and packed into a 30 cal military ammo can for $130. Some places even offer free shipping at that price.

I don't think they'll ever really be able to ban or dry up the availability of the ammo we need though, since the US bought more small arms ammo in 2016 than was produced in ALL of WWII.

We do that every year. Only a fraction of that number actually goes downrange. The rest is setting in dry boxes and ammo cans in millions upon millions of closets, basements, and sheds all across the fruited plain.

I'm not super worried about the grabbers achieving their desired ends, because I know the production and sales numbers for AR15's and other Evil Black Rifles (EBR's) as well as ammo.

The PTB think that it's impossible to round up 10 million illegals, but that they won't have any trouble finding and confiscating the ~30 million EBR's that have been built and sold since the AWB sunset in 2004, and that doesn't include the millions upon millions of 80% guns that have been built in secret.

They have no idea how deep the shit they are in is.

Blogger VD March 06, 2018 3:48 AM  

Isn't this an almost direct quote from "The Satanic Bible"?

No. Stop cucking.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 4:28 AM  

@14

"The same idiots who want to ban the AR-15 shrug off the Ruger Mini-14."

The Ruger Mini-14 while a decent semi-auto, is not a rugged rifle designed for combat.

If someone were to make a combat-grade Mini-14, and improve the magazine well, and put Picatinny rails up front, and raise the sight-line above the barrel, for a much longer Point Blank range (the zone in which sights don't need to be re-adjusted for range) because the sight picture actually zeroes at TWO ranges (a near range and a far range) which gives a 300+ meter point-blank zone, then I will gladly carry a Mini-14 into battle instead of an AR-15 derivative.

However, until that happens, I'll stick with my AR-15

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 4:55 AM  

@96

"Shit, AR's aren't even military weapons. M16's and M4's are. They don't even use 5.56 like those two do."

5.56 *IS* Remington .223

And no, 0.223 inches does not equal 5.56 mm. 5.56 mm is the diameter of the circle formed by the lands in the rifling. 0.223 inches is the diameter of the projectile.

And don't bother with the "5.56mm ammo produces higher pressures than 2.23 ammo." Those pressure measurements are obtained by different measurement techniques, and are produced by the same ammunition and powder load.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 4:57 AM  

Oh, and the AR-15 *IS* a military weapon. It was first designed by Stoner as a weapon to be furnished on all U.S. military aircraft, so that any crew surviving being downed behind enemy lines would have something better than a pistol to defend themselves with.

Blogger James Dixon March 06, 2018 6:24 AM  

> ...hopefully I won't get banned for it.

Banned? For gun talk? Here?

Ahem, no, you have nothing to worry about from Vox. Google, OTOH...

> It'd be a pretty big dick move to make the decision to take that risk if I had a neighbor living 25' from my property line

That depends. If your neighbors are gun grabbing leftists...

Blogger Chris Mallory March 06, 2018 10:14 AM  

Dirk, you really have no clue what you are talking about.

All weapons have two aiming points due to the arc of the bullet. Most are sighted in at a shorter distance for a point on the bullet's rise and a far distance for a point on the bullet's descent. It all depends on the round's trajectory.

The only reason the M-16/AR family has the high mechanical offset from bore for sights is due to the buffer tube/recoil mechanism. Since it has to be in direct line with the bolt you cannot have any drop like you do with a traditional stock. If anything that high offset is a disadvantage for close in work since the bullet will probably hit a couple of inches low at under 10 yards. Also in the heat of battle, it is fairly easy to forget that your bore is two inches below your sight. This has lead to cops shooting up their own patrol cars or hitting the cover they are hiding behind even though they have a clear sight picture with the sights.

Lots of Picatinny rails are really cool, especially when you want to impress the other ninjas down at the mall.

Externally the 5.56 and the .223 are close to the same. The difference is in the internals of the round and in the chambers of the weapons. The 5.56 round can be loaded hotter than the .223 due to differences in brass. The chambers in the .223 are usually tighter than a 5.56 weapon. The leade in a .223 is usually shorter. If you fire a 5.56 in a .223 chamber you will get pressures about 10% above the SAAMI limit. Probably won't be an issue in a quality firearm, but you might have a primer blowout that will jam the weapon if it is semi auto.

Blogger Unknown March 06, 2018 11:32 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Unknown March 06, 2018 11:43 AM  

The degree of moral corruption can be easily tested by the degree it deviates from Christ's command on how to love.

“I give you a new command: Love one another. Just as I have loved you, you must also love one another. (Jn 13:34)

The common corruption of this in the West, which has probably had a huge bearing on its moral decline is 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Using others' behaviour as the standard for one's own is not what Christ commanded. Egalitarianism and leftism are a given down that deviant path.

In this post, the corruption is 'do good unto others unless they do bad, then do bad unto them'.

It's also clearly not what Christ commanded. He was asserting His own sovereignty for the specific reason that it is not based what others do. It radically and conspicuously asserts Christ's sovereignty over how God wants us to treat others.

It's an easy test that rarely fails.

Blogger SirHamster March 06, 2018 12:36 PM  

Unknown wrote:In this post, the corruption is 'do good unto others unless they do bad, then do bad unto them'.

Exercising power over SJWs based on their bad actions does good to everyone. It even protects the SJWs from themselves. It is not "doing bad unto them", it is in fact good.

I want someone else to have my back when the SJW comes for me; when, not if. So I do likewise.

What then should one say about a post that calls good, evil?

Blogger Unknown March 06, 2018 3:45 PM  

SJW-ism is not inherently bad. Fighting for social justice is, after all, one of the corr principles of Christianity. SJW actions can, however, be misguided and go against God's will. Who in our own sinful state can be completely sure whether an action is going against God's will? God uses bad actions too. He used Israel's enemies in extremely violent and bloody ways to show what happens when Israel was disobedient. He also sent Istael into exile and slavery as part of His unfolding plan. Israel couldn't see any good in it. Even the proohets couldn't see the good. They hoped and prayed for a Savior, but they couldn't see the good. Why? Because men are not in the council of holy powers. We are not the sovereign.

The point is that while we may see evil in SJW actions, Christians are not to act against them in the same way. Jesus never commands his people repay evil with evil, even if we believe we are 100% sure it is evil, which sinful beings obviously can never be. The power to be exerted is the power of love. Evil has already been defeated. Love has triumphed at the cross.

So the question becomes how am I to love? Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies, take up their cross and love one another as He has loved them. He never taught them to act as judge between good and evil. That's his job.

All this posturing as judge between good and evil is to put ourselves already at the right hand of the Father. Who amongst us can say we are there?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 06, 2018 3:48 PM  

Fighting for social justice is, after all, one of the corr principles of Christianity.
This is false. Social justice, like all hyphenated justices, is sadism and theft gussied up and called justice

Blogger Snidely Whiplash March 06, 2018 3:50 PM  

All this posturing as judge between good and evil is to put ourselves already at the right hand of the Father. Who amongst us can say we are there?
No, it is to put myself at the side of my gradfathers, and to protect my grandchildren. A god that would forbid that is not God

Blogger SirHamster March 06, 2018 4:30 PM  

Unknown wrote:SJW-ism is not inherently bad.

Liar, all you had to do was judge the tree by its fruit.


The point is that while we may see evil in SJW actions, Christians are not to act against them in the same way.

The SJW claims power to kill, steal and destroy.

The Christian who denies SJWs power is not acting against them in the same way.

You project your own inner evils when you assume that Christians taking power from SJWs will kill, steal, and destroy like SJWs do.


Jesus never commands his people repay evil with evil, even if we believe we are 100% sure it is evil, which sinful beings obviously can never be.

Acting justly is not repaying with evil. You distort, malign and discourage.


All this posturing as judge between good and evil is to put ourselves already at the right hand of the Father. Who amongst us can say we are there?

Liar, you postured as one of us, pretending concern about corruption from what is good. You judged Vox's post as corruption, but now you demand that no one judge when you yourself are examined.

"For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?"

Hypocrite! Take the beam out of your own eye and repent of calling good, evil.

If you do not, you demonstrate you are merely a ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing, hoping to steal and destroy the Christian's freedom to do good.

Blogger Unknown March 07, 2018 7:38 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Unknown March 07, 2018 7:52 AM  

That's a lot of accusations for one moral contortionist. You lost me at "liar". Hard to take anything you write seriously after that. I can see why you chose your avatar. Or maybe it chose you?

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts