“Universal” means “All.” Re-published 3 March 2018


The Democrats and their corporate media friends are obviously determined to exploit the media driven frenzy that has emerged since the Orlando massacre.    After many efforts to de-rail Trump's campaign they feel sure that THIS TIME they've got him.   He, of course, assists them every time he opens his mouth off script.   

The ghosts of Sandy Hook hover over the present scene and are cited by the Democrats as arguments.   Well, pilgrims, the crazy kid at Sandy Hook did not buy any guns or ammunition.  His mother bought all that and then gave him unrestricted access to the ordnance with which he killed her in her sleep and then proceeded in his madness to the school.  His mother had legally bought the instruments of her own destruction from a licensed gun dealer who ran the required on-line background checks on her.  She passed the checks easily.  She had no criminal record.  She had no mental illness record.  She had local residence.  Therefore, she passed.  Conclusion – The system worked and then this silly woman gave lethal weapons to her insane son.

The phrase "universal background checks" is heard everywhere in the media and in Congress.  Let us be honest and not hide behind semantic trickery.  UNIVERSAL background checks would require any transfer of a firearm to be approved by the federal government.  This inevitably and perhaps incrementally would be extended to all private transfers.  That is what UNIVERSAL means.  The professional gun control people and their politician allies tell you that the "reasonable"  restrictions on gun ownership and purchases that they are pushing for are very modest things that will have only a minor effect on "ordinary" Americans.  They lie.  Their ultimate goal is the reduction of Americans to the status of wards of the state, protected like farm animals by their keepers.  This "protected" status would supposedly safeguard all the fearful from their enemies.  Gun control laws in Europe are very tight but their protective effect was noticeably absent at the Bataclan.

Read Federalist # 46.  Take the time to read it.   

A disarmed America would be just another stockyard feed pen.  pl


This entry was posted in Gun Control. Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to “Universal” means “All.” Re-published 3 March 2018

  1. no one says:

    I’m thinking the gun control push ties in with the immigrant push (legal/refugee/illegal) into a bad economy- resulting in welfare dependence as a dilution of the base that still remembers what America is supposed to be. Gun control in indeed another prong of the same plan of attack on the American people to turn us into dependent sheep.
    The elitists appear to be throwing everything they got into the fray at this time.

  2. Freudenschade says:

    When was the last date where civilians had the capability to “repell” the armed forces? 1865? Earlier? Certainly by the time of the First World War, lightly armed U.S. civilians had no chance. What prevents a military takeover of the U.S. is certainly not the second amendment.

  3. turcopolier says:

    You utterly miss the point because you want to miss the point. Your ridiculous image of an army of citizens fighting the US armed forces is completely beside the point. What matters is the understanding of police and other potential local tyrants that they may face an armed man if they act in too imperious a manner. Where I live the city police act like an occupying army immune to citizen outrage and almost universally resident outside the community that they police. How much more ambitious for power would they be if we were all disarmed as you wish us to be? pl

  4. turcopolier says:

    I thought the “tag” was supposed to be “Schadenfreude.” Ah, I looked it up. “Envious,” eh? Of what? I notice you do not dispute my assertion that the ultimate goal of “gun control” is the disarming of the American people. pl

  5. Not perhaps a correct answer but largely factual:: The U.S. military today cannot fight without its tech reps, contractors, and a privatized logistics and mobilization system. And yes fighting with a come as you are military is still unproven as a “war” winner. IMO of course.

  6. turcopolier says:

    Your military ignorance is appalling. 1. an 18th Century battlefield was a lethal place. What you faced on the field were multi-barreled weapons systems called regiments and brigades (look it up) firing by volley so that what came at you were hundreds of musket balls all at once. The framers knew all about that, having experienced the effect themselves. They nevertheless believed in the effect of an armed citizenry on potential centralized tyranny. 2- You seem to have missed the lessons of the last century in which it has repeatedly been demonstrated that lightly armed but determined men can tie a heavily armed enemy in knots by forcing that enemy to defend everywhere, every road, every village, etc. There is a highly developed literature on the subject but you have probably never bothered to inform yourself. You know what you want. pl

  7. LondonBob says:

    Tracking Trump’s favourables on Reuters etc. he is right back to where he was before HRC won California and the media attacks intensified, in other words they failed, so far. Sure there have been some very odd polls published recently where they haven’t weighted down the D respondents leading to some large Clinton leads, but the reality is the electorate doesn’t have ten per cent more Democrats than Republicans. The PPP polls that show Trump down a couple of points in Iowa and Virginia are more accurate.
    My idle musings are that after securing the nomination they wanted to see whether Trump will play ball and they have received a firm no, hence the increasing attacks from both sides. Indeed I saw an interview with Ben Carson on Trump’s VP pick where Carson suggested it now wouldn’t be an establishment politician, rather it would be an outsider who shares his policy positions. Speaking of which there was an interview with Trump in the Sunday Times here in London today where he reiterated his desire for friendly relations with Russia, that he is happy to talk to Kim and the North Koreans, and that he would oppose more Ground Troops in the Middle East.

  8. Fred says:

    The First World War, by which you mean the first time we American’s had to save Europe from themselves.

  9. no one says:

    Sir, Hopefully not deviating too far off topic or into silliness, but a lightly armed US populace fighting a guerrilla campaign of the type you refer to could inflict disproportionate damage in by interfering with the production and delivery of food to the major cities, which happen to also be the seats of power of the government. Food is produced in the country. Cities have maybe 3 days to a week worth of reserves, after which the urban population begins to starve, riot, etc.
    Also, a goodly amount of the troops in combat arms come from the rural areas. If the issues were serious enough to fight over, then many of thee troops would be with the insurgents, not firing on them. You understand this latter point, I’m sure.

  10. Daniel Nicolas says:

    Madison argues:

    “To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

    I argue that such a militia of the people will readily be organized, and the individuals already possess the means and motivation to never be conquered, by an national government or a foreign invading force it matters not.
    Perhaps they will occupy our cities or burn them to the ground, for a moment, but that does not constitute a conquering.
    Forbes reported on a conservatively estimated 1 million in non-compliance with the
    “NY SAFE” act. That is NY alone, with CT adding another 300k or more. The US military armed forces total including reserve forces is ~2 million. The state and local police are perhaps 1.5 million more. 3.5 Million against how many? Estimates based on surveys conclude that that 40-50% of the households in the population has at least 1 gun and the average number of guns a gun owner has is 8. The numbers tell the whole story. Can 3.5 million defeat 120-150 million? No doubt there would be a great number of casualties on the side of the people. Russia lost tens of millions yet they are here and Nazi Germany is not.
    And yet this is absurd to even think that we should ever reach such a moment in our future.
    First, Look to NY or CT, where non-compliance for their gun bans with registration requirements is the default, and the people have the support of the local governments in resisting such tyranny.

    “52 of New York’s 62 counties passed official resolutions in direct opposition of the NY SAFE Act and some counties directed their law enforcement officials to not enforce the SAFE Act within their jurisdictions.”

    Second, they are at an impasse. They want everyone to submit, yet they do not wish to risk their own lives to do it. As we currently posses the means to defend our individual persons and refuse to comply with their laws, this impasse continues. They are furious at our righteous defiance yet have no teeth because they are not willing to risk life as we are to protect our liberty.
    There is an image being floated with the Gadsden flag that has “Don’t tread on me” replaced with “Shoot Back”. That is what prevents the evil that sits in the seat of our national and state governments from slaughtering us. They know we will shoot back.

  11. steve says:

    There are some on the left who want to get rid of all guns, but I don’t think the ultimate goal of most gun control advocates is to get rid of all guns. Lots of us on the left have guns too. We have over 300 million guns in the country and they aren’t going away. Guns are a part of our culture. I think it is just a matter of being wrong, and there is no conspiracy. In every major Universal background check that I can remember, there has been an exemption for sales (gifts) to family, friends and neighbors. Back when gun laws were tighter, and before the NRA turned into a political organization no one tried to take away all the guns. It won’t happen now. There is no support for it. OTOH, fear of all the guns being taken away keeps pushing up the cost of ammunition and guns. Since I don’t shoot so much anymore i guess I shouldn’t care.

  12. turcopolier says:

    IMO you are just kidding yourself. pl

  13. b says:

    1. The current U.S. interpretation of the 2nd amendment only goes back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in which Scalia and other nuts held 5:4 that there is an (absolute) individual right to possess a firearm unconnected to the service in a militia.
    Such a wide interpretation did not exist prior to that decision. I for one regard that very wide interpretation as wrong.
    2. IMHO AR-15s and other (semi-)automatic weapons, except maybe pistols with up to six shots, should fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Like machineguns these arms would have to be registered, dealing with them would be restricted and the owner would have to have a license for them.
    3. I find it crazy to believe someday Tyranny would come to the U.S. and people would need such weapons to defend themselves against it. Tyranny does not come or stay anywhere because the citizens’ lack of weapons.

  14. turcopolier says:

    Daniel Nocolas
    Further complicating the federal government’s problem would be the loyalty or the lack of it of both RA and ARNG forces when required to oppress working class Americans. pl

  15. John Minnerath says:

    The ultimate goal of the big players in the gun control movement is repeal of the 2nd Amendment and ban of any firearms among the civilian population. Nothing less.
    When they say that isn’t what they want, they lie.

  16. turcopolier says:

    “I for one regard that very wide interpretation as wrong.” On this subject we don’t care what you and all the other farm animals think in Europe, Canada, Ruritania, or wherever. You have an opinion on whether or not SCOTUS decided something wrongly? How laughable! Deal with your own problems. You Germans should be very afraid of what is happening to your country. pl

  17. Tyler says:

    1) because the leftist judiciary had tied themselves into knots arguing how abortion was a civil right but apparently the 2nd AMD refers to muskets. So SCOTUS settled it. The concept that free men have a right to arms has a bit more historic cachet than the inane decisions regarding Obamacare, homo marriage, or the right of a woman to murder her child.
    2) cry baby histronics. Let’s play your game to the hilt and assume the 1 Amd only regards Christianity and printing presses.
    3) The Left literally writes pieces declaring that violence against Trump supporters is okay cause Trump is Hitler. So either they believe this or they don’t. Furthermore one only has to look at the actions of the government to realize tyranny is here. Refuse to bake a gay couple a cake and see what happens to you.

  18. Tyler says:

    When b is dragged out from under his bed by a mob of Mohammedeans his last words will be “at least I wasn’t racist” as he and his progeny are savaged to death.

  19. If I was running the gun control crowd, I would drop the universal background check fixation and concentrate on a solution similar to the NFA of 1934 to include semiautomatic weapons. I would up the $200 tax stamp to $5,000. Admittedly that would include a lot of weapons that are dear to a lot of people. But I can think of a lot of weapons regulated by the NFA that are also dear to a lot of people. Weapons not regulated would be exempt from all registration and background check requirements. There will still be plenty of gun deaths, but mass shooters would have to rely on bolt action or lever action rifles or revolvers. Yes, I would also let double action pistols be exempt from regulation.
    If I was running the full bore 2d Amendment crowd, I’d be pushing for the lifting of restrictions on automatic weapons and destructive devices. Why can’t law abiding citizens become hobbyist bomb makers and pursue their hobby on demo ranges regulated only for safety reasons? Laws prohibiting hobby bomb making in apartment buildings or similar places would make sense even to a hobbyist bomb maker. An IED capable citizenry would definitely be a check on an over reaching government.

  20. turcopolier says:

    Your “gun control crowd” recommendation would impose a $5,000 tax on Americans for the privilege of owning an auto-loading shotgun, or that KELTEC .22 of mine that you enjoyed shooting. How about my WW2 .30 carbine? pl

  21. Freudenschade says:

    Respectfully, I read Federalist #46 as addressing the question of the relationship between the federal and state governments. The only Federalist paper that I’m aware of that addresses the question of police powers is #17. For what it’s worth, I share your concern about the behavior of municipal police.

  22. John Minnerath says:

    Did your boat spring a leak?

  23. turcopolier says:

    “To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties.” Are you pulling my leg? You missed the part about “near half a million citizens with arms in their hands…” Are you a lawyer or just a gun control activist? Remember Madison wrote this seeking to calm the apprehension of Americans about accepting the present constitution. pl

  24. Freudenschade says:

    1. I accept your judgement of my military ignorance. Having studied the service and surgeons records of the Union army, I’m only familiar with the lethality of battlefields of one 19th century conflict. 2. I made the mistake of reading James Madison’s words as a battle plan, i.e. an overwhelming force of armed citizens opposing a much smaller force of federal troops. Clearly that’s not how things would shake out, and it’s more the principle of armed resistance against tyranny that Madison is proposing.

  25. Freudenschade says:

    I think we are in agreement here. “These” refers to a federal army of some 20,000 to 30,000 troops.

  26. Freudenschade says:

    As for being a lawyer, I am not. Nor am I a gun control advocate. I see the imposition of gun control or repeal of the second amendment as being pointless. The increased risk due to the proliferation of firearms is just something we have to live with. At the same time, I don’t see the second amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

  27. Stu Wood says:

    The disarming of the American people?? Was that the goal of the 1934 National Firearms Act when they restricted the possession of automatic weapons such as the Thompson machine gun and sawed off shotguns? Somehow this act did not impede any hunter or target shooter that I know of or of my collecting WWII rifles, shotguns, black powder rifles, and revolvers. The National Firearms Act must be working as I do not recall any mass murders by these weapons. Anyone that needs an assault weapon should be in the military as they are not hunting weapons, although I guess they could be used for target shooting. One thing for sure, they are the weapon of choice for those deranged or immoral persons that want to inflict the most casualties to Americans.

  28. turcopolier says:

    stu wood
    Oh! BS! The AR-15 is a semi-automatic medium bore rifle. It is an excellent weapon for target shooting and hunting medium sized game like white tailed deer.. Have you ever held one or fired one? Have you been in the military? If so, what was your MOS? You want to ban all semi-automatic weapons? that is just simple minded hysteria. The National Firearms Act. I owned a full auto Thompson a while back. the federal license issued by ATF cost me $200. pl

  29. steve says:

    Could be, but then I don’t live on the East or West coast. I have plenty of friends who are active gun nuts and friends on the left who want gun control. I have never heard anyone of my gun control friends advocate for taking all the guns. Might suggest that 100 round magazines seem excessive, or maybe bump fire stocks should be considered as making a weapon full auto, along with background checks. If i want to find someone advocating to take away all of the guns I have to look for the loonies living in San Francisco or NYC. Aren’t enough of them to do it.

  30. turcopolier says:

    “active gun nuts” Thanks for the ad hominem attack. If you live in flyover America the opinion of your left wing friends essentially counts for nothing in the national debate. Do you really think the real hard core anti-gun people are going to say what they really want? pl

  31. turcopolier says:

    I looked at #17 in which Alexander Hamilton (you know, the mixed race guy from the West Indies – a joke)argues that because the states are closer to the people they will always be stronger than the federal government. Yes, that worked out well, didn’t it? There were no federal police then. Since there were no federal police at the time of ratification I was thinking of the federal army that Madison thought would inevitably come into being. It did but remained small except for big wars that were financed with bond issues, and fiat money during the civil war. Gigantism in the US military only became possible with the massive growth of federal income taxes and a willingness to carry immense debt. pl

  32. John Minnerath,
    I fully deserve that. I put enough crazy in there to get everybody’s hackles up. But, at least, it would stir the conversation.

  33. turcopolier says:

    You should try shooting an AR-15 with a hundred round magazine. It is a bit like a monkey trying to f—k a football. as I said earlier I am an old man and I can do a magazine change in an AR-15 in 5 seconds. You push the button, gravity drops the magazine out and you slap in another 10 or 15 rounder from your cargo vest. Magazines mean nothing. People who argue that know nothing about this weapon. Bump stocks create auto weapons and should be regulated under the NFA of 1934. pl

  34. walrus says:

    don’t fall for the ‘reasonable” bait. reject gun control outright. what is ‘reasonable’ to a gun control zealot is virtually total prohibition. I live in Australia and have to put up with all this BS, licensing,registration, etc.etc. to own A few firearms. believe me registration, prohibition, etc. is a waste of time since it won’t affect the crime rate in the slightest, the bad guys will still have guns, but you won’t.

  35. Croesus says:

    “shooting white tailed deer”
    White tailed deer make it impossible to garden, play or even walk in my yard just a few miles outside a major metro area.
    They eat everything in sight, flowers, trees and vegetables.
    They are not >ahem< trained to the litter box or paper. They breed like rabbits. People walking in the brush or woods where they've been can contract a terrible disease from ticks they carry. But the guv'mint says we can't shoot 'em. Dead Deer by the dozen litter highways and rural roads. That's good meat. We once served road-kill deer in a soup kitchen. Screwed up society that allows a source of food to rot on the highway and that forbids the hunting of the same animal that makes growing one's own vegetables nearly impossible, and that vectors a dangerous disease. A culture that shoots paper. A culture that fertilizes grass then pays someone to mow it down and send it off to the garbage dump. A culture that has been successfully brainwashed not to protect themselves from deer is somehow going to resist a hyper-armed tyrannical government?

  36. turcopolier says:

    Please tell me that you live in Yankeeland! Please! Ah, I remember. People like you killed Bambi’s mommy! pl

  37. John Minnerath says:

    It got our attention.
    Did you read The Boat Who Wouldn’t Float yet?

  38. pl,
    I’m neutral on the auto-loading shotgun. An exemption for .177 and .22LR weapons could reasonably be exempted. I’d also be worried about my WWII M-1 carbine and M1911A1. My Savage .32 model 1907 automatic (although it’s not an automatic) would also be in jeopardy. I can’t see anyone giving up their Garand for this either. Maybe an exemption or grandfathering for these old relics. I think there was a grandfathering in the 1934 NFA.

  39. Kilo 4/11 says:

    As long as we have not suffered a Holodomor or a Katyn Forest or a forced march to the countryside to be clubbed to death like the Cambodians, we have yet to pay too high a price for our free access to guns. When we are being slaughtered in our tens and hundreds of thousands, we will long for the days when casualties were as low as they are now.

  40. turcopolier says:

    I was raised up (colloquial) with the M1 Garand. I can put a lot of rounds down range with that beast. pl

  41. Fred says:

    $5,000 whoooeeee. That’s sure some smack. What’s the bullet tax gonna be? I’m sure glad we didn’t have one of those back when I had to shoot Ole Yeller (okay that only took one round but I loved ole yeller, can’t say I love any of our politicians). Now if you really want to be full bore 2d Amendment you should support mandatory fire arms training for all teachers and staff in every school, college and university receiving federal funding; heck day care centers too. Then the next crisis we can declare them all militia and make stopping the crime du jour their responsibility.

  42. walrus says:

    we have plenty of deer; red,fallow,a hybrid and Sambur deer almost as big as a horse. I don’t shoot them (yet) because my electric fence keeps them out of the garden.
    As for militias fighting a geurilla war, be aware of the unpleasant tactics a conventional army will employ against such warfare – what the Germans did in WW 1 and 2.

  43. charly says:

    Overwhelming the police is easy without guns. Just be with much more people than blues and they will retreat. But that changes as the soon as you include guns into the conflict area so no, guns don’t work into regulating the police. In fact it is the opposite. They can behave like an occupying force because the populous have guns guns.

  44. Kooshy says:

    “Their ultimate goal is the reduction of Americans to the status of wards of the state, protected like farm animals by their keepers. This “protected” status would supposedly safeguard all the fearful from their enemies.”
    Colonel, yes, absolutely that’s what the Borg wants, but IMO this notion of subsiding the second amendment and disarming the Americans is not unique to democrats alone, it is border, I think it involves the entire Borgistas or our owners (as per George Carlin).
    IMO their desire to subvert and in practice eliminate the second amendment is, because they are fearful of us, we the people, they are fearful of the exact reason the second amendment was adopted. They in fact want to protect themselves and not us.

  45. Jack says:

    As we’ve seen with the terrorist attacks in France as well as the murder of MP Jo Cox in England, criminals will always get weapons.
    Lets be clear the leftists and SJW “warriors” want gun prohibition and nothing less. This is part and parcel of both the left and right who want big & bigger government who inevitably intrude in all aspects of our lives. Under no circumstance can they keep us safe. Force protection rules so even if they are at the scene of an attack as we saw in Orlando it takes some time before they take out the shooters.
    Until our fellow citizens recognize that there is no free lunch and untrameled government spending is no panacea we will slowly but surely lose all liberty as government becomes more powerful and all encompassing.

  46. charly says:

    a) Washington isn’t a major city
    b) Most cities can be supplied by water
    c) City slickers will blame 1) the government or 2) country folk
    If you can organize a full blockade in such a short time that the state can’t increase the city food reserves than than you are the state.
    ps. 3 days to a week is the in stores supply of a city. Not the warehouse/pantry

  47. Freudenschade says:

    In fairness, police in the 17th century in the colonies and the U.K. — constables, watchmen and sherrifs — were not the formidable force they are today. The fourth amendment, for example, has in mind more the writs of assistance used by British troops rather than law enforcement. Thus law enforcement receives short shrift in the constitution.
    It wasn’t until almost the middle of the 19th century that full-time “preventive” police departments came about in the United States, followed in 1929 by the Scientific Crime Detection Laboratory, founded in response to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, and voilà! The professionalization of American policing was complete.

  48. John Minnerath,
    I haven’t read the Mowat book yet. I’m heading back north again to paint a house in a few days. I might take it with me so I have something to do at night besides playing with the kids’ mama.

  49. Stu Wood says:

    Good comment. I remember reading a history of WW II. A USA Col. in the book said that when he was going thru Germany if he received any rifle shots from a village he would just stop and use cannon or mortar fire to subdue it. So much for the individual rifleman stopping a better armed force.

  50. SAC Brat says:

    “I’d also be worried about my WWII M-1 carbine and M1911A1.”
    Does the Civilian Marksmanship Program qualify as a militia?

  51. Stu Wood says:

    Been in the military (aircraft maintenance) and had to qualify for 5 years with a M-16 and/or the .38 S&W for deployment purposes. Some states will not let you hunt deer with a .223 as it’s too small of a caliber and if you can’t kill with the first one or two shots you should not be hunting. I don’t want to ban ALL semi-autos (I own a Remington 1100) but any “spray and pray” military piece belongs to the military. Here in Nebraska all the deer hunters I know use a .243 or up caliber to hunt. Across the river in Iowa they only use shotguns and probably kill as many deer. Less for drivers to hit.

  52. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Yesterday, in the Iranian city of Khoi, a young nursing student was shot in front of nursing school by her father, using an ancient rifle.
    It was a case of honor killing – the father suspecting, mind you, suspecting that she had dishonored the family based on gossip and innuendo spoken behind her back.
    He then proceeded to threatened those passers by who were attempting to help the injured woman by taking her to hospital.
    She bled to death.
    Under Iranian Law (Muslim Law) he cannot be executed.
    I imagine if Iranian enjoyed a Second Amendment, the scum would be dead and the young woman likely alive.

  53. Fred,
    Whoooeeee. I’m sure that the same reaction most had when the NFA established $200 for the tax stamp in 1934. That was the equivalent of over $3,000 today. I like the idea of more CMP funded marksmanship programs in schools. That should be encouraged and protected. It’s too bad the CMP ran out of M-1 Garands and carbines.

  54. pl,
    My first military qualification was with a Garand on a 300 yard range complete with pits. Lick em and stick em.

  55. SAC Brat says:

    Dumb question, but if the gay muslim shooter in Orlando had been found in Syria, wouldn’t groups in the US Government have buried his ass in air dropped pallets of assault rifles?

  56. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Are not all such considerations going to become obsolete sooner rather than later through the wide availability of 3D Printers and metal powders?
    In effect, the criminally insane and the criminally minded could print the mechanism of their weapons – while the regulated citizenry are left unable to compete with them.

  57. Tyler says:

    Yeah who is the Colonel going to believe? You or his lying eyes?
    The best thing about anecdotal evidence is that you’re always right.

  58. Tyler says:

    Without the 2AMD, we would see the police kicking in doors in the US for “racist tweets” and other hate crimes while they avoid the places where the criminals would skin them alive.
    Of COURSE the Left wants the kulaks disarmed. Otherwise they’re the ones who end up getting shoved up against a wall while someone like me begins the execution with “For charges of treason…”

  59. steve says:

    Nah, I am just not PC. They would be preferred to be called gun collectors because they have walk in gun safes and buy guns they never use. I prefer gun nuts. (To be fair, I prefer to be called leaning slightly to the left, but they call me liberal a**hole.) I guess I just don’t understand people with that kind of obsession. The car nut up on the hill restores Corvairs! What an ugly car.
    Anyway, as to your question, there are people who say it openly, and i am sure there are more who just won’t say it out loud, but you had huge Democratic majorities in Congress in the past with Dem presidents and they didnt go after the guns. Most of the legal decisions of the last 20 years have favored gun rights. There really hasn’t been much pushback on the left. It only comes up after mass shootings, then dies down. When Obama was elected the NRA folks (I join every other year) said they were going to come after our guns. Didnt happen.

  60. steve says:

    I agree. The whole AR-15 thing is nonsense. None of my friends own a 100 round magazine, but it looks awkward, so I will pass. The only thing I really disagree with you is that there is a real chance that there will be a push to take all guns away. For pragmatic and cultural reasons it isn’t going to happen. Just look at ammunition. The usual answer to “how much ammunition can I own” is “how much can you afford”? (This is usually where some re-loader tells me his municipality has limits on powder and storage rules.) If the gun control people were even remotely serious about taking all the guns away don’t you think they would make even a token effort at limiting the amount of ammunition you can own? Even New Jersey, where I don’t even take my pocketknife since their knife laws are so screwy, doesn’t, last time I looked, regulate how much ammunition you can own.

  61. turcopolier says:

    “don’t you think they would make even a token effort at limiting the amount of ammunition you can own.” It is being discussed but they have to marshal their forces and shooting up a gay night club I so much more useful as a tool, that and the magazine silliness. I suppose the double drum magazine would be useful if you were sitting in on place. I never tried one. The M2 Colt AR-15 variant I had possessed a heavy barrel, a scope and a bipod. At a hundred yards you could put a ten round group in the black circle on a standard target. This is nothing like a submachine gun. pl

  62. turcopolier says:

    “you had huge Democratic majorities in Congress in the past with Dem presidents and they didn’t go after the guns.” The Democratic Party has shifted far to the left since then. You should not believe that because something has not yet happened it will not. That is how one ends up being wrong about things like Pearl Harbor. pl

  63. turcopolier says:

    Stu Wood
    The AR-15 is a perfectly adequate rifle for hunting deer and it is nothing like a “spray and pray” guns. I have shot expert with it several times. BTW. I don’t hunt, haven’t for something like 45 years. pl

  64. turcopolier says:

    Stu Wood
    Utterly irrelevant. You don’t know what guerrilla warfare is, do you? “Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military” wiki on Guerrilla Warfare pl

  65. John Minnerath says:

    That was the first rifle we qualified on also.

  66. Fred says:

    I figured if I was going over the top I should unload both barrels (metaphorically anyways). I agree on the marksmanship programs but that would take more courage than our Congress has shown since 1940 or so.

  67. Kooshy says:


  68. The AR-15 style rifles with night vision sights and 30 round magazines are used to hunt wild pigs. digging up crops. The aim is to catch a pack of them and blast as many as you can before they scatter. It’s an excellent and legitimate use of that type of weapon.

  69. Fred says:

    You mean fathers would no longer believe in honor killings because some folks might shoot them?

  70. Swampy says:

    I was wondering the other day if some anti-gun state/city had tried passing a law that made selling & buying guns illegal. Owning a gun would still be legal. A Dry County for firearms.
    I realize that isn’t the bugbear that gun prohibitionists seek, but wonder if someone in power ever suggested it as a compromise.
    I grew up in a dry county.

  71. b says:

    “Farm animal” ???
    Well, that settles it.

  72. b says:

    Would have guns in the hand of everyone prevented a “Holodomor or a Katyn Forest or a forced march to the countryside to be clubbed to death like the Cambodians “?
    Very unlikely if not impossible.
    How would the prisoners or war who were killed in Katyn have been helped by armed civilians?

  73. Bill H says:

    Yes, fine weapon. I have killed a few sharks from the periscope shears during swim call with one.

  74. Ulenspiegel says:

    “The First World War, by which you mean the first time we American’s had to save Europe from themselves. ”
    That is funny but at least debatable, IMHO wrong. What would have been the alternative and what would have been the outcome in the medium run? Do you really thing the NSDAP would have been possible?

  75. Abu Sinan says:

    The problem is not firearms, never has been. The almost universal gun ownership in places like Switzerland, combined with their very low rate of firearm violence, shows this. The real disccusion needs to be about why our society is so violent. Compared to the rest of the first world, we are just incredibily violent. It is impractical to contemplate banning weapons even if it were a good idea. It will never happen. Firearms are a part of American culture and they dont equal violence, so lets move past banning firearms, it is a nonstarter. Lets talk about why our society is so violent and what we can do to begin to address and change this. We cant, and wont, outlaw firearms, so lets move on to something we can do something about.
    Like with most anything else, it is easy to hate something you know nothing about. I have known more than a couple “ban them all types” who changed their tune when they actually had the opportunity to be able to be around them and use them. I grew up around firearms, first plinking and hunting, then competitive olympic style shooting. It is part and parcel of the identity of millions of Americans, aside from cogent and sound political rational behind the 2nd amendment.

  76. jld says:

    This was because he cared for Iran future…

  77. JiuJitsuMMA says:

    The 2nd Amendment will never be repealed because it requires 75% majority vote by all 50 states (ie, 38 out of 50 states must approve it -you will NEVER get 38 out of 50 states to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment)
    a Constitutional Amendment has NEVER been repealed ever except for the ban on alcohol that was repealed under FDR –and people on the left like Bernie Sanders support gun rights & I support gun rights also
    Honestly, the gun control hysteria on both sides is just firing up the different sides for more donations as well as more votes

  78. turcopolier says:

    Mooo! or alternatively Baaa! pl

  79. turcopolier says:

    abu Sinan
    ” …reaching a broad peak between the 1970s and early 1990s. Since then, crime has declined significantly in the United States,[1] and current crime rates are approximately the same as those of the 1960s.” Wiki on crime in te US. pl

  80. Fred says:

    The NSDAP may have come about regardless but the US wouldn’t have had the Wilsonian interventionist ideology that has existed ever since; based largely on the “we saved Europe” idea I tossed out there above.

  81. ThePanzer says:

    “The U.S. military today cannot fight without its tech reps, contractors, and a privatized logistics and mobilization system.”
    I think another description for those are mercenaries. Can we think of other empires that increasingly relied on mercs over “state” forces and how that eventually played out? Heh.
    Our leaders lack both self awareness and any sense of history that predates WWII.

  82. ThePanzer says:

    I think the most telling bit per Trump was the recent poll that had him at 70% unfavorable, but still within 6 points of Hillary in the general. It was 43% Hillary to 37% Trump. So at the end of the day his massively high unfavorable rating seems to equate to nothing when given a choice between him and the Killbot. A 6% difference this early in the election is essentially a non-issue. Most Americans really don’t even tune into the election until after labor day.
    So a LOT will happen between now and November.
    Another big issue will be which sides voters show up and in how many numbers. The D’s so far have been way down for turnout in the primary, R’s on the other hand have been normal to high turnout if I remember right. If that holds true in the general then Hillary may have a bad day. Who knows at this point though, too much can happen over the summer and fall.

  83. Babak Makkinejad says:

    You are missing the point which is that an armed or better armed person can intimidate others with no recourse until the security forces show up (if ever).
    The man was using a bolt action rifle, an armed citizen could have put him out of his misery, and per chance, saved the girl.
    A semi- automatic weapon in the hands of the citizens was what was missing.
    and automatic weapon would have been even better.

  84. Babak Makkinejad says:

    That is Muslim culture as understood in many places.
    That was not my point however, see below.

  85. Babak Makkinejad says:


  86. LeaNder says:

    b, I won’t look at any other responses here, or for that matter check your allusion to the 2008 Supreme Court decision and/or the longer legal history.
    Full discovery, from my own limited angle, I am aware that “the industry” is heavily suspected to try to expand laws beyond limiting areas, the home.
    My own ill-informed take is, that they may well find support from the fourth branch of government “the fourth branch”, the jurisdiction. Who may well like to get rid of some cases? The other side of the issue are the costs of such cases for the defendant.
    But from a top of my head, meaning babbling perspective, Sandy Hook and the Erfurt school massacre? More rare over here, no doubt. But impossible because of laws?

  87. LeaNder says:

    From my own leftist position you are surprising me often: “cry baby histronics”.
    Histronic is a technical term in my fields, I once considered, if it may not be part of the puzzle, on a no doubt highly limited basis, that could explain the “psychological make up” of one person* we clashed heavily on:
    * “saint” as personal hint.

  88. mahershalalhashbaz says:

    Driving along I 40 through the glorious state of Tennessee (I’m a NH Yankee) this past December, I couldn’t help but notice the TDOT signs displaying traffic deaths for 2014 & 2015…over 800 fatalities for the past year and high 700’s already for ’15, with only 3 weeks to go till the end of the year! Pretty sure firearm related deaths just pale to insignificance in comparison to those numbers, but I don’t hear gun control fetishist complaining about cars & trucks…off topic, but I found the sight of that ugly McDonald’s on the edge of the Parker’s Cross Roads battlefield highly disturbing… Is nothing sacred?

  89. LeaNder says:

    Ulenspiegel, strictly I wondered why the latest neocon-foreign-policy recommendation started with 1945, admittedly. It could have started earlier, but it didn’t. There is a strong basis for taking 1945, though, for their empire visions after the end of the Cold War.
    That is funny but at least debatable, IMHO wrong
    Not wrong, if you look at it from the perspective of an outsider in the larger struggle being drawn in on the defendants side. Unfortunately – one could argue – the US was “too democratic” to deal with the aftermath, maybe? … But no doubt somewhat essential to end the stalemate?
    But, what do I know?

  90. TTG, Thank you for your reasonable response.

  91. Tyler, Your last sentence just made me a believer in the Heller V. DC decision.

  92. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    I believe it’s no longer meaningful to think of issues in terms of “right” and “left” when considering them within the context of the two legacy parties. The nomenklaturas of both parties have been captured by the Borg and to its poobahs issues like issues like personal firearms ownership, LGBT rights, abortion, etc. are useful to them as “look over there” distractions to divert the attention of us proles from considering whether US foreign policy just might be driving the terrorism threat, whether the above-the-law status of Wall Street might have something to do with the crapification of our economy, etc. To the Borg both the NRA and the gun control lobby are useful idiots. I agree that the Borg’s ultimate agenda is to render the American people unable to oppose its control, but I also believe that they don’t have a detailed plan of how to achieve it. They act according to the Shock Doctrine and take advantage of opportunities as events, such as the recent massacre in Orlando, present themselves. No doubt the Borg’s minions in Congress will soon quietly introduce to ratchet up the powers, surveillance and otherwise, of the NSA, FBI, DHS, etc. If our policies continue to create enough terrorists life in the US of A might become so tight they won’t need to confiscate firearms.

  93. LeaNder says:

    I cannot follow this argument.
    Overwhelming the police is easy without guns
    I rarely join/ed “public presence” to articulate dissent on issues.
    But really, I consider the above as a joke. Sorry, in case you expect a certain amount of politeness.
    A girl, I vaguely knew, ended up in a hospital with a heavy head injury. Apparently she was very, very afraid to tell the doctors how it had happened. Her fear was, police could turn up in her place. Her camera was also broken and thrown into a nearby rivulet. She had been drawn into protest by of mine, strictly she was a-political, somewhat. The instrument the officer used was a baton.
    Not too much later, I met a higher police officer while hitchhiking home. It was an interesting conversation. Without in any way exculpating the respective officer involved, he explained to me, how it can happen. Obviously the camera is a threat in such a scenario for the other side. By now they are trying to deal with this by body cameras for the police officers on the ground.

  94. turcopolier says:

    The Cold War did not end in a “stalemate.” The USSR fell apart economically, defeated in the arms race by Reagan. The USSR no longer exists. pl

  95. turcopolier says:

    You have to be a combatant to qualify as a “mercenary.” pl

  96. Tyler says:

    Paris and Brussels proved that disarming the populace only means sheep to the slaughter.
    Hell, Chicago proves that on a weekly basis ffs. 13 people killed in a city with ridiculously strict gun laws.

  97. Tyler says:

    “How would not being led off like sheep to the slaughter have prevented their massacre?”
    Good grief. You are just being purposefully obtuse now.

  98. turcopolier says:

    Richard Armstrong
    TTG’s suggestion of a $5000 tax on all IS NOT a reasonable response unless you wish to disarm all Americans. pl

  99. Babak,
    3D printers of the quality you are talking about are considerably more cost prohibitive than my draconian tax stamp proposal. I wonder what will happen when directed energy weapons become available. Our youth are being raised on first person shooter games. How can they resist the siren song of – PEW PEW PEW?

  100. Fred says:

    “Full discovery, from my own limited angle, I am aware that “the industry” is heavily suspected to try to expand laws beyond limiting areas, the home.”
    Which industry is this, the professional politicians or professional judges industry? “limiting areas”? Like all other rights that are retained by “we the people” – that would be Americans, not everyone on Earth- they are limited to the national boundaries, not “the home”. Perhaps you believe like Bernard-Henri Lévy that the principle that “A man’s home is his castle” did not result from a few centuries of English common law nor is a principle right limiting the powers of the (US) federal government but a creation of National Socialists.
    (see his comments here http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/books/review/east-west-street-by-philippe-sands.html)
    Sandy Hook? You left out the 4,000 homicide victims in Obama’s home city – Chicago – since he took office. Only a paltry 3,500 or so were by firearms. A few million law abiding citizens didn’t commit them and all the gun free zones didn’t stop the perpetrators.

  101. AEL says:

    Us Canadian sheep (goats?), being keen observers of the inhabitants of the farm to the south of us, are typically pleased as punch trading our “liberty” for “peace, order and good government”.

  102. Fred says:

    Absolutely correct. Which is why there are no-go zones in plenty of European (including Britain) countries. There are a number of places in America, to paraphrase Rick from Casablanca, that I don’t recommend you visit.

  103. Richard and pl,
    As I told Fred, the modern day equivalent of the 1934 $200 tax stamp would be a little over $3,000 today. It hardly matters. The right to semiautomatic weapons is firmly ensconced in the American psyche. I am still amazed by the fact that the 1934 legislation was successful in putting a lid on our desire for automatic weapons. Even the most virulent 2d Amendment advocates are sheepish about government limitations on our right to be armed with machine guns, grenades and IEDs.

  104. Fred says:

    Yes, masses of people chanting “hand up, don’t shoot” works wonders at BLM rallies when the cameras are filming. It doesn’t work when an Islamic jihadist is shooting up the local gay dance club at 2 am.

  105. turcopolier says:

    fred et al
    You may have noticed that the vehicle (Bearcat) used to break through the wall of the club was an armored vehicle of the type (among others) that press hysteria tried to generate enthusiasm for banning after Ferguson. pl

  106. turcopolier says:

    We ARE discussing it. I intend to win the argument. pl

  107. Babak Makkinejad says:

    But the preamble of US Constitution does not concern itself with such things as “peace, order and good government” of the Canadian one; among its concerns are “Pursuit of Happiness” which could include owning firearms.

  108. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Laser weapons suffer from the same issue as Tesla cars do as well as robotic mules etc.: durable, high-density energy sources.
    I do not think the 3D Printer route is expensive or remain so for much longer. Please see:
    In effect, one does not need to print the entire weapon, only the triggering mechanism – it seems to me and buy the other parts off-the-shelf.
    Criminals will have a field day with this while the populace at large would be out-gunned and cowering in fear.

  109. Babak Makkinejad says:

    They also suffered from major labor productivity problems.

  110. Babak Makkinejad says:

    You did not mention the damn deer causing auto-accidents that result in death, injury and property damage.

  111. Fred says:

    The narrative is falling apart around this one. Did you see the latest from the AG on why we can’t label this Islamic jihad? “redacted transcripst” indeed. Prada on the Potomic is getting even worse.

  112. Fred says:

    And you have plenty of militarized police to keep y’all safe while you vacation in Florida.

  113. Fred says:

    The preamble is not the legal part of the document establishing the Federal Republic.

  114. Tyler says:

    Si. “A slave is one who waits for another to free him” and all that.

  115. Babak,
    Those 3D printed receivers are still plastic and are little more than zip guns. Nerds will have more of these than criminals. A good machinist can mill a metal receiver or it can be done with a horizontal/vertical axis CNC milling machine. Those are exorbitantly expensive. But you’re right about man-portable laser, directed energy or rail guns. They’re a long way off and will also be prohibitively expensive.

  116. pl,
    A draconian tax stamp for semiautomatic weapons would not disarm all Americans. There would be plenty of pump action shotguns, lever and bolt action rifles and revolvers. All would be free of background checks and registration. Chicagoans will still be able to kill each other with abandon. But I do realize this idea is a non-starter.

  117. robt willmann says:

    Right now (Monday afternoon, 20 June), the U.S. Senate is taking up and debating some gun control amendments, the main one coming from senator Diane Feinstein (Dem. Calif.) (of course)–
    The Washington Post newspaper thinks that the amendments will fail, and I hope so. Senate majority “leader” Mitch McConnell (Repub. Kentucky) has allowed them to go to the floor for a vote.

  118. turcopolier says:

    IMO, if you feed the bear, it will eat you. pl

  119. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think it informs the minds of the electorate – including judges, legislature etc.
    I think it fundamentally colors US Supreme Court’s decisions.
    Dope Heads would always argue as much and that is one of the rescans that hedonism cannot be discredited easily in the United States.

  120. Walker says:

    Colonel Lang,
    Do you really believe that your possession of a firearm protects you personally from government tyranny? That’s very hard to believe. Every day law enforcement personnel from all levels of government find it perfectly feasible to take into custody suspects who own firearms. If you don’t mind, please explain how you would be different.

  121. Kilo 4/11 says:

    I was about to substitute Volhynia, during the 1943-44 ethnic cleansing operations of the UPA and the counteractions of the Polish Home Army, also known as the Second Polish-Ukrainian War, for the Katyn when I had to go. That was a conflict, consisting of mostly surprise raids on villages, in which it’s hard to argue that armed civilians could not have at least temporarily held off attackers, allowing some to escape, as also in the Cambodian example.
    Earlier, a rifle or shotgun over every peasant hearth and in every proletarian home could have stopped the Bolsheviks in their tracks in the beginning, before the Cheka got fully operational. Makhno almost defeated the Red army in eastern Ukraine with homemade battle wagons, the predecessors of today’s “technicals”.
    Here is what Solzhenitsyn, who knew something about revolution, armies and war, said on this:
    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
    He didn’t mention guns, but that’s probably only because there was little in the way of a tradition of gun ownership in Russia. Can we doubt that they would have been useful against the Bolsheviks?
    The crucial observation Solzhenitsyn makes though, and it bears repeating, is “we didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” This is the real power of the American’s love of his gun – it is highly visible and undeniable proof of how seriously we take our freedoms. This is the real barrier to government overstepping its bounds, and it is the answer to those who scoff at the power of a “lightly armed” civilian resistance to today’s military. No, we are not armed as heavily as the military and police, but politicians know there still exists the possibility of large scale bloodshed if they were to order coordinated attacks on civilians. This ups the stakes too high for usually squeamish politicians, and it will continue to keep them high as long as we don’t cave in.

  122. turcopolier says:

    I do not. The police can come and take me whenever they wish. I will not resist. What I do believe along with Madison is that that an armed citizenry is a brake on unlimited expansion of federal government power. pl

  123. SAC Brat says:

    Try New York City. Very difficult to own, buy or sell firearms there legally.
    On the other side of the coin, Kennesaw GA requires firearm ownership.
    Also, the Federal Militia Act required citizens to own military firearms. It was like requiring everyone to have health insurance, but louder.

  124. Lefty says:

    With HRC as prez and Schumer as Senate Majority Leader you can expect an assault on weapons. All under the heading of “common sense” you know. Apparently she’s forgotten what happened to the Dems in ’94 after Bill tried it with the ugly guns ban.

  125. LeaNder says:

    A man’s home is his castle” did not result from a few centuries of English common law nor is a principle right limiting the powers of the (US) federal government but a creation of National Socialists.
    It is indeed more then ridiculous that BHL attributes it to Goebbels here. We have similar laws over here going back further then the English coinage, that may well draw on earlier law too.
    The book may even be interesting. But for me BHL somehow is not.
    It may be a semi-disguised attempt at self-marketing for his own new book. Blame this suspicion on Pepe Escobar, whose review of Who Killed Daniel Pearl, left a big imprint on my gray cells.
    You are sure, you want me to answer your question, or are they more rhetorical?
    I have no problem with the Castle Doctrine. And strictly, being German, US gun laws are none of my business.
    Besides, in case I didn’t respond, and I guess I didn’t, thanks for the Millenial link on the recent Open Thread. Great work, a one man chorus. It’s fascinating how exquisitely some musicians handle available tools. Besides interesting larger topic.
    I wondered if this was a specific effort to pick the most naively optimist possible representatives:

  126. LeaNder says:

    Tyler, I respect your position.
    But I am sometimes wondering too, if I shouldn’t be a bit more frightened considering some of your statements. Brevik? Never mind the big ocean between us.
    Yes, apparently lots of gangs in Chicago, to what extend do they shoot each other?

  127. A.I.Schmelzer says:

    My own impression is that violence is a pretty “accepted” way to solve issues in the USA. The only European places that comes close would probably be Russia and the Ukraine.
    As far as inner city violence goes, I think the people there dont need gun control (thus, often ineffectively, trying to regulate the capability to commit violence), they need a code duello (a regulation of violence).
    What I found really odd in the USA is the big dissonance between how accepted the use of violence is in the common psyche, and how restrictive the law is towards actual uses of violence. It is perhaps part of the dissonance of how “free” the USA thinks and its, and how extensively it is actually policed and regulated in an international context. There is stuff that is enforced in the USA which would cause immidiate massive riots if the powers that be try this in Germany, and well, the French public does not fuck around either. The reactions of Russians, when you explain the concept of US civil asset forfeiture to them, are always priceless as well.
    I think psychologically, the state sceptic segment of the US population grudgingly accepted ever more intrusive exploitation of it by being like “as long as we have guns they cant do anything serious”. Ever more repression and exploitation (much of it economical) was accepted as long as the guns were still there to ward of the worst. The burning hot reaction to attempts of regulating guns has to be seen in this context, it is, from the pov. of gun advocates, not just about guns, it is about everything that happened in the past decades.

  128. turcopolier says:

    My only complaint about your argument is that in spite of assertions made in various social science dissertations that became books nobody reads, we have always had a lot of guns in the US. Until 1934 one could own a fully auto Thompson submachine gun or a BAR in the US without breaking the law and without regulation. You could order a Thompson from an ad in a magazine and I remember seeing ads for firearms in “Field and Stream’ magazine while waiting for a haircut in barber shops. You Germans probably remember those two weapons (Thompson and BAR). We remember some of yours. I owned my first rifle at 12 years old. It was given to me by a grandfather. A friend who is a Christian Brother (now retired) habitually traveled across Manhattan on the U-Bahn with a target rifle slung over his shoulder on his way to high school shooting club events. Every boy in my high school class in Maine owned a big game rifle for deer and a shotgun for rabbits and game birds. This was 60 years ago. I don’t remember a great deal of tension then between the level of personal violence in the US and the level of federal (or state) government “oppression.” pl

  129. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think it was a different country; fewer immigrants, no drug or homosexual cultures whining for acceptance and recognition, women and men knew their metaphysical places – none of this gender-bending or gender-fluidity – and lastly, it was a poorer country.

  130. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Not just US.
    It seems that many countries in the New World are quite violent compared to, say, Italy.
    Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Jamaica, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela and lately Argentina.
    I think one reason could be the admixture of alien people that are basically forced to share the same land but not the same values (senses of Justice).

  131. turcopolier says:

    “it was a poorer country” I suppose you have statistics but I do not remember it that way in the 50s and 60s. There was a great deal of well paid blue collar industrial employment and farm subsidies worked very well. pl

  132. SAC Brat says:

    Yellow card. Failure to close italics in a post. 😉

  133. Fred says:

    Abu Sinan,
    Switzerland is almost universally white and Christian and even the non-citizen residents are predominantly European. That of course has no impact on their conduct.

  134. Fred says:

    Acceptable among which social groups? “…how restrictive the law is towards actual uses of violence” Yes, the more people we put in prison for violent conduct the less violent our society became. Of course we have for the last 7 years heard how we have way too many men in prison.

  135. Tyler says:

    Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

  136. Tyler says:

    You begin to understand.

  137. Tyler says:

    Babak measures value in filthy lucre and not the fact we were a homogeneous country who managed to put a man on the moon.
    Now we have “wealth” created by social media and a stock market casino, and our country is more and more a mongrel conglomeration where new victim classes are created in order to pull off resources from people who actually work.

  138. Gordon Wilson says:

    Excellent point point Colonel, I wish that all of our citizens would not only read the Federalist, but the anti-Federalist papers as well. IMHO they should be required reading. While the Federalist 46 speaks directly to the issue, I think the Federalists 9 and 10 speak to the over arching problem we currently find ourselves in.
    Since it would be folly as you have noted, to address the cause, as Mr. Madison has noted, by taking away the liberty of all to address the current cause, we have only the option of addressing the effects of that liberty, which because of factionalism and the passions of our fellows now threatens the security and safety of our citizens.
    I do not think we should delude ourselves that it is in the interests of some special interests, especially the national media outlets to inflame the passions of our citizens into factional disputes, as nothing sells papers and advertising like a good controversy such as the one before us now. It is also in the interests of some manufacturing interests to inflame the passions in this matter. But we absolutely must not overlook the interests of useless men in high political offices to use this issue for their own selfish interests.
    To that end, I only ask that gun advocates address the effects – that which may be addressed – in a way that the dilemma can be resolved. It is not an easy nut to crack, admittedly, yet if one does not like the options presented by the ban the weapons faction, it is IMO encumbent on the pro gun faction to to address the effects in an effective manner that would be politically palatable to both factions.
    Best regards

  139. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Please do not presume to know my mind better than myself. Is this a Diocletian thingy?

  140. Fred says:

    Not to worry, they will never take your legacy guilt away.

  141. ked says:

    Col, your response reminded me that poor braking is a disaster when trying to get around the track among others under trying conditions. {I have some experience with brakes on powerful-fast sports/GT cars, on track & off} There are a variety of ways to end up in a ditch, broken by a tree or sliced into pieces via armco barrier – with brakes as effectively as throttle.
    For me, that’s what the 2nd Amendment’s need for well regulated is about… a good-performing sub-system operating in balance with the others. These days as in other aspects of our American culture it doesn’t feel that way to me.

  142. sillybill says:

    I would disagree with the ‘exhorbitantly expensive’ part. For a new set of machines yeah, but there is lot’s of old stuff available. I fix CNC machines for a living. Some of my customers are ATF registered firearms manufacturers. You’d be surprised at the quality of machinery that can be made with a 25 – 30 year old obsolete CNC machine bought for a few grand off of Ebay.

  143. Tyler says:

    Buried in the methodology of the polls is that the pollsters are oversampling Democrats by +10. Looking at some of the margins of error (+5 in some cases) its pretty obvious these polls are nonsense, and simply trying to craft a narrative.

  144. Tyler says:

    Don’t play the Persian sophist with me.

  145. Tyler says:

    Western pride worldwide. They can pry my privilege from my cold, dead hands.

  146. SAC Brat says:

    Dammit, being an html nasi is hard.

  147. LeaNder says:

    If you like. Why not?
    But, as you are surely fully aware, I have this distinct mental defect of some boomers, especially over here. I find pure submission to authority difficult. …

  148. LeaNder says:

    Brattie, if I may. No ill intention connected with the use.
    I realized it, wondered if I should ask the owner once again to simply delete it. On the other hand, I would the link to Pepe Escobar’s review of Bernard-Henri Lévy to remain. I’ll take the yellow card, very, very serious indeed. Will you be the referee?

  149. turcopolier says:

    SAC Brat
    “html nasi” What are you and LeaNder talking about? pl

  150. SAC Brat says:

    I was razzing LeaNder for a html formatting error that made everything below LeaNder’s entry display in italics. Use of HTML tags without a closing tag. I screwed up and didn’t get the exact closing tag myself the first time, so the quip about spelling nazis.

  151. Thomas says:

    “I find pure submission to authority difficult. …”
    This is a common cultural trait over here and the reason for this amendment.
    As Kilo4/11’s posts show below, Big Brother’s Sadistic Sycophants will not be as audacious when they could be on receiving end of their malicious intent. Golden Rule in practical action one could say.

  152. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Any time you like, we go one on one…

  153. Tyler says:

    LMBO no, you are not against submitting to authority, as the constant march of greater and greater centralized state power across Western Europe shows. That is just some nonsense you tell yourself in order to feel good.
    You are more than happy to submit to authority that allows you to not think, to engage in virtue signalling, and fulfill the pathological altruism that infests many Europeans (especially Germans) because you full heartedly believe that you are responsible for events over 100 years ago.
    Please do not try and pretend you want anything else than the slave’s collar around your neck, just as long it is the correct slaver.

  154. Tyler says:

    I can youtube “dog chasing his own tail” if I wanted that experience.

  155. Tyler says:

    I remember on one trip to New Zealand, I was talking to an old veteran who had fled Rhodesia for South Africa, and then ended up in New Zealand when he saw the same chain of events coming down the pipe for his new country. I remember him telling me “Never let em take your guns, cause then they can do anything they want to you.”
    Into the cannibal’s pot indeed.

  156. Tidewater says:

    Tidewater said to b,
    I am responding to your comment: “The current U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment only goes back to a 2008 Supreme Court decision in which Scalia and other nuts held 5:4 that there is an (absolute) individual right to possess a firearm unconnected to the service in a militia.”
    Please bear in mind that the Constitution of Virginia of June 29, 1776 (containing a Bill of Rights of June 12, 1776), states: “That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights…”
    “Inherent.” This word is extremely important to understanding the political theory of the Founding Fathers. That’s Section 1. It stems from John Locke, the “Two Treatises.” (Which could have cost John Locke his life if he were known to have been the one who wrote them.) Thomas Jefferson regarded Bacon, Locke and Newton as the three greatest men who ever lived. Lockean political philosphy argued that under natural law all men have a right to life, liberty, and estate; and under the social contract, all men have the right to revolution.
    By Section 3 these Lockean “inherent rights” come on with a vengeance in the Virginia constitution.
    “Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an undubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such a manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”
    You can abolish the State? You have that inborn right? An indefeasible right?
    A right, then, which can never be made null or void?
    Is this not in the same league with Karl Marx, or Robespierre? Is this surely not extraordinary? Isn’t this dangerous? You can wake up one morning and cancel your government? You think Scalia was a nutter? What about the American Founding Fathers? So their idea of government is like a Cherokee divorce, you hold up three sticks, and presumably stare hard , and then you break them, one by one?
    Well, no, not exactly. If you look at the opening of the Virginia constitution you see a long list of grievances against the British. “By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us…” (Good point!) “By endeavoring to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguishable destruction of all ages…” (Also a good point!) Two, three, many more…
    And if you get enough good points, (could this be like on a credit card?) and without counting I think I see at least two dozen, what happens next? Well, by George, you’ve got it. You can now simply say “…The government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED.”
    What’s wrong with this picture?
    If you have an inherent right to revolution, and it is as something as natural and inborn as self-defense, would you expect that the natural authority or that law of nature granting, allowing, even mandating, that you revolt–would you expect that somehow restrictions or complications would be put on one’s immediate need to have the appropriate tools on hand in with which to carry out the violent dissolving actions?
    Are not the rights to the necessary weapons just as natural and just as inherent?
    How did this “inherent” part of Lockean political theory play out in the Old Dominion? You would think that it would have been brought into play in the run up to “the War”, but I don’t know about that. I do know that the wording stayed in effect, they kept putting it back in, from 1776 until 1971.
    A new Constitution came into being in Virginia on July 1, 1971. Before then the Constitution of 1902 had served. The new Constitution had about 20,000 words. This was about half of the 1902 Constitution. It had one very important change. It allowed the Commonwealth to incur a “general obligation debt” of up to $600 million for capital projects. Governor Mills Godwin, who was a segregationist, and who didn’t much represent his majority black Nansemond constituents, nevertheless put in place reforms which would cause the economy of the state of Virginia to take off. Which parts of the old Constitution were changed? Section 3 was quietly removed. All that bit about the inherent right to revolution simply vanished. Why?
    VIETNAM, if you remember. Those were troubled times.
    So they shut down the inherent right of a Virginian to keep and bear arms then? No, they did nothing of the sort in the 1971 Constitution. If you compare it to the Second Amendment you can see that they made it a little clearer, a little stronger. “Article I. Bill of Rights. Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
    “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
    Note that this is a state law. Up until recently, if someone in a state such as Maryland came up against a state law they wanted overturned because they were somhow restricted, and they wanted to use Federal Second Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment rights to do so, the Supreme court response would have been that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. Simple as that. But in Virginia, where constitutional law on the gun matter, if you will, is far more liberal, there would not have been this problem. The states vary in the amount of freedom their political theory allows in keeping and bearing.
    You seem to imply, b, that Scalia’s and others decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago, and District of Columbia v. Heller, are radical changes, anomalies, which contravene a large and growing will of the American people to do away with or more stringently limit the Second Amendment, and control the ownership of firearms. You say “The current US interpretation…” Possibly you are referring to the Federal Courts, but the fact ought to be kept in mind that in the “US” at the state level in the south the question of keeping and bearing firearms (for millions of people) is stable and settled, certainly in the southeast, and has been so for a long time, which would include the regions encompassed by the authority of the US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It needs to be pointed out that the 4th Circuit is the appellate court for United State District Courts in Virginia, North Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, South Carolina, some nine different districts, east and west in the larger states.
    For example, in the historical context, according to Stephen P. Halbrook, whose “Founders’ Second Amendment” sounds to me like worth reading, “The state courts were well aware of the meaning of the right to “bear arms” long before he Supreme Court decided Heller and McDonald. Just to cite a decision rendered in a state in the Fourth Circuit, the North Carolina Supreme Court in 1921 invalidated a ban on carrying handguns outside the home because it is “the ordinary private citizen, whose right to carry arms cannot be infringed upon,” and further:
    “To him the rifle, the musket, the shotgun, and the pistol are about the only arms which he could be expected to “bear”, and his right to do this is that which is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
    What the Supreme court gave McDonald in 2010 was the right to keep a pistol in his house. He was in a drug-ridden neighborhood and had been robbed five times. The Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment ‘mess with the unreconstructed Johnny Rebs to encourage them to do some due process’ rule to overturn the state or local Chicago ban on keeping a pistol in your home. That’s how I understand it. Also Heller. You can now keep a pistol in your home in DC. It really needs to be emphasized here to a European that all along you have been able to do that in Virginia and in many other places in the US. It’s the common sense of the Virginia constitution.
    Keeping a pistol in your house is one thing. What about taking it outside with you? What about if you carry it around with you in your car? This is where, under both state law, and Federal law, you have to be careful. You are now in the area of concealed weapons, pistols in glove compartments, all that. If I carry a pistol with me in my car to South Carolina, I have to be careful to keep it, whether loaded, or unloaded, in a case, usually a briefcase, and in the trunk. When you are in a federal enclave like a national park you could be in big trouble if you do that and it is discovered. (Or has that now changed?)
    The Fourth Circuit was very uneasy in March of 2011 about the question of carrying or “bearing” a firearm outside the house. In any Federal area. In United States v Masciandaro –a gun in a car case on federal property– the Court wound down its arguments with a disarming “Sometimes saying a little less, rather than a little more, is a nice way to discharge our primary responsibility to the parties before us of deciding their case. At other times, of course, the need for clarity and guidance in future cases is paramount, but in this instance we believe the most respectful course is to await that guidance from the nation’s highest court.
    There simply is no need in this litigation to break ground that our superiors have not tread.”
    The Fourth Circuit sounded very concerned in 2011 about questions that could not be anticipated from cases such as Heller and McDonald. They seem to have had a real fear at that time in the question of “bearing” arms the court(s) now “move the right from the home to the public square.” But none of this is coming out of a blue sky. The Fourth Circuit was asking for help. And you could already carry a gun in a public square in Virginia and other states if you met certain qualifications, restrictions and licensing.
    My general view on the right to keep and bear arms is that it is quietly regarded as a natural right in a great deal of the United States, certainly in the south-east and south, and it is sophistry to argue that the Founding Fathers thought anything different. There is far more information on what the Founding Fathers thought on this in military history, as the very impressive Stephen P. Halbrook tells us, than is generally realized. And as I said, the thinking on this at the state level is so settled, it is dormant.

  157. Les says:

    Most of the mass shootings killers are obsessed with replicating previous incidents, often making direct references to those events. Specific shootings may not be preventable, but fewer would likely occur, perhaps much less. It’s often evident in the domestic terrorism that the perpetrators copy by collecting the same types of weapons or bomb materials while targeting the same types of venues.

  158. Fred says:

    The specific shooting in Florida two weeks ago was entirely preventable if the FBI had contact local law eforcement either time they had been contacted; that assumes the Sheriff of Broward County Fl. would have allowed his agency to take action under Florida law, which he did not do any of the other 3 dozen times the killer’s conduct was brought to his agency’s attention.
    “perpetrators copy by collecting the same types of weapons or bomb materials while targeting the same types of venues”
    Who has declared this killer a domestic terrorist, other than you and that only by implication? According to your logic we better ban automobiles to prevent another Nice style attack.

  159. Shags says:

    I have a friend who is SWAT in California, he told me that “through the grapevine” he’s heard DOJ is going to push for a framework for confiscation. He said it didn’t sound imminent but that was their plan.

  160. LondonBob says:

    DACA deadline is March 5th, Trump is distracting attention with the gun thing, means nothing.

  161. While recognizing that this is a three-year-old debate, allow me to point out two things.
    !) The US population includes 80 million civilians – many of whom have former military experience – who own 400 million firearms, which is 70 times the number of firearms in the possession of the entire US military and the national police force. If ten percent of those armed civilians joined an insurgence, that would be 8 million combatants – larger than any military force on earth combined with any national police. A mere five percent – the figure usually used for establishing a viable insurgency – would be four million – still larger than any military except China.
    2) For those who think bombing civilians from the air and using artillery can “suppress” any rebellion by armed civilians, why not ask the Taliban how that is working out for the US military in Afghanistan – a war we are now in our seventeenth year fighting.
    Insurgencies have been started with a handful of shotguns used for bird hunting. Ambush a solider, now you have a military quality weapon which you will resupply in like manner.
    Tanks, planes and other hardware don’t run so well when their fuel is blown up or interdicted. In Vietnam I was with a petroleum detachment. Every single night we had to shut down pump operations because either the Vietcong blew up the pipes – and going out to fix them at night was a no-no due to ambushes – or the local Vietnamese broke the pipes to get cooking fuel. It was recommended that we install draw valves on the pipes for the latter, but that wasn’t done so we’d lose ten thousand gallons when the pipe was broken until we could shut down and send out a repair party during the day.
    The United States has a vast farmland with lots of nitrate fertilizer – and the US also has millions of cars just made for car bombs.
    The US is the last place on Earth you’d want to try to suppress an insurgency that was any larger than, say, 10,000 people. Give me an insurgency of even 10,000 *competent* insurgents and you could bring the US government to its knees pretty quickly. Finding 10,000 ex-military pissed off at the US government would be a cakewalk.
    Reportedly gangs have been having some of their people join the military to get training. You can find 100,000 gang members in Los Angeles alone, several million nation wide.

  162. Oilman2 says:

    There is quite a lot of seething and bubbling, but my opinion is that IF there is a ban or reclassification of semi-auto – it will simply mean that more people get that permit. There are far too many semi-auto or AR’s or AKs already out there than could be rounded up.
    As for full-auto – it does not take some kind of genius to convert a semi to full. It just takes the desire to do so and the willingness to disobey the law. If the laws get tightened up AFTER the AR/AK cows have left the barn, who is going to go door-to-door and take them? Two of mine were lost in a gator fishing accident and reported.
    I have yet to meet anyone actively pursuing any gun restrictions who does not wish us to become like Britain or Oz – they want them all gone. Well, here in the USA, it would take the local police working full time at enforcement and neglecting all other pursuits to even make a dent in this – how long would that last when the criminals have free run while local LEO’s are out trying to grab guns?. ATF? Crap, there less of them than game wardens.
    The math doesn’t work for confiscation. The people will do as in NY and simply not obey a stupid and constitutionally illegal law. In the middle of this country, especially in rural areas, you would never even find these guns were they outlawed. Just as you don’t find the full-auto conversions that are all over the place.
    If the liberal whackadoos get their wet dream of outlawing firearms, then we will just have to go to air – which is already a pretty cool thing to have. And those ARE full auto.
    Look – prohibition didn’t work; outlawing marijuana didn’t work; the 55 MPH speed limit didn’t work; Obamacare didn’t work; social security is not working – and people really think that just because a law is passed 1500 miles away that people are going to meekly submit to it?
    Every time something people want is made illegal, we find an alternative or simply ignore and exercise civil disobedience. But trying to stuff the firearms genie back in the bottle after over 200 years of it enshrined as #2 in the constitution? I’m thinking that ain’t gonna work out even if there are multiple laws passed.

  163. confusedponderer says:

    Ah, I got my first military qualification in service when I did my conscription military service – with the Uzi submashine gun, P1 (P38) pistol (on which there was the joke that it had 9 shots – eight bullets and one more of throwing the weapon), MG-3 and G-3.
    I was pretty good with MG-3, ok with G3 and not that good with P1 and the Uzi. I made my Schützenschnur in Bronze anyway. I had every exercise in gold (P1, MG-3, Uzi) except for the G3 exercises.
    That written, I like the G3. It is robust and effective, and, if the aim is well adjusted, rather accurate. I rarely had the joy of using the well adjusted staff sergeant’s rifle and with that one I hit very well (aim center, hit center).
    Once a sergeant was asked by a soldier where to aim for on a target and he drily answered ‘centre of target’.
    A good advice and for a reason: With the normal things that were carried around, dropped and dented you had to correct the misaligned sights all the time – aim lower left or high right to hit in the middle and all that. You had to try them out to see where to aim before seriously doing exercises.
    I remember that, during the McCain & Palin run, there were these youtube videos around of Mrs. Palin firing a Colt 1911 and an M16 thing. When firing, both weapons went up to the sky every time. Apparently recoil overwhelmed her strength.
    Personally, I found the ‘sky raise’ of the guns in these vids scary. It was for me suggesting that everyone or any thing ‘down the range’ was in peril. Also I assume it might have been very hard to follow a target or aim at a target with a lot of hope meeded to hit anything aimed at.

  164. Sid Finster says:

    Iraq or Afghanistan come to mind. Plenty of other insurrections or guerilla movements or whatever you call them have also been successful.

  165. RC says:

    Sundance of CTH has posted a number of articles about an agreement between Broward County Schools and the County Police Force. (I reference his reprint of Jack Cashill’s article in the American Thinker on 2.26.18)
    The agreement is called “The Promise Program” and the two agencies agreed not to report crimes and not to enforce the law on youths in the school system. An immediate result of this program was that Nikolas Cruz, for all his issues with the law, teachers and students, and multiple tips about his murderous state of mind, had at 19 a clean police record. No surprise, Cruz could pass any and every background check with flying colors.
    And what about the police officer at the school, why didn’t he step in an confront the shooter? Well, wouldn’t you know, his real job was to “clean internal video tape of bullying / thefts / abuse and replace the unacceptable footage with innocuous video of some other day and time. This explains the deliberate 1/2 delay in the video recording system — which permitted even a bumbling police officer to replace a crime with an “all is well” empty corridor / quiet dining hall etc.
    It goes without saying, “The Promise Program” did wonders for Broward County’s official crime reports and the County was rewarded with financial grants by the Federal Government — thanks to former Attorney General Eric Holder.
    Given the extraordinary level of duplicity involved in “The Promise Program,” it comes as no surprise that local agencies immediately deflected to a “Gun Control” meme, rather than acknowledge that the shooting occurred by an iron law of inevitable consequence. Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, School Superintendent Robert Runcie have blood on their hands.

  166. JW says:

    I like to address a certain question to weapons control advocates.
    Would you use a weapon to kill or deter an attacker threatening you with certain death, eg., a mass shooter with you in a confined space, or would you prefer to die safe in the knowledge that unknown others elsewhere would be generally safer due to the the restrictions that have disarmed you ?
    The response if any is a blank look or a stumbling impractical answer.

  167. jld says:

    +1 indeed…

  168. JW says:

    Yes, that gives the old inner self / identity a bit of a work out 🙂

Comments are closed.