- Send email to Oleg Volk.
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- advice requested
- camera and lens
- civil rights
- interesting people
- sound suppressor
She comes endorsed by several figures I consider credible, like Dinesh D’Souza. Her endorsement of Walter Williams as an authority is also telling. Unlike the other candidates, she has a track record of opposing tax increases. She’s also against gun control.
Until 1994, any teen in America could buy a 30-round magazine, in person or by mail. From 1957 to 1968, they could buy an AR15 to go with it, mail order if they so wished. After 1968, they would have to be at least 18 and buy it in person…still, plenty of teens and young adults had them with few problems. Sure, mass shootings could happen…with 3-shot hunting rifles wielded by much older people, who in turn were suppressed by lawful college students with personal rifles.
Once “gun free zones” guaranteed disarmed prey to psychopaths, and mass media guaranteed fame, the incentives for attacking vulnerable segments of the population were in place. The results have been as predictable as they are unnecessary. Compare the experience of home schools, where the mentors and a high percentage of the students are armed…yet no mass shootings occur. Factors other than access to hundred year old technology are at work here.
My request is for every one of my readers, even if you are not in Nashville: please popularize this image where others from Tennessee might see it.
Nashville political class is trying to steal a minimum of $9 BILLION for a public transportation project that won’t work, will cause greater congestion, but will line the pockets of the friends of the city rulers. This project was initiated by the former mayor — now resigned after she got convicted of felony theft on the job! Her nasty legacy — a wide variety of higher taxes for everyone forever — is still being considered. It will be up for a vote May 1.
Special interests pushing for these new taxes are running TV commercials and print ads promoting it. The rest of us, people who just want to get by and don’t want to labor under even worse tax burden, got blindsided this year. I wasn’t kidding when saying that everyone will get to pay for this: the taxes are all-encompassing and will hurt almost every person in the metro area…especially those who support local retailers.
Printable version of this image in PDF: https://we.tl/KrW4YMdc4P
The main reasons why this rail system won’t work for Nashville:
- Not enough population density relative to places where trains work unsubsidized. European cities where light rail works have nearly ten times the population density, and they deliberately handicap their car users with high gas and ownership taxes.
- Rail space will come partly at the expense of existing roads and will be part of general traffic. As the experience of Minneapolis shows, the rail lines cause greater congestion at intersections.
- Public transportation in the US invariably gets burdened with restrictive rules, such as no defensive carry, which is partly why it also becomes a crime magnet (see MARTA in Atlanta as a typical example)
- Limited nodes meant that it won’t actually solve congestion between suburbs and downtown – it only serves a small subset of downtown.
- Ridership will be very limited for a combination of reasons – we know that by the experience of every other metro area. Even if it lives up to the advertising, it would still cover less than 10% of ongoing operating expenses. Every time somebody takes a ride on light rail, Davidson County taxpayers would be paying nearly ten times the price of the ticket in subsidies.
The difference between individual rights and collective responsibility may be illustrated with this example: imagine a group of half-dozen people which includes you. Every person in that group has a basic table utensils, a spoon, a knife and a fork. Everyone except you, unprovoked, tries to stab another person with the fork. Collective responsibility principle would require everyone to be relieved of the utensils. Individual rights approach would punish those who tried to stab others without cause, but would leave you personally unmolested because you’ve done nothing wrong. It doesn’t matter who does what wrong, the punishment should not extend to the innocent.
The collective responsibility side would claim that taking of your property isn’t a punishment but “prevention”. Individual rights perspective disagrees, taking of property is an offense in itself.
What makes this argument even more interesting is that in the case of weapons, the first taking of property also leaves the victim open to all future takings of other property, liberty and life. That raises the stakes sky-high.
A person robbed of property might want to replace it. So such takings not only require banning of trade in a progressively wider list of close substitutes, but also the suppression of knowledge of manufacturing. Since modern weapons may be manufactured with the 1890s technology base, they require a rollback of the society at large that far…or a very pervasive and intrusive police state keeping all modern and primitive production under constant surveillance, along with motivating informants. Something half-way between the current China and current North Korea…is that the model on which we’d want to base the new “safe” America?
Despite the nomenclature, 56-50 rimfire cartridge actually fires a 0.512″ diameter bullet. It was pretty potent for a rimfire, on the order of 350gr and 1200fps, about on par with 44 Magnum from a long-barreled revolver. Tubular magazine in the stock holds 7 rounds, the lever only loads cartridges and extracts casings — the hammer must be cocked separately for each shot. The sights are marked — most optimistically, for 800 yards, at which point velocity was down to 600fps and the bullet drops more than 40 yards. In the photo, her sights are set to 300. For 1860, Spencer rifle was quite an impressive device. Modern centerfire reproductions are available.
A small female martial artist might reach five feet with a kick. With proper tools, five hundred yard reach is not out of question.
A good friend, a long-time American by choice, wrote this excellent essay. I post and propagate it because my friend cannot without dire consequences to self and family from state authorities acting as employers, educators and officious busibodies. It’s sad that speaking freely is fraught with danger even in this country, but the points made in this text must be made and popularized far and wide.
I am a proud American, an unhyphenated American. I am the most fortunate type of American, one who has won life’s lottery by escaping communism. My family endured persecution, physical risk, and constant intimidation by the secret police to legally enter the United States.
I am proudly writing this in English, because mastering English opened opportunities that would have been denied to me had I chosen to limit myself to my native language and culture.
What does this have to do with the Second Amendment? I am telling you about my past because I want you to understand who I am. I want you to understand the source of my passion.
The fruits of tyranny are not an abstract topic for me.
I am going to use words like political correctness, slavery, communism, and dystopia and I want you to understand the full measure of my meaning.
I want you to understand why I take my rights and responsibilities as a gun owner so seriously.
I want you to understand the source of my fears and concerns when I equate all the flavors of communism—progressivism, liberalism, statism, and socialism—with the ultimate evil of soul-destroying tyranny.
This is not hyperbole.
I believe him because I’ve lived under his ideology. The country I was born in didn’t call itself the “The Communist Republic of Anything.” It called itself a “socialist republic.”
I’ve lived under communism, rather than merely studied its propaganda.
That is why I teach my children how to safely and properly use firearms so that when they come of age, they too will stand proudly as responsible citizens. Not as vassals mired in the illusion of freedom. Not as persons entrenched in the servitude being imposed by the tyranny of political correctness.
To quote Charlton Heston, “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.” Tyranny can be imposed at gunpoint, as it was in Stalinist Russia and Mao’s China, or it can seep into the fabric of the nation under the guise of good intentions. Good intentions like the “price and wage controls” of the 40s and 70s are just one example of how communism has been advanced in the US.
When I started living under the American Constitution, the yoke of tyranny was swept away. I had never known such freedom. Such prosperity. Everything suddenly became possible. Things I’d never dreamt of.
But communism is persistent, relentless, and devious.
The seemingly innocuous language of political correctness provides the soil for the seeds of this ugliness. Historical revisionism and the insidious intent behind rhetoric designed to elicit emotion and shame feed its roots with rich fertilizer.
Let me give you one very important example.
If I were to say to you, “A well-educated population, being necessary to the productivity of a free state, the right of the people to read and write, shall not be infringed,” would you take that to mean that people can only read and write if doing so is in service of the state? Or only because the State desires a well-educated population?
Would you conclude from this statement that the right of the people to read and write is a collective right, not an individual right?
Would you accept restrictions on your ability to read and write because doing so does not serve the State?
Would you insist that only government employees be allowed to read and write?
These are the very fallacies that you are being told to believe about the Second Amendment. Historical revisionists and enemies of freedom like to assert that the Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right.
In order to accept this fallacy, you’d have to believe that a group of people who’d just fought a long arduous war, who’d lost family members, who’d suffered and died for their cause, would immediately give up the rights they’d just won. Including the means to defend those rights.
Historical facts like the ownership of warships and artillery by private citizens, has been all but wiped out of memory, all in service to the lie that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets.
Don’t believe these would-be tyrants who hijack the language, corrupt the meaning of, and twist the very fabric of our words in order to advance their statist agenda.
Amendment Two reads:
“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.”
It is very straight forward.
It uses the words, “right of the people” a term that appears several times in the Bill of Rights. These other appearances of “right of the people” in the Bill of Rights are universally interpreted as protecting individual rights.
The phrase “right of the people” appears in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.
Yet we are asked to accept the fallacy that only in the Second Amendment, does this phrase mean something completely different than what it means in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth.
There is only one mention of the rights of the states in the Bill of Rights. In the Tenth Amendment the first Congress specifically distinguished “the states” from “the people.” The first Congress failed to invoke this distinction in the Second Amendment because they did not see the right to keep and bear arms as a collective right. [Reynolds, Glenn Harlan “A critical guide to the second amendment” 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 (1995)]
So, what does “well regulated” really mean and why was it included?
Just like the right to read and write does not depend on a well-educated population, the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on a well regulated militia.
The first clause is a dependent clause which means that a well regulated militia depends on the right to keep and bear arms just like a well-educated population depends on the right to read and write.
According to Alexander Hamilton, “well regulated” means a state of preparedness. “Well regulated” is an acknowledgement that you need to be trained in the use of arms if you intend to use them, and that having a “well regulated militia” was dependent on the people keeping and bearing arms so that they would be familiar enough with them to use them appropriately.
It did not mean “well regulated” in the current revisionist sense of “subjected to numerous government prohibitions and restrictions.” Furthermore, Hamilton intended for this training and familiarity to be an individual responsibility.
In Federalist 29 he wrote that the State keeping a class of citizens under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises would be a “real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” This tells us that he most certainly did not consider the Army or the National Guard (an organization that did not exist until 1933) to be the militia.
I continue to be awed by the foresight and genius of the Founding Fathers because it does not take a genius to understand the Bill of Rights. Even someone for whom English is a second language can understand it. Yet millions of Americans are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending it because of the cognitive dissonance created by a progressive, leftist agenda.
In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the need for safety is second only to physiological needs like breathing. We all believe that we have the right to live and to be safe. Deep down we know that in order to live we may need to defend ourselves.
Maslow includes security of body and property in his definition of safety. Yet the Left has created a cognitive dissonance by telling us that we cannot and should not defend ourselves, and that indeed, any desire or willingness to do so is dysfunctional at best, and so dangerous that we must be persecuted and prosecuted should we dare.
Here’s one troubling example of cognitive dissonance: “Rape lasts for minutes. Death is Forever. You don’t need a gun.”
This is the real war on women. It starts with the idea that rape is not a life-altering trauma and ends with a disregard for women’s lives, because tragically, too many rapes do end in death. Keep in mind now, the death they were concerned about in the tweet was the rapist’s death.
Why? Because to some, ideology trumps everything. Their ideology requires you to think that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a woman explaining how her attacker fell dead from six bullet wounds.
“You don’t need a weapon, I will protect you” is the creed of both individual and institutional domestic abusers. It’s actually a good warning sign and a conclusive litmus test for bad intentions. And should always be viewed as such.
You experience cognitive dissonance when you believe that guns don’t deter crime but see that cops carry them. Apparently cops only carry guns because it makes them look cool, not because guns deter criminals.
You experience cognitive dissonance when you accept that the police need body armor, SWAT teams, fully automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, tear gas, and armored vehicles to protect us from murderers and rapists, but that we should be limited to small capacity magazines, small calibers, and few guns—if any.
I’m not disparaging cops. I have a tremendous respect for anyone who, day in and day out, is willing to put themselves in the path of danger and risk orphaning their children and widowing their spouse for the benefit of persons unwilling to defend themselves.
I am not arrogant enough to demand this sacrifice, because I value their lives as much as I value my own. I cannot in good conscience demand that terrible risk of them without first demanding it of myself, and I’m deeply troubled by the number of people who think nothing of what they’re really asking when they dial 9-1-1.
You experience cognitive dissonance when you’re told that you don’t need guns for protection, but that guns are needed for the protection of the elites.
If guns have no legitimate use, then Hillary Clinton would give up her Secret Service protection.
Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and the Hollywood elites would give up their armed bodyguards.
Armed police officers and bodyguards would never be used to provide security at Hollywood premieres, galas, and events. These elites should be willing to lead by example. In fact, we should be out there demanding it every time they demand we give up our guns.
Cognitive dissonance occurs when we are told that we can’t judge Muslims by the actions of a few Jihadists. But we can not only judge, but punish, gun owners because of the actions of a few psychos.
All of these examples are trumped, however, by the most insidious cognitive dissonance that the progressive Left has engineered. It is the lie that a right you cannot exercise is still a right.
They’ve been extremely successful in regards to the Second Amendment. We are now a nation where a breakfast pastry chewed into the shape of a gun incites panic and results in the suspension of an 8-year-old boy, but an act of terrorism on a military base is called “workplace violence.”
This kind of cognitive dissonance is being used to purposely engineer a society where people can no longer assess threats accurately. When we become unable to tell the difference between the danger presented by a breakfast pastry and the danger presented by a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar,” we empower the State to think for us.
As you become less responsive to the cognitive dissonance that surrounds you, it becomes easier and easier to believe anything and everything that the statists want you to believe. Things that include the lie that you have rights when in reality all of your rights are being eroded. You buy into the idea that you have a right to “birth control,” a right to “healthcare,” a right not to work, a right not to be offended, a right to the fruits of another person’s labor.
I am profoundly troubled by the parallels I see every day between my life under communism and the progressive agenda of the Left.
I hear people speak of socialism with reverence because all the promises of socialism sound so great.
Who doesn’t want to be taken care of?
Who doesn’t want free stuff?
You don’t have to get up early and work hard.
You don’t have to struggle or take risks.
You can gorge yourself on the basest of distractions all day long and have the government take care of you.
All you have to do is give up a little bit of your freedom every day. It won’t hurt. You won’t even feel it.
During the nascent stages of this promised Utopia—a utopia that inevitably leads to dystopia—things look pretty good. We all still have stuff. We can keep living our lives pretty much the way we have been.
But it’s an illusion. A dangerous, unsustainable illusion.
Why? Because as Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
It’s not just money that runs out. Eventually you run out of the things that free, productive people make. Little things like food, water, energy, clothing, and medicine. Look at Venezuela as the latest example of life under socialism/communism.
You too are being led down this road to serfdom—this road already paved by the ghosts of 100 million dead.
You’re being manipulated into surrendering your freedoms by statists who sell you a vision composed of noble-sounding ideas like equality, equity, and fairness. These bureaucrats, experts, and mandarins promise you a Utopia. They promise you hope and change and convince you that they are well-meaning idealists who just need a little more power, a few more regulations, a few reasonable concessions.
They convince you to surrender your rights bit by bit for the greater good. They convince you that the free market and capitalism are inefficient and evil. For an equitable society, everything–from how much water flushes your toilet, to the light bulb you use, to what you eat and drink, to how much you exercise–must be regulated.
Their need to control and regulate everything in your life is insatiable. Eventually, everything you do, use, or own becomes a matter of great concern to the State, so no aspect of your life is off limits. It’s for your own good!
How can you possibly be anything but a slave under these conditions?
This is why gun control is so important to statists and tyrants of all stripes. Not because they are afraid of any one individual who might resist and have the means to do so, but because they are afraid of the kind of individual who has the audacity to think that he is free, that he has rights, and that those rights don’t come from the State or from words on a piece of parchment.
It is not guns that tyrants fear.
It is gun owners.
It is people willing to take on the burdens and responsibilities of gun ownership. It is people willing to exert themselves to secure the blessings of liberty. It is people who do not believe the government is always a benevolent force.
It is a fact that no matter how reasonable, calm, or logical you are, the statists will portray you in the most negative light possible. Fair play is not one of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The cultural changes needed to bring about your surrender are all around you, and not just being shouted by a few loud-mouthed radicals, leftist politicians, or well-meaning but misguided average people.
Have you noticed how hard Hollywood is trying to convince us that the tiniest woman can not only defeat a man twice her size, but several men twice her size … with her bare hands?
Only in fairytales, Hollywood, and radical feminist theory is a woman the physical equal of a man. Likewise, only in fairytales does good triumph over evil by being nice and playing fair, whatever “fair” means.
Here in the real world, the side that plays nice finds itself in a perpetual retreat towards a precipice where the statists have dug us a nice, deep grave.
The first people that will be shoved into that grave are our young women, who are being conditioned to think that they shouldn’t defend themselves—at least not with a gun. They believe in a non-existent reality where that rapist is going to spar with them just like the guys in karate class, or that mace or a whistle will end the assault. Or that a murderer will wait for the 9-1-1 response out of a sense of fair play.
Don’t buy into these myths and outright lies.
Among women and minorities, gun ownership has been surging. And for good reason. We don’t want to be victims.
And we want to spend our money at a business where we not only feel safe, but are safe. A place where we can carry, so if need be, we can defend ourselves.
We know that the few minutes it takes for a security guard or the police to get to us might as well be an eternity. We know that the average response to a 9-1-1 call is four minutes, but that the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is ninety seconds.
Would the clerks and managers in gun-free stores take a bullet for us? Why should they have to? So that ownership can feel sanctimoniously smug about their progressive ideology? We know that, unfortunately, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
This is why we must oppose legislation that limits, taxes, or restricts gun ownership in any form. And why we must support repealing existing laws designed to reduce gun ownership. There’s already plenty of laws on the books to prosecute criminals for crimes. Criminals will pay just as much attention to additional laws as they do to current ones—NONE.
Additional laws, by design, only limit the law abiding.
We must support gun-friendly businesses and refuse to patronize businesses that forbid self-defense. We know that we are far safer in a store, restaurant, or movie theater that allows lawfully carried firearms.
This is why we must educate our children about not idolizing the leftist icons in Hollywood. This shameless industry is an appalling example of ultimate hypocrisy. One where they make tremendous fortunes portraying the misuse of guns, yet disparage responsible gun ownership.
We must repeal laws and regulations that turn gun owners into second-class citizens.
Concealed carriers are the sheepdogs in our society, quietly performing a much-needed public service: deterrence. They do this every day with only one expectation—that they be allowed to continue to do so.
Laws and regulations do nothing to protect you but they do encourage the predators.
According to the Cato Institute:
“The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.”
Licensed gun carriers have, at their own expense, paid for background checks, fingerprinting, and training and proven that they’re not criminals. Yet they are persona non-grata in precisely the types of places that terrorists and psychos like to call “soft targets.” Places like hospitals, schools, libraries, and government offices where people gather in large groups and legally-carried guns are not allowed.
How can you tell what a soft target looks like, so you can avoid it?
Well, most of them have conveniently posted a sign that explicitly prohibits entry to the law-abiding gun-carrier.
Yet the gun-grabbers likes to accuse gun owners of being bullies who force our worldview on them.
But just like we are not the dangerous ones, we are not the bullies.
We are not the ones forcing people to give up their rights, or creating a world where their rights only exist as words on a piece of paper.
We are not the ones imposing our beliefs, our worldview, on others. Quite the opposite. We’ve been accommodating the enemies of freedom, the statists and the tyrants who would rather empower criminals than allow us to protect ourselves, for far too long.
That’s why we are at the stage where the Second Amendment has, for millions of law-abiding people, become nothing more than words on a piece of paper. The statists of the progressive Left stand ready to obliterate the words themselves.
Why are these would-be tyrants calling for the repeal of an already much-gutted Second Amendment? Because we’ve been nice. We’ve played “fair.” We’ve compromised. We’ve accepted so much of the progressive/socialist/communist agenda that the statists are salivating at the prospect of using any excuse, any tragedy, to take what’s left of our freedoms and turn us into slaves.
It doesn’t have to happen. I’m not calling for armed rebellion. I’m calling for reciprocity. A tit-for-tat.
This is going to make some of you with a libertarian or a small-government belief system, twitch. But bear with me.
Bear with me because a right you cannot exercise is not a right. Bear with me because I understand your objection, your disdain for more laws.
You and I are a lot alike. In essence, we are practitioners of the Golden Rule, the law of reciprocity, a principle that tells us to “Treat others as we would wish to be treated.”
You aren’t wrong. But you aren’t right either.
Because the Golden Rule has three forms. One of them is the less well-known, but just as important negative (or prohibitive) form. It states that one should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated. For far too long we’ve let ourselves be treated like second-class citizens, accepting more and more restrictions on our rights, for the fallacy of the “greater good.”
Remember, it’s not guns they fear. It’s gun owners.
The statist, the would-be tyrant, whether called Clinton, Obama, Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg, or Hogg, all rely on guns for their protection.
But most important of all, there is the Golden Rule’s third form—the empathic (or responsive) form. It’s one that I want all of those who call for infringement of our God-given constitutional rights to learn. It states simply, and powerfully, that “What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself.”
What would the world would look like if we started using leftist tactics, if we applied “what you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself” to those who call for the infringement of our rights while they surround themselves with armed guards?
You, the so-called progressives, have already set the precedent with “Bake My Cake.” If your civil rights don’t end at the business door, neither do my God-given constitutional rights.
Under the Golden Rule, instead of those gun-buster signs you leftists, statists, and progressives-of-all-stripes love so much, business owners would be required to post this instead:
NO WEAPONS ALLOWED. THIS IS A DEFENSE FREE CRIME ZONE. WE EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT ALL LAW ABIDING PATRONS AND EMPLOYEES, CERTIFIED, LICENSED, OR OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE STATE, TO CARRY A WEAPON FROM ENTERING OUR PROPERTY WHILE IN POSSESSION OF A LEGAL HANDGUN. ALL OF OUR PATRONS AND EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN DISARMED FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE.
It is after all, truth in advertising. This is what a criminal sees when you put up a gun-buster sign of any kind. No criminal ever has said, “Oh no, a sign. I must go rob, rape, or murder somewhere else.”
Under the Golden Rule, instead of the horrid “gun-free school zones” signs that make our children the preferred targets for murderous, psychotic fiends, we would have signs that said:
STAFF HEAVILY ARMED AND TRAINED. ANY ATTEMPT TO HARM CHILDREN WILL BE MET WITH DEADLY FORCE.
We are constantly told that the progressive Left wants to reduce crime. Then we should follow the example of one of the most crime-free places in the United States: Kennesaw, Georgia. In Kennesaw, all homeowners are required by law to have a gun.
Under the Golden Rule, homeowners who refused to arm themselves would be required by law to post this sign in their yard:
GUN-FREE HOME. THERE ARE NO GUNS OR TRAINED SHOOTERS IN THIS HOME AT ANY TIME.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is what it looks like when gun owners play by gun-grabber rules. This is the direction in which we are being pushed. Weaponize the law and the courts and reap the whirlwind. Because once you’ve set that precedent what you wished on others, you’ve wished on yourself.
Guns and gun owners are all that stand between slavery and freedom. They are all that stand between our Constitution and its destruction. Between your freedom to decide for yourself what to think, what to say, what to do and slavery.
Don’t allow the United States of America to descend into another failed communist experiment. Far too many have already died, far too many still suffer under its yoke, all over the world.
We remain the last bastion of freedom and liberty on this Earth.
Don’t surrender our freedoms.
For if you do, they will be lost forever, erased from history, just like the meaning of well-regulated, just like the idea of holding individuals responsible for only their own actions. Once the statists and tyrants eliminate the Second Amendment, this last obstacle to their power over you, you too, the well-meaning but ignorant supporter of so many flawed ideas that sound so good on paper but have never worked in the real world, will be held responsible for what you have not done.
Communism didn’t just kill its enemies. It killed millions of its own adherents as well. You, the progressive, the moderate, the leftist, the socialist, are just further down the kill-list, that’s all.
In America, most cars involved in accidents and deliberate vehicular attacks have automatic transmissions. That’s no surprise, considering that most cars on the road have them. Almost everywhere else in the world, the auto transmission violence isn’t so prevalent. If we eliminate cars with automatic transmissions, the number of deaths attributable to them would drop. Sound logic, right? If that’s not enough for you, remember that the military HMMV uses automatic transmission too. Nobody needs a military-grade vehicle for civilian world!
In the enlightened Europe, much superior manual transmission are in use and hardly anything ever goes wrong with those. Since most heavy, powerful trucks use manual transmissions — as do those weapons of war, Jeeps — nobody should have manual transmissions either. The exception would be made for pre-synchromesh manual transmissions — they require double-clutching and would keep the drivers’ attention off the road, so they couldn’t possibly run anybody over.
None of this violates the rights of car owners. They can drive proper civilian cars like Ford Model A and its modern reproductions, or avail themselves of public transportation generously provided by the state using their taxes. Nearly 40 thousand traffic fatalities in 2017 alone demand action. Turn your murderous auto transmission car in now, citizen!
The date went well, though they disagreed on a few things: he carried, she thought all guns should be banned. They decided to meet again.
“I’ll make dinner Friday night. Come over around 6pm,” he said “And be sure to arrive unarmed.”
She looked at him and said: “That’s a really creepy thing to say!”
“Why, aren’t you already against weapons? Why is me asking you to be unarmed for an evening creepy, while you wanting me to be unarmed for a lifetime isn’t?”
That got her to thinking. Several years, a wedding and two kids later, she carries daily.
Most gun owners don’t know exactly how many guns they own. That should not be surprise: most mechanics couldn’t tell you how many wrenches they have, either. Guns are tools, and sometimes objects of collection, sometimes heirlooms, sometimes wall decorations. So a person might say: “We have around thirty guns” and be pretty close to right. Two-three carry pistols per family member, rimfire rifles and pistols for plinking, shotguns for defense and sport and hunting, rifles for varmints and for deer, and another for unbidden 3am guests. Oh, and that heirloom gallery rifle, and great-grandma’s purse revolver that’s so old it has no serial number. And great-grandpa’s WW2 bringbacks. “I think that’s it.” So all thirty guns get turned in to the government, right?
If that family has only an approximate idea of how many guns they have, government officials are unlikely to know the true number with any greater accuracy. If the officials are convinced that more guns are on hand than the people actually have, how are the victims to cough up the balance or prove the unprovable? During WW2, occupying armies would check local gun registries and shoot those who couldn’t produce everything listed. A gun being lost or destroyed years prior was no excuse.
Or the government record might indicate thirty and the reality is thirty six. Now the officials have to worry about a trained group of people who have a legitimate gripe and some weapons still on hand. Even if they get all guns currently owned, more may be manufactured, bought, traded or stolen from official users. As a result, they forever have to worry about competent and motivated insurgents. Historically, such problem was solved with executions or imprisonment of the newly disarmed.
With those two options, gunowners cannot afford to give up anything at all — to do otherwise would be to condemn themselves and their whole families to immediate and dire peril. Both sides know it, and government bullies dare not deal a small injury to their constituents…some hold out for the opportunity to strike big, others try to encroach by degrees. In the 1930s Europe, encroachment by degrees took several years, culminating in mass murder.
The 18 to 21 age group is already the most vulnerable to criminal victimization. Florida legislators obviously want them even worse off.
Very much adding confusion to a legal injury, the Florida legislators claim that people who were perfectly capable of legal actions must be stripped of that ability on the basis of their age…which is now insufficient. And yet, the same 18-21 year olds are exempted from the regulation is acting as cops or soldiers to protect the scheming legislators, so they are obviously not incompetent. Should the legislators be similarly stripped of their positions, with their own actions as evidence of obvious old-age mental incapacity?
Emancipated enough to volunteer for the military and be accepted. Not emancipated enough for the Florida legislators!
Collective punishment is what occupying armies of totalitarian states do to subjugated populations. And now we know how Florida legislators view their neighbors.