Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

This is why the 2nd Amendment matters

It’s to defend against assholes like Keith Ellison and Bernie Sanders, should they get their way and attempt to pursue their eliminationist agenda:

ScreenHunter_10-Oct.-20-17.18

Ellison’s ‘Extremism’ Charge Deflects from Own Subversive Affiliations

“Oath Keepers and Three Percenters [are] extremist anti-government movements,” Rep. Keith Ellison charged in a CNN hit piece we talked about in my last column. I noted then we’d take a look at the pot dissing the kettle, and now seems as good a time as any.

[…]

I’m going to focus on Ellison’s membership – and leadership – in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, founded by Democrat presidential contender Bernie Sanders and containing 69 of the most rabidly left-wing politicians to ever menace the future of the Republic. Or as Obi-Wan said about Mos Eisley, “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”…

Importantly, one of the CPC’s core “principles” is contempt for the right to keep and bear arms. They know that every tyranny that ever beat its subjects into dehumanized submission had to first disarm them, rendering them pliable, subservient and helpless.  But don’t take my word for it – take theirs, paying special attention to their demand to ban firearms of militia utility.

OK, so they’re typical Democrats. Is that all I’ve got?

Well, yeah, that and pointing out the CPC’s close ties with another “progressive” group, the Democratic Socialists of America.

[…]

Do you like songs? So does the DSA, so much that they devoted a page on their website to hymns glorifying their “struggle” (i.e., what Hitler called “Mein Kampf” ). The following in particular should be of special interest, since the people they’re talking about, the “bourgeoisie,” are you and me! And they really explain (better than anything I could say) why the socialists need to take away our guns. Ready? All together now:

Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie
(Traditional American song, sung in rounds to the tune of “Frere Jacques”).

Are you sleeping, Are you sleeping,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
And when the revolution comes,
We’ll kill you all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

—–

Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie, See How They Run
(Usually sung in rounds after “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie”. Sung to the tune of “Three Blind Mice”.)

Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie,
See how they run,
See how they run
And when the revolution comes,
We’ll kill them all with knives and guns,
Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie

Don’t try to look these up at the DSA’s website; they sent them down the memory hole long ago.  The Internet Archive, however, is your friend.

 

Μολών λαβέ, bitches

The Mask Falls: Left Calling for “Gun-Free Society”

I have a better idea: how about a gun-grabbing-liberal-free society?  Whether they realize it or not, that will be the end result of any attempt at undermining the 2nd Amendment:

They had previously lied about their goals, claiming to be in favor of “sensible gun safety measures” or other rot.

But now they’re becoming more honest: a Washington Post editor just explicitly called for a “gun free society.

A Gun Free Society.By Fred Hiatt
Washington Post Editor

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Note that he claims that using these words is dangerous, because the NRA would interpret them as a slippery slope argument to claim that the left wants a gun free society.

But that is precisely what Hiatt wants.

It’s not just the bedwetters in the press, either.  0bama has nothing left to lose at this point, and his domestic and foreign policy “legacy,” such as it ever was, is a total shambles.  He’s already threatened to use his pen and his phone if the feckless weasels in Congress won’t bend to his will.  If you’re already set on destroying America, why not just go for the brass ring and make sure it’s “blown up real good?”

Gun-grabbers who engage in SWATting should be prosecuted and imprisoned

In case you haven’t previously heard of it, “SWATting” is the practice of calling in a false report of criminal activity to 911, usually with the intent of getting a SWAT team to show up and catch the victim unaware.  It’s not just highly dangerous, it’s illegal…but laws apparently aren’t for moonbats these days.

The latest tactic of the gun-grabbers is to call the cops if they merely see you open-carrying:

Moms Demand SWATting

“You see a GunFilth waving its penis substitute, exit, call police. Armed robbery in progress.” So wrote Twitter user “Little Black Dog” on September 13 of this year.

The injunction was a particularly colorful one, but the idea behind it, alas, is not as uncommon as one might wish. “I see you #opencarry with a gun in public,” a man named “joe villa” threatened earlier this week, “i’m calling the cops. psycho behaving erratic. make your day.” A translation for the more literate among us: “The law be damned; exercise your rights under the law and I’ll threaten your life.”

“Take a look through the comments threads on Moms Demand Action’s Facebook page,” Bearing Arms’s Bob Owens tells me, “and you’ll see a lot of this.” “Not,” he clarifies,

from the leaders of the group. But it is a mindset popular among the followers. On there, on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence — ironically — and on GunFreeZone.net, you’ll notice commenters advocating that people call the police and exaggerate what is going on, hoping to get the cops to come in.

This is inexcusable.  They’re basically looking to get people killed for daring to exercise their rights.  Anyone who SWATs a gun owner should be charged with attempted murder.  If the situation escalates and someone is killed (as happened with Erik Scott), the charge should be upgraded to murder.

Vox Uses Hilariously Inaccurate Photo On NRA Hit Piece

v6mzo3

Vox Uses Hilariously Inaccurate Photo On NRA Hit Piece

Vox attached the logo of a New Deal agency to an NRA hit piece on Twitter Thursday, apparently confusing the National Rifle Association with the National Recovery Administration established by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.

“The NRA’s president supported ‘sharply restricting’ guns in 1934,” Vox tweeted, with a photo of the National Recovery Administration logo attached. “Then things changed.” The story the tweet linked to was of course referring to the National Rifle Association.

“Journalism is dead,” remarked one twitter user who saved the tweet before it was deleted.

Once more for Vox’s edification: This:

NewDealNRA

is not the same organization as this:

220px-National_Rifle_Association.svg

The proper response to collectivist gun-grabbers

flippingthebirdHe must be a Sipsey Street reader. “Gun Rights Advocates Have A Devastating New Argument Against Gun Control. Here It Is.”

You can’t argue with someone who is lying about his position or whose position is not based upon reason. You can talk all day about how crime has diminished where concealed carry is allowed, while it flourishes in Democrat blue cities where gun control is tightest. You can point to statistics showing that law-abiding citizens who carry legally are exponentially less likely to commit gun crimes than other people. You can cite examples of armed citizens protecting themselves and their communities with guns. You can offer government statistics showing how the typical American is at many times greater risk of death from an automobile crash, a fall, or poisoning than from murder by gun.

But none of that matters, because this debate is not about facts. It’s about power. The liberal anti-gun narrative is not aimed at creating the best public policy but at disarming citizens the liberal elite looks down upon – and for whom weapons represent their last-ditch ability to respond to liberal overreach. Put simply, liberal elitists don’t like the fact that, at the end of the day, an armed citizenry can tell them, “No.”

[…]

No wonder free Americans are done pretending the gun argument is a rational debate and are responding with an extended middle finger – and the challenge to come and take their arms. The fact remains that any outright attempt to take the arms from tens of millions of American gun owners would almost certainly result in a second Civil War. And we all know how the first Civil War went for the Democrats.

You’re known by the company you keep

…and Michael Bloomberg has some rather unsavory company indeed in his gun-grabbing cabal:

Another (Former) Bloomberg Mayor Facing Multitude of Charges – The Truth About Guns

“A statewide investigating grand jury has recommended that criminal charges be filed against former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen R. Reed, the Harrisburg Patriot-News reported. “State Attorney General Kathleen Kane … calls the investigation into Reed one of the ‘most disturbing cases of public corruption this office has investigated.’”

“Former mayor of Pa. capital charged with 499 criminal counts,” Fox News documented in its report. “If convicted on all counts and given consecutive maximum sentences, Reed could face up to 2,439 years in prison.”

Whenever I see reports of a mayor in trouble with the law, my first instinct any more is to see if he or she is one of Bloomberg’s Bürgermeisters.

Here’s the rogues’ gallery:

Missing the point of “debate”

Gotta maintain that epistemic closure, I guess:

Everytown: We’ll Only Debate If Our Sparring Partners Agree With Us

Here’s transcript of the relevant part of his answer:

Everytown is committed to an evidence-based approach. We speak with criminologists, legislators across the country and we welcome debate. In fact, we’re thrilled that there is an increased amount of research in this area, and an increased amount of conversation about what laws are effective to keeping guns out of the hands of felons and domestic abusers. So, when there’s a credible scientist — somebody who wants to have a real constructive conversation about this — we’re going to be there. But folks who seek to minimize the grave issue of gun violence in this country – or to draw attention away from the real issues to themselves – that’s not a conversation I think it’s productive to be a part of.

Obviously, the speaker is doing little more than begging the question. “Sure we’ll talk to people who disagree” he appears to be saying, “but only if they agree. Because to disagree with the claims that we are making is to take attention away from the claims that we are making, which are true by virtue of their having been made.”