“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”—Cesare Beccaria, recorded by Thomas Jefferson in his Legal Commonplace Book1
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one.”
—Cesare Beccaria, recorded by Thomas Jefferson in his Legal Commonplace Book1
The topic of gun rights/control is one I assumed pretty much everyone in the anti-tyranny/pro-freedom movement would be in agreement on. A lively comment exchange at a recent el gato malo post proved otherwise, however.
Dr. Meryl Nass also wrote this thoughtful analysis of the topic2:
And The Naked Emperor started a provocative discussion thread about it here.
These exchanges sparked me to start a discussion thread (my first!) posing the question:
Every story they present serves a narrative. Every fact that threatens those narratives is suppressed. Every journalist of integrity knows this as a certainty.
Ethics in journalism is extinct in the mainstream media. It is an absolute impossibility to publish a story that violates the iron-clad laws to serve their corporate sponsors and government masters. They are unadulterated propagandists. That is why old-school reporters who care about ethics, facts, and balance like Sharyl Attkinson, Rebecca Strong, and Sally Beck leave.
You can learn precisely how the propaganda machine operates to craft narratives and suppress inconvenient facts in Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism.
Two+ years of COVID propagandizing have made this obvious to the hypnosis-resistant. The media flood the public consciousness with fear smut by constantly reporting death and case counts based on fraudulent data from cooked PCR tests; deaths “with” not “of” COVID; and fatalities caused by lethal protocols (not COVID). Simultaneously, they hide the millions of injuries and tens of thousands of deaths proven by the Bradford Hill criteria to have been caused by the experimental injections.
This is how they control a narrative. It is absolutely no different when it comes to gun rights.
Just like with COVID, the media only reports gun crimes. It never shows the staggering numbers of instances in which victims have defended their lives from criminals, saved others’ lives by stopping mass shooters in their tracks, and defended citizens from tyranny throughout history. They also scarcely report the massive numbers of knife crimes and homicides committed by other means such as vehicles.
When people are bombarded with tragedy, their higher reasoning faculties shut down. Anyone who tries to calmly discuss the topic of gun rights in this atmosphere is likely to be perceived as callous. It is during this emotionally charged window that the politicians and propagandists push hardest for gun control laws. This is Problem Reaction Solution in action.
Case in point—Tyrant Trudeau has already leapt into action, right on cue, saying, “It will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer, or import handguns anywhere in Canada.”
The possibility that some of these lightning-rod events are LIHOP or MIHOP false-flag alphabet operations is irrelevant when it comes to the argument for gun rights, and veering off into what is considered conspiratorial territory by normies will cause people on the other side of the debate to tune out and shut down. That doesn’t mean these are invalid lines of inquiry, just that it will derail the conversation and give them an excuse to dismiss you as a “conspiracy theorist.”
Even those who have bought the narrative, however, can probably agree the media is primarily responsible for creating the psychological conditions in which tragedies such as mass murders occur and seeding the lust for notoriety among the mentally deranged.
Yankee Marshall provides a fairly balanced perspective on proposed gun legislation and which bills constitute genuine threats. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says. He’s wrong about his faith in the injection, for example, but he is against mandates, which is consistent with his views on the Second Amendment.
I didn’t always hold these views. Like most people, I was once carried along by the propaganda and mistakenly thought more guns = more bloodshed. It wasn’t until I woke up to the framing that I realized this was yet another lie, researched it, and discovered the data tells a very different story from what the media presents.
To further elucidate my position, I will share excerpts from an exchange I had with a reader at the original el gato thread. I don’t want to call unwanted attention to her so have only listed her initials here, but this is a person whom I’ve enjoyed positive encounters with on other occasions and who’s on my mailing list (props to her for not unsubbing over this).
She has seen through the lies about COVID, but she believes the media and government are telling the truth in this case. She took my arguments as personal attacks against her rather than her position. I understand that when one of your deeply held beliefs is being challenged, it feels like an attack on you personally; apparently, I failed to make that distinction clear. If she is still willing to re-evaluate her position, perhaps she and others like her will read this discussion thread with an open mind and heart.
One of my hopes is that, in this little sanctuary of the Internet, we can enjoy civil exchanges about points of disagreement without it devolving into defensiveness and ad hominem attacks. This discussion thread is intended to offer a space for exploring this issue in a thoughtful and respectful manner.
MAA: The logic required to connect cause with effect is nearing extinction in the human species, and those of us who still possess that capacity risk ostracization, incarceration, and ultimately elimination for threatening the collective psychosis. A risk well-worth taking, I might add.
NE: Come on. Guns don’t cause mass shootings but they’d be less of them if guns weren’t around
MAA: And a lot more knife stabbings and truck massacres.
libertate [also responding to NE]: And?
There would be less automotive fatalities if cars weren’t around.
Perhaps “we” should ban them.
OS: Cars are not specifically made to kill people.
MAA: Neither are tools of defense.
MAA: Just clarifying that guns aren’t made to kill people. They are a tool, just like a knife or anything else that can be wielded by evil people or anyone else, and they can be used to defend the vulnerable from the psychopathic, the weak from the strong, the citizen from the tyrant. The only reason tyranny hasn’t gotten further along in America is 2A, and every people that has ever given up that right to its government has come to regret that decision bitterly.
OS: That’s a fancy way of saying that guns are made to kill only the right people, the people we don’t like. And I can assure you that in countries with better gun control we don’t walk around “bitterly regretting” it at all. Definitely is not at all the reason tyranny hasn’t gotten further in the States. How many shootouts have you had with your government lately? What you have are good constitution and laws and courts willing to enforce those laws, and you all should very well be thankful for that.
MAA: No, you’re misunderstanding my point. Guns are neutral. They aren’t “made to kill only the right people.” Mentally ill, psychopathic people will find whatever ways to kill they can, and guns help vulnerable people defend themselves against criminals. There are far more knife stabbings than gun murders. Taking away guns doesn’t prevent evil people from doing evil things, but it prevents innocent people from being able to defend themselves from criminals and tyrannical governments.
The shootouts aren’t what stop tyranny—the tyrants’ *awareness* that so many good citizens are armed and willing to defend the Constitution and our freedoms against tyranny is what stops them from overstepping their bounds into outright totalitarianism.
We do have a good constitution, thankfully, but we can no longer rely on the increasingly corrupted courts to defend our laws against those who are pushing to violate them. 2A provides a bulwark against the most egregious forms of tyranny, and that is precisely why the constitutional framers included it.
OS: Yup I know and I’ve heard it all before. This is exactly why you’ll keep getting these mass murders in the States.
MAA: History has proven it again and again and again. Every genocide requires the disarmament of the designated enemy.
“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? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur—what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? 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 spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!”
“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? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur—what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? 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 spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure!”
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
OS: This, in your style, is a grand piece of rhetoric which deals with none of the actual problems you have in the States, and ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocides.
MAA: “and ignores the countries which have gun control and no genocides”—YET.
How would you defend yourself if the guards come to take you to the gulag?
You are aware of the democide that’s been underway for the past two+ years. You are aware of the escalating totalitarian laws enveloping the globe. You are aware of the countries that have already incarcerated dissenters in isolation camps. You are aware of the rights and freedoms that have been stripped in the name of “public health,” “safety,” and the “good of society.”
And yet you naively trust these governments never to overstep their bounds, as the citizens of every past totalitarian genocidal regime have done throughout history.
It’s time to flee the cult of safety and stop swallowing the propaganda you’ve been fed about guns by the tyrannical governments whose limits are inscribed by their presence:
OS: I should add, I’m not sure who you’re talking to who “naively trusts the government” and belongs to a “cult of safety”. I think you may be arguing with someone you’re imagining, but it’s not me 😆
MAA: That’s what I thought and why I am so bewildered that you have bought the anti-gun propaganda, which only serves criminals and tyrants!
I used to share your position years ago. And then I researched it and realized I was mistaken. And the past two years have solidified the absolute necessity of being able to defend ourselves against tyranny.
JP Sears went through a similar re-evaluation of his views on this subject:
OS: Because I have a different view, I must have swallowed propaganda? Interesting. I can’t have come to this position by reason? The past two years did indeed cause me to reconsider this position; I in the end remain unconvinced.
MAA: Having a different view isn’t the issue at all. Different views are fine! I am simply saying this particular position aligns with government propaganda, which serves to protect the interests of the powerful over the people.
OS: You view it as propaganda because it contradicts your point of view. I think you can’t imagine that someone might have thoughtful reasons for having a different perspective.
MAA: I view it as propaganda because it is propaganda, not because I disagree with it. Time and again, it has been proven that the media has sensationalized gun violence for political gain—all while ignoring the daily flood of stories about people successfully defending their lives against criminals and good guys stopping shooters in the act.
Ask the members of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising how important guns are.
“German General Jürgen Stroop arrived in Warsaw ready to wipe out all opposition within a single day as a birthday gift to his Führer. Stroop had 2,100 soldiers with 13 heavy machine guns, 69 handheld machine guns, 135 submachine guns, several howitzers, and 1,358 rifles. The approximately 750 Jewish resisters had two submachine guns, a handful of rifles, and homemade explosives. But the resisters were able to fight off Stroop’s soldiers for the first few days, and they were able to hold out under siege for four weeks.“Simcha Rotem, a survivor, later told filmmaker Claude Lanzmann: ’During the first three days of fighting, the Jews had the upper hand. The Germans retreated at once to the ghetto entrance, carrying dozens of wounded with them.’”
“German General Jürgen Stroop arrived in Warsaw ready to wipe out all opposition within a single day as a birthday gift to his Führer. Stroop had 2,100 soldiers with 13 heavy machine guns, 69 handheld machine guns, 135 submachine guns, several howitzers, and 1,358 rifles. The approximately 750 Jewish resisters had two submachine guns, a handful of rifles, and homemade explosives. But the resisters were able to fight off Stroop’s soldiers for the first few days, and they were able to hold out under siege for four weeks.
“Simcha Rotem, a survivor, later told filmmaker Claude Lanzmann: ’During the first three days of fighting, the Jews had the upper hand. The Germans retreated at once to the ghetto entrance, carrying dozens of wounded with them.’”
Imagine how the story would have ended had everyone in the ghetto been armed. Oh, I know, they wouldn’t have been there to begin with.
OS: No one is arguing that guns have never been used in self-defence. Your argument is that unorganized, scattered, private gun owners with weapons that do not come to the level of government arms, are somehow holding off tyranny in the US. Forgive me, but that seems like a fantasy. You think I’ve come to my position by swallowing government propaganda; frankly, that’s a little insulting. You may not be able to admit that people might have good reasons for having a different perspective from yours, as that would be to admit it’s a valid viewpoint.
MAA: Perhaps it’s because you don’t live in America that you fail to realize the 2A community is an enormous, highly cohesive group passionately committed to defending our rights against tyrannical encroachment. It is the size and commitment of that segment of the population that keeps the government in check. Hired goons are not going to be willing to come seize people’s guns and subsequently rights and lives when there are so many people willing to defend those rights with their lives.
OS: That might be true, but again, you’re trying to prove a negative. You have a belief that this is keeping the government from imposing tyranny, but you still haven’t provided one example of that happening. The actual way tyranny has been kept in check in the States is through the courts upholding the Constitution and the laws. This is also a massive distraction from the problem under discussion: why does the US have so many mass shootings and gun deaths?
MAA: You are suggesting that the American people gamble their lives, rights, and freedoms on the premise that it is not the large sector of highly armed individuals willing to defend us that is preventing the government from escalating to full-blown totalitarianism? You seem to be unaware of history and that the progression from democracy to tyranny doesn’t happen in an eye-blink but over time.
“‘To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.“‘How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.’”—A philologist colleague of Milton Mayer’s, Chapter 13, “But Then It Was Too Late,” They Thought They Were Free: The Germans: 1933–45
“‘To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.
“‘How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men? Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn’t, but they might have. And everyone counts on that might.’”
—A philologist colleague of Milton Mayer’s, Chapter 13, “But Then It Was Too Late,” They Thought They Were Free: The Germans: 1933–45
As to your question, “why does the US have so many mass shootings and gun deaths?” Perhaps you should ask why doesn’t Switzerland, where nearly every citizen is armed, have scarcely *any* mass shootings? Why do the majority of mass shootings happen in areas with stronger gun control laws? Why does crime go down in areas where more citizens are responsibly armed? You’re only asking the “why” the media wants you to ask, not the ones that reveal the truth that they are trying to disarm us to strengthen their power over We the People.
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”—Saul Alinsky3
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”
OS: I don’t have time to properly answer this right now, but I will briefly say: again, you’re trying to prove a negative. “We have guns in the States and no genocides, you have no guns and no genocides BUT YOU MIGHT SOMEDAY” is not an argument. Secondly, what you are dealing with in this century is not armed warfare; you are dealing with totalitarian nanny statism which for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its ends. Thirdly, please name me one recent example where someone or a group of people went up against the US government with guns and achieved its aims and did not end up either dead or in jail? What you *actually* have are mass shootings, high rates of gun homicides, suicides, and accidents. The rhetoric may be great on the other side, but that’s what your gun rights look like in actuality.
MAA: “which for the most part does not resort to violence to achieve its ends”—UNTIL IT DOES.
You’re locked in a cell with a psychopath. The psychopath is armed, and you are not. He hasn’t done anything to you yet, so nothing to worry about, right?
The argument is every genocide in history. Disarming the populace is a necessary step to achieve it. It cannot be accomplished overtly without that step.
You evidently fail to understand the concept of mutually assured destruction. Having a large sector of the populace armed *prevents* the necessity of using guns to defend the citizens against tyranny. As Solzhenitsyn reminds us, officers are not going to be eager to come arrest you en masse and cart you off to the gulag if they know you have the ability to defend yourself.
The mass shootings, high rates of homicides, and suicides happen predominantly in states and cities with draconian gun laws (California, New York, Chicago, etc.). Criminals can get guns no problem; it is the innocent law-abiding citizens who cannot defend themselves because their right to self-defense has been taken away.
OS: Yeah I know; like I said, I’ve heard all the arguments before. And the fact that it simply doesn’t look like that in countries without armed citizenry totally escapes the American mind. As does the fact that the idea of an armed citizenry prevailing against the government comes literally from the 18th century. I suppose all the actual deaths are the price you have to pay for that idea.
MAA: Canada. Australia. New Zealand.
I suppose the loss of freedoms and rights is the price you have to pay for your idea. Not to mention the lives of whomever a democidal government targets for elimination.
Gun laws don’t stop criminals from getting guns. Gun laws don’t stop governments from using force against you. Gun laws don’t stop “actual deaths” from occurring.
All they do is stop law-abiding citizens from having the ability to defend themselves against criminals and tyranny.
OS: No one uses this argument about any other crime - “laws don’t stop this crime from occurring entirely, therefore we shouldn’t do anything to make it more difficult to commit, or allow us to enforce those laws.” And again, you have no actual proof that guns in the States prevent “tyranny”. You do, as I mentioned previously, have evidence that your laws and courts do. Which is something we are lacking in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Forgive me if I don’t believe that the idea of a shootout with a few zealots keeps the government on its toes, sans evidence.
MAA: I can forgive you for not believing that because I have repeatedly said that your straw man argument of “a shootout with a few zealots” is not what stops tyranny. It is a broadly armed populace that is willing to defend its rights that stops tyranny.
I’m really surprised someone who sees through the lies about the injections cannot recognize that the same people are lying to them for the same reasons. Why is the media suddenly trustworthy in this one instance? Why is the government suddenly trustworthy in this one instance?
OS: Do you think the government and media are the only sources of information or the only ways anyone forms their opinions?
MAA: There are those whose opinions are formed by the media, and there are those who form their own opinions. If one’s opinion aligns with the media, the government, the politicians, and the corporations, then one’s opinion has been formed on their behalf.
OS: Well, I guess I’ll have to leave this discussion by thanking you for assuming I’m incapable of independent thought. That’s a conversation killer right there; you might want to rethink that strategy.
MAA: It’s because I know you are capable of independent thought that I have bothered to engage in this discussion to begin with. I know you are capable of seeing through the lies, so it surprises me that you are not doing so here.
OS: You believe they’re lies. You seem incapable of seeing another point of view, or understanding that any intelligent person could think differently, which is pretty par for the course for any discussions I’ve had with Americans on this issue. However, thank you for engaging.
MAA: You keep retreating into self-defensiveness and ad hominem attacks. I am providing historical evidence and the rationale for the propagandists to lie to you.
If two+ years of COVID tyranny hasn’t convinced you that you should be skeptical of the MSM’s and politicians’ drum-banging lies, then I’m sorry you are unable to see that you have fallen for a self-defeating talking point.
Get a group subscription
I cannot overstate how much your support means to me and how necessary it is for me to continue devoting every available second to unmasking totalitarianism and awakening the sleeping before tyranny triumphs. Thank you, dear readers! 🙏🤗🙌
Since I published it over the holiday weekend, a lot of people missed my letter to legislators about rejecting S.3737, which would institute a federal Ministry of Truth for public health. Please see the original post and instructions for taking action here:
See the following post for details on IPAK-EDU curricula, and please use my affiliate code (MAA1IPAK) to register for any courses you decide to take:
If you feel the work I am doing is worthwhile and want to make it possible for me to spend more time writing and researching in my aim to unmask totalitarianism and awaken the sleeping before tyranny triumphs, please consider supporting me, whether it be by subscribing, buying me a Ko-fi, or sharing my posts. I thank you for reading, thinking, sharing, and supporting my work in whichever ways you choose.
Get 10% off a group subscription
Share Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass
Prefer to donate crypto? You can send Bitcoin using the following code:
Since crypto transfers are anonymized, I won’t know about your donation. Please drop me an email by responding to any of my newsletters if you’d like to alert me to your generous gift.
Remember, a subscription to Margaret Anna Alice Through the Looking Glass makes for an intellectually adventurous gift down the rabbit-hole!
Give a gift subscription
Note: Purchasing any items using Amazon affiliate links included in my content will further support my efforts to unmask tyranny.
This quote is often misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, but it turns out it is a quotation by Cesare Beccaria that Jefferson recorded in his Legal Commonplace Book. The original is in Italian, and the quote above is believed to be from a 1963 translation by Henry Palolucci. (h/t The Good Citizen for introducing me to this quote)
Just as I was preparing to publish this piece, I discovered Dr. Naomi Wolf posted this exquisite reflection:
On researching this quote further, I discovered it is actually Alinksy’s synopsis of Lenin’s speeches (which I suspect he advocates but don’t want to buy Rules for Radicals to confirm, although it would probably be a good idea to read under know-thy-enemy and all that):
“The essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was, ‘They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.’ And it was.”
This is my first time publishing a discussion thread, and I ran into some technical glitches with publishing. The e-newsletter was missing a bunch of text and had disembodied links in some email apps, so I apologize to those who were confused by this oddity. Thanks to everyone for your patience, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter!
I also agree wholeheartedly with Dr Meryl Nass--and her questions. There is more to these "mass shootings" than meets the eye (or the media make them out to be on so-called "both sides"), and the TIs and mind control programs, I'm convinced, are operational in these psyops.
As I do with Naomi Wolf's thoughtful essay. She has moved so far from her original liberal stances on so many things - I thank God for her for that. She has been humble enough to open her eyes and mind to the truth.
when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
Your antagonist refuses to remove those blinders about gun control. I guess we all have certain blind spots we simply cannot see through. Utter humility is needed to get at truth. It's all ad hominem hereon out. She feels threatened somehow over this issue--who knows why?
Like you, I held "anti-gun" view for several years, too. Unthinkingly so. All part of the brainwashing in school and most of all, dominant media. Until, by the grace of God (and only by that miracle), I just began to reexamine all my so-called "liberal" views about everything, and found that deep in my soul, I hewed more politically conservative by the time Obama came on the scene (a whole filthy story of giant mendacity right there, but no digression for now).
Also, another thing about guns and murder: cars kill people all the time--do we thus ban them from the streets? (Note that the globalists' agenda to remove *our* cars and fuel from us is a different matter altogether!) Knives?
I've long thought that all these "mass shootings" since the Columbine massacre have been LIHOP/MIHOP psyops meant to further the anti-gun plot to remove all private gun ownership in the US. All your arguments presented above are cogent. Kudos once more to you for your patience and assiduousness in harnessing all these facts to bolster your view on the matter.
Whatever anyone says either way on this subject won’t sway my mind. Nobody is taking my means to defend myself without killing me first. End of story.
I lived in Europe for many years and when I moved to the US it was mind boggling to me that so many people had guns. The past 3 years led me to understand better this debate and I lean much more in favor of the 2nd Amendment now. America was never meant to be like the rest of the world, we have our unique ways both good and bad but we are about the last country on this planet where citizens are mostly armed and that gives our government, whichever party it is, some pause before enacting policies to which the people don’t agree.
And yes, I have to mention Australia because it was utopian what happened there that it cannot be ignored.
It would so much easier to just strengthen security at schools. So many private schools have security guards and checkpoints of entrance and exiting, why can’t public schools?
I saw the number of armed police in Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy. The week after I was there they and many other armed police and military came and violently pushed back defenseless people because of a group of peaceful protesters who were looking for a dialogue with the government. The government who now is banning all hand guns ownership. These are the incremental steps that only get worse, these governments don't one day say, "oh, thats enough, we don't need to continue to take away peoples rights anymore we have done enough."
There is a breakdown in rule of law certainly in the states and more and more in Canada. Enact 'The Emergency Act' so that peoples rights can be taken away for no reason. So, laws are not going to protect us when the government ignores them when they chose.
I would like to see a much stronger gun lobby in Canada, as Canadians I think we will just roll over, as we did for Covid, as so many did to criticize 'freedom', as we are doing by spending our money in Ukraine where it is very apparent that it is necessary to spend it here. Roll over because of what the government says. When a government stops serving its people and starts telling them what they need to do, we are in trouble.
And there won't be anything we can do if we cannot defend ourselves when it becomes necessary.
Excellent bullet points, MAA! And you're right - Naomi Wolf's piece a few hours earlier was exquisite. I cannot improve on your points because I share all of them. TBH, I've not read the antagonist thread. I can't deal with any more irrationality at the moment. The leftist wife responded to my email yesterday (apparently she didn't think her husband's caustic response was enough) and I've refused to read it so far. Think I'll have my husband go through it first.
This is a link to a Federalist article from years ago about what is used in other countries to kill people instead of guns. http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/gun-control-across-world-leads-acid-knifings-bombings/
P.S. JP has a recent video about banning all guns that is good, but his "How to Think Like a Leftist" flow chart is superb! https://rumble.com/v174pyj-why-guns-must-be-banned-now.html
There are over 370 "mental disorders" listed in the latest version of the DSM 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes "Tobacco Addiction Disorder" among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called "mental illnesses." If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I'd guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another. BEWARE.....
It seems obvious to me that the repeal of the original Smith Mundt Act opened the floodgates for propaganda from every angle. I do not think it is a happy circumstance that our ‘News’ went south right about when the government passed a law making it legal for the government to propagandize the public. Great article!
From Thomas DiLorenzo 5/31/22:
"Now that voting no longer matters:
....in light of the massive vote fraud of the 2020 elections, which will only become more pervasive and cemented into place, the only thing that now stands in the way of totalitarianism
is gun ownership.
I have a dream.
That Chuck Schumer will personally supervise attempts to go door-to-door in the mountains of Arkansas, Western Montana, the rural South, the Deer Hunter area of western Pennsylvania, West Texas, and other parts of real America, including the inner city "hood", to announce that "I'm from the government and I'm here to confiscate your firearms".
Thanks for sharing this discussion thread. I am for private ownership of guns, and switched to this view about 7 years ago when I recognized the US government no longer represented the people.
I think you began with a weak argument that may have affected the rest of the interaction. Guns ARE made to kill people, and arguing otherwise seems like nonsense, seems like you're not arguing honestly. Guns were invented to kill, and then have been used either for defense (whether you fire your gun or not), and/or to injure or kill in defense or aggression. A counter-argument about knives is also weak, because there's no comparison between the effort and ability needed to kill on a mass scale with knives vs guns. Admitting guns are made to be lethal bolsters what I found was the strongest sentence in your argument, "It is a broadly armed populace that is willing to defend its rights that stops tyranny." This is directly related to the fact that guns can easily kill as they are designed to do, so people, police forces and governments think twice before violating the space of gun owners.
The downside of widely available gun ownership is that some people will use it to injure and kill innocent people. This is a heartbreaking and heart-wrenching downside, and weighs heavily on every caring person. People need to realize that since guns are widely available, we are experiencing the downside of this situation, vs not experiencing the downside of guns not being available to the citizenry. For example, if guns were not widely available, we would be experiencing less mass shootings, but could also be experiencing the downside of that situation; mass harm to our citizenry due to our government and police force overrunning and killing the citizens that interfere with their agenda (as you pointed out).
Isn't it interesting that the government would enforce their tyranny with the exact tools that they want to take away from law abiding citizens who want to be left alone and live free?
As far as these idiots who claim a citizenry can't fight the government cause "tanks and airplanes".... how would you explain Vietnam and Afghanistan (both places I've been). Smaller, less educated and greatly out classed in weaponry, these third world backwaters defeated the most well equipped military in the history of mankind. Now the big question is...does the American public have the same commitment as the Vietcong or the Taliban? I think that's a solid no.
For OS to write "Your argument is that unorganized, scattered, private gun owners with weapons that do not come to the level of government arms, are somehow holding off tyranny in the US. Forgive me, but that seems like a fantasy." is itself a fantasy IN REAL TIME.
See: Australia, New Zealand, Canada to name but three countries being swallowed by government tyranny TODAY, and with their People mostly unarmed. No connection? THAT is fantasy.
In a way these debates are so very odd. Before the late 1950's mass killings were quite rare. We certainly had the tools, even machine guns for a time before they were banned. But semi-automatics have been around since the early 1900's. Now it is true that the current AR type rifles are quite easy to use but semi-auto pistols are also quite easy to use particularly in the smaller calibers of the AR type rifles. And we do see that most mass killings are usually by pistol. Magazine capacity seems to also be an issue but several of whatever size can easily be carried.
A lot of social changes erupted in the late 50's that seem most appropriate to debate - the degree in which we tolerate immorality. We ought to all agree that killing another human is something that is quite wrong except under dire circumstance. We can agree that anger toward others is OK except when it results in violence, or do we?
We have always had some deranged people including down and out addicts who have given up hope. In the past we would try to help the deranged and the addicts but most of that has devolved from groups trying to make a difference to assigning that task to government who cannot help at all. At best the government can remove people from society and place them in uncaring institutions. But only communities can really help by caring individuals trying. We once did have community helpers, sponsored within the communities but in the main we now count on an ineffective government and try in ignore the issues. Any dependency on government to resolve human failures is likely to disappoint.
While religion and religious institutions are rejected by many, in the past they served a powerful purpose of organizing the community. Believers affected even non-believers by their charity. As a society we generally were tolerant of the bible thumpers thinking them well intended. In the rejection of that entire segment of society by mockery and other tools created to instill doubt we have thrown the baby out so to speak. Being anti-religious became cool. After all who is to tell you how to live? But in the process we have been net losers.
"Show me were owning guns overcame a tyrannical govt in the US"
here you go,
The incremental steps started with the muzzle...
Civics have been taken out of school curriculums decades ago, but my impression is that in families, where children learn how to shoot at an early age, the Constitution is well and alive.
Even psychopaths and criminals are more reserved under such circumstances.
Kentucky, where I live, is about the fifth poorest state in the Union, when it comes to personal income, but it has the 5th lowest crime rate. When I moved here eight years ago, somebody explained it to me: "People are nice here, because everyone is armed to the teeth." :)
In the current process of mass murder, I don't think that disarming the populace will come before martial law is introduced. Once the food riots start, the monsters will be watching with glee as looters will roam the land and the previously law-abiding citizens murder each other for a bowl of thin soup... People will do the favor for the tyrants...
The only chance people have is that the enforcers realize that their money will not be worth a penny a few years from now and their very survival will depend on complete compliance until they wear out their usefulness and will be lined up on the roads to the death camps.
Anyone working under the premise that these school shootings are somehow organic and not part of a continuing PYSOP to garner support for the elimination of self-defense via guns is likely to come to a different conclusion. How many times does one of the alphabet agencies have to be "familiar" with a perpetrator before the public realizes these events are "Made to Happen" or "Allowed to Happen." The idea that the only government agencies should be the only people allowed to have weapons is a non-starter. We all have a natural right to self-defense, whether that be from individual or government action. That is particularly so when the latest "school shooting" clearly indicates that the law enforcement won't protect you. And anyone depending upon the Criminal Injustice System to combat tyranny or markedly reduce crime is going to be greatly disappointed.
The point of being armed isn't even about winning against the government; it is the idea that they are walking into a nightmare - one that they really don't won't to face as we are really led by cowards. That is why they spend so much time on propaganda and deception. So, yeah, start using nuclear weapons against the public. Watch what happens next when it is made clear that people have nothing more to lose.
First you could have answered their question - why does America have so many mass shootings?
0) There are more people in the USA so there are more shootings. France had an extremely deadly shooting (Bataclan), New Zealand had Christ Church, etc. Many countries with much stricter laws have a higher rate per capita than the here- the US makes up about 1.15% of the world's mass shootings while having almost 5% of the world's population.
A better question is "why does the US seem to have a problem with young men who become psychological messes and want to kill classmates:"
1) America has higher rates of single parent households than any other country
2) America has higher rates of prescription psychological medication of children than any other
Mass shootings weren't common before those two, even though guns were (arguably even more) common.
Second, i usually ask them to expand their argument and see where it breaks down. "Pretend that the deaths of innocents actually could have been prevented if the government were to take away the 2nd amendment from everyone just to stop psychopaths from being able to kill children with rifles. If that's OK, then which other rights should we give away to save other innocent lives?"
Certainly freedom of press has to go. If the press were not allowed to share manifestos and glorify the killers, it's proven repeatedly that that would curtail future acts. So if the 2nd is guilty and must be axed, the first is at least as guilty and must be disposed of as well.
The fourth amendment as well must go - quite obviously, if police could search homes and vehicles of every known drug dealer and suspected criminal, they would be able to protect at least some innocent lives that will otherwise be brutally victimized in the future.
The fifth is extremely problematic and should be curtailed too - the vast majority of shootings are never solved because individuals refuse to talk to the police, which leads to more innocents being shot. If police could force criminals to confess, surely it would save childrens lives.
Jury trials? probably not worth it anymore, since juries can let killers go even if the experts in government know the killers are guilty.
Due process and bail are absolutely responsible for the murder of many many innocent people. So those must be given up as well.
Remember, it's for the children. Or are you a monster?
People put on sanctimonious airs, making sweeping claims about mass shootings being "only in America".
This reflects the bad state of journalism.
Looking at the data for the US, Canada and Europe from 2009 to 2015, America was ranked 11th in "Average annual Death Rate per Million People from Mass Public Shootings"
Serbia ( 0.381) and
France (0.347) TOPPED THE LIST.
In a perfect world, nobody would need a gun. If I go to Heaven, I'll leave my guns here. If I go to Hell, Katie bar the door!
Whilst arguments on both sides have some merit it might be worth considering the nature of the society at large. For example, in UK gun control is extreme and yet we have few shootings but do have a constant drip of mainly knife attacks.
The UK, Australia, Japan and Germany have all taken measures to reduce gun homicides. Can the US learn anything from them? America's gun homicide rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, according to a recent study. In USA many people see the ownership of guns as a crucial check on government tyranny. The country’s highest court has ruled that outright bans on civilian ownership of handguns are unconstitutional. But civilised enforcement and culture may also play important roles in preventing violence.
As long as America retains a militarised police force and a predatory government engaging in global violence around the world using black propaganda to justify regime change and a weaponised dollar - the people with respond accordingly. QED these mass shootings events are the result of a tyrannical government invoking fear of the government in the people who feel they need to defend themselves against these dark internal forces.
This zeitgeist is not present in UK - yet, but we are getting there as the recent illegal lockdowns illustrate. However, public petitions, most notably by the Snowdrop Campaign, founded by friends of the bereaved families, called for a total ban on the private ownership and use of handguns in the UK. Signed by 750,000 people it was symbolic of the weight of public opinion in the aftermath of the Dunblane school massacre.
Nine years before Dunblane, there had been Hungerford, where Michael Ryan went on a rampage through the Berkshire town, killing 16 people in a series of random shootings before turning the gun on himself. He had been carrying a handgun and two semi automatic rifles, for which he had firearms certificates.
The aftermath of Hungerford brought to an end the right to own semi-automatic firearms in Britain; they were banned along with pump action weapons, and registration became mandatory for shotgun owners. But it was the weight of public opinion that energised this response - you don't have this in USA.
I don't think USA will ever resolve this dilemma. The state is rotten to the core and Americans know it and fear their own government. Only destruction of the Deep State and putrid swamp of corruption and graft will allow America to rise again as its former shining example of true freedom and liberty.
My view on gun control is that everybody should have one and know how to use it. As collapse intensifies it will become more obvious that police and others are not going to protect us. I think most of the shootings that are highlighted by the media and used to push the wedge issue of gun control were in some way facilitated or helped along to further the narrative, whether the person was groomed by the FBI, police were asked to stand down, or it was all a made for media production. https://sukwan.substack.com/p/did-police-in-the-uvalde-texas-school?s=w
This entire gun argument is really so simple. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
And yes you could buy a cannon back in the time of our founding fathers. And the fact that I cannot by an M1 tank is an infringement on my 2A rights. George Washington said, “they should have arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government”.
If you don’t like the foundational laws of this country as it pertains to firearms then you can move to literally almost any other country on Earth and not live around people who have guns, I mean there are just so many other options. But for the rest of us, this IS our option.
Margaret, Thank you for sharing this stomach churning mis-adventure. The "footedness" and staunch defense by the uninformed never ceases to astound me. I hope that it is not a violation of some unwritten internet protocol to use the my response to Naomi Wolf for you as well:
Naomi, great work and thank you for sticking it out! You are the modern day version of John in the woods wrapped in skins and eating wild berries and insects, screaming....REPENT FOR THE LORD IS COMING! Like you he persevered. God worked it out early that it is up to the individual to gain the knowledge and make the decision. You are blessed for being one who brings knowledge. Now we wait.
In addition I would like to share with you the following:
If they can't be trusted to protect our free speech,
If they can't be trusted to protect the lives of our unborn children,
If they can't be trusted to protect our right to freely assemble,
If they can't be trusted to protect our boarder from illegal aliens,
If they can't be trusted to tell us the truth about our current financial situation,
If they can't be trusted to protect our energy independence so we are not dependent upon nations that despise us for the energy resources needed to maintain our jobs and homes,
Then why would we trust them for our personal protection?
It's illogical at best and dangerous at worst.
-Pastor Allen Jackson, World Outreach Church, Murfreesboro, Tennessee
"NE: Come on. Guns don’t cause mass shootings but they’d be less of them if guns weren’t around"
I remember asking her, "Wait - if you get rid of guns, then why would there only be "less" of mass shootings? Why would there be any mass shootings at all? I mean, you just got rid of guns, didn't you?"
Or words to that effect.
What she doesn't contemplate is that which cannot be known but can be deduced: what would unopposed bad guys do, and what would an unopposed government do, if they all knew that the People were unarmed and defenseless?
I mean, just look at what they do KNOWING that there are 300 millions guns out there. Imagine if NONE of the People were armed ... well, you don't have to imagine.
You only have to open a history book. (Or pay attention to what's happening in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, among others, these days.)
With you again MAA! Well done.
Margaret, living in Australia, I never felt disadvantaged by the strict gun laws here. America had just as many tyrannical edicts imposed on the populace during Covid as we did despite all the weaponry. I thought to myself, where is the armed uprising? Even more so, during the January 6 “insurrection”; where were the guns? Nowhere, except in the hands of a Capital officer.
The fact is Australia is not America. Their histories are totally different. You have inner city poverty and crime on a level that we don’t have in Australia. You also have so many illegally owned weapons that even with a gun ban the criminals would not be deterred. Also, you can perform mass carnage with cars and trucks as has occurred both in the U.S. and other countries.
I remember America of the 1950s and 60s; there were nowhere near as many mass killings as today; still many gun. Of course then you didn’t have the destruction of family and religious institutions; nor did you have the internet or the level of pharmaceutical pollution of children that exists today.
Apologies for not reading every one of the 100+ comments if I am restating something. But one of NE's common replies, of which I've arguing against, is the statement suggesting in "countries without guns", there are no mass casualty tragedies, and that the argument is trying to prove a negative. This is easily refutable. All of the so called "gunless societies" have had their high casualty incidents, numerous times.
Mexico: private gun ownership is illegal, and yet it has one of the highest homicide rates globally.
California: some if the most restrictive gun prohibitions anywhere and yet homicides are at an all time high. New York, almost identical.
Most of the EU has had numerous mass casualty events, some involving firearms, and some not, which didn't fit the establishment narratives, and have been memory holed for the public good, but which still happened and records exist, subjective truths be damned.
Thank you for arguing rationally for the right to self preservation. The opponents of which always seem to rely on the false premise of government benevolence, to the point of absurdity.
MAA: You are courageous to take this issue on. Well done. I saw Dr. Naomi Wolf's post and thought it was fantastic the way she shared her journey to understand the real 2A issues.
“I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime. I am convinced that a criminal who wants a firearm can get one through illegal, nontraceable, unregistered sources, with or without gun control.”
That was Joe Biden in July 1985.
It is in this article. Enough of the lies Joe! What part of "Shall not be infringed" does Biden not understand?
I used to engage on these topics, but the opposition isn’t acting in good faith, at best. At this point, I feel the same way about this topic as I do all of our natural rights: I don’t give a shit if anyone doesn’t like them. Tough. Too bad. Suck it.
You did this on purpose, MAA, just when I was ready for a easy, relaxing, evening...
You handle these discussions so beautifully!!
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
Psychotropic drugs are big business: in 2009, roughly 300,000,000 prescriptions were written for these agents. Psychotropic drugs are big business: in 2009, roughly 300,000,000 prescriptions were written for these agents. Duff Wilson of The New York Times recently reported that the newer generation of antipsychotics has become the country’s best selling medications. (would you disarm them all!)
--A few years ago i sat with many PTSD veterans at a Patriot Meeting and the Obama Regime was pushing for gun control if diagnosed with PTSD, many who have owned their guns for decades!! THE NRA WAS BACKING THE OBAMA REGIME!!!
Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin.. Lawful gun ownership is not a disease. It is a constitutionally protected, individual right.… State-controlled psychiatry is a terrifying weapon, especially when it is used to determine who has rights. Every individual should be able to be eccentric, different, and even self-destructive. As long as the behavior harms no one else, it is no business of authority. To screen people for potentially dangerous behavior is a form of pre-crime diligence that gives government an almost unlimited power over anyone it targets. It is a tool of social control, not safety.
these butchers are pure evil .. in most cases they planned these attacks for weeks or even months!
(SECURITY IN SCHOOLS IS THE ANSWER)
💯👀 Thank you, MAA.
Thanks for sharing the thread. It's always interesting to see the exchange between two people/groups that have diametrically opposing views on a subject. While I agree 100% with you, I think O.S. had a point when she said, it sounded like she was being accused of having an opposing view based in propaganda and brainwashing and not her own conclusions and reasons., for her own reasons. If she (for whatever reason) sided with gun control or even gun abolition, she must be deluded in some way (forgive the paraphrasing of your position and comments).
I understand (from reading your inputs) that your intention was not to label or accuse her, but to point out the agenda driven political/media machinations, that influence countless, intelligent people worldwide.
I had a similar discussion with a coworker years back, when high capacity magazines were being debated and voted on in Colorado. He vehemently advocated for the banning/abolishment of them and said there could be NO GOOD reason for them. Anyone who advocated for them was foolish, uniformed, intentionally muckraking, didn't care about mass shootings and lives lost or a psychopath. I simply could have no good reason, for advocating for high capacity magazines.
When he took a breath and said he would entertain a reply from me, I said the following:
As a military veteran (Gulf War) I have loaded and unloaded countless 5.56 and 9mm rounds in magazines. With stripper clips it's a breeze (5.56). However, when each round is loose (like most bought in the civilian world) it is laborious and after a while a little painful on the finger tips (I'm talking hundreds of rounds here). I'm also lazy. I would rather sit and load 20 or 30 - 30 round magazines all at once, then go to the range and shoot to my hearts content. The prospect of load 10 round, shoot, stop, reload, shoot, stop, reload...is ridiculous to me. I also said, I am not wrong for my reasoned position, as we were in America and I have the right to my own decision making, so long as no one else is harmed by it. To his credit, he said "that's actually a valid reason, I see your point". It didn't change his overall stance, but we were able to sit on opposing sides of the fence, with mutually granted space.
Another thought I have always had, is that people with strong views on long held polarizing topics, almost never abandon them, until they are affected by them. I would love to see results of a survey asking anti-gun women, who had been raped, if they'd have wanted a gun (that they had trained to use for self defense) when their rapist attacked them.
When you strip away the fantasy of "that will never happen to me", then positions and long held beliefs change quickly.
Case in point are the liberal and dem parent pushing back against the in school grooming of their children, where racism and sexualization is concerned.
The irony is human beings have centuries of hind sight, on both individual and societal levels, but almost always have to repeat mistakes and suffer the consequences to learn lessons previous learned and paid for by countless others.
Thanks for your observations, opinions and spectacular writing abilities. I always feel smarter after reading your work!
dear margaret anna alice there is another thing that must be considered if tyranny is to occur in this country, is will our military be used to attack their fellow countryman? for the most part i think not. other than a few treasonous officers like general milley, the government would have to bring in foreign soldiers (united nation's troops). this military force would not be generally too enthusiastic with fighting heavily armed Americans! we would have what is referred to in sports as the home field advantage!
dear margaret anna alice this person that you were debating with clearly doesn't know history, particularly American history! this country has been in two MAJOR wars with an adversary far superior to our young nation. England's army was very much greater in man power and equipment than ours in the American revolution, and obviously we prevailed in this one! then in the war of 1812, England had a far superior navy than young America with several hundred ships. the british empire was considered as having the greatest navy in the world at that time, and the British still lost to upstart America! perhaps Britain should have confiscated America's arms, then things would have been vary different! thank God they were unable to do this!
Firstly, I agree with ALL of your views on guns. As to what is stirring us to have this conversation it is young men shooting up our children in schools. They have been between 16 - 20 years old. I don't know about the last two mass shootings (Buffalo included), but I can bet they are on some type of pharmaceutical anti-depressant. After the Sandy Hook shooting I just knew that shooter would be found to be on meds that altered his brain chemistry in some way. While I'm not as skilled at investigating and gathering as you are, my high-level theory is that pharma is behind this "blame the guns" story. Their deep pockets has kept us on this topic for years now when in my realty is more likely due to their dangerous drugs. Chris Masterson (of Peak Prosperity) recently posted videos on the topic of "demoralization" vs. depression and the dangers of misdiagnosing as depression then drugging up our young during the period when their brains are still being developed. His videos can be long but they're quite good. Here is one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0051hkjB9po
For schools, my concern with arming the teachers is that students do steal from their teachers. They'll find a way... I don't have a better argument about it than that--this is just the aspect that makes me hesitant about arming teachers. It would be more helpful for schools if the local law enforcement would act as Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County did. “If you come to a school in this county, armed, we’re going to do our best through either our guardians, our school resource officers, or our school resource deputy sheriffs to eliminate the threat outside of the school before they ever get to the children. We’re trained to do that.” “This is the last thing you’ll see before we put a bullet through your head if you’re trying to hurt our children,” Judd said this while holding a picture of two police officers carrying firearms. “We are going to shoot you graveyard dead if you come onto a campus, with a gun, threatening our children or shooting at us.”
I come at this from a strictly technical point of view.
1. The right to self defense is a natural human right, one that predates any compact or government.
2. The government is not the source of rights; it may not lawfully take them away.
3. The 2nd Amendment is a further restriction on government, not individuals. It is not a back door way for the government, at least the federal version, to regulate firearms ownership and possession.
4. Two recent SCOTUS decisions have ruled that the 2nd Amendment enshrines an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Cruikshank decision (1876) said that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence.
5. There is no positive grant of power in the Constitution for the federal government to regulate firearms ownership or possession. If the 2nd Amendment disappeared, there would still be no positive grant of power to regulate firearms ownership or possession in the Constitution.
6. Our federal government and state governments have delegated powers. Since no individual or group, no matter how large, has the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, it logically follows that no one can delegate a power to any government that they, themselves, do not possess. This applies to laws about waiting periods, background checks, "red flag" laws, magazine restrictions, ammunition restrictions, restrictions on numbers of weapons that can be purchased per month, and just about every proposed restriction of which I am aware.
7. Our founders made it painfully obvious that the people and the State militias were to be better armed than any army the federal government, on any pretense, could raise.
If I tended to trust my government, I might be amenable to some restrictions. Since I don't trust my government, I regard every proposal with the greatest of suspicion. I tend to see every proposal as being very liable to be misinterpreted or misapplied, so much so as to regulate the right out of existence. This is especially true with "red flag" proposals and such. As someone else has written, the very flexible definitions of mental illness, or incapacity, could make "red flag" laws the weapon of choice for ruling most people unqualified to possess firearms.
I am afraid that the only realistic proposal to limit or stop these kinds of massacres is to encourage everyone to be armed, in all venues, except where prohibited by the actual owner of the venue. I view the most reasonable mindset is to accept that the world is a very dangerous place, and no amount of laws can make the world safe. If many of the recent shooting sprees have taught us anything, it is that the police and the government can't protect you, in fact, won't protect you, when you really need them to.
In fact, they have shown by their cowardice in the face of clear and present threats that they do not deserve their offices of honor or respect. Their offices and jobs should be terminated immediately, and other provisions for ensuring the public safety should be proposed.
There are probably points I have missed, but this should start the discussion.
Well written, as always, MAA. The recent incident in Texas illustrates very well why we cannot rely on law enforcement to come to our aid all the time. They have my respect, but I do not expect them to be on my doorstep before a criminal gets through the front door. A former friend once told me only the police should be allowed to possess firearms. "Oh, yeah, I saw a movie -- based on a true story -- in which the police had weapons and the people did not." What was the movie? "Schindler's List" Enough said.
as a brit i have always been anti gun (although i have fired a few bb guns and thoroughly enjoyed target shooting). i thought that seeing the stats of deaths by guns and how bad it looks in the states that they were a bad idea. someone with anger issues goes bonkers with them or a depressed person blows their own brains out, i have been through depression and i expect if i had had easy access to a gun i might not be here now.
however having spent the last two years watching Australia Canada and New Zealand fall under corporate fascism and reading Solzhenitsyn and others like Naomi Wolfs piece above (i never thought about women being more vulnerable (hangs head in shame)) that i have re-evaluated my position and regret our countries gun laws, we are in a precarious position and i dont like it
Sort of suitable for the discussion is a quote from Louis L'Amour (at least that's where I read it). Relevant in its clear-sighted wisdom and downright humorous, in the right context. It goes something like this: "There's nothing more dangerous than an unloaded gun when you need one." —Although I don't keep one chambered. The pronounced ratcheting warning of doing so might afford me a startled split-second advantage... or it might get me killed, but I feel it prudent.
Woohoo! I just read Malone’s Sunday Strip. I LOVE the shout out to you MAA. You’re doing amazing work and we are grateful to be part of this experience with such brave and courageous people.
Thanks so much for this MAA. And... "The topic of gun rights/control is one I assumed pretty much everyone in the anti-tyranny/pro-freedom movement would be in agreement on. A lively comment exchange at a recent el gato malo post proved otherwise, however."
Yes! I was utterly shocked that people who I've seen screaming liberty and freedom regarding so-called medicine/shots and other issues where violations of rights and body exist did a complete about face when it came to protecting one's creator/God given right to protect one's body with a firearm. A criminal with a hypodermic is no different than a criminal with a firearm. They both need to be arrested. And, at this point in history, criminals with hypodermics have killed and maimed countless numbers more people than a madman with a firearm has. That's an indisputable fact.
Keep on pressing on MAA. Thanks for your incredible work.
That was good to read. It is interesting that some things could be seen through by the debater but not this issue. Not yet anyway. I was a full on progressive and I attempted this debate with an uncle twenty years ago. I didn't admit it in the debate, but it left me in doubt about my position, which I realized I had zero historical context informing it. (Why would I need that?, I read the NYT's) Of course eventually I realized it wasn't even 'my' position at all. It's uncomfortable - as we know - to learn how easily we've been manipulated, especially when the cause it 'righteous' like saving the lives of kids. Identity is play and that's always unsettling. Thanks, MAA.
"If we just get rid of these rifles that shoot 100 bullets a second, and have the shoulder thing that goes up, there would never be another killing, this never happened before the weapon of war AK15 was around, or violent video games",,,,,,,Heard this for years, but I beg to differ, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/24/bath-consolidated-school-massacre-uvalde/