This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Gun Rights - Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left?

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

Gun Rights: Are There Any Peaceful Solutions Left?

Throughout history, citizen disarmament generally leads to one of two inevitable outcomes:  Government tyranny and genocide, or, revolution and civil war.  Anti-gun statists would, of course, argue that countries like the UK and Australia have not suffered such a result.  My response would be – just give them time.   You may believe that gun control efforts are part and parcel of a totalitarian agenda (as they usually are), or, you may believe that gun registration and confiscation are a natural extension of the government’s concern for our “safety and well-being”.  Either way, the temptation of power that comes after a populace is made defenseless is almost always too great for any political entity to dismiss.  One way or another, for one reason or another, they WILL take advantage of the fact that the people have no leverage to determine their own cultural future beyond a twisted system of law and governance which is, in the end, easily corrupted.

The unawake and the unaware among us will also argue that revolution or extreme dissent against the establishment is not practical or necessary, because the government “is made of regular people like us, who can be elected or removed at any time”. 

This is the way a Republic is supposed to function, yes.  However, the system we have today has strayed far from the methods of a Free Republic and towards the machinations of a single party system.  Our government does NOT represent the common American anymore.  It has become a centralized and Sovietized monstrosity.  A seething hydra with two poisonous heads; one Democrat in name, one Republican in name.  Both heads feed the same bottomless stomach; the predatory and cannibalistic pit of socialized oligarchy.

On the Republican side, we are offered Neo-Con sharks like George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, who argue for “conservative” policies such as limited government interference and reduced spending, all while introducing legislation which does the exact opposite.  The recent passage of the “Safe Act” in New York with extensive Republican support proves that Republicans cannot be counted on to defend true conservative values. 

The Democrats get candidates like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, who claim to be anti-war and against government abuse of civil liberties, and yet, these same “progressive and compassionate” politicians now froth at the mouth like rabid dogs sinking their teeth into the flesh of the citizenry, expanding on every tyrannical initiative the Republicans began, and are bombing more civilian targets in more foreign countries than anyone with a conscience should be able to bear.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; the government is not our buddy.  It is not our ally or friend.  It is not a “part of us”.  It is now a separate and dangerous entity.  A parasite feeding off the masses.  It has become a clear threat to the freedoms of average Americans.  It is time for the public to grow up, snap out of its childish delusions, and accept that there is no solace or justice to be found anymore in Washington D.C.  

Once we understand this fact, a question then arises – What do we do about it?  If we cannot redress our grievances through the election process because both parties favor the same authoritarian direction, and if our street protests are utterly ignored by the mainstream media and the establishment, and if civil suits do nothing but drag on for years with little to no benefit, then what is left for us?  Is the way of the gun the only answer left for the American people at this crossroads? 

I cannot deny that we are very close to such a conclusion.  Anyone who does deny it is living in a candy coated fantasy land.  However, there are still certain options that have not been exhausted, and we should utilize them if for no other reason than to maintain the moral high ground while the power elite continue to expose their own despotic innards.

State And County Nullification

The assertion of local authority in opposition to federal tyranny is already being applied across the country.  Multiple states, counties, and municipalities are issuing declarations of defiance and passing legislation which nullifies any future federal incursions against 2nd Amendment protections.  For instance, the Gilberton Borough Council in PA in conjunction with Police Chief Mark Kessler has recently adopted a resolution defending all 2nd Amendment rights within their municipal borders up to and including the denial of operations by federal officers:

Approximately 283 county Sheriffs and multiple police officers have taken a hard stand, stating that they will either not aid federal enforcement officials with gun control related activities, or, that they will not allow such activities within their county, period:

This trend of dissent amongst law enforcement officials debunks the nihilistic view promoted by disinformation agents that “no one in law enforcement will have the guts to stand up to the government no matter how sour it turns”.   It has also shaken the Obama Administration enough that the White House is struggling to counter it by wining and dining police unions and sheriffs departments in order to form their own “coalition of the willing”.  Obama seems to believe that holding press conferences using children or police as background props will somehow earn him political capital in the battle for gun rights, but I have my doubts:

Multiple states have legislation on the table to nullify as well, and it would seem that the violent push by the establishment to extinguish the 2nd Amendment has actually sharply rekindled the public’s interest in States Rights and the 10th Amendment.

This does not mean, though, that we should rely on nullification alone.  While the gun grabbers are stumbling into severe resistance at the national level, some representatives are attempting to supplant gun rights at the state level, including New York, California, Washington State, and Missouri.  The goal here is obvious; counter states rights arguments by using anti-gun legislators to impose federal controls through the back door of state legislation.

They will claim that if we support states rights, then we have to abide by the decisions of regions like New York when they ban and confiscate firearms.  It’s sad how gun grabbers lose track of reality.  Neither federal authority, nor state authority, supplants the legal barriers of the Constitution itself, meaning, no federal or local authority has the right or power to remove our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly, our freedom of privacy, OR our freedom to own firearms (including firearms of military utility).  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights supersede all other legal and political entities (including treaties, as ruled by the Supreme Court).  At least, that’s what the Founding Fathers intended when they established this nation.  The point is, a state is well within its rights to defy the Federal Government if it is enacting unconstitutional abuses, and the people are well within their rights to defy a state when it does the same.

Economic Nullification

There is actually a fantastic economic opportunity to be had by states and counties that nullify gun control legislation.  Many gun manufacturers and retail businesses are facing financial oblivion if the establishment has its way, and moving operations outside the U.S. is not necessarily practical for most of them (gun manufacturing is one of the last business models we still do better than the rest of the world).  Municipalities could offer safe haven to these businesses, allowing them to continue producing firearms and high capacity magazines, fulfill expanding public demand, and create a surging cash flow into their area while at the same time giving the federal government the finger.

This strategy does not come without dangers, though.  Many states and counties are addicted to federal funding, and some would go bankrupt without it.  The obvious first response by the feds to protesting local governments will be to cut off the river of cash and starve them into subservience. 

This brand of internal financial warfare can be countered by local governments by nullifying a few other unconstitutional regulations, including those issued by the EPA and the BLM.  States and counties could easily disable federal land development restrictions and begin using resource development as a means to generate supplemental income.  North Dakota is essentially doing this right now in the Bakken Oil Fields, becoming one of the few states in America that is actually creating legitimate high paying jobs (instead of part time wage slave jobs), and growing more prosperous every year.

This tactic is not limited to state governments either.  Counties also have the ability, with the right officials involved, to regain control of their economic destinies anytime they want.  All it takes is the courage to rock the establishment boat.

Refuse All Registration Schemes

National firearms registration and gun databases are almost always followed by full gun confiscation.  The process is usually done in a standardized manner:  First demand extensive registration and cataloging of gun owners.  Second, ban more effective styles of weaponry, including semi-automatics and high capacity rifles (Let the sport hunters keep their bolt actions for a time, and lure them onto your side with the promise that they will get to keep their .270 or their 30-06).  Then take all semi-auto handguns.  Then, ban high powered magnum style bolt actions by labeling them “sniper rifles”.  Then demand that the gun owners that still remain allow official “inspections” of their home by law enforcement to ensure that they are “storing their weapons properly”.  Then, force them to move those weapons to a designated “warehouse or range”, locked away for any use other than recreational shooting.  Then, when the public is thoroughly disconnected from their original right to bear arms, take everything that’s left. 

Keep in mind that the federal government and certain state governments are acting as if they would like to skip ALL of the preliminary steps and go straight to full confiscation.  I am not discounting that possibility.  But, they may feign certain concessions in the near term in order to get the one thing they really want – full registration. 

Registration must be the line in the sand for every single gun owner in this country, whether they own several semi-automatics, or one pump action shotgun.  Once you give in to being registered, fingerprinted, photographed, and tracked wherever you decide to live like a convicted sexual predator, you have shown that you have no will or spirit.  You have shown that you will submit to anything.

After a full registration has been enacted, every gun (and maybe every bullet) will be tracked.  If confiscation is utilized, they know exactly what you have and what you should not have, and exactly where you are.  Criminals will still acquire weapons illegally, as they always have.  The only people who will suffer are law abiding citizens. It’s a recipe for dictatorship and nothing more.             

Gun Barter Networks

The retail firearms and ammo markets are Sahara dry right now, and will probably remain that way in the foreseeable future.  Anything that is available for purchase is usually twice the price it was last year.  Extremely high demand is removing retail from the picture before any legislation is even passed.  Enter barter…

Cash will remain a bargaining tool for as long as the dollar remains the world reserve currency and holds at least some semblance of value (this will end sooner than most people think).  That said, as gun items become scarce, the allure of cash may be supplanted.  The signs of this are already evident.

Gun owners are now looking more to trade firearms and accessories for OTHER firearms and accessories, because they know that once they sell an item, they may never see it again, and the usefulness of cash is fleeting.  Gun Barter is not only a way for firearms enthusiasts to get what they need, it is also a way for them to move around any future gun sale restrictions that may arise.  Private gun sales are legal in some states, but do not count on this to last.  Barter leaves no paper trail, and thus, no traceable evidence of transaction.  For those who fear this idea as “legally questionable”, all I can do is remind them that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.  If it does not adhere to the guidelines of our founding principles, our founding documents, and our natural rights, then it is just a bunch of meaningless words on a meaningless piece of paper signed by a meaningless political puppet.            

3D Printing And Home Manufacturing

3D Printing is now available to the public and for those with the money, I recommend they invest quickly.  Unless the establishment wants to make the possession of these printers illegal, as well as shut down the internet, there will be no way to stop data streamers from supplying the software needed to make molds for every conceivable gun part, including high capacity mags.  This technology has been effectively promoted by the Wiki Weapons Project:

According to current ATF law, the home manufacture of gun parts is not technically illegal, as long as they are not being produced for sale.  But in a state or county where federal gun laws have been nullified, what the ATF says is irrelevant. 

Home manufacturing of gun parts and ammo would be a highly lucrative business in such safe haven areas.  And, the ability to build one’s own self defense platform is a vital skill in a sparse market environment.  The ultimate freedom is being able to supply your own needs without having to ask for materials or permission from others.  It should be the goal of every pro-gun activist to reach this independence.

Force The Establishment To Show Its True Colors

While some in the general public may be incensed by the trampling of our freedoms by government, many (including myself) would view direct action and aimless French Revolution-style violence as distasteful and disastrous.  The moral high ground is all that any dissenting movement has.  It will be hard enough to keep this ground with the constant demonization of liberty minded people that is being espoused by propaganda peddlers like the SPLC and numerous media outlets.  We do not need to help them do their jobs.

Now, to be clear, I have NO illusions that the above strategies will defuse a confrontation between those who value freedom, and those who desire power.  The hope is that enough people within our population will refuse to comply, and that this will make any future despotism impossible to construct.  However, it is far more likely that these acts of defiance will elicit a brutal response from the government.  And in a way, that is exactly what we want…

The Founding Fathers went through steps very similar to those I listed above and more to counter the tightening grip of the British Empire during the first American Revolution.  The idea is simple:

Peacefully deny the corrupt system’s authority over your life by supplying your own needs and your own security, rather than lashing out blindly.  Force them to show their true colors.  Expose their dishonor and maliciousness.  Make them come after you like the predators they are, and then, once they can no longer play the role of the “defending hero” in the eyes of the public, use your right to self defense to send them a message they won’t forget.

Skeptics will claim that physical defense is useless against a technologically advanced enemy.  They will claim that we need a "majority" we do not have in order to prevail.  These are usually people who have never fought for anything in their lives.  They do not understand that the “odds” are unimportant.  They mean nothing.  No revolution for good ever begins with "majority support".  Each is fought by a minority of strong willed and aware individuals.  When all other methods of protest have been dismantled, the system leaves us with only two options: stand and fight, or kneel and beg for mercy.  All you need to know is what YOU would do when faced with that choice.  

There is no other culture on earth that has the capacity, like Americans currently do, to defeat centralists, defend individual liberty, and end the pursuit of total global power in this lifetime.  We are the first and last line.  If freedom is undone here, it is undone everywhere for generations to come.  This is our responsibility.  This is our providence.  There can be no complacency.  There can be no compromise.  There can be no fear.  It ends on this ground.  One way, or another…


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 02/16/2013 - 12:15 | 3249414 ZippyBananaPants
ZippyBananaPants's picture


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 12:37 | 3249466 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

I'm sure most here have seen these, but here are some highlights from the gun violence hearings at the CT statehouse a few weeks ago:

Sandy Hook dad: you'll have to take my guns from my cold dead hands

Henson Ong at Gun Violence Prevention Public Hearing - Hartford, CT - 1/28/2013

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 12:48 | 3249488 The Thunder Child
The Thunder Child's picture

"direct action and aimless French Revolution-style violence as distasteful and disastrous."

TPTB want a civil war, we need to unify and give them a revolution.

The begining and middle of a revolution will need to be intellectual and non compliant but you are NEVER going to unseat this Luciferian cabal by protest. We need to keep spreading the knowledge of their ill deeds and secret clubs to the masses, exposing the matrix for what it is and retaining the moral high ground so we can win. The only way to unseat these traitors of humanity from power towards the end will be BY FORCE. The one thing that these people in power fear are firing squads, gullotines and gallows and they will have all their cointel media singers tell you anyway they can that violence is not that answer.

Violence CAN be used for good.

The best way to defend yourself, your family, your property and your community is the milita, and if you are a US citizen you ARE the militia. Every able bodied man that does not work for the government between the age 18-45 IS THE militia and if you have previous military experience you can join up to the age of 60. If you don't have the courage to fight then join to be a medic, or support or logistics which any half decent fighting force needs. The 2nd amendment was written for just this scenario of tryannical goverenment and the state militia is there to protect and enforce the laws of the union (not the federal goverrnment).

You can either choose to use it and join your brothers or you can choose the road to serfdom. The Galactic Light Federation, the White Dragon Society, Drake lawsuits, Love Vibrations none of these things are going to save you!

Only you can save you, the time to start making bonds and begin training IS NOW.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 12:57 | 3249505 Slewburger
Slewburger's picture

For those of you who may or may not know what the history of this flag that has made it's way into pop culture:

And for those interested in barter network:

Come take it bitchez!

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:04 | 3249524 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Get. Off. My. Lawn.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:08 | 3249534 Slewburger
Slewburger's picture

Now to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:10 | 3249675 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

Molon Labe, bitchez!

Want peace, .gov?  Stay off my lawn, stay away from me.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:13 | 3249815 Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

The Japanese and South Koreans seems to feel like that DCRB.  (I didn't see this linked or mentioned yet; it seems pretty important)

Rising Voices in S. Korea, Japan Advocate Nuclear Weapons


Chung is no fringe politician. He is the country's wealthiest lawmaker through his controlling shares in the Hyundai Heavy Industries group."

Officials in Tokyo and abroad have been quoted anonymously in the past as saying the answer to that question would be six months or less."

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 22:48 | 3250668 sullymandias
sullymandias's picture

"Registration must be the line in the sand for every single gun owner in this country, whether they own several semi-automatics, or one pump action shotgun.  Once you give in to being registered, fingerprinted, photographed, and tracked wherever you decide to live like a convicted sexual predator, you have shown that you have no will or spirit.  You have shown that you will submit to anything."

Self-righteous much, Brandon? I'm sure there are many gun owners who would politely tell you they didn't ask for your advice. Do you have a drivers license, Brandon? If so, "you have shown that you have no will or spirit". Imagine, allowing yourself to be registered like that, your signature tracked in a government database. "You have shown that you will submit to anything."

Give me a break. Life is full of choices. You can choose to make some humongous deal over registering your guns. It's really not that big a deal to some the rest of us. Man, imagine the idiotic hubris of somebody who doesn't even know me telling me that I have no will or spirit, simply because I decided to sign some registration form.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 00:23 | 3250781 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

Useful idiot. Joseph Stalin


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 03:01 | 3250896 fourchan
fourchan's picture

"Our government does NOT represent the common American anymore.

It has become a centralized and Sovietized monstrosity.

A seething hydra with two poisonous heads; one Democrat in name, one Republican in name."

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 05:07 | 3250973 Raymond K Hessel
Raymond K Hessel's picture

You guys are insane.  

If the Dorner affair taught us anything about violent rebellion, it was that these episodes always end with militarized cops standing over the bodies of dead rebels.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 08:05 | 3251034 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture



Dorner was a big gun control fan and an avid supporter of the current regime.


Funny how you don't hear much from the press about that.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 09:48 | 3251093 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

"...bodies of dead rebels." ???

One dead murderer actually, and a marine and policeman to boot.


"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."              -Gandhi

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 08:00 | 3252579 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 ...If the Dorner affair taught us anything about violent rebellion, it was that these episodes always end with militarized cops standing over the bodies of    dead rebels

There was more than one Dorner?

Was Dorner a rebel? Or just a guy with a grudge?

Even the most cursory knowledge of history shows it's not always the militarized cops who are the ones left standing at the end of a revolution.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 23:39 | 3250730 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

A BIG + 1, Temporalist

News about Korea and Japan, especially news I have not heard (like this) ia always very welcome.

You quoted: "He is the country's wealthiest lawmaker through his controlling shares in the Hyundai Heavy Industries group."

Hyundai (Motors) is very important to us down there in Peru...

China and N. Korea are just asking for Japan and S. KOrea to arm-up...

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 12:33 | 3251274 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Pardon Mr. Bearing, I'd like to tuck this puppy in here.

Companies who will no longer sell to governments or its employees ;-)

The announcements read:

Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess.

Due the passing of this legislation, Olympic Arms would like to announce that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee of such an entity - will no longer be served as customers.

In short, Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York - henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.

The Federal Government and several states have enacted gun control laws that restrict the public from owning and possessing certain types of firearms. Law-enforcement agencies are typically exempt from these restrictions. EFI, LLC does not recognize law-enforcement exemptions to local, state, and federal gun control laws. If a product that we manufacture is not legal for a private citizen to own in a jurisdiction, we will not sell that product to a law-enforcement agency in that jurisdiction.

We will not sell arms to agents of the state of New York that hold themselves to be "more equal" than their citizens.

As long as the legislators of New York think they have the power to limit the rights of their citizens, in defiance of the Constitution, we at Templar will not sell them firearms to enforce their edicts.

Templar Custom is announcing that the State of New York, any Law Enforcement Departments, Law Enforcement Officers, First Responders within the State of New York, or any New York State government entity or employee will no longer be served as customers.

Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.

Recently, companies such as LaRue Tactical and Olympic Arms have announced that they will no longer sell prohibited items to government agencies and personnel in states that deny the right to own those items to civilians. It has been and will continue to be Cheaper Than Dirt’s policy to not to sell prohibited items to government agencies and/or agents in states, counties, cities, and municipalities that have enacted restrictive gun control laws against their citizens. We support and encourage other companies that share in this policy.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 16:43 | 3251699 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Now if we could get all the ammo mfg. on board...

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:07 | 3251985 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I stocked up when this turd got into office the first time (in Nov-Dec 08) but I don't think the shortage can last even though they think every "problem" can be solved by money issuance...this time by government contract.

In my opnion, let them "buy" however much they want. In these quantities it is being warehoused, not used up.

(Lightbulb goes on over head) ;-)

Under best case scenario, I look forward to the day when, this surplus hits the market at drastically reduced prices in order to

As an aside, ATK (former Honeywell) is a massive company and there is a long history there. It owns CCI & Federal...projectile components...primers etc.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:20 | 3252086 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

I stocked up prior re-election and continue to do so every chance I get.

Funny thing is they're "buying" with our fucking money.

Key is knowing where DHS bases/training centers/fusion centers/ armories are if it comes down to it.

Easily over-run by a handful of determined and skilled "citizens" according to "some book" I read... :)

Battle of Athens and what not.

They're poking the hornets nest.

Stingers they shall find.


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 22:35 | 3252176 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well, at least they do "very cleverly mark" the shipping containers for, um, observation and confirmation of arrival at destination ;-)

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 02:00 | 3252427 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

There's plenty of UPS/Fed Ex patriots. Rest assured.


Mon, 02/18/2013 - 07:09 | 3252566 nmewn
nmewn's picture

And truckers.

The containers are usually olive drab, here's a picture of one...

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:41 | 3249904 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

I was chill with the article (excellent by the way) until Brandon pulled the higher moral ground card with "criminals" and "law abiding citizens." What fucking law you want to abide by bro? The one that makes you chattel of the State and gives you permission to exist and specifies the legality of a false existence rather than the morality of a true one?

Do not take this kind of shit lightly, as this is how apathy is thoroughly bred into the minds of men. "LAW. ABIDING. CITIZEN" my ass. Don't steal, don't rape, don't murder, and don't fuck with other people's lives. Those are all the fucking rules and regulations you need on this planet. They are burned into your instinct through through what has now elapsed a few thousand years of cultural evolution. And you want to be a law abiding citizen to a phony set of laws pulled out of some evil wanker's hemmorhoid-laden crusty butthole? What a fucking idiot.

Fuck you Brandon Smith, for your hypocrisy in this matter.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:58 | 3249939 koncaswatch
koncaswatch's picture

+1 for the message (natural law); not so much for the delivery of the ad hominem

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:34 | 3250025 Skateboarder
Skateboarder's picture

Thanks. It was the first article of the day and no coffee had been tossed in the system yet. Now reporting with 30% more eloquence.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 02:02 | 3252429 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Does that 30% count for the "inflation" of coffee? (This ain't your pappy's arabica)


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:25 | 3250000 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

The adoption and existence of the second amendment, fulfilling a promise made by Madison to Henry et al at the Virginia Ratification Debates for the creation of a "bill of rights", is a rallying cry to be used with the masses who, for some reason, still need the imprimateur of legality.

But frankly, I need no one's "permission" to protect myself and my liberty.  Thus, I need no one's "permission" to possess the means to do so.  The Bill of Rights merely recognizes the pre-existence of fundamental human rights, and imposes that recognition of the federal government.  That is all.

I have these rights whether some esoteric "government-thing" recognizes them or not.

"Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."

"But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so."

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. I am answered by gentlemen, that, though I might speak of terrors, yet the fact was, that we were surrounded by none of the dangers I apprehended. I conceive this new government to be one of those dangers: it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor commonwealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done: something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine."


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:27 | 3250051 Supernova Born
Supernova Born's picture

The fight can literally still be won with a moving van!

If NY'ers enraged by the SAFE act went to PA and made their presence known, PA would be solidly pro-gun.

If pro-gun Californians and Coloradans moved to Oregon and Washington and insisted on their gun rights being respected, both those states would remain/become solidly pro-gun.

Gays/Lesbians have to congregate to enjoy their lifestyle. If gun rights folks did, gun rights would not be in question in the vast majority of the US.

Sure wish the Second Amendment had been enough.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 18:05 | 3250190 runningman18
runningman18's picture

You aren't thinking clearly, skate.  He's talking about not going off half-cocked and giving the enemy more political ammunition to bury us with.  He says in the article that an unconstitutional law is no law at all, so your anger is going in the wrong direction.   Read, man!  Use your head! 

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:16 | 3249691 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

look on the bright side.  after gun registration the feds either won't confiscate the guns, in which case the guns are not taken, or they will try, in which case a lot more people will see, both in and out of government, the military and law enforcement, what is really going on with the two headed beast with one belly.  

killing muslim americans in yemen, or even the teen-aged son, does not get the masses going like perhaps it should.  this one, however, has legs.  

my observation is that the democratic base is increasingly lukewarm to cold about obama.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 13:02 | 3251314 Bendromeda Strain
Bendromeda Strain's picture

my observation is that the democratic base is increasingly lukewarm to cold about obama.

Huh, and yet his media base has never been more enthused. Funny that.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:33 | 3249874 smlbizman
smlbizman's picture

my republican state rep in maryland, {which is rare and voiceless in annapolis} along with a collection of democratic  thieves that makes california look good {pelosi.maryland bred} he came out and said..."owning a gun is a priviledge"...and you should have required training and a license that must be renewed every 5 years to the tune of 453.00 dollars......453.00 how do these guys come up with these perfect numbers...8k for homes, 9. per hour min wage a republican in a state the demographically is republican....three sesspools, baltimore city, mongomery and prince georges cntys control the entire state, ...but he stands with the owe malley machine....they are rapidly narrowing it down were you will only have 2 choices....submission or yippy kye yea motherfuckers.....


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 10:30 | 3251124 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Maryland just redistricted.  They combined Northern Baltimore County with Mongomery County.  This is to wash out the Republican votes in Norther Baltimore County.

You also have all of the Baltimore Blue Bloods that are all Democratic.

Maryland does not stand a chance with O'Malley.  He taxes everything.   A lot of gun owners will be unhappy if he puts a $100. per year tax on each Gun.  Which is what he wants to do.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 10:38 | 3251126 Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Also, the reason for a License is so they can take it away.  No License no Gun.  Don't pass the Training or pay the fee, your Gun(s) are confiscated.

The License is an interesting angle for Gun Confiscation.  They can then dictate terms as to what Guns can be Licensed.  How many Guns one License would cover, etc.

Also, under the License they probably will have the right to come and inspect the Gun(s) at your Home to make sure it is safe and stored properly, etc.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 12:38 | 3251280 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

it is good to know so many understand "freedom" as the responsible position..thank you ZH for allowing free expression, (a big thing in todays world from one banned from many political sites for stating facts by the way)..

one item I have not seen repeated recently, of the 300 million guns in private hands in the USA less than.001% of these guns are ever are found to have been used in gun crimes (excluding police and military gun use)..

this seems such a simple fact and say versus the automobile and death and injury is miniscule threat to anyone in the USA.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:19 | 3249826 salvadordaly
salvadordaly's picture

<<<<<<        stand and fight,

<<<<<<        kneel and beg for mercy

I can't uptick myself, but my vote is STAND AND FIGHT DAMN IT!!!!!

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:13 | 3250084 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

<<<<<<          Bide your time, and go "Grey Man"


<<<<<<          Passive resistance, i.e., "Starve the Beast"


A few more options out there than go: "Chris Dorner" or "kneel and suck."


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 05:00 | 3250970 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

<<<<< Passive resistance, i.e., "Starve the Beast"


Have you considered that the beast is using passive resistance against you?

They don't have to come to you door physically and have a confrontation. They can simply make laws, change tax codes, regulate. All passively until YOU become unpassive.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 11:20 | 3251159 CH1
CH1's picture

How about multiple strategies?

Starve the beast, undermine the beast, etc.

The important thing is to STOP TALKING AND START DOING.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 15:36 | 3251587 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

My own opinion is that the beast is using measured yet active aggression toward us.  My point is that there are many avenues with which to resist these threats beyond:  1. Doing nothing; and 2.  Going "full retard.'

We need to be exploring our options and impliment the methods of activism that resonate best with our personal values while being mindful of our act's effects on our families and communities.  

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 04:40 | 3252519 All Risk No Reward
All Risk No Reward's picture

The Big Finance Capital Beast is using 5th grade math to bankrupt your nation.  Debt based monetary systems are weaponized systems engineered to steal the wealth of the nation without the people figuring out the con game.

The game is coming to and end and collpase is in the red zone...  first chart...

So the Big Finance Capital Beast wants to disarm their victims.

Big Pharma, FDA approved and correctly prescribed "medications" killed 300 people a day in 2000 - probably 10-20% more now.

There is no false flage Fast and Furious event to target Big Pharma medications, is there?

If they "cared about us," why not?  THEY DON'T CARE, THAT'S A CONTRADICTION!

They want weapons that can do the most damages to the Big Finance Capital Berast removed from the Debt Money Tyranny Victim Class.

Speaking of Big Pharma - that's the one consistent factor in all these mass shootings, right?  Nobody in the establishment wants to talk about that, right?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 02:31 | 3250877 salvadordaly
salvadordaly's picture

The stand and fights have won by a unanomas majority!  U.S. Government prepare to have your ass kicked. No Mercy gentlemen. The traitors that have decided to forgo the Bill of rights as an American citizen shall now be declared just that, a TRAITOR! Round them up and off they go! Citizens Unite! Time to end this regime! This is not screaming FIRE in the theatre. This is a time for action, YOU WILL NOT INFRINGE ON MY RIGHTS!

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 19:22 | 3250358 klockwerks
klockwerks's picture

Thanks for the texasguntrader web site. Wouldn't live anywhere else

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 23:51 | 3250743 Manthong
Manthong's picture

“the history of this flag”..    thanks.. that was nice to learn.  

Notice that they stayed true to the spirit of the flag and kept a cannon on it.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:12 | 3249662 Banksters
Banksters's picture

Best sentence of the article:


For those who fear this idea as “legally questionable”, all I can do is remind them that an unconstitutional law is no law at all.


JUST IGNORE THE FUCKING LAWS.   When the 'authorities' want to make an example out of a lawbreaker, we need to stand united.   It is that simple.

There are a million and one creative ways to bring the bureaucratic mafia to its knees, through individual incentives, some might say anarchistic methods. No I'm not talking about chaos, but rather the rejection of centralized control.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:39 | 3250122 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

I am with you on this one.  When the "authorities" make their example is when we see if we have the spine to stand up.  "They" WILL make their move.  Will we?  I believe the fate of the Republic hinges on that question.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 01:47 | 3250845 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

The "Republic" is decades long-gone. Brother Woodrow killed it long ago with the Fed, the Income Tax, and WW I. We can get it back, but only through Civil War and complete liquidation of the collectivists. Either we do them, or they will do us. 

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 11:24 | 3251164 CH1
CH1's picture

Here's a cool thought experiment:

If productive people flatly stopped obeying the state, what would happen?

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 16:03 | 3251626 mumcard
mumcard's picture

Men with machine guns would show up to stand over the workers.  Just like in the USSR.  5 people to do 1 person's job and it still comes out half assed.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 23:01 | 3252207 fattail
fattail's picture

there is only room to incarcerate two million people but there are eighty million gun owners.  we need legislation that criminalizes gun possession and ownership and let the chips fall where they may.  

worse case scenario lots of blood shed and the system suffers a full financial collapses from the expense of incarcerating such a large percentage of its population.   best case scenario lots and lots of bloodshed but real change is accomplished.  

tptb will not give up their power without destroying the system.  i say let it burn.  sooner the better.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:18 | 3249996 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

"Approximately 283 county Sheriffs and multiple police officers have taken a hard stand, stating that they will either not aid federal enforcement officials with gun control related activities, or, that they will not allow such activities within their county, period"

To solidify this position, local law enforcement agencies should initiate a deputization program.  With mass text messaging capabilities, it would be very easy to "call up" 1,000 deputized (not paid), trained and armed men to provide back-up resistance to federal forces who attempt to overwhelm local law enforcement.   And I don't mean billy-bobs that want to shoot at anything that moves.  I mean, truly disciplined individuals who know how to follow orders.

I'd volunteer for that, and pay my way through the deputization training program.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 19:30 | 3250382 klockwerks
klockwerks's picture

Best idea of the day

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 22:58 | 3250680 tsx500
tsx500's picture

yep.     thats the way its headed in one form or another.        ultimately, secession (for starters).    hopefully sooner rather than later.  

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 20:06 | 3250441 Dr. Kenneth Noi...
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

The sheriff of my TX county is among those who've publicly declared against the grabbers.  Been happier and happier with each passing month that I moved here!

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:06 | 3250073 sunnydays
sunnydays's picture

A peaceful way without a revolution of taking direct action is doing what I did.  I joined the NRA for the first time in my life last month.  They are standing their ground and I believe a way of showing Obama and the D.C. gang we will not back down nor give up our rights.  We won't register our guns and we won't be sheeple.  The NRA membership is only $25.  I did it for myself, my children and my country.  I believe it was the best $25 I have ever spent, as it is for Freedom.  No matter what people think of the NRA, they are the organization that is standing between us and D.C. for us to keep the 2nd amendment uninfringed upon.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:16 | 3250090 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

I hope the NRA grows some balls this time.  They've been guilty of "collaboration" in the past IMHO.  In the meantime also check out the Gun Owners of America.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 20:07 | 3250442 Dr. Kenneth Noi...
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater's picture

Second Amendment Foundation and JPFO have gotten my donations.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 01:52 | 3250851 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

It took the NRA a full week to say a word about Sandy Hook, leaving the field to the Stalinist gun-grabbers. My membership has lapsed...and I'd lay heavy odds they and the weekend target shooters/deer-hunting countryclub Republicrats will cut the usual deal. Which I plan to ignore. I'm actually looking forward to being Down by Law: SoCal is a target-rich environment. 

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 12:49 | 3249492 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

And the line, "Nobody wants to take your guns away" just bit the dust:

Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 12:53 | 3249502 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

It's always the same with these people


  1. Liberals demand "common sense" measures to restrict gun ownership/access
  2. When people "compromise" and enact these measures, they of course do nothing to stem violence.
  3. Upon seeing how much of a failure their restrictions were, the liberal mind sees only justification for further restrictions
  4. Liberals demand "common sense" measures to restrict gun ownership/access
  5. ...
  6. ...
  7. ...
  8. ...

It's a horrible song that will result in the death of our republic, but it does have a rather repetative and catchy tune.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:06 | 3249525 OldTrooper
OldTrooper's picture

You left out: 

0. Oligarchs, fearful of the righteous wrath of those they have wronged and with ambitions to reduce the population to absolute, perpetual servitude, recoginize that they must completely disarm the population.

The notion that the government enacts gun control for the benefit of the population is propaganda.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:17 | 3249601 Ag Tex
Ag Tex's picture

We need to protect our children from gun violence.?.?


"Like an earthen vessel overlaid with silver dross are burning lips and a wicked heart. He who hates disguises it with his lips, but he lays up deceit in his heart. When he speaks graciously, do not believe him, for there are seven abominations in his heart. Though his hatred covers itself with guile, his wickedness will be revealed before the assembly."  Proverbs 26:23-26


How many millions of children's lives have been saved or spared by the protection of guns owned and carried by parents protecting their families from would be attatckers and tyrants?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:40 | 3249746 Rustysilver
Rustysilver's picture

We need to protect our children from politicians.


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:49 | 3250049 Ag Tex
Ag Tex's picture

The politicians have been placed by global money changers.


"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:10

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 11:24 | 3251163 brettd
brettd's picture

Isn't it time to start turning over some tables?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 18:08 | 3250205 sunnyside
sunnyside's picture

A hell of a lot more than the 20 lost in CT.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:16 | 3249547 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

In the American revolution, the liberals were the ones that were revolting.  The conservatives, the Tories, were the ones on King George's side.  It was a similar situation in the French, the Russian and the English revolutions.

Conservatives kiss royal ass.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:27 | 3249567 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Only in Obama's twisted mind can running guns to mexican gangs be termed as a prudent thing but a battered wife from Chicago has to submit to a federal background check and/or gun registration before she is allowed to protect herself and kids.

Strange days indeed.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:13 | 3249679 DoChenRollingBearing
DoChenRollingBearing's picture

+ 3000  

(rounds in stock, hey, I'm a piker!)

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:42 | 3249757 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

.308... nothing more nothng less.

Even the Cat is looking pissed... some tool in NZ recently said Cats should be eliminated.


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:20 | 3249830 decon
decon's picture

Free ranging house cats are an ecological disaster just about everywhere.  We stack em up like chord wood around here.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:46 | 3250046 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

Insert a ruthless predator into an environment where defenceless critters live and the outcome is decimation of the indiginous population. (Tyrant/viliage dweller, wolf/sheep)

Give the prey a means of self defence and the predator learns to adopt the new rules of the jungle.


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 17:00 | 3251716 Manthong
Manthong's picture

“liberals.. revolting.. similar situation in the French, the Russian and the English revolutions”

I felt compelled to rethink your contention and there are semantics at play here.

There is merit to that argument if you look at the meanings of “liberal” and “conservative”  and how the concepts have been manipulated and warped over the last handful of generations.

Government and sociology was not godless and morally relative until the French revolution and subsequent to that, Marx and Wundt.


Sun, 02/17/2013 - 21:35 | 3252111 Mike in GA
Mike in GA's picture

But free-range cat tastes SO GOOD!

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:38 | 3249584 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



You need to read up on the French Revolution and Bastille Day...was definitively a "liberal" movement, but about as noble a cause as the Salem witch trials. 

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority.

The notion that "conservatives kiss royal a**" doesn't jibe with those towing the Obamanation line.  At all.  True conservatives do not kiss anyone's a**, they respect and support people's right to choose how to dispense of the fruits of their labor.  It's really very simple, albeit unfathomable to envious liberals.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:48 | 3249614 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority.

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Well, both liberals, and conservatives are 'americans'. Maybe that explains why both have always been trying to masquerade coercion for freedom.

The GOP was so against slavery that a civil war was fought for emancipation. Hooray.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:51 | 3249622 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

Well, both liberals, and conservatives are 'americans'.



That's debatable.  Both are 'citizens', but they both don't ascribe to the American ideal. 

(and don't confuse the GOP with conservatives, AA...)




Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:13 | 3249682 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

'Americans' denying they are 'americans'

AH, yes, so if the GoP was not conservative, they were not against slavery.

In 'american' words, true conservatives were against slavery...


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:26 | 3249707 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

imo both parties have authoritarians and anti authoritarians.  

ron paul and glenn greenwald are anti authoritarians but different parties (probably).

obama and bush are authoritarians.

authoritarian republicans like drug prohibition.

authoritarian democrats like gun prohibition. 

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:44 | 3249764 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Watch Ann’s presentation on the Vendee genocide.

That will give you an idea of the hypocrisy and evil you face with godless psychopathic liberal’/progressive megalomaniacs.

That exact same danger exists today.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:16 | 3249798 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

Fuck off... ChiCoN!

90 million of your fellow Chinese Citizens paid the price for your Cultural Revolution. Oh the great Mao SEE Tung.

Next time your squtting on the road side for Shitizem, and the latest 'Type 99' uses your body for track lube, ponder that.



Sat, 02/16/2013 - 18:17 | 3250225 Teamtc321
Teamtc321's picture


Congrat's, Well Said!

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 18:40 | 3250280 Future Jim
Future Jim's picture

Are you allowed to tell us for whom you are a paid shill?

More specifically, are those of you who write under this pseudonym allowed to tell us for whom you think are a paid shill? You are all certainly being played by someone higher up than whoever is paying you, and their agenda is probably different than what you've been told.

... but I guess you need the money pretty badly to do this kind of work ...

It is never to late to become the person you've always wanted to be and embrace the soul of your humanity.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 23:11 | 3250695 tsx500
tsx500's picture

and to make your parents proud of you instead of how they probably feel now .................

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 02:00 | 3250856 CompassionateFascist
CompassionateFascist's picture

AnAnonymous ate his mom and Dad long ago. Since then, it's all puppy cutlets. 

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:55 | 3249778 EINSILVERGUY

No. A war was fought to keep the south subjugated as a source of raw materials for the mercantilist North

When the war started 7 confederate states seceded, 4 more seceded after Lincoln raised 75,000 troops following the battle at Fort Sumter

5 Border states did not secede and when Lincoln emancipated the slaves, that only applied to the states that had seceded. The slaves in the border states of Missouri, Kentucky, W Virginia, Delaware and Maryland ( Lincoln suppressed voter turnout to keep Maryland from seceding) were NOT freed. This is the fallacy that the civil war was fought specifically to end slavery and why Lincoln was supposedly virtuous.  It was fought to keep states from dissolving the United States.  It was unconstitutional to stop the secession of states that had joined.  The South was on the wrong side of history in relation to history but did in fact have the right to secede.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 23:18 | 3250705 Fedaykinx
Fedaykinx's picture

oh a thinking man, eh.  there's a reason some southerners still call the "civil war" the "war of northern aggression."

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:01 | 3249958 Spacemoose
Spacemoose's picture

"Political tags–such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth–are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."

– Robert A. Heinlein

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 11:27 | 3251169 CH1
CH1's picture

Quote of the day!

+ 100

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:02 | 3249647 akarc
akarc's picture

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority."

Kinda like dictating what happens between women and a Dr. when it comes to medical issues.

Or what happens behind closed door between to consenting adults.

Ah let us kneel at the alter of Cantor and "BONER" as the last defense of civil liberties as defined by corporations and banksters. Re format you hard drive and Give me a fucking break.

Disclaimer: This should in no way constitute support of the other wall street twit, Obama 


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:25 | 3249706 NuckingFuts
NuckingFuts's picture


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:53 | 3249774 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

Kinda like dictating what happens between women and a Dr. when it comes to medical issues.


You fell for the meme.  You think abortion is about a woman and her doctor because it's always been marketed that way.  Nowhere in the pro-abortionist's mind does the target of the abortion enter the equation.  Let me let you in on a secret: in abortion, it's not the woman's rights that are in question.

Or what happens behind closed door between to (sic) consenting adults.

You sound like a big fan of Dr. Kavorkian.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 02:24 | 3250868 akarc
akarc's picture

I am a fan of having the right to die with dignity as opposed to being a drain on my family and loved ones, both emotionally and economically.  I  have watched as termianlly ill relatives were used a cash cows on which to perform unessecary procedures becaue insurance covered it.  And Dr.'s and hospitals profited from it.   This after Dr's. refused to honor a living will.

It's easy for old self rightous men to take on the role of dictating what a woman should or should not do in private consultation with her physician. However I must wonder how many of those men would care to have woman dictating what  procedures they are allowed or not allowed to have  based on a womans opinion.

I am not pro abortion. I am pro choice. Educated choice made by reviewing each case and it's specific circumstances on an individual basis with out government interference and violation of fourth amendment rights.

For you to make a blanket statement that it is not  the "womans" rights that are in queston when it is the woman who must endure pregnancy and any irreparable consequences is to negate the rights of a whole segment of society. A truly totalitarian view point at best.

My suggestion would be if you condemn a womans right to make decisions that affect her body and her life then feel free not do have an abortion next time you become pregnant. I will support your choice.

My apologies for using "to" instead of "two".  As a dyslexic one fingered typist with ADD I can only do the best that I can.



Sun, 02/17/2013 - 15:41 | 3251594 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



There is no difference between being "pro-choice" and being "pro-abortion" - calling people "pro-abortion" simply smokes them out.  "Choice" is a positive thing - a right, if you will - that one should preserve; whereas "abortion" means unequivocally terminating a life.  And no one is "pro" that, right?

I did not condemn anyone's right to make decisions that affect one's body.  That is the language that YOU use in order to attempt to frame the case for abortion.  I just stated that the subject of the abortion - the unborn one that suffers "irreparable consequences" - is not afforded any rights in the mind of the pro-abortionist.  Five paragraphs of your retort and no mention of the one being terminated as being part of the equation.  Thank you for making my point.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:29 | 3251735 akarc
akarc's picture

Only in your own mind was your point made. If my wife, daughter or any other woman came to me and said they were pregnant as a result of rape or incest and didn't know what to do, my response would be, you have a choice to make. I will support you in your choice. 

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:54 | 3252044 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



The choice is to keep the child or give it up for adoption, right?  Or is the choice to shoot the rapist and let the child live?  Which choice are you talking about?  Are you actually saying kill the unborn child is the "choice"?  I would only urge you to say exactly what you mean.  Because when you say it as "kill the unborn child" you now have a new subject noun in the sentence.  Two retorts from you and each time you've made my point that you cannot have the conversation if it involves an affirmation of killing the unborn child.  Because that doesn't have the same feel as "a woman's right to choose."

The reason the rape/incest is used as the crutch for abortion (even though it accounts for less than 1% of abortions) is that it eliminates the father as being a viable candidate to be involved in the decision of what to do.  In other words, 'who else but the woman should be involved in the decision?'  That, plus the heinous nature of rape, is used to universalize the acceptance of abortion.  Rape is its own issue, and is a horrible way to justify abortion.

(btw, if your daughter becomes pregnant via incest, you have another problem altogether, and I'm not sure she'd come to you for "support", mate...)

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 09:01 | 3252605 BigJim
BigJim's picture

The crux of the abortion issue is that the people taking a hard or fast position on the matter - 'I'm pro-life' or 'I'm pro-choice' - are taking a black or white stance regarding something that is not a black-or-white issue.

When the egg has newly implanted to the lining of the cervix, it's laughable to call it a 'child'. It will be a child, in all probability; but it's not a child now and uprooting it is not killing a child, it's preventing a child, just as wearing a condom or abstaining from sex altogether is preventing a child.

However, in a late-term abortion, when the baby could exist outside the mother's womb, abortion isn't a 'choice' - it's infanticide.

So every case is different, and deciding whether an abortion is a just a woman's choice, or is murder, depends on how far along the continuum of development the foetus has travelled.

And this is even before we start to examine foetuses with developmental issues that might mean a short life racked in pain if they were allowed to come to term.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 09:23 | 3252629 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



So you are just moving the "choice" discussion to one of who gets to "choose" when in the gestation cycle to recognize life?  You are still advocating choice as to whether or not to recognize the rights of the unborn.  There has been no "late term" pregnancy in history that didn't go through the early stages.  Ever.  It's like saying you didn't get drunk until your 6th beer.  But anything to rationalize the "choice," I guess...

The notion of abstinence being equivalent with "uprooting" a fertilized egg is what is laughable.  I mean, think about what your saying...

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 19:43 | 3254429 Dangertime
Dangertime's picture

If it was truly about "choice", would not the father have the same right to choice as the woman?


Hell, some men just don't want to be a father, and they aren't even asking to murder the child.  Women's "choice" murders the child.  So why is it that women are afforded the choice of murder in order to keep their lifestyle, whilst men are not allowed to keep their lifestyle and they aren't even asking to murder a baby to do it?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:59 | 3249649 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority."

You have it backwards, I'm afraid.  You must be a product of the American public school system.  The Tories are still the conservative party.  The bourgeoisie got that way by kissing royal ass.

Did I say the French Revolution was a "noble" cause?  You assume too much.    I do agree with Diderot, though, when he said:  "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

The Salem witch trials, BTW, were a conservative pogram.   My 9th great grandmother, Rebecca (Towne) Nurse was hung in 1692 in Salem as a witch.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:24 | 3249695 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture




You simply believe what fits your view of how things "ought" to be.  That's why the best you can do is come up with some label like "conservative program" and not recognize the inherent contradiction.  You just believe that it must be true.

You say I have it backwards, but you cannot explain how.  Tell us how the New Deal defends individual sovereignty.  Tell us how "gun control" defends liberty.  Tell us how progressive taxation encourages individual innovation.  Tell us how much better the U.S. is with the likes of minimum wage and affirmative action laws.  Tell us how federally "owned" land promotes prosperity. 

The liberal agenda has nothing to do with protecting individual soveriegnty.  It has to do with restricting liberty under the false flag of "fairness". 

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:33 | 3249729 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Why don't you tell us how the New Deal is a liberal program?  Or how using the US Army to kill Indians and take away their property is a liberal program?  That sounds more like a William McKinley or U.S. Grant type,  instead of a Thomas Jefferson type,  of pogram to me.

And then why not tell us about the wondrous advantages of the Bush-Cheney 9-11 pogram where the "conservatives" kill 3,000 Americans so they can kill another 1,000,000 brown skin people and steal their property?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:55 | 3249779 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

Why don't you tell us how the New Deal is a liberal program?


That you think it's not pretty much sums up that you are looney.  Do you have Woodrow Wilson posters hangin on your bedroom ceiling?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:29 | 3250016 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

No, do you?  Wilson was elected as a conservative, one that left lynchings to the local KKK.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:48 | 3250149 Nick Jihad
Nick Jihad's picture

Willson a conservative?  Time for you to create a new account - FeralSerf is clearly clueless.

From wiki:


In his first term as President, Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass major progressive reforms. Historian John M. Cooper argues that, in his first term, Wilson successfully pushed a legislative agenda that few presidents have equaled, and remained unmatched up until the New Deal.[1] This agenda included theFederal Reserve ActFederal Trade Commission Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and an income tax.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 19:09 | 3250337 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

Your posts have demonstrated that you do not know what a liberal is.  You ascribe to the incorrect MSM (Ann Coulter) definition of 'liberal'.  People who misuse the term liberal demonstrate their complete lack of English language comprehension.  Your up votes show that most, even on this site, haven't a fucking clue what the word means.  You are all sucked in to the retarding MSM meme that confuses and divides.  Stop drinking the fucking kool-aide and learn what the word liberal means.

The New Deal was not a liberal program, it was a fascist one. 


P.S. you also misuse the term conservative.  Read Edmund Burke for the correct definition of conservative.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 23:13 | 3250701 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



In order to avoid confusion about what I meant by "liberal" and "conservative", I defined them up front (correctly in the context of the discussion, I might add).  Since you have not been paying attention, let me make it clear for you:

The New Deal did not defend liberty and individual sovereignty.  Its programs served to confiscate the fruits of citizens' labor and transfer it to others.  Launched during a period of duress, the New Deal served to usurp personal liberty and consolidate it in a central state.  That, my uninformed friend, is liberalism.

If you want to understand conservative ideals correctly, read Levin, Locke, Madison, etc. 


Mon, 02/18/2013 - 09:09 | 3252615 BigJim
BigJim's picture

The problem is that the meanings of terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' have completely changed over the years to the point they're now ambiguous.

'Liberal' used to mean libertarian; now it means the opposite.

I've lost track of what 'conservative' is supposed to mean. Some people think it means keeping governmemt small (usually with the exception of the military, which, despite being the very quintessence of government, for some reason gets a pass) but not allowing people to injest the wrong plants.

The fact is - most people who bandy these terms about have not studied history or economics or politics to any extent or have devoted much time to thinking about the issues, but if enough of them start using the word 'liberal' to mean being in favour of a large, redistributive corporatist state then that's what it comes to mean.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 13:24 | 3251345 malek
malek's picture

It's not helpful to retreat into an ivory tower, and try to defend some original meaning of "liberal" if 99% of Americans nowadays interpret that term differently. Such as 'freedom from taking the consequences of one's actions', for example.

And that's especially true if you not even point out what differentiates you from the mass of self-declared "liberals."

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 20:48 | 3252032 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I'm going to have to agree, its unfortunate, but true.

It is the Liberal (large L) who has allowed it over time, standing there doing nothing, compromising their values away. Everyone now thinks liberal means big, intrusive, nanny state government (or person) devoid of taking any responsibility for its/their own actions.  

We've reached a point in time where confirmed fascist-statists (Bloomberg, Pelosi etal) are called "liberal" as they promote policies and laws that suck the very life blood out of being a real Liberal...which is personal liberty.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:33 | 3249733 jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

tell us how bush's indefinite detention of citizens, warrantless wiretapping, wars without declaration, extraordinary rendition .... 

while you're at it, how did the wars on drugs and homosexuality, championed by all conservatives but the most libertarian, that is none of the national party, promote individual liberty?

both parties are controlled by authoritarians; both have minorities of anti authoritarians.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:03 | 3249795 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



You're stuck on parties.  I'm focused on ideas.  If something is enacted that restricts individual sovereignty, it's not a conservative idea in my mind, irrespective of who/what party sponsors/champions it.  Lotsa folks call themselves conservative, but it doesn't mean much.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:12 | 3249813 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

+1000 That's the heart of the matter... the 99% think that voting will make a difference.

The 99% are owned. Still has Brandon states if the sheep witness .Gov for what they really are that when things could change.  I sense this happenning.  These Psyops are not without risk to TPTB.

It does not add up for joe six-pack.  Then again perhaps I'm over optimistic?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 18:24 | 3250241 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Rogue Trooper "Then again perhaps I'm over optimistic?"

I don't think so. The dialogue is 10 fold more omnipresent than 1year, 2 years ago. Comment sections everywhere are full of dissent.

Town-halls etc, are packed. Been to a gun store on Saturday, lately?

Saw at least a dozen Gadsden stickers this afternoon on suburban roads in one the top "blue" states. Gun store was PACKED solid.

In addition to the legions fighting the good fight and sticking their necks out to share truth, many of the un-initiated can feel shit's not right.

They too will turn to find the truth. Hopefully sooner than later.

Godspeed, ZH'ers.


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 18:15 | 3250221 runningman18
runningman18's picture

Bush is a Neo-Con, not a true conservative.  Neo-cons are socialist (leftist) in their policies.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:10 | 3249805 Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

"The liberal agenda has nothing to do with protecting individual soveriegnty. It has to do with restricting liberty under the false flag of "fairness."

I agree.  There's nothing liberal about modern liberals or their agenda.  They're progressive fucking statists imposing their utopian ideals on the rest of humanity.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 19:45 | 3250401 klockwerks
klockwerks's picture

Thank you for setting him straight. What a poor historian he is and must have received his history from Moochele

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:37 | 3249589 RSBriggs
RSBriggs's picture

"Conservative" and "Liberal" have switched meaning since those days.  The KKK is a good example of the way this switch was performed.  It was "Democrat" -> It was "Conservative Democrat" -> It was "Conservative".  When you control the language, you control how people think.  You're a sheep.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:44 | 3249607 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture




+1  It's astounding how liberals buy into the memes they are fed.  Liberals are shocked when presented with the reality that it was conservatives on the side of abolishing slavery, conservatives who pushed through civil rights legislation, etc. 

I love the look of disbelief on the face of liberals when presented with the fact that Norma McCorvey never had an abortion and is now a "religious right" anti-abortionist.  They look at you like you just shot their cat or something...

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:05 | 3249665 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

You don't seem to be very well versed in American history.   In 1860, democrats were considered to be the conservatives, i.e. conserved the status quo.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:22 | 3249700 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



You are making up words now.  I avoid democrat, republican, whig, etc. for a reason.  I defined in my view the difference between liberals and conservatives.  "Liberal" used to mean something very different than it does now.

I would love to have you quiz me on American history.  It would be quite a "lesson" I'm sure.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:38 | 3249741 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

"I avoid democrat, republican, whig, etc. for a reason. "

Why don't you avoid "liberal" and "conservative" for the same reason?

 "Liberal" used to mean something very different than it does now."

So you admit to being guilty of doublespeak?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:59 | 3249787 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

From about 7 posts ago:


"Liberals" favor ceding power to central authority; "conservatives" put defending liberty and individual sovereignty as the highest priority.

Any questions?  Any substantive rebuttal? 

(i didn't think so...)

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:40 | 3249902 The Thunder Child
The Thunder Child's picture

Conservatives/Liberals it doesn't matter anymore, they are just different heads of the same corrupted beast. ZHers have left the false left/right dichotomy far behind and in the dust.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:39 | 3250035 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

Just because you say it does not make it true.

"Any questions?"

Do you have any credible authority to support your statement?

"Any substantive rebuttal? "

Sure - the history of the 17th and 18th centuries thouroughly rebuts this.  Have you ever heard of "The Enlightenment"?


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:37 | 3250117 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

How 'bout answering this question before ranting about the superiority of which color condom [red or blue] you prefer on the dick we're all going to get butt-raped by this time:

Who owns them?

There's a reason why Bush's policies have not only continued unabated, but have been strengthened under Obama:  They work for the same master.

In other words, if you want to see who pulls the strings, look for the policies that DON'T get put up for debate (e.g., TARP, NDAA, Undeclared wars, etc. etc.) in the public (Roman) circus that is the media.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 19:46 | 3250407 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

You won't find me ranting about either's superiority.  Red + blue is purple.  That's the color of your metaphorical condom.

Of course they work for the same master.  That's been my rant for more than four years now.   I do think the Bush crime family is higher in rank and clearly more ancient than the Obama one though.

I agree completely.  The serious shit that will imprison us and our children are policies of both red and blue camps and the media is a tool of them as well.

In that Big War of the Good Guys v. the Bad Guys, the Good Guys lost.  9-11 made that clear for everyone to see.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 19:11 | 3250342 Terminus C
Terminus C's picture

LOL, I love totally deluded defenses.  You do not understand the MEANING of the words liberal and conservative.  See my above post.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:02 | 3249791 EINSILVERGUY

People only have a limited reference for labels and they aren't static through time.

I narrow it down to 2 main types of individuals

Those that believe that their rights come from God and those that believe that the State is God.

Labels have no real meaning unless you get down to core beliefs. 



Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:00 | 3249956 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



I agree with you, but many if not most who brand themselves as "libertarians" don't fall into either category.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:59 | 3250063 jimmytorpedo
jimmytorpedo's picture

Can we say inherent rights or natural rights?

As ubermensch we should have stopped using a third person omnipotent as justification for our liberty along time ago.


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 19:24 | 3250364 EINSILVERGUY

I don't discount the libertarian argument but the key lines dividing what I consider the core beliefs ( Unalienable rights from GOD and Rights granted through the State(god)) come from the founding of the republic by religious men and the attempt to undue those rights by the progressive movement.  I'm not sure we would have this republic without the founders being inspired through religious connection to a Supreme Being.  Liberatarianism only exists as an "evolutionary " step beyond the religious foundation.  I'm not sure libertarianism would exist without religious ancestry.

I believe our society is caught between traditional constitutionlists and the statists. That will eventually be the dividing line for citizens to choose from

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 23:27 | 3250715 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

Liberatarianism only exists as an "evolutionary " step beyond the religious foundation.  I'm not sure libertarianism would exist without religious ancestry.


That is a very interesting perspective.  I wonder how libertarians respond to that.  It brings to the forefront what in my view is the most fundamental, universal question of all:

"What if one's belief about God is wrong?"

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 10:06 | 3252690 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Not sure why you got junked...but this is the way I look at it, myself believing in God.

Even for those who don't "believe" still has to believe in nature or natural order. It is pretty well established that the natural order (nature) of man is to be free. Afterall, it is not natural for man to be caged or it wouldn't be considered a punishment among men.

I guess what I'm saying is, I look at it in 3D. Men (and of course women) are free to make their choices in this life and reap the rewards or penalties of those choices now (in this world) as well as the next.

For myself, I don't see a conflict in the philosophy of libertarian thought and a belief in God.

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 01:33 | 3250838 Freddie
Freddie's picture

I used to refer to myself as conservative.  The better word is Constitutionalist.  I prefer it over saying libertarian too.  Libertarians are for overunning borders and allowing people to invade countries.  It gets even worse when taxpayers have to pay for endless benefits for the invaders.

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 02:07 | 3252434 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Hear Hear.

Labels suck, but the Constitution Of The United States Of America does not suck.

The Bill of Rights shall not be infringed.



Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:17 | 3249793 Odd Ball
Odd Ball's picture

The problem lies in attempting to measure a multi-dimensional political world with a one dimensional politcal scale.  The MSM left-right spectrum is simplistic.  "Conservative" and "Liberal" monikers do little to clarify the situation, especially since the term "Liberal" used to mean one in favor of liberty, or roughly what the term "Libertarian" means today.  A better measure of political orientation is needed:

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:52 | 3249627 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

So funny.

'Americans' have this knack, they expose themselves in the same breath.

It was "democrat"-> it was "white democrats"-> it was "white"

'Americans' have troubles with qualifiers.

Since democrats can be both liberal and conservative, well when liberal democrats oppose conservative democrats, it might be along the line liberal/conservative, not the line democrats.

But in the end, all this jolly band is composed with 'americans' so who cares?

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:56 | 3249636 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture



AA...the more you comment, the more you expose yourself as an idiot.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:14 | 3249685 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

And 'americans' tell, so it is.

'Americans' tell you are an idiot, so you are an idiot.

'Americans' tell you are not a human being, so you are not a human being.

Welcome to an 'american' world.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:19 | 3249825 Rogue Trooper
Rogue Trooper's picture

AnAnonymous...  'Type 99' Track Lube. At least useful for the People Liberation Army War Machines

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 17:42 | 3250135 Citxmech
Citxmech's picture

AnAnonymous:  Unable to propose any alternative for 2 years 48 weeks. . .

Sun, 02/17/2013 - 19:50 | 3251954 Al Gorerhythm
Al Gorerhythm's picture

AA only perceives one manifestation of imperialism.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 23:04 | 3250685 UGrev
UGrev's picture

When an American (and I am one) tells you that you don't know a fucking thing about being American, the proper thing to do is to shut the fuck up and walk away; because that, dear sir, is a fucking fact. 

Mon, 02/18/2013 - 02:11 | 3252436 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

It (ananon) is either here as a distraction or a career move. 

Giving it debate clogs threads, by design.

Ignore ananon and it will return to from where it came.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 13:58 | 3249644 dog breath
dog breath's picture

For you to say conservatives are loyal to the King is like saying conservatives are loyal to Obama and liberals hate Obama.

The Revolutionary War had to do with excessive taxation on the colonists by the British and the lack of representation of the colonists in the Parliament.

A similiar progression of current federal legislation and taxation can be made.


Sat, 02/16/2013 - 16:44 | 3250042 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

You remember well what you were taught in primary school in the American public school system.

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 14:41 | 3249750 Room 101
Room 101's picture

Yes, conservatives like to kiss royal ass.  And neo-liberals like to scarf up royal schlong.  Not much difference, is there?  

Sat, 02/16/2013 - 15:15 | 3249819 bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture



If you are refering to the Libertarian version of Liberal - I agree with you.


If you are trying to compare those Liberals to today's Orwellian "liberals", you have lost your mind.

You should also be specific as there is a difference between "Conservative" and "neo-conservative - AKA neocon".

Todays neocon is as much a Conservative as today's liberal is a Libertarian.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!