This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: The Lies That Gun Grabbers Tell
Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com,

When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor. If its members are forced to lie, tell half-truths or use manipulative tactics in order to fool the masses into accepting its initiative, then the initiative at its very core is not worth consideration. Propaganda is not simply political rhetoric or editorial fervor; it is the art of deceiving people into adopting the ideology you want them to espouse. It is not about convincing people of the truth; it is about convincing people that fallacy is truth.
Nothing embodies this disturbing reality of cultural dialogue more than the ill-conceived movement toward gun control in America.
It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason. It isn’t that they are so desperate to paint themselves as “intellectually superior” to 2nd Amendment advocates; intellectual idiocy is a plague upon many ideological groups. What really strikes me as astonishing is the vast and embarrassing lengths to which gun grabbers in particular will go to in order to deny facts and obfuscate history.
I have seen jaw-dropping acts of journalistic debauchery and blatant disregard for reality since the gun debate exploded in the wake of Sandy Hook. I have seen past precedents rewritten in order to falsely diminish gun rights arguments. I have seen dishonest and volatile tactics used to misdirect discussion and attack the character, rather than the position, of those who defend the 2nd Amendment. I have seen gun grabbers use unbelievable acts of deception that border on clinically sociopathic in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
A perfect example has been the assertion by gun control proponents that despotic regimes do not disarm their populations before committing genocide. This primarily stems from the rationalization that the Third Reich did not exactly introduce gun control measures, rather it used measures that were already in existence. Gun grabbers are willing to cherry pick historical references in defense of Adolf Hitler in order to get their way. Sadly, they seem to forget that Hitler’s gun control policies of 1938 disarmed the Jewish people as his “Final Solution” was being implemented. Apparently, gun grabbers do not count the Jews as German citizens victimized by disarmament.
The Nazis did deregulate some firearms as gun grabbers argue, but what they don’t mention is that this deregulation was designed to benefit only those citizens who proved to be loyal to the Nazi Party. Hitler was happy to arm those who swore fealty to the Reich.
In one of the latest instances of gun grabber duplicity and disinformation, I came across an opinion piece by Henry Blodget, the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider and a regular on Yahoo’s “Daily Ticker,” entitled “Finally A Gun Is Used To Stop A Crime Instead Of Killing Innocent People.”
Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. He is well aware of the proper methods of research and how to present a debate point with tangible evidence. He should know better than to publish a piece with so many inconsistencies and broken pretenses. However, it presents an important opportunity to examine the cognitive dissonance of media gun grabbers and their attempts to influence the populace.
Blodget is asserting that private firearms ownership is not a practical means of self-defense, that instances of self-defense are rare and that this view diminishes the “need” for 2nd Amendment protections. He goes on to proclaim:
“In practice, unfortunately, the guns that good guys own to protect themselves from bad guys too often end up killing the good guys’ kids or wives or the good guys themselves (either via suicide, accident, or, in some cases, because they’re grabbed by the bad guys and used against the good guys). Or, as in the case of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, the guns kill people who the good guys think are bad guys but who aren’t actually bad guys…”
Blodget never actually qualifies any of the notions contained in this statement. He never provides any statistics on wives and children of good guys being shot. Also, I was not aware that the Trayvon Martin case had already been decided and that Trayvon was found not to be the aggressor. Does Blodget have a crystal ball?
Blodget starts off his anti-gun tirade very poorly with several unqualified statements that he never answers for. This is highly common among gun grabbers; they feel so righteous (overzealous) in their cause that they feel no regret in spouting baseless conclusions with the presumption that their audience will never question their logic.
Blodget then focuses on a single event as an example of the “rarity” of successful gun defense. This instance involved the death of a teen who held a gun on a reserve police officer and high school basketball coach. The coach pulled his own personal weapon and fired in defense. Blodget uses some strategic omissions in his description of the event. For instance, he fails to mention that the coach was 70 years old, and that perhaps owning a gun was indeed his only practical means of protecting himself and his players against two young thugs, one of whom obtained a firearm illegally (as most criminals do. According to the FBI, only 8 percent of guns used in a crime are purchased legally at a gun store).
Blodget also uses the smiling image of one of the attackers at the top of his article, as if we should feel sorry for him. Perhaps I’m just coldhearted, but the death of a violent offender at the hands of his intended victim does not bring a tear to my eye.
The fact that he uses this particular instance of gun defense was, of course, strategic. A teen died, and both the attacker and the defender were armed with guns. He means us to see the event as a tragedy caused by the very existence of civilian firearms ownership. Blodget somehow overlooks the thousands upon thousands of other self defense stories out there in which gun ownership saved lives…
What about the story of student Chris Boise, who used an AR-15 to ward off two armed assailants breaking into his apartment. The criminals ran at the sight of his weapon:
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Homeowners-Scare-Off-Burglars/7yaLSXAvCUGBkwgAZpGO4g.cspx
What about an Atlanta mother of 9-year-old twins who shot and killed an assailant with a previous record of battery breaking into her home. A police officer on scene after the event noted that “she handled her first shooting better than he did…”
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/mother-of-two-surprises-burglar-with-five-gunshots/nTnGR/
How about the 1997 incident at a High School in Pearl, Mississippi, in which a 16 year old murdered his mother, then went to school with a rifle and opened fire (sound familiar), shooting several and killing two. The student was subdued by the Vice Principle, who had to run to his care to grab his .45 Colt (Note that when a staff member of a school is armed, the body count of these attacks goes way down):
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,136736,00.html
And why not mention the man who entered a Golden Food Market in Richmond, Virginia opening fire at employees and customers, only to be shot down by a conceal carrying citizen:
These are just a few of the numerous instances of gun defense across the U.S. that the mainstream media likes to ignore. Blodget had all of these examples at his disposal. He could have written a fair and honest editorial, but he didn’t.
After Blodget presents his carefully picked gun defense story, he then makes these three points:
“First, and most importantly, the gun used for protection in this case would be perfectly legal under the proposed new gun-control laws. The proposed laws ban military-grade assault weapons and massive ammo clips, not handguns. And assuming the coach did not have a criminal record, he would still be a legal gun owner.
The bottom line is that no mainstream politician in the current gun control debate is talking about banning the kind of gun used in this incident...”
To which proposed gun law is Blodget referring? Many gun grabbers are suggesting that the New York SAFE Act model be applied nationwide. The SAFE Act makes any weapon that can hold magazines of more than seven rounds illegal. Some lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.), have openly suggested a total ban of all firearms that includes confiscation. So, depending on which laws are passed, the coach may not have survived the attack unless, like the criminal, he obtained a weapon illegally.
“…Second, the coach was a trained police officer. He knew very well how to carry, handle, and use his handgun. And the fact that he used it effectively under the extreme shock and pressure of being robbed at gunpoint shows how well trained he was.”
The coach was a reserve police officer, but this is irrelevant to the incident. Aspiring police officers qualify in the firearms segment of their training using a mere 50 to 60 rounds during scenarios that are taught in even the most rudimentary civilian courses, which often use hundreds of rounds during qualifications. Police officers do not get magical training. In fact, many officers are forced to attend civilian-run training facilities in order to get more time and more complex experience. Civilian combat weapons enthusiasts are often far better prepared for a violent situation than the average law enforcement official.
The reason Blodget fixates on the police status of the victim is because, like most gun grabbers, he is a statist. In his mind, a designated state official is given credence by the government and is, therefore, somehow a superhero with amazing gun-wielding powers that us poor civilian mortals could never hope to master. This naïve sentiment is displayed by many a gun grabber who has never actually owned or fired a gun in his life.
“Third, this incident could easily have turned out differently–as many similar incidents do. If the coach had been a bit slower or clumsier in pulling his own gun, the attackers could have shot and killed all three of the victims before they had a chance to defend themselves. (In the wild west, when everyone carried guns, it wasn’t always the bad guys that got shot.)”
Yes, and a comet could fall from the sky and roast the Earth. Hypothetically, anything could go wrong at any moment, yet, thousands of Americans defend themselves each year with a firearm without killing innocent bystanders or being too slow or clumsy on the draw. Why should gun owners abandon their rights just because some people cannot control their personal fears?
Finally, how much better are an unarmed victim’s chances of survival? Is Blodget really trying to insinuate being armed does not increase a victim’s ability to defend himself unless he happens to be a cop on a government salary? If faced with a gun- or knife-wielding attacker who threatened him or his family, would Blodget turn down the use of a firearm if available? Would he try to shoot the perpetrator, or would he fall to his knees and beg for mercy?
The only tangible evidence that Blodget uses to buttress his opinion that self-defense is not a viable argument for gun ownership is a single FBI statistic on justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide is a gray area of law, and the number of instances recorded by the FBI in no way reflects the actual frequency in which guns are used in self-defense.
By exploiting this one statistic, Blodget knowingly disregards the fact that many gun defense situations do not end in the death of the attacker. He also disregards the number of criminals who run at the sight of an armed target, as well as the number of crimes that are prevented completely because the criminal is not certain whether his targets are armed.
Most police departments do not keep accurate records of attempted crimes which were thwarted by armed citizens. The only sources of such statistics are surveys held by various organizations and institutions. Blodget quickly dismisses the widely disseminated survey by criminology professor Gary Kleck, which shows that there are far more instances of guns used to thwart crime than guns used to perpetrate crime. Blodget claims that the study is “old and highly flawed because it used a small number of people as a test group”, all common assertions by gun control fanatics. The study was held in 1994 (hardly ages ago), and surveyed 5000 households.
A recent Reuter/Ipsos poll used widely by gun grabbers claimed that 74% of Americans support an assault weapons ban, yet their survey only involved 559 people with far less oversight than Kleck’s study. The hypocritical nature of the anti-gun mindset is revealed again...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-poll_n_2498840.html
Vehement gun control advocate and criminologist Marvin Wolfgang made this comment on Kleck’s study:
“What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.”
He went on to say that a conflicting National Crime Victimization Survey (also used widely by gun grabbers) did not contradict the Kleck study, and that the argument of “too few participants” was unfounded:
“I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well. … The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs. I did not mention this specifically in my printed comments because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.”
According to survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology entitled ‘Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment’, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. This is a conservative estimate compared to Kleck’s 2.5 million, but it is still a far larger number than the amount of annual homicides by gun. The argument that gun murders outweigh gun defense is a defective one. Blodget knows it, which is why he dances his way around so many viable pieces of evidence. He is not interested in the facts, only promoting his own twisted worldview.
Violent crimes (assault, burglary, rape, etc.) have skyrocketed in countries like the U.K. and Australia where stringent gun control has been enacted, simply because criminals know that because of government controls the odds of running into an armed victim are slim. Gun grabbers like Blodget do not care about this, though. They are not actually interested in saving lives. What they are interested in is imposing their ideologies on the rest of us.
If the only drive of anti-gun advocates was a sincere concern for public safety, they would not feel the need to misrepresent the facts and lie outright in order to convince others. Those who use disinformation to their benefit are acting on much darker emotional impulses and biases, like fear and malevolence. Their goal is not to find the truth, but to “win”. Their goal is not to encourage understanding, but to destroy their political enemies.
The most enticing motive for the average yuppie within the gun control society is not their hatred of guns per say, but their hatred of gun culture. Being worshipers of the establishment, they do not like our defiance of socialization, collectivism, and the corrupt state in general. They do not like our methodologies of decentralization and independence. They do not like that we have the ability to crush their skewed arguments with ease. And, they do not like that we have the physical capability of denying their pursuit of power. Gun control is not just a war on guns; it is a war on traditionally conservative Americans, our heritage, our beliefs, and our principles. It is a war the gun grabbers will lose.
- 29113 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Brandon.
For your information: Henry Blodget was an Investment Banker for Merrill Lynch a while back. I think in the IT area.
Anything that he says is full of $hit. By quoting him you lose any credibility.
Blodget was one of the pied pipers of the Pets.com era, if memory serves. His "advice" cost a lot of people.
I view him as thoroughly discredited.
POTUS = Pinocchio Of The United States. The markets perfectly played the sequester. Buy the disinformation juiced 500+ Dow points.
I lost some cash last week. I didn't expect Japan to go all in ahead of the March BoJ meetings.I was wrong. It also signals that Japan is more desperate than I thought. It signals Asia and e/ms are running scared.
Bring enough gun: the M1A. Better yet, pay all the licensing, and get a fully auto BAR. Amazing machine...CB
While we are on three letters - how about a SAW?
the vast majority of mass murders of the past 40 years are cia instigated events - not all - but the majority....they are planned under the lone nut gimmick - where mkultra subjects are let loose to kill one or more people....john lenon was a good example, as are the belt way killer, the ft houston murders, the recent spate of killings in the midwest....they are all designed to disarm americans and to make them subject to military rule.....
we are all peasants to serve the rockefeller axis of evil which includes the bush crime syndicate.....
every time you vote republican or democrat, you are voting for the rockefeller axis of evil...besides being a traitor and fucktard.
why bother countering the personal defense is no defense of gun ownership crowd. my argument is i am defending myself against the likes of you(whoever is arguing for gun control) because it is the citizen who takes on the cause of .gov as his own who have been the most dangerous people to personal freedom in the history of the world. i have my gun to oppose the people who are willing to defend the powers of .gov at my expense. that extends to the wacko left who thinks i need nanny .gov to the insane right who thinks religion will save me and the israelis.
i need more ammunition. that's a lot of people who need shooting.
Oh dear. The OP has obviously lost the argument staright away by mentioning the Nazis.
What about the countless lies bandied forth by the PRO GUN lobby??????????????
Plow my fields bitch.
Nah. He probably falls into the camp of "I am a good citizen so I have nothing to fear," only to find out he is just a number and if calculated to be in the way can and will be summarily dispatched via hollowpoint by the first DHS agent who does not like the color of the shirt our poster is wearing on the day they arrive to check his "patriotism."
Redneck wonderland
Maybe so but I will take Rednecks over a gun grabbing racist anyday of the week, nutsack.
Your name suits you
I can't wait for the soon to come holiday "Shoot A Politician Day" when they are fair game and we can all load up and go hunting. Would prefer it to me a monthly rather than annual holiday. Our country will have a chance of being America again if we celebrate monthly. I've got a couple of cases of .357 rounds so I'm good. Dibs on Pelosi and Frank. Double dibs on Greenspan, Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, Rubin and Summers.
National politicians have a bag limit of 2. However, Media Toadies are varmints and without a limit. Dibs on Dan Rather.
That requires a fork.
Especially no limits on politicians. They are like crows, labeled a nuisance, you can even bait them and turn the dead ones in for a .50 cent bounty on each one.
Just cut off the tails to hand in for proof for the bounty.
amen. and i am not even religious
The gun thing is a fetish. Guns are what the GOP goes to whenever it looks liike they might have to do what they're elected to do e.g. limiting Federal spending... If guns were so great the Federal Gov would be a fraction of it's current size. I'd like to see them banned just to show what a bunch of phonies the gun-huggers really are. Whatever happens, I guarantee you the NRA will be last to fight. They're not going to do anything that will jeapordize thier cash accounts.
Go hug a fucking tree.
What are going to do? Shoot me because you don't like what you hear?
I don't own any guns, but I would like to say this to you:
Go fuck a tree, man.
There are tens of millions of gun owners in this country and you have prolly never seen one shot fired besides the TV. What does that tell you?
Nah...laughter alone should suffice.
Ammo has gotten to expensive for that. That's why you have to carry a decent blade as a backup. Being a black belt in a martial art helps in a pinch.
Gun ownership is in response to a perceived threat. A threat that you are furthering. Police have never in the past and will never in the future be able to protect anyone. Gun grabbers don't care one small piddling bit about dead children in Sandy Hook or they would be appauled by the millions killed in abortions. They only care about themselves and possibly their own children. You fear us and for no reason as statiscally you have a much better chance of being killed in a fall than by a legal gun owner. Gun rights supporters are making a grave mistake by ever justifying gun ownership on need however. Our right to gun ownership is clearly outlined in the Constitution and is in no way in need of justification as the constitution does that for us.
Most media people are completely ignorant about firearms and amendment two, and happily repeat fallacies like "spray bullets" and "not necessary for hunting." This is no surprise given that they live in Utopias like NYC, LA and DC. They are for the most part entirely disconnected from reality in their cocooned green zones. During the LA riots in the '90s, Hollywood libs tried to run out and buy guns only to be faced with a waiting period that they supported. I still laugh thinking about them.
Now that might be the truest and funnest thing I have read today. Got to love it, running out to buy guns and WAIT
I wonder what 440 was thinking before TV news did his thinking for him???? Fool. CB
I'm thinking. I don't see that in the pro-gun rhetoric. You see people unwilling to face the truth. People are buying weapons because they believe it will substitute for action or insulate them from others. They are buying weaopns for becaue of what they are unwilling to face. It is political defeatism, not defiance. It is every bit as anti-social as the libs portray it. This is a time for social action. Insulation and isolation lead to senselessness and stupidity.
I am thinking that 440 used to be uncertain but now he's not so sure. Pick up a copy of "What is Called Thinking", by Martin Heidegger, and get back to us next year. The book will assist in de-programming you from the MSM platitudes you so obviously possess. Better known as drivel. Next, go get a Ph.D. in methods and phenomenolgy. By then, we shouldn't need to debate your definition of "truth" because there will be no disagreement. And we will still have our guns at this time. You are only currently invincibly ignorant. CB
This is the time to resist social action you non-thinking bag of stupid.
Typical Alinsky tactics, yawn..........
You fools are so far over your skies, you really need to go back to class in your social education bee hive. Polish your skills, your rhetoric has been exposed awhile ago, genius.
Yes it truely is anti-social to not subscribe to the rules of the Collective. As a mulitple weapon owner I am not such to avoid reality but to embrace it, head on if needed.
Hate to break it to you, sunshine, but life and gun owners are a tad more complicated than you think. I'm one of a great many who do not fit your simplistic stereotype mold.
I own several (quality & performance) weapons and plenty of ammo too, but all are in the same brand new condition as when I bought them. Took safety and CWL classes too. With my know-how and other skills, I feel no more or no less 'safe' either way, but I choose to exercise my legal and financial right by actually buying them. I can afford to buy nice stuff, and hope I will never have to use them. Except as a last resort.
Call it a Whole Life insurance policy of a different kind. What's yours?
Yes, Brandon, Liars lie. Mom and I were going to tell you someday. I'm sorry you had to find out about it like this.......
I don't know....
1M LEO GUNS
3M military GUNS
310M civilian (70M since Obama was elected) GUNS
Doesn't seem like a fair fight.....
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2013/03/06/175000000-people-were-slaughtere...
The President of the Sierra CLub stated that it was okay to lie and fudge numbers as long as the cause was just.
For most of you this is an intellectual debate- and that's fine. For me, it's personal. I used my gun to chase of 2 would-be home invaders (and I didn't even need to fire a shot. They heard me rack the slide, knew I had the advantage and ran). That was terrifying, as I'm an older woman living alone. I also had to draw down on my ex-son-in-law who tried to snatch my grandson while we were taking a walk. He was (finally) jailed for aggravated stalking. He's a crazy mofo who's in prison for one more year. I dread the day he's released. But at least he knows I mean business!
I truly will NEVER give up my gun. I mean it most sincerely that I'd rather die first.
I once heard it said that there is nothing more frightening to a home invader than the sound of a shotgun being racked and a women's voice saying "who's there". Thank you 20834A for taking it to the bottom line.
I don't think you should ever give up your gun.....but, the 2nd amendment was written almost a century ago. What constituted arms at the time was small scale, like an 80s pc. Technological change in the firearms industry has advanced to the point where a firearm is no longer a firearm. As the firearms technology increases, surely a line needs to be drawn whereby sales of extreme firearms are restricted.
"surely a line needs to be drawn whereby sales of extreme firearms are restricted."
No.
And that's all the "discussion" you deserve.
That's not what your mom said last night.
Your debating style is most advanced. You should host a game show.
Prior comments have conveyed the fact that this is not up for discussion (debate) so just ended with some primary school humour. Next topic.
Prior history has rendered you irrelevant.
Signed,
OK Corral
(showdown precipitated by gun ban)
Hey publius, your trailer finally got broadband. Way to go.
"And that's all the "discussion" you deserve."
+1000 Excellent!
+ 1001 not excellent
+ 1001 not excellent !!
Punch Bag;
Your wrote and I will paste below for all ZHers to see.
============================================================================
"I don't think you should ever give up your gun.....but, the 2nd amendment was written almost a century ago. What constituted arms at the time was small scale, like an 80s pc. Technological change in the firearms industry has advanced to the point where a firearm is no longer a firearm. As the firearms technology increases, surely a line needs to be drawn whereby sales of extreme firearms are restricted."
==============================================================================
I would venture to say that the framers had more intelligence and reality based thought in their pinky finger, than most gun grabbers posting brilliant comments do, like the above.
A gun is a gun is a gun. A colonist handed an AR-15 would figure it out in a minute. The technology is very basic; they would call it a gun. If you handed them a computer, they'd be totally lost. The rate, speed, pervasiveness and quality of communication via computer is WAY different than writing long-hand and sending it by pony express. So should a line be drawn for free speech given the massive increase in technology? It's still 'free speech'. Now if you were talking a nuclear bomb or rpg, your argument might make sense.
So somewhere between a full-auto long rifle and a nuclear bomb there's a line to be drawn.
We're one binary search away from finding rationality!
How's about if it fires bullets it is protected. Does that work for your binary search Cpt Semantics?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=xzOgkaLmq...
"2nd amendment was written almost a century ago"
Please, get a clue.
My mistake. The argument for discussion is still valid.
It works wonders for your credibility.
I'm not from round these parts
You Don't even know what century you are in - " about a century ago". Sheesh
So maybe we should have been restricted to a short bronze age sword or possibly a bucket of rocks. We hear the constant rebuttal that as the arms we are able to legally own are insufficient for protection from rogue government forces. I would ask why that is? Could it be because the government has outlawed any such weapons from public ownership? Just maybe? Earlier in the last century citizens could own just about anything the government could have including machine guns and even cannons. Guns laws today are much more restrictive then they were within the lifetime of many of these readers. Drawing a line is an arbitrary concept as we see today. Semi auto assault, semi auto rifle, 30 round, 10 round, 7 round, no removable clip, single shot, caliber limitation, sighting systems, too scary looking for the general public's comfort level. Where should the line be drawn. A good line was drawn when we prohibited the military to act on our soil against its citizens. Does a federal drone cross that line. I would think so, but afterall they are only here to help us, right?
Ok, When the home invaders come I'll get out my musket. What do they have? Can I atleast be able to protect myself in this century or do I need Mr. Peabodys time machine?
And what about human nature has changed since the 2nd amendment was written "...almost a century ago [sic]"?
"Punch Bag" - BWA-HAHAHA!!!
With all due respect, I'm in love.
Here is the most reasoned treatment of gun control I have found so far. The second link goes into detail about gun control in the 3rd Reich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dvE-H80jX0
http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html
A young Ron Paul with an AR-15.
Paul: "The best way to protect our right is to exercise it."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133295.html
Damn straight.
I once supported gun control even though I was a gun owner. Now I would resist it completely. US citizens need their guns more than ever. Dark Clouds are gathering.
Max
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/brennan-takes-oath-constitution-witho...
Ya think?
http://www.GunGrabAlert.com
They put out a "quick and dirty" email newsletter covering all of the legislation nationwide targeting gun rights and ammo.
They also giveaway FREE guns, P-MAGS and other stuff for those of us who are bitter clingers.
Worth a look.
NRA does this, and files lawsuits against state & federal 2nd Amendment infringements.
Join. Now.
"When a group or organization seeks to establish any social policy, it helps tremendously if that group remains honest in their endeavor."
It would help not to open with a patently farcical false premise. Helps whom? Certainly not them.
“Blodget is primarily an economic analyst, as I am, and is not exactly an unintelligent louse. “
Apparently he is, since he managed to get banned back in 2003 from the securities industry entirely by the even more incompetent SEC, et al., back then:
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-56.htm
Blodget is an economic shyster with zero command of economic facts.
"It isn’t that gun control proponents are impossible to talk to in a rational manner; most gun control activists have an almost fanatical cult-like inability to listen to reason."
Wow, I was thinking the same, except changing "gun control activists" for "pro-gun activists".
Do you possess reasoned arguments or are you just trollin for a bruisin?
Just check the replies to all of the comments marked down. Isn't that enough?
The statists love to wear their costumes. It's a weakness that will be their downfall.
There is no reason to reason with "gun control activists". Don't tread on me.
Suzanna Hupp said it best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKWNTdTRQuE
If you are going to let the people you fear talk you out of your guns, then why did you obtain them in the first place? It isn't about a discussion.
It's time to stop playing defense and to go after gun-grabbers everywhere. They must be made to pay.
The people trying to disarm innocent civilians and cause their deaths are the ones propogating the violence myths.
WB7, I think you know this paradox.....
Ah, Brandon Smith, as always, ruining a good set of arguments by writing about them in the worst way possible.
I am what the tin foil hat wearing folks on this website refer to as a libtard. But I am very much in favor of the Second Amendment. I've never had to use a firearm to defend my family or myself but I'd rather have them and not need them than the other way around.
My liberal friends who think an unarmed society becomes a peaceful society always decline my offer to put a sign in front of their house that says "Occupants Unarmed".
As the saying goes, "when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns".
Try not to be so hard on yourself. You're evidently not as broken as you think
Anyone catch the SOTU speech? The only guy in the building wearing that anti-gun ribbon was Biden. He has had a can tied to his tail on the issue and then he got kicked in his ass.
The political class will try a few things on the margin and then pack it in. They're beaten and they know it.
All this silly discussion about pop guns...any monkey with sufficient neuron count can level a building with nothing but perfectly legal chemicals.
If I wanted to break into your house, you'd be unconscious on the floor with or without your peashooter in a deathgrip.
Make em legal. Don't make em legal. It does not matter one bit.
Having guns won't make you safe. Not having guns won't make you safe.
I'd like an F-16 and a Tank or two.
Easy... start your own Brotherhood. Just make sure it's not Christian. /sarc
We do what we can to feel safe. Some buy guns, some vote for Big Brother and others just hide and hope shit goes away. Everyone needs at least the illusion of security. Unfortunately everyone's concept of security creates another's insecurity. The wealthy have learned how to keep these insecurities on high alert and are raking it in. Be it insurance, guns and ammo, defense contractors, big gov, big houses, big cars and virtually everything we buy. The stock market is a really big winner in this as they churn all of the people so afraid of losing out on the next big run up.
Oh what a feeling! But isn't the illusion of safety as dangerous (if not more so) than no safety at all?
I live in a castle state, you come into my home and cause trouble for my family and you had better be ready for a tussle.
My wife spends more time at the range than I do.
It's a tight Gun loving community. We don't take no shit
No illusion here......
You missed the point. Your guns won't do you any good when you're snoozing on the floor from a chemical attack.
So the local police can't save you afterall?
Thats comforting, thanks.
The local LEO will be long gone......I know all of them, their good people with families
They don't want anything to do with Obama's wetdream.
You are assuming a level of sophistication the average dumbass criminal does not possess. Don't be such a dumbass yourself.
Hah, I know of many such attacks in Uruguay's Punta del Este, where criminals started pouring sleeping gas into rented homes and then robbed (and touched...) the poor tourists.
What one man can do, his friend the idiot with an internet connection can also do.
A chemical attack? Not where I live.
social unrest maybe
Not according to you. You obviously believe that if you can't assure yourself of protection then you shouldn't bother trying. My point is that we all have feelings of insecurity. The challenge is to determine which are real and justifiable and which are not. We know the the single largest danger of being killed by a gun is by someone who has illegally obtained it. We also know that many want gun control because they fera for their own lives, while statically that chance is very remote. We also know that there has been an unending drive to outlaw virtually all private gun ownership. We also understand that no compromise will ulitmately satisfy these people and if there is a line to be drawn it is now. This is not an illusionary threat. It has been on the cover of every publication for months. Your supposition that it is now irrelevant if we have guns as a defense against government because of their overwhelming advantages, I would suggest to you that the primary reason they have this advantage is that they have succeeded in outlawing such weapons that in your mind would make that defense possible, and from this logic they should go further given the inevitability of it sll. Your call is for absolute surrender to the State. Do as they will with us you say. Resistance is futile!
Care to post some recipes? this is a friendly group of folks who like to share after all.
Fine, keep your Special Ops, Ranger, Seals, Ninja and spook skills. I'm happy for you. But unlike you, I'm not inclined to break out my chemistry set when I got catastrophe-zombies banging on my door.
It's the General Relativity Theory of personal safety, Einstein: Having them makes you safer than not having them. With me so far? And who -- besides you -- is claiming that guns are the only part of a defense system?
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"...........Is there something about this simple, but profound statement, that some of you trolls, and all of you moronic, Constitution trampling, Treasonous, Liberal bleeding heart usurpers DON'T UNDERSTAND!?
The constitution promises us the right to protect ourselves. Gun grabbers would rather be protected. Of course they never think far enough ahead to realize that when you give that right of self protection away, you can never get it back, at least without some serious bleeding. When you pay someone else to hold the gun there is never any assurance that they won't take a better offer or just plain get tired of your ass.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Just string out some tape, mark the body position with chalk, and fill out paperwork.
Trayvon Martin was a thug who gambled and lost. If he had killed the other guy, would not have been a paragraph on page 11 of the Orlando Sentinel. Guys like him are why there is a stand your ground law.
Friend, don't confuse "understand" with things like: Don't like, need to get around/over/under, re-frame, repackage, modernize, update...
Their issue with it is not 'understanding', it is 'accepting'. It's their will vs. yours/our. All else is theater.
Care to post the complete sentence?
It tells you there, the most important reason they have no right to infringe your right to bear arms.
It isn't simply to protect yourself against thieves, burglars, muggers or even gang killings. It isn't to make society a polite socitey. It is because it is necessary to maintain the security of a free state. When this right is removed you only continue to live in a free state until the powerful decide they need more than the weak.
I picked up 900 rounds today. It was a lovely day.
When it comes to lies the gun grabbers tell... why listen to anyone other than John Lott?
I just need some ammo, more ammo, not enough ammo...
You're just that bad a shooter?
He's a Keynesian (sarc). He's just helping the GDP, jobs and the velocity of... something. So give him a break!
I'm a gun-Keynesian too. We all are, Mr. President. We're helping the economy grow, helping company profits and stock prices, creating good domestic-manufacturing jobs.
Maybe they don't really want to grab our guns. Maybe they want us to buy large amounts of guns and ammo. Maybe they're planning on chemically attacking us with psychotropic drugs spread through chemtrails in the atmosphere and we'll all start shooting each other doing the job the CIA/DHS/MIC doesn't want to do.
/snark
This article is fullovit to the point of psychosis.
First of all, there are no gun grabbers. This is a fantasy promoted by the gun industry to stampede the credulous into buying more and more guns.
Secondly, Hitler never grabbed guns either. In fact, as time passed, he loosened Germany's gun laws. Wayne LaPierre would have been proud.
Thirdly, statistically a gun in the house is more likely to be used to kill a friend or relative or in a suicide than it is to repel a home invasion. More fantasy from a greedy industry.
Fourthly, the Second Amendment is not to be practiced without reasonable restriction. Just as you need a license, registration and insurance to drive a car, which has a safe use, you may need similar laws applying to guns, which have no safe use. And registration of guns leads to.....nothing. The confiscation boogeyman is just that, something to scare children with. But no adult should fall for it.
Fifthly, don't call handgun safety advocates stupid. The sales figures show that gun ownership is inversely related to education level. They're against unsafe gun practices because they're smarter than you.
And finally, the only proposals under serious consideration will slow down the rate at which guns enter the American bloodstream. Since everybody already has as many guns as they need to shoot their nearest and dearest several times over, there is no harm in slowing down sales, unless you happen to be a gun manufacturer or salesman. And they're the ones promoting lurid fantasies.
The author of this guest article needs a saliva test, desperately.
The courts have ruled that there is no INHERENT RIGHT to drive a car. That PRIVELEGE can be taken away without much fuss. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the RIGHT to bear arms (and let's not forget the "infringed" part). As to your sneering comment about IQ- I'd wager yours isn't anywhere close to mine. As far as responsibility, I had the very highest clearance the USA hands out (only about 200+ people ever have it at a given time). Higher than Top Secret-Codeword-Secret Compartmented Information. ('Codeword' because the codeword is classified).
We stand corrected! Why you must be a PHD because you are obviuosly one of the smart ones! Of course license for cars are relative to actually driving them, but I do believe you want to regulate what I have in my closet, correct? So far as I know I can own as many cars as I want without license as long as I don't drive them on your "collective" roads that I helped pay for. And I'm sure all those German Jews were just armed to the teeth but decided there was just too much risk of shooting themselves or their neighbors while trying to fight off the Nazis hearding them into cattle cars. I guess this is the best part, knowing all you smart fucks will be the first to go.
Smug much? Do you sit around beating off to Plato's Republic as you imagine yourself a philosopher-king over the manual labor masses?
One question though...if guns have no safe use, why would LE or militaries want them? Why endanger your LE officers and soldiers to the dangers of firearms?
The Truth That Gun Owners Tell: Fuck You; Go to Hell.
Story over.
Mr President, in your own words: "YES WE CAN, YES WE CAN!"
.."The only good bureaucrat is one with a gun to his head, put it in his hand and it's good bye Second Amendment" HL. Mencken.
There really isn't anything left to discuss on the issue, only matters to consider and choices to be made.
Take this "True Story" for what it is worth ... Are Guns Good ? 'Specially when they were hi-jacked from a local gun / pawn shop and then used to kill 3 people for No Fuckin' Reason .... Except to steal a nice Black Audi so the perps could (maybe) make a new start in Life in Colorado ?? Truman Capote's Original Novel Comes Alive !!!
http://www.codyenterprise.com/news/local/article_3955bf9e-85c2-11e2-957d...
Where's Quentin Tarantino when you really need him ?? This is his Next Project. Fuck ... This is near my home (just over the WY / MT border). Clark Wyoming is awesome beautiful country and Cody Wyoming is the home of Buffalo Bill. Shit Just Went Way-South around these parts < mucho-sadness > .
Unwarranted free advertising for another big business.
That firearms manufacture is an industry is by itself is a reason to hate it. All industries are evil, there is only the matter of degree.
Nevertheless, everyone has the right to defend their lives against criminals.
This does not extend to a right to create a state-within-a-state or private armies. The government is the defender of the Constitution by law and tradition, this was and still is the will of the people, by way of the nation's founders. If there is another desire it must also be by the will of the people by way of the vote.
The private sector is not the master of the Constitution but its servant.
To the degree that the firearms manufacturers -- and their lobbyists -- encourage the creation of states within the state and private armies, they are criminals like the others.
You know ... the ones we have a right to defend ourselves against ...
"The servants of the Constitution"? Holy crap, you need to read some prime source history. You are so far off it's frightenening. That mindset is EXACTLY why I will never relinquish my gun right; not GRANTED by the Constitution, but ENSHRINED AND ELUCIDATED by it. You are the person the Founders warned us about.
Mebbe you might want to take a look at the Constitution itself, it only takes a few minutes to read the entire thing:
You might try Article VI on for size, first:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/
Your gun right isn't a problem, firearms are legal in the US and likely to remain so.
Individuals have no independent right to abrogate the law or set themselves above it which is what 'mastery' implies. One cannot claim that abrogation as a Constitutional privilege ... as one might see fit. Certainly a business doesn't have this right (although they have had the run of the asylum for a very long time.)
The law is the master, obey or else. Don't like the law, change it. Mebbe vote the next time instead of watching TV.
All this was decided during the US Civil War, by the way. It's time to move on.
Yes, earth was a much more peaceful time when we had only sticks and stones to throw at one another. Damn those spear manufacturers!
The facts are not relevant to the gun grabbers. The perceived crisis can not go to waste. Even if only a few of their laws make to the books, they stay there usually forever. Eventually and incrementally our rights are destroyed by a thousand cuts. Repealing unconstitutional laws takes years, and huge amounts of money, and often only applies to one state. For example registration was never contemplated by the founders and is not addressed by the constitution, but it is always the step just before confiscation.
Looks like the paranoid, scared-shitless gun nuts are at it again. This piece is full of anecdotal instances which are the exceptions that prove the rule. If you're not too busy peeing your pants over the prospect of a negro coming through your window to take your fat wife, or a Fed rappelling into your front yard to take you to prison camp, have a look at some facts: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
Here's an anecdote for you, though I'm sure that you will say it can't happen here. After all, the gov't promises it won't do anything like that. And the gov't never lies.
“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 thei...r lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” -Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag ArchipeligoThanks! We always appreciate unbiased sources of information!
fool
Hey! You're one of those self-righteous yuppies Brad mentioned! You really do exist!
Looks like the paranoid, scared-shitless gun nuts are at it again. This piece is full of anecdotal instances which are the exceptions that prove the rule. If you're not too busy peeing your pants over the prospect of a negro coming through your window to take your fat wife, or a Fed rappelling into your front yard to take you to an imaginary prison camp, have a look at some facts: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
https://pay.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15911g/was_there_any_talk_of_gun_control_after_the_jfk/ A few links can be found here regarding issue of gun control throughout history. Notice the warning not to discuss Columbine or Sandy Hook? It's too soon? I don't know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGujjO_Za2c Here is the Assistant Secretary of Treasury under President Ronal Reagan describing what is in store for Americans. (and you dare make light of the situation).
Internment camps have been used in the USA. Germans and Japanese were both sequestered by this method. Search yourself. I bet your wife would hit these links. And by the way, the people who rob, cheat and steal for a living aren't going to give up their illegal weapons.
There is a drug war in every city, the gangstas are painting the crayon markings all over everything so what good does it do if lawful citizens give up theirs? Nonsense, pure nonsense, This is an hysterical off broadway show, inducing the audience that all guns are bad and should be banned from existence...all while the kids just got brutalized by some husky, faceless rrhoids in front of our very eyes - protesting the fact their future, the hope for a life worth living, is pretty much down the tubes.
It's been a successful heist and foodstamps and free phones isn't going to last forever . We all know that. Most of us are trying to figure out how to stop it one day, and how to leave the country the next.
What is the Importance of Dress Codes?eHow
CafeMom
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't trying to take my guns, but scared....I don't think so. You will know when we are scared because a lot of people will be scared... shitless, except possibly you because yours will be running down your leg when you realize you are the one without the gun.
I've been mugged twice, and I grew up in a neighborhood where I heard gunshots every night. Was asked by the police to identify a handgun when I was 7 years old because I happened to be standing between two guys having a heated argument, and one decided to shoot the other. Unlike most of you gun fetishists, I've already been a victim of crime, and I know enough victims of crime to realize that owning a gun won't make a damned bit of difference in most situations.
If someone pulls a gun on you, are you going to outdraw them, cowboy-style? What if they grab your kid or wife as a hostage. That's what I saw when I got to witness an armed robbery first hand in a place where EVERYBODY has guns. You people live in a fantasy world where criminals give you lots of time to find, load and aim your weapon. Even worse, you don't realize that the bigget threat to your life isn't a stranger, but Uncle Rick after he's had a few too many and has decided you're an asshole.
Take your big, black guns and shove them right up your asses. They'll do more good as dildos than they will protecting you.
So PTSD? You are more than welcome to disarm yourself to your heart's content. Just don't force me to, because you feel afraid and are self determinate to be disarmed.
You grew up in a place where you heard gunshots every night, and everyone has guns. Thank you Mr. hyperbole for a good laugh. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a "what if you trip over a miniature unicorn while reaching for your gun?" for good measure. It wouldn't be any less convincing than the crap you posted. Your ideas for effective self protection would involve what? Really, what are they?
It may seem like hyperbole to somone named after a delicate alpine flower, but Puerto Rico, where I grew up, has a homicide rate six times higher than the continental US. My tip for self-protection: avoid dangerous parts of town, especially public housing projects run by drug lords; drive a shitty old car so it won't tempt thieves or carjackers; put up bars over your doors and windows. When mugged, give the money away. Also, avoid loud public confrontations over anything, as they can quickly turn deadly.
I know this won't make you feel as macho and safe as the big, black penis extender you call a gun, so I don't mind if you pack heat...as long it's on a national registry and fully insured. What I can't understand is why white guys living in safe suburbs are so scared of their fellow Americans.
You need to get over your "black penis extender" bullshit for anyone to take you seriously. Clearly you have difficulty seeing past your stereotypes of gun owners. It seems likely that it never occured to you that people can own firearms, and not be suffering from some deficiency of a physical nature, or otherwise. You have a right to your opinion, but you didn't persuade anyone. I know, if everyone would just see things your way, the world would be a better place. It must be difficult having the burden of so much truth on your shoulders. Maybe you would get a better response peddling this crap at Raw story, Mother Jones, etc. Gotta go, I'm off to bar the windows, and avoid loud public confrontations.
I've been mugged twice, and I grew up in a neighborhood where I heard gunshots every night. Was asked by the police to identify a handgun when I was 7 years old because I happened to be standing between two guys having a heated argument, and one decided to shoot the other. Unlike most of you gun fetishists, I've already been a victim of crime, and I know enough victims of crime to realize that owning a gun won't make a damned bit of difference in most situations.
If someone pulls a gun on you, are you going to outdraw them, cowboy-style? What if they grab your kid or wife as a hostage? That's what I saw when I got to witness an armed robbery first hand in a place where EVERYBODY has guns. You people live in a fantasy world where criminals give you lots of time to find, load and aim your weapon. Even worse, you don't realize that the biggest threat to your life isn't a stranger, but Uncle Rick after he's had a few too many and has decided you're an asshole.
Take your big, black guns and shove them right up your asses. They'll do more good as dildos than they will protecting you.
Curious though....a lot of statistics with no foot note referencing.
Click on any of the links in the article. More citations than you'll ever be able to read.
Think on this my ZHer friends.
Earlier this week a sixteen year old girl was brutally murdered in broad daylight on a packed bus in central London by a knife wielding homicidal maniac, she had no means of defence the poor girl. And neither did anyone else on that bus.
I shed a tear over it as she is the same age as my daughter. I have said this before and I say it again, we are turning lawless over here, DO NOT give up the right to defend yourselves.
Think on this little girls life and family destroyed.
Every able bodied victim has their hands, feet, elbows, knees, teeth, head and most carry keys, pens, pencils, bags. Every attacker has eyes, ears, throat, balls, knees, joints.
Being a defenceless victim is a state of mind.
Fair point css.
But a 16 year old girl, who by the look of her picture was tiny, against a 6 foot tall well built bloke, with the intent to kill mate, is not an even match.
Whats that you lot say about a gun being a great equalizer? You get my point though?
I do absolutely get your point, but you also mentioned the bus was full.
People think the police are there to protect them so they don't bother to learn how to protect themselves (or others). The problem is the police can't protect you, they by definition are never there and by the time they can get there it is too late. The reality is the police exist to clean up afterwards. In UK motorcycling circles they are called "The janitors" but it applies to any event.
With or without a gun the only person who can be counted on to protect you is you. In the meantime we now have a nation trained to act like and be defenceless victims.
We constantly hear how untrained people with guns are a danger to themselves and others, yet those same people would suppose that the same untrained people will be able to fend off an attack with a whistle and a ball point pen. I have yet to hear of an attacker backing down from a Bick! But a 38 sp is a different story. Again, if victory cannot be assured it is best to surrender and the sooner the better!
Don't forget, the DHS recommends using sissors for fending off an "active shooter".
Here's the problem that so far not one American has ever seen.
You are in a war ... yep but you have no idea what the war consists of and that is why you are losing this war.
You are not in a normal war where your arms/guns/firearms will help you, you are in a legal war.
In legal wars, the weapons are "Words" and "Terms" and "Contracts".
Now I hear a lot about your so called "Second amendment rights" ... but what exactly do these "legal war rights" include?
Last time I looked at the "words" .. I didn't see the term "Gun" or "Firearm" ... actually I only saw the term "Arms".
As this is quite obviously a legal war, who would be stupid enough to think that "Gun" or "Firearm" could be or mean the same as "Arm"??
Take a look at the three terms ... "Gun" "Firearm" "Arms" ... do they look anything like each other to you now??
Are you simply "assuming" that because your government loves you, that they will be so bloody flexible with terms that they will overlook these very obvious changes?? ... THAT WOULD BE STUPID
The US constitution (this is assuming that legally it still exists as a valid document) only offers the right to bear "Arms" ... no where in the US constitution does it offer a right to have "Guns" or "Firearms".
Anti-gun people (that is the ones right up the top) know full well what law is like and how to manipulate the public using trick terms.
It's very easy (it seems) to confuse an American by allowing them to assume that these three terms mean the same thing.
I can assure you all right now that the terms "Guns" and "Firearms" do not mean "Arms" in any legal way therefore those enemy's of the people that are trying to take your "Guns" and "Firearms" have every legal right to do so.
As soon as you allow "Permit" or "Licence" or "Registration" to enter a "Right" that "Right" becomes a "Privilege" because people give up their right for a lessor legal provision.
Have a look on your Arm ... read the writing on your Arm and see what the maker called it ... most cases the maker refers to the tool as a "Arm" ... so who is deceiving you?
Here in New Zealand they have an "Arms Act" and can you believe it, the term "Arm" never appears in the act.
Firearm is interpreted as "anything that can send a projectile by means of the expansion of gases and or can be altered to do so"
(close to that anyway without actually clipping it out for you)
So under this strange acts interpretation if someone stuck a potatoe up the exhaust of a car and started the car, the car would become a "Firearm".
See www.iron-clay.com/pdf/arms.firearms.pdf
The SCOTUS said differently and VERY CLEARLY.
The 2nd amendment of the US constitution is mostly to allow the people to protect themselves against government (any government), not against thieves and robbers.
Mao killed 40 million
Hitler killed 6 million
Stalin killed 20 million
Pol Pot killed 3 million
of their own citizens. Never mind all those civilians killed by the armies of countries they thought of as enemies.
Which is why the constitution says you have the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. Only a trained militia could hope to stand against a professional army.
@Confederacy
All the above were just like America, Constitutional Republics with a long history and traditions of individual rights. USA = 230 years, Mao's regime lasted 27 years, Hitler's Reich 12 years, Stalin's USSR lasted only 30 years (including the Lenin/Trotsky period), Pol Pot's Kampuchea lasted 4 years. All of them are indeed completely identical the United States in every single way.
/sarc off.
The actual Constitution sez: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The authors of the Constitution were very clear about the management of militias including the provision of both arms and organizational structure within the legal framework of the Constitution itself. Section 10:
You might want to read the court cases and law-review articles about the subject HERE b/f opening mouth and proving foolishness beyond a reasonable doubt.
If everyone is armed, don't you end up with a society where no-one knows who might be their enemy (and even unintended killer)? At least you know who the enemy is in an unarmed society.
The US (the West) have been attempting to fight guerillas (terrorists) forever and what's the major probelm???? You don't know who the enemy is.
Good luck, gun ownership lobbyists. Your future world is potentially a totally nihilistic one.