A Memo to Those Who Should Know Better

I don’t know about you, but I for one am sick to my stomach of having to repeat the same facts and statistics over and over again. For years, decades even, we have beaten the drum and recited the same litany. Any man willing to sit calmly and listen to the facts, to history, will understand that civilian disarmament has always led to the abuse of the populace, whether by vicious criminals or an authoritarian government . . .

Additionally, Dr. John Lott did yeoman’s work when he researched and compiled the material for “More Guns, Less Crime” his extensive report on gun ownership and specifically concealed carry. It should be old news to this audience that Dr. Lott found the instances of violent crime against citizens dramatically dropped in areas where concealed carry was lawful and prevalent. Subsequently, in restrictive areas, such as Chicago (Cook County IL) and Washington D.C., where citizen gun ownership was the most restricted and nearly non-existent, violent crime; rape, robbery, and murder were rampant.

We have the demonstrable failures of the British and Australian gun bans. The citizens of both nations now lay exposed and vulnerable to all manner of criminal villainy, including the terrorism of home invasion, which is epidemic in Great Britain.

Those Who Should Know Better

This article is not being penned for the benefit of Sarah Brady, Herr Bloomberg, or any of the useful idiots and naked hypocrites in Hollywood. This text is for the supposed choir, those who should know better but seem not to.

During the last big offensive on civil liberty involving firearms, the 1994 (it was a) Crime Bill, we lost, not because the opposition had a more convincing argument, but because of the “reasonable” and the compromisers on our side. Self-appointed traditionalists, sportsmen, and hunters saw the gun ban as someone else’s problem. They looked at it and reasoned that they could still enjoy their favored recreation or play their game of choice.

It has been better than fifteen years, but I can still remember standing in my favorite gun shop when one of the regulars pointed to a black rifle and said, “Well, I can see banning certain kinds of guns.” Out of respect for the owner of the shop I secured my mouth and simply left feeling disgusted. Somehow I doubt I would have that level of self-control today.

More recently I had a skeet shooter attempt to explain the reason the local outdoor range specifically forbid concealed carry on the club property. During the discourse he said to me “Have you seen those concealed carry people? They scare me.” All the while he was balancing the muzzle of his shotgun on his foot. I didn’t exercise the previous restraint and congratulated him for saying the stupidest thing I had heard all week.

Should you count yourself among the reasonable hunters, traditionalists, or sportsmen today and believe you will be spared any inconvenience from the upcoming assault on civil liberty you are willfully naïve. If you think it’s alright for the government to confiscate your neighbor’s AR-15 as long as you get to keep your Remington 700 you are a selfish and vile creature and I have no respect for you.

Games are not Liberty

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Second Amendment enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution has nothing to do with hunting, collecting, or playing shooting games. Games are not a substitute for liberty. In the vaunted European nations who still claim that their citizens can “own guns,” the only guns they can claim ownership to are those suitable for play, not for fighting. Their governments have also seen to it that playing with firearms is a rich man’s game. Licenses, fees, club memberships, storage costs, and various taxes have taken even play guns out of the hands of the common man.

For all of you weekend trap shooters, annual deer hunters and seasonal competitive marksmen, you had better think twice before throwing your concealed carry neighbor under the bus. Adopting the “civilized” European model may very well price your favorite hobby far out of reach. Do you think ammunition is expensive now?  Wait until the Federal Government institutes their new form of taxation on it.

Do you appreciate the wide variety of firearms, ammunition, and accessories from which you have to choose? Kiss those days goodbye. Without the profit incentive to offer a large number of products, most manufacturers will be forced to either fold up completely or cut back on their manufacturing numbers.

The vast majority of accessory makers in the firearms industry are legitimately small business owners. The draconian taxation that is being put in motion will financially crush the vast majority of them. Those who manage to stay in business will only do so by dramatically raising their prices.  Imported firearms accessories will be banned outright or taxed to extinction. The days of the $200 riflescope or the $50 set of binoculars will be long gone. Bargain prices on imported ammunition? Nope, that will be gone as well.

Hurt Feelings? 

If this short bit of text hurts your feeling or strikes a nerve, tough.  It’s time to either man up and grow a pair or just admit you are not really a son of liberty but a comfortable slave seeking permission from the king to play your favorite game. And, to the moderate man, who feels that I may have erred for calling out the recreant, it is exactly that moderation and compromise that has brought us to the precarious position we are in right now.

I am reminded of the immortal words of Dalton in the venerate tale of the Roadhouse.  “I want you to be nice until it’s time not to be nice.” Ladies and gentlemen, the time has come not to be nice.

Paul Markel © 2013

About the Author

Paul Markel has been a firearms industry writer for twenty years and is the author of the new book “Student of the Gun; A beginner once, a student for life.”  Paul hosts and produces “Student of the Gun” a show dedicated to education, experience, and enjoyment of firearms.  Episodes of SOTG can be viewed by simply going to www.studentofthegun.com and clicking the “play” icon.

92 Responses to A Memo to Those Who Should Know Better

  1. avatarGeorge says:

    To those hunters and target shooters who feel that “High-Powered Assault Weapons with High Capacity Magazines” should, indeed be limited or banned all together:

    You know, of course, that next on the list is your “Sniper Rifle”……

    • avatarEvan says:

      Of course…. Because what do you need a scope for. If you can’t hit a deer without a scope then you’re just a bad shot and the deer deserved to get away. Scopes are accessories designed for snipers on a foreign battlefield or for “terrorists.” there is no reason any civilian needs to shoot at something that far away!! (And on and on it will go)

      • avatarCurzen says:

        Common sense tells me that only dangerous psychopaths lurk around in the woods to murder Bambi and her mother.

        • avatarCarrymagnum says:

          That comment was deep man. I had never thought about it til now and I think your absolutely right. What kind of psycho would want to hunt something absolutely delicious like a deer? Are you a vegan? Yeah I bet you’re a vegan.

      • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

        And pretty soon shotguns will be limited to 3 shells or something like that.

    • avatarMick says:

      Let’s not forget the Remington 870 “street sweeper” or the s&w 686 “magnum cop killer”.

    • avatarBob says:

      Just imagine:

      “These military style SNIPER rifles shoot a bullet THREE times bigger than an M-16′s, and have TWICE the range. If you need to shoot from such a distance, I’d have to say you’re a pretty bad hunter.”

    • avatarensitu says:

      I have been saying this for nearly 30 years and it deems I will soon be proved right because BA’s are being targeted as well by our Overlord, almost as if he, or his Master had planned this all along

    • avatarJohnny says:

      Who needs a bolt action anyway? If you can’t hit a deer on your first shot, you’re a pretty bad hunter.

      *several more bans later*

      “If you have to use a recurve bow to hit a deer instead of walking up to it and stabbing it in the heart, you’re a pretty bad hunter”

  2. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    The NRA caved in 1968, 1986 and 1994. Since Bush I tore up his NRA membership in defense of the JBT’s they have been a compromised organization.

    If you expect the NRA to save your guns from Obama, think again.

    • avatarSchizuki says:

      Name a single more effective gun rights organization than the NRA.

      Just. One.

      • avatarLemming says:

        SAF

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          This. I also find it absurd that with the millions (billions?) of dollars the NRA gets every year that they can’t pay for commercials with actual numbers or victims talking about how they or their children would be dead if they hadn’t used a gun to defend themselves.

        • avatarrosignol says:

          ~4m members * $35/year = NRA yearly income is probably around ~$140m annually. Give or take, there are some ways to get discounts.

          It’s kind of surprising that they’re that small, really. Bloomers and several other notable grabbers are billionaires, and could easily finance a comparable organization. Or just buy gun manufacturers and shut them down.

      • avatarHenry Bowman says:

        GOA

        • avatarSchizuki says:

          You guys are joking, right? Terrific organizations, but not one-tenth the juice of the NRA. I said “effective”, not “ideologically pleasing.”

      • avatartheaton says:

        Schizuki, you are correct, there is no other gun rights organization more effective at compromising our rights away than the NRA.

        • avatarRalph says:

          If the NRA sucks so bad, why do the gungrabbers hate them so much?

          Stop with the anti-NRA diatribe. You’re dancing to Bloomberg’s tune, fools.

        • avatartheaton says:

          Ralph, I didn’t say the NRA didn’t have power. Gungrabbers hate them for not only their power, but also for they’re perceived power. No matter what the group does, they still have 4 million members and that is huge. I was going to say that the NRA is good as education goes but the NRA-ILA is far to willing to cave to the left or just cave if they aren’t affected by the legislation. I then realized if the NRA were a good group, they would be out there using the hard earned money they get from their members to run ads explaining the facts of firearms. Instead, they set back while Bloomberg, Schumer and all the other anti-gun people spread falsehoods about firearms. The NRA caved in 1934, 1968, 1986 and many more places. They were willing to let the First Amendment be infringed after they received a special wavier from the legislation.

          I do not dance to Bloomberg’s tune nor will I dance to the NRA’s tune. I will defend the Constituiton as is the duty of every American.

        • avatarProfessor says:

          If the NRA compromises on a new AWB and supports restrictions, it will be the last time any of my money go in that direction…

    • Whatever you think of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, the non-legislative part of the NRA is the only reason we’re still armed. No other pro-gun organization fielded tens of thousands of instructors and taught millions of people how to shoot.

      And that’s where all the pro-gun voters came from.

      So join back up. Support other organizations for legislation if you must, but get involved in activities like Friends of NRA, because it’s the non-legislative grants and funding that will provide the next generation of gun-rights voters.

  3. avatarDrewR55 says:

    Well said

  4. avatartheaton says:

    “It’s time to either man up and grow a pair or just admit you are not really a son of liberty but a comfortable slave seeking permission from the king to play your favorite game. ”

    Many pretend to be defenders of liberty. It’s easy to find out if they speak the truth. Tell them it’s time to remove two of the largest parts of the federal government, Social Security and medicare. It will then become obvious if they are defenders of liberty of protectors of Tyranny. They will most likely whine and cry. Many will give up their arms before they give up their government check.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      This. As a child I always heard my parents railing against government spending, unions, etc. Once I got older I realized that they were full of crap and that they wanted their government checks and were happy to trade freedom for it. I lost respect for anything they have to say politically after our state passed a law limiting the power of government unions – then, despite years of saying union workers are overpaid and how it hurts taxpayers, all of the sudden unions were wonderful when it was my mom’s overpaid salary that was in jeopardy.

    • avatarAharon says:

      “Tell them it’s time to remove two of the largest parts of the federal government, Social Security and medicare.”

      I don’t support the eternal global-police war-making policy of the USG. It is the behavior of an imperialistic empire and not that of a morally clean democratic-republic. The US military budget is huge and year after year it pushes America into ever deeper real debt. Eisenhower was right about warning America to beware the military-industrial complex.

      • avatartheaton says:

        Aharon,
        National defense is only 19% of the Federal budget. Entitlement programs are 62%. Also, national defense is an Constitutional authority of the government, entitlement programs are not. That said, I agree there is a lot of waste in the military industrial complex.

        • avatarHenry Bowman says:

          Our current foreign policy would be better categorized as a national offense.

        • avatarAharon says:

          I’ve read that the US military budget is more like 50% plus of the federal budget. Based on what I’ve read, the politicians play games with the reporting of the numbers to put military costs such as those of Afghanistan and Iraq under other budget categories. Allegedly, the CIA’s drone program for the Middle-East and South Asia is about $60 billion. The Founders were against having a large standing army because of the financial cost and threat to liberty. I think the Founders offered some good advice.

        • avatarIvy Mike says:

          National defense is only 19%

          Bullshit.

          The anti-2A Standing-Army is the biggest Welfare Tit-sucking noise in Washington.

          Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
          MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
          NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

          http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

        • avatartheaton says:

          Ivy, I read a .org site that said that 9/11 was perpetrated by the Gov and the people in the planes were taken off before the crash and stored somewhere? I won’t take the war resisters dodments at face value but I will study them. I got my information from my Rep who is a Dem. I don’t take it at face value either but I would expect a Dem to pump up the Defense side and deflate the entitlement side.

        • avatarAzimuth says:

          No, it’s not just because there is a lot of waste, it’s because there is a lot of expense. What most people don’t know, is how our MIC creates, develops, and tests the new weapons that keep us safe. In our defense industry, for purposes of secrecy and security, the word is always, compartmentalization. This costs lots of money to do. End of story. Secrecy and security are the reason our defense costs are what they are. Waste is throwing money at bad things that don’t work. Expense is throwing money at good things that absolutely, positively have to work.

        • avatartheaton says:

          Azimuth, I work for a government contractor. We have so much waste, it isn’t even hidden. When I contact the OIG, they don’t even care. When visiting DOD sites, the waste is just as obvious. There is no oversight so waste is easy. You can believe what you want but I have seen it.

      • avatarRalph says:

        Aharon, I paid into Social Security for over 40 years. To get all of my money back, I’d have to live to 183. Had I been allowed to invest my FICA withholding in stocks or precious metals, I’d have an extra $10 million or so laying around.

        Social security was and is a ponzi scheme, but the G ran it, I was forced into it and now the G has to pay up. I want my f^cking money back.

        • avatartheaton says:

          Ralph, you might have paid into SS for over 40 years. I have paid into it for 37 years. We both did nothing when the Congress stole the money from SS and replaced it with IOUs. We didn’t get to invest our FICA witholding in stocks or precious metals because we were too cowardly to stop the Tyranny back then. We should not saddle future generations with more debt because we were cowards!

        • avatarRandy Drescher says:

          I’ve collected SS for 2 fuc.ing months & he wan’ts it to stop? Like you, I paid into it & want my money back, Randy

        • avatartheaton says:

          Randy,

          It’s going to stop. We don’t have the money to sustain it. We can’t steal enough from the “rich” to pay for it. I realize we’ve all been forced to pay into it for decades. However, all that pay FICA have been paying less into it for the last several years. The FICA rate was not extended in the “fiscal cliff” deal so it is back up to 6.2% from 4.2%. I didn’t hear anybody complaining about the extra money in their paychecks but I do hear people complaing that it is going back up.

        • avatarNathan says:

          Ralph, even if you paid in the maximum amount of SS taxes for 40 years and had that amount invested at 12% per year (average yield of the stock market the past century) compounding during that time, you would only have $1.4 million, which is only slightly higher than the present value of the maximum social security benefits with COLA increased in perpetuity, which is $1.25 million. And that’s based on the maximum taxes, which are paid by about 5% of people. Yes, people are getting screwed, namely me at 25 having to pay for your ass in retirement. You were not.

        • avatarRalph says:

          Nathan, I paid my dues and now I want my f^cking money back. I don’t want your money. I want mine.

        • avatarAharon says:

          I don’t blame you. When I retire, if I ever can with the future value of our currency continuing to drop, SS probably will be no longer paying since the foreign lenders will have stopped buying US bonds.

        • avatartheaton says:

          Ralph, once you give your money to the gov, it’s no longer your effing money. Your money was spent long ago, along with mine. If you want it back, your going to get it on the backs of your children and your grandchildren as well as Nathan and many others. I refuse to burden future generations with debt that I was to lazy to stop.

        • avatarMerits says:

          The desire to get your money back is how they keep you people invested in the con. Until that changes, the program won’t. My business pays $1200 a month to local schools my kids will never attend, and I’ll never see that money, or anything I’m paying into SS now. The voters should have never let the government ‘invest’ their money for them. Crashing and burning is the only way it will end now, and it will.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Yep, exactly.

      I expect to get nothing from SS/Medicare. I expect it to be means-tested before I reach the age where I could collect, so I’ve planned my life accordingly.

      In interest of disclosure, I pitched a deal to Harry Reid in 2001 (in person, while he was on a sagebrush jaunt of scaring all the seniors in NV about those rascally Republicans) that I would officially foreswear collecting one dime of anything I’d put into FICA taxes… if I would never have to pay into the system ever again.

      Harry looked like a deer in the headlights of a Peterbilt, gave the standard pat DNC speech about the viability of SS and left town in three minutes. Never came back to that small town, either, because all the seniors in town were grinning like fiends at my proposal. Harry realized he’d lost the argument.

  5. avatarNickS says:

    This is why we must frame the “debate” as a zero-sum game. Either we have the right to keep and bear arms, or we do not. There can be no compromise, no ground given in the hopes of appearing “reasonable.” We must make our case clear: We have already been saddled with compromises, and will stand for no more.

    Every new law infringing on our protected rights is an insult to the men and women who have died defending them. This is not the America that was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, and we must present a united front in this matter. Mr. Markel is exactly right on this.

  6. avatarGreg Camp says:

    My only point of disagreement is this: You erred in how you spelled “all right.”

    To add to the thought in the article, remember that one kind of standard hunting rifle is a centerfire bolt action. Those are still used by the military and law enforcement, and they were the G.I. weapon for a long time. When the control freaks talk about “military-style weapons,” they mean anything that shoots.

  7. avatarj says:

    Amen! I do fear that this past election told us something about the trend in this nation that we all suspected; an ever growing majority of this population have now decided that the Founding Fathers, while quaint old men, were probably foolish and their wrtings, superfluous in the 21st century. I also am convnced that the past 40 years of government “guided” education has insured that our history will remain buried in the vault of complacency and the newly drug addled minds of the apathetic.

    I write to bring some understanding of our unenlightened and tragic vision of our present enemies in far away lands and the affect it is having on our war fighters. What I have learned is that the general population and those they have elected to represent them, largely don’t know, don’t want to know and frankly, do not care. As this pertains to the gun control argument, there is an equal amount of ignorance about our history and the actual intent of the 2nd Amendment. Our fat, happy and stupid segment of the population have ost the ability for critical thought and rely on emotional response and the actions of those they have sent to DC. Unfortunately even the “good guys” down there would rather not be “troubled” with facts, history or doctrine. Instead, they seek the path of least resistance which they assume is paved with future votes, for the next pass in Congress.

    I do not believe this can be turned around and certainly not during this current adminstration’s tenure or most likely, the following 2 terms which will almost certainly be manned (maybe by a woman), of like mind.

    There is a Bible warning that is appropriate about now: “Gird your loins…”

    • avatartheaton says:

      “newly drug addled minds”

      Was that necessary? I know several successful, intelligent people who use recreational drugs. I also now many unintelligent, apathetic people who have not used a recreational drug in their lives other than caffeine. Did you have coffee today? You do realize caffeine is a drug don’t you? I also know people who regularly take opioid pain killers for medical conditions. But for these drugs, these people could not function or hold down a job. Like guns, many who talk about drugs have no idea of what they speak.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        Bill Maher is recreational drug user, and for his mouth there springs forth some of the most idiotic comments I have ever heard. Certainly some folks can use drugs and still be productive, but the “drug addled kids” concept is not without merit.

        • avatartheaton says:

          I must assume that by “drug addled kids,” you are talking about psychotorpic drugs like prozac? I will agree that many kids are put on these drugs without thougt to consequences. As a parent, it is far easier to drug them than deal with them. How could a parent spend all day on facebook or at the bar if their children have issues? However, we can’t escape the fact that many of the children that have done horrible things while on these drugs had problems that caused them to be on the drugs. Again, I’m not in favor of drugging people for the purpose of control but I also won’t call people “drug addled” just because they don’t agree with me.

        • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

          Then both concepts have merit and should cancel themselves out of the discussion…move on, shall we?

        • avatartheaton says:

          Sure Billy, we’ll only talk about what you want us to talk about. What is that sir?

  8. avatarmike marriam says:

    Maybe we need to create just such a false flag now. I’m not savvy enough to get it started but it sure sounds like a good Alinsky’ish tactic to get the low speed high drag crowd involved.

  9. avatar1919a6 says:

    Well written and true. Thank you!!

  10. avatarGregolas says:

    Anyone so simple or complacent as to doubt Mr. Markel needs to watch”Innocents Betrayed” by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. Registration is ALWAYS the prelude to confiscation; genocide soon follows. Just because I don’t own your type of(or any) gun, or I don’t play your particular game, does not mean I’m not obligated to defend it!
    ALL gunowners must hear and believe Ben Franklin’s admonition to the founders after they signed the Declaration of Independence:”Now, gentlemen, we must now all hang together,or we will surely hang separately.”

  11. avatarO.E says:

    Excellent script.

  12. avatarensitu says:

    Ugg, I just realized that Shrillary could be described as surviving a mortal head wound, as well as that AZ lady who was shot in de heed and is now a rabid anti-gunner

  13. avatarCapt. Howdy says:

    Excellent write up! Bravo!

  14. avatarMatt in FL says:

    Between this and Nick’s piece earlier, some great stuff today.

  15. avatarOHgunner says:

    Here here! Good piece of writing Paul. Now how do we get it to the right people (non-gunnies and pols)?
    I’m of the opinion that its past time for gun rights associations to purchase bilboard space in every city and have ads on every station. The anti’s do it. We need to also.

  16. avatarMichael B. says:

    “If you think it’s alright for the government to confiscate your neighbor’s AR-15 as long as you get to keep your Remington 700 you are a selfish and vile creature and I have no respect for you.”

    +10000000

  17. avatarAharon says:

    Paul, thanks I enjoyed reading your post. Yesterday, I sent a form letter provided by OFF (Oregon Firearm Federation) to all of the states representatives and senators. All that replied to me strongly stated they support the 2A and will not vote for new more controlling laws. Unfortunately, less than 10% have replied so far.

    Oregon Rep John Huffman sent me this reply:

    “(I)… believe every Oregon school has employees who are ex-police and ex-military that already have some training and would volunteer for regular/continued training to be a school protector. Or, possibly retired police officers that would like to do some volunteer work or work part time for a small amount of money to patrol a school. We believe these are possible options for consideration. Additionally, we realize that we need to consider other factors like mental health, and access to weapons by mentally unstable people.

    I recently talked to the chief law enforcement officer in one community that is developing a plan with business people and employees within a two block area of the local school to be trained and act as school protectors. We can figure out how to keep our kids safer at school, and do it safely and cost effectively without banning guns and stripping law abiding citizens of their Constitutional rights.”

  18. avatarchris says:

    I think people, when talking about the 2a, need to also remember the “forgotten” 9th amendment that guarantees the rights to the people that are not expressly written in 1a-8a . If you have the right to bear arms in the 2a, the 9a should also guarantee the right to bear whatever kind of d@#n arm you feel. It’s crazy when the liberal gun grabbers say the founding fathers didn’t have today’s kind of weaponry in mind. You mean to tell me some of the smartest men during the enlightenment (some prominent & great inventors) wanted to limit the people to technology of the time. They didn’t include technical details like “right to bear muskets” to account for innovations. They wanted the people to have greater/equal power to the gov’t/ standing military and tried to additionally protect the people with the 9th. If the gun grabbers don’t believe the 2a gives certain rights, the 9th should remind them the people are to be left alone and have as much liberty as possible.

  19. avatarAharon says:

    Whether it is one category of guns or one category of people, I have learned my lessons from studying the history of gun registration-confiscation-mass murder. Government ‘servants’ should never become all powerful and have a monopoly of life and death over its fellow citizens.

  20. avatarSchizuki says:

    You know who’s as contemptible as the Fudds? Gun owners who don’t vote, and who don’t write their their Congressmen. Neither costs a dime and both are easy. Thomas Paine would shudder at how cheap we hold our rights. “Sunshine patriots” is too nice a term for these useless oxygen thieves.

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      Wait, I’m an oxygen thief because I won’t use the guns of government to force my views on others? You realize the voting is just tyranny of the majority, right?

      • avatarRalph says:

        If we are in the majority, then I’m fine with it. If we’re not in the majority, that’s why we have guns.

      • avatarWilliam says:

        It is when the party or issue you happen to disfavor wins. I’m just kidding; actually voting itself is sometimes tyrannical.

      • avatarschizuki says:

        If democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, then stupidity is two wolves and three sheep voting on what’s for dinner and two sheep abstain. Jesus God, get serious.

  21. avatarNine says:

    A well written article, like all on this site.

    And I greatly enjoyed Student of the Gun, I wish Sportsman still played it.

  22. avatarAdam says:

    I live in a county in Eastern PA that is like 55 to 45% in favor of conservative which isn’t a huge majority. My local school district just had a meeting dicussing new security features they could get in the budget for the district and are actually going to look into training some faculty in firearm/CCW use because the school board president realzies all the cameras and plexiglass in the world won’t stop someone determined to get into a school with a weapon.

    Kudos to him on that, even though we home school our kids due to various issues with the district and medical issues with our kids, at least they are on the right track with the security of the kids.

  23. avatarMarch says:

    ● ● WE ARE MARCHING ON THE STATE CAPITOLS ON JAN 19 2013 AT NOON LOCAL TIME.

    Watch video http://youtu.be/MUAfft7l4wQ for details and check out http://www.guncontrolmorecrime.com. This is another in a series of many Calls to Action (CTAs) here in TNP as we work as a unified team to defeat anti-self defense gun legislation in 2013. The proposed AWB seeks to criminalize millions of good Americans is a power grabbing, Marxist attempt at people control. We stand and be counted NOW, not cower in our houses hoping for the best and ranting anonymously on the internet about crap that doesn’t matter. Time to nut up or shut up.

    http://youtu.be/MUAfft7l4wQ

    ● WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

    ● Pledge not to use an Executive Order to restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding Citizens.

    ● This is a petition to prevent the Obama Administration from issuing Executive Orders restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pledge-not-use-executive-order-restrict-2nd-amendment-rights-law-abiding-citizens/JPXqVSqV

    ➪ WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
    Secure the borders of the United States for the safety and security of American citizens.
    Secure the borders of the United States for the safety and security

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/secure-borders-united-states-safety-and-security-american-citizens/29tHzqh7

    ● WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

    ➪ Disregard and Dismiss Senator Feinstein’s proposed Gun Control Bill.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/disregard-and-dismiss-senator-feinsteins-proposed-gun-control-bill/dwW488QB

    “A free people … should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. – George Washington”

    ➪ PLEASE Share these links & Get over there & sign it!

    Μολὼν λαβέ

  24. avatarDustin says:

    Hell yes to all of this!

  25. avatarWilliam says:

    If you are repeating them over and over, this means people aren’t listening. The media has already made up their for them.

  26. avatarOldLawman says:

    Those hunters and other sport shooters who would compromise should just quit now and take up golf.

    I swear, the next person who tells me something to the effect of , “I’m a hunter, and I own a couple of guns. No one needs a (assault rifle/30 rd. magazine/etc.)”, I’m going to just punch in the face.

    Ok, rant mode “off”. For now.

  27. avatarWC says:

    Two points: The Australian gun ban did exactly what it was written for- It stopped mass shootings. Not just a reduction. Stopped. Australia went from 13 mass shootings in 18 years to none in the past 16 years.
    Secondly, Lott is NOT the only one who studied the effect of conceal carry weapons. He is constantly cited by pro-gun articles, without mentioning that there are other studies don’t back-up his conclusion. Here is a 2009 study: http://econjwatch.org/articles/yet-another-refutation-of-the-more-guns-less-crime-hypothesis-with-some-help-from-moody-and-marvell

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Mass shootings. Why do I prefer the phrase spree killing? Something to do with the Holocaust perhaps? There are worse things than a crazy man with a gun. Far worse. To avoid factoring that fact in is to open yourself to their realization.

      • avatarProfessor says:

        Australia installed their Gun Ban in 1996. In 2002, there was a spree killing at Monash University by Huan Yun Xiang, who was acquitted because of a mental impairment. More gun control was enacted, this time aimed at sporting, hunting…essentially, all use of guns. It is also important to note that the gun crime rate had been falling for 2 decades prior to the ban.

        However, if you look at all violent crime in Australia, there has been a marked increase since the SUBJECTS relinquished their right to self defense. By 2006, simple assaults had risen 49.2%, robbery by 6.2%, sexual assault was up 29.9%, with overall violent crime increasing 42.2%.

        Those who wish to relieve the CITIZENS in the US of their right to keep and bear arms skew the Australia crime data by only referencing “gun” crime. However, when you take a wider look at ALL violent crime, we see increases. As a result, it’s disingenuous to point to Australia as the poster child for successful reduction of crime through increased gun control, as the facts do not support this position.

  28. avatarLarry says:

    God guns and guts made America free, at any cost lets keep all three! I can’t remember who made this quote but it’s one that has always stuck with me!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.