Civilian Disarmament Creates Two Americas: Slave States and Free States

Earlier today, the New Jersey Assembly passed 22 laws limiting its citizens’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. In the post-Newtown rush to civilian disarmament, the Garden State follows New York’s lead. And Colorado. Connecticut will soon pass similar legislation. California and other Democrat-controlled states are set to “tighten” their already unconstitutional firearms regulations. Meanwhile, Southern and Western states are moving in the opposite direction. Utah is set to join Vermont, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming as a “Constitutional carry” state (no permit required to carry a firearm). We’re seeing the creation of two Americas: slave states and free states . . .

I don’t use the word “slave” lightly. In no way do I wish to I demean, discount or exploit the horrors experienced by African-Americans during slavery, or anyone else who’s suffered human bondage. My father was a slave; he spent four years in a Nazi labor camp.

I realize that it’s hard to equate a citizen deprived of his right to keep and bear arms with a human deprived of all of their human rights. But not impossible. Nor inaccurate.

Obviously, disarmed civilians living in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. are not bought and sold like property. But under the wider definition of the word ‘slave’—”one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence”—they qualify.

Simply put, citizens without the ability to resist government diktats through force of arms are no longer in charge of their own destiny, whether they know it or not.

Preposterous! Residents of anti-gun states have rights! They have a vote! They can defend their rights in court! They can vote fascist politicians and petty bureaucrats out of power! Gun or no gun, America’s legal and political system protects its citizens from tyranny.

Right until it doesn’t.

You don’t have to be much of a student of U.S. history to find examples where the government disarmed inhabitants before trampling on their legal and human rights.

Uncle Sam forced the Long Walk of the Navajo in 1864 (the year after the Emancipation Proclamation). Slavery was legal in the U.S. until 1868. In 1941, the feds set-up Japanese American internment camps. Segregation lasted into the ’60′s.

Anyone who dismisses examples of government oppression by saying “that was then this is now” or “guns wouldn’t have made a difference” fails to understand a) tyranny depends upon disarmament and b) it’s not a question of “if” the government will use force against its citizens but how much force they use and when.

All laws are backed-up by force. Obey the law or you will be arrested. The threat of violence may not be visible; like concealed carry, police presence is a powerful prophylactic. But it’s there; the government is always using force to impose its will.

I mean our will, right? We The People give government the power to use force to protect laws that have been democratically defined and limited by state and federal constitutions. In theory. In practice, see above.

There’s no getting around it: a citizen without a gun is a slave, or at least well on his way to becoming one. When push comes to shove, as it has throughout human history, he is literally defenseless against his own government.

By contrast, a citizen with a gun is a free man. He has an effective tool with which he can defend his life and liberty—even if he dies in that attempt. He answers to himself and his God (should he have one) rather than dictates of tyrants.

And so those of us who understand the distinction between a free man and a slave watch with despair and determination as state and federal governments run roughshod over Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. And we wonder: what will happen to the free men marooned in America’s slave states?

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

57 Responses to Civilian Disarmament Creates Two Americas: Slave States and Free States

  1. avatarjwm says:

    We will suffer in the slave states. But we will continue the struggle. And just like the issue of slavery in the old south, those of us that live in the new slave states need to be able to count on help from the outside. Do you folks in the modern free states have the back bone shown by your ancestors in the fight against slavery? What are you willing to risk to defeat this evil once and for all and proclaim America to finally be a free land?

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      I object to “Slave States vs. Free States”

      More accurate title would be “Slave States vs. Slightly Freer States”

      And the latter group is likely to turn into the former in the next few decades.

      “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.” – Justice Learned Hand

      Accordingly, I’m considering moving out of this country before the leviathan state devours us all.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Where will you go? If you run from this fight, when will you stop running? I’m an American, I’ll stay here and do what I can to stop the slavery from progressing.

        • avatarMichael B. says:

          Well you’ve already lost that battle in CA and IIRC you’re not even willing to classify the law enforcement agents of such a state that are willing to enforce anti-liberty, unconstitutional laws as collaborators.

          Your only hopes are: the courts, moving, falling into a toxic waste pit that somehow gives you powers of mass influence and the ability to free people’s minds, or gathering together other like-minded gun owners to try to change things the dangerous old fashioned way (which will put you in conflict with lots of uniformed men and probably not result in much).

          I don’t mean to sound like a troll but really, that’s all we’ve got.

          Since you’re fond of the slavery analogy I suggest taking the underground freedom railroad to another state that’ll be marginally free a while longer. You can try to be John Brown if you want and while admirable it probably won’t end well.

        • avatarjwm says:

          Mike B., the battle isn’t lost until we quit fighting. And no, I’m not going to judge all rank and file cops as hostiles until they prove themselves hostile.

          As for violence, only if all else fails. If I never have to do violence to another person again I’ll be happy.

      • avatarHuman Being says:

        Where would you plan to go that wouldn’t be worse about guns than the US and still take you?

        • avatarmuh says:

          he could try switzerland. depending on the canton you live in, gun-rights are relatively better, compared to some US-states and there is no such strong disarmamend-movemend there (there is such a movement, but i think they’re not going to win soon). However, you’ll propably have problems with other things, were switzerland is more rigid than most US-states. and it’s surroundet by the EU, that might become a problem in the future …

  2. avatarNS says:

    Well what will you do, Robert? Considering a move to New Hampshire or Texas?

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Yes. But if I must stay and fight I will. What choice do I have, really?

      • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

        I give Robert credit for fighting the good fight. I also realize that at some point you, and I will be faced with a harsh reality of a choice. Stay and be a subject, or move to be free.
        I am doing all I can on my end. I am not sitting behind the keyboard, or microphone, or putting together rallies just for fun.

      • avatarSome Guy says:

        Let’s not get too gloomy, I just read about the 7th District decision and that’s a definite plus. I’ve been working on a concept of what we should be working toward and wonder what you think of it…..

        Gun Owners Bill of Rights

        The first of which is, of course, the 2nd Amendment itself:
        A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
        But what does this mean exactly? The Heller and McDonald cases provide a partial answer but are as yet unfinished. Meanwhile, the more important question for us is what are our goals, what do we want?

        OK, here we go:

        1/ No general registration of gun or ammo buyers or positive background checks. Negative background checks – in the sense that a potential buyer can be checked against a “prohibited” list – may be OK but should be done by a third party and no permanent record kept. Whatever list is maintained has to be carefully monitored for mistakes, typos and the usual junk such lists are ‘er to.
        2/ No general registration of any legally purchased and kept for non NFA firearms – all FFL records to be destroyed in due time and any government violation of this rule to be held to strict account.
        3/ Although the idea of placing the mentally disturbed on a “no sell” list has it’s merits it must be carefully controlled by judicial review to prevent any “medical professional” – who may themselves be “disturbed”- or believe anyone owning or wanting to own a gun is “disturbed” – to have such an arbitrary power, a violation of due process. This can also have the undesirable effect of deterring some people who could use some help from seeking aid. In my humble opinion we should have a “mentally limited” test for voting which would eliminate many of our present problems.
        4/ Any restriction on types of firearms can not fall below that of weapons commonly used as individual weapons by the military or police as specified by the Miller decision of 1939. There can be an exception for fully-automatic and burst features which can be controlled under strict regulation (as they are now) but under revised rules. If the police need over a hundred cops with “assault rifles” and 30 round mags to deal with 1 nut then why do I need less to deal with multiple criminals by myself?
        5/ No restrictions or records on “regular” ammo sales. These have proved themselves to be unworkable and useless and can only be used to compile a troublesome and misleading stew of misinformation. A violation of the Arbitrary and capricious phrase of the Heller decision.
        6/ No more exceptions for retired police, political pals or whatever without some provision for persons with the same level of qualification and trust. This is plainly a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
        7/ No possession, transfer or technical violation, such as overall sizes or barrel lengths, to be treated as a crime without some showing of criminal intent. The sad history of some hapless or unknowing innocent threatened or actually imprisoned for some unintended violation has just got to stop – period. No Constitutional citation here. just common sense and humanity.
        8/ No criminal prosecutions for travelers passing through “restricted” states or areas who are making an honest effort to comply with the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act even if in violation of some strict interpretation of the same.
        9/ Any “Reporting of Theft or Loss” laws must be carefully crafted so as not to entrap any innocent oversight or ever to include any casual loss of ammo, accessories or parts.
        10/ No more large area “Weapons Free” zones that – in any built up area – cover virtually everything. Although banning specific small zones is OK – if often overused and ill advised in my opinion – any attempt to use this as some end run around legal gun carry is unacceptable and in violation of both the Heller and McDonald decisions.
        11/ The carry licenses issued by any one state should be honored by all others. Although a valid States Rights issue they can be “encouraged” to do so by federal law. Basically it’s a violation of the Constitution Article IV, Sec 2 – Privileges of Citizens under which driver’s licenses, for example, are recognized through all the states.
        12/ Whatever restrictions are passed must always include the “grandfathering” of any existing items. Anything else is a violation of Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment and the deprived of property clause of the 5th Amendment.

        That’s it for now, what do you gentlemen think? Did I miss anything?

    • avatarj says:

      Even Maine is holding ground at the moment. They handed the Bangor Daily News a black eye, the Governor really shoved one in their face and the largely ‘D’ Congress is not willing to tighten the laws beyond what they are. But as others are saying, it is hard to know when that tide will change. Even Texas must remain vigilant in order to maintain their status quo…

  3. avatarSome Guy says:

    Wonderfully stated Bob, if I may call you that, couldn’t agree more. That’s exactly what we’re coming to and a sad business it is.

  4. avatarGregolas says:

    Honest Abe quoted the Bible saying,”A house divided against itsself cannot stand. Our nation cannot suvive,half-slave and half-free. It’s mustbe either all one or all the other.”
    Fortunately, we don’t have to have a civil war. All we need is for those seeking liberty is to move ASAP to states that uphold liberty. By the next census, it’s all over.

  5. avatarJudyBlueEyes says:

    The slave states will always gain control of the free states…Lincoln proved that (There are still a lot of idiots out there that think Lincoln freed the slaves). Statism is slavery terrorism and combined with their global money counterfeit racket, they will turn everyone into serfs.

  6. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Robert, I could not agree more. We are watching a deep division and a push back against slavery. I get it, this is not something that we should take lightly.
    Dr. Carson spoke at the prayer breakfast in which he beat Obama about the head and shoulders. He spoke of a victim mentality in America. I don’t think we can apply that ideal to all states and all people, but he certainly hit the nail on the head.
    we refuse to be victims, and cry out why didn’t the government do something. THEY, the victims rely on government for their very survival day to day. They have to be told what is good for them, and seem to have lost all notion of responsibility, and rational free thought.
    As much as I love the Golden State we are planning on voting with our feet. It isn’t just guns, but a culmination of things with the promotion of the victim mentality.

    I refuse to be a subject!

  7. avatarJohn Barlow says:

    I like to think of us here in NY as Subjects rather than Citizens right now. But we will continue to fight. Telling us to move is not helpful. Joining our gun rights organizations, donating to the (few) politicians who voted the right way, and even moving here to help us in the fight is.

  8. avatarWilliam says:

    “Anyone who dismisses examples of government oppression by saying “that was then this is now” or “guns wouldn’t have made a difference” fails to understand a) tyranny depends upon disarmament and b) it’s not a question of “if” the government will use force against its citizens but how much force they use and when.”

    In a way, this mindset is a willful choice. Most on the left are closet petty despots who would jump at the chance to upgrade to major despot, if only they had the power. They also tend to believe government and legislation (of the Prohibition kind) are a way to solve all problems. When that causes even more problems, they tend to walk away from responsibility for those problems: those call for even MORE laws and prohibitions!!!

  9. avatarBLAMMO says:

    Whenever someone says it can’t happen here, whatever “it” is, the only reason it can’t happen is if there are people with guns to stop it.

  10. avatarDJ says:

    The cornerstone of liberal thought is the conviction that history is somehow “no longer relevant to the modern world.”

    Not just with regard to the Constitution – with regard to everything. They are philosophically incapable of accepting empirical evidence that seems like common sense to everyone else. They don’t seem able to understand that history is the recorded interaction of human beings, and that nothing has changed with regard to human nature.

  11. avatarsindaan68 says:

    History is always relevant. Both as a warning sign and a learning tool.

    • avatarj says:

      …and what it teaches us is that every single society of men that started in freedom eventually ended in slavery. It is an unfortunate truth and a seemingly unavoidable cycle. The problem arises when the people decide that government’s job is to “take care” of them; something that an ever growing segment of this society believes.

      It is an almost insurmountable task, trying to retrain 3 generations of people who have been taught, trained, indoctrinated in believing their is no God, no immutable truth, no firmly established Constitution with codified and pre-existent rights, no moral imperative to defend oneself – or one’s country against another person or peoples. And iitiating a conversation with that 52% (and growing) segment, is like conversing with a brick wall…

      • avatarIng says:

        God is irrelevant. In fact, God is probably the enemy.

        But other than that minor disagreement, I think you’re right on. :)

        Rights and moral imperatives don’t come from any exterior mandate (god) or from the collective (government), they come from the individual. We don’t have an inherent right to be done for; we have an inherent right to do.

        • avatarKahless1984 says:

          So if rights and moral imperatives come from individuals, not God, what’s to stop people from changing those rights and moral imperatives? If they come from God (who is unchanging) they will always remain the same – slavery, theft, etc are always wrong.
          However if they come from individuals (everyone is different, people change their minds) these things (slavery, theft, etc) are not always wrong. According to that mindset something that may be wrong for someone may not be wrong for another person if its up to the individual and their own personal “morality”

  12. avatarjb says:

    I’ve never felt better about moving to Utah.

  13. avatarSteve says:

    I’m not moving. Not running, not hiding.
    I have a choice, no matter what.
    Those that stand are my brothers.

    However it goes, I get to decide it.

    Henei ma tov umanaim
    Shevet achim gam yachad
    Sinei ma tov umanaim
    Shevet achim gam yachad……..

  14. avatarDave says:

    The Supreme Court did strike down certain prohibitions. The problem is that some localities (DC, Chicago, NYC, NJ(?), MA(?)) circumvent that decision to a significant degree by setting up overly expensive and/or generally burdensome licensing schemes, which are clearly meant to deter gun ownership rather than merely to screen out those who we can all agree shouldn’t have guns. These types of egregious licensing schemes must be vigorously litigated against.

    • avatarSome Guy says:

      That’s exactly correct, sue them till they howl. Court decisions, like the mills of the gods, grind slow but they grind exceedingly fine. Witness the latest 7th Circuit Court decision in Illinois. In Heller v DC the Supremes strongly hinted that they didn’t chuck out permit requirements only because Mr Heller – God bless him – didn’t ask for that and they can only respond to the claims presented. The “arbitrary and capricious” language is especially significant and hopefull.

      I strongly believe that in the next case to come up to the court restrictions of this type will be outlawed and open a panoply of opportunities for the infliction of grief and pain to all the little tin gods presently torturing us. To quote the motto of the 9th Infantry “Keep Up the Fire”.

  15. avatarDC in AZ says:

    I often try to put things in perspective in order to uderstand why things are happening, since everything happens for a reason. I hardly think slavery is the motivation nor an appropriate reason for current legislation efforts.
    Perspective:
    1)USA has 15 TRILLION GDP on the line, second only to the EU and just above China’s 7Trill GDP. If the USA’s economy is jeopardized, every one of our trading partners feel the pain too. Think about how disarmement could help maintain the US economy by stabilizing social forces in US.
    2) At the core, Democrats/socialists are passing legislation for a single purpose, to get elected into power. Why? Becuase social communism is the only thing in America that can equalize socioeconomically poor class groups and minorities. There is nothing else that low status and minority groups can do that can make a difference in a country where the super rich control a 15 trillion GDP economy. Only the goverment can affect that. WEB DuBois was an early advocate for black rights; he was involved in the formation of the NAACP; he was an advocate for communism. Henry Gates Jr. runs the DuBois foundation at Harvard; he was the guy that Obama tried to protect on national TV; he was the guy they had a beer summit for. A clear connetion btween democrats and communism. Ask a liberal what they think of communism and most will tell you it’s dumb cuz everyone should have to work. Duh they don’t like to mention the benefits becasue ppl would soon see them for who they really are. lol
    3) there are already 300+ millions guns in America. Legislation now will hardly impact citizens’ abilities to defend against tyranny. The dems have a loooong way to go before that ever happens.
    4) sometimes people don’t have a good idea of the big picture and it is easy for folks to think in terms of slavery because that is what they want to believe. The reality is that our democratic republic is far from gone and the anwer is to band together and elect better representatives. That is the strategy that the left has already taken.

  16. avatarLance says:

    You saying another war between the states????

  17. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    Glad I got my AR back in October. Now in the market for a Mini-14 and Mini-30 (both still legal in NY .)

  18. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    Forecast is for freezing rain tomorrow. No matter, still going to the Dutchess/Putnam Day of Resistance rally. Fight we must! Please, everyone, find where the closest rally is and get out there to support the 2A.

  19. avatarSilver says:

    Civil war can’t come soon enough. This nation has never needed one more and anyone who can feel the mood in the air knows it. Waiting is the hardest part.

    “And we wonder: what will happen to the free men marooned in America’s slave states?”

    If they truly consider themselves free men, they’d be using their beloved 2A’s freedoms to take back their states from the tyrants and useful idiots that have occupied it.

  20. avatarIng says:

    None of the atrocities mentioned in this article were *just* the government. People wanted these things to be done and used the government to do it.

    There were a lot of people who thought segregation was natural and good. There were a lot of people who wanted those dangerous and inconvenient Indians moved out of the way of progress. There were a lot of people who thought anyone with Japanese ancestry might choose their ethnic heritage over their current citizenship. There were a lot of people in the ’50s who thought McCarthy was right on.

    It’s *us* doing this to *us.* Government is the means, not the cause. The most powerful/vocal/organized groups get to use government as the agent that lets them oppress others in their own preferred way.

  21. avatarCrunkleross says:

    The Slave States and Free states in the title caused me to think about the parallels between the lines drawn and what is happening now and what precipitated the Northern Aggression. It’s more than a little scary.

    Our Nation hasn’t had a budget in how long? What a mess.

  22. avatarJohn Rand says:

    It’s not a slave state, as the citizens of that state (technically) have the ability to move. Which isn’t to say they may have social or fiscal reasons that preclude them easily doing it, just that it’s a possibility.

    Government is only empowered by consent of those in power. If you have the power (your arms) and you chose to give it up, then you have consented to their ability to remove your rights whether that be implicit or explicit. If you were withheld from moving, then it would be a slave state.

    I think a better title would be Adult vs Peter Pan states. Those states where people are willing to take personal responsibility, and those states where people want to think happy thoughts and wish bad things away. Or maybe cry, beg and soil themselves if that doesn’t work.

  23. avatarSGC says:

    hear your country call you! Up! lest worse than death befall you! . . .
    To arms! To arms! To arms…
    the thunders mutter! Northern flags in South winds flutter!
    To arms! To arms! To arms…
    Send them back your fierce defiance! Stamp upon the cursed alliance!
    To arms! To arms! To arms…
    Fear no danger! Shun no labor! Lift up rifle, pike, and saber!
    To arms! To arms! To arms…
    Shoulder pressing close to shoulder, Let the odds make each heart bolder!
    To arms! To arms! To arms…

    Anyone know that song…?

    • avatarRalph says:

      Yeah, it’s the theme from “Mayberry RFD.” Right?

    • avatarSome Guy says:

      It’s an alternative lyric to the tune “Dixie”, written by a Northern Unionist and first performed by the Bryant Minstrels in NYC in 1859. Our gift to the South – just in time for the War of Northern Aggression. Speaking of the Late Unpleasentness, I hope we can move past old times and work together to fight the present enemy. We here in occupied territory can sure use your support and that of your Reps in Congress in our hour of need.

    • avatarShenandoah says:

      May have heard it a time or two!

    • avatarSGC says:

      Song sounds relevant to today…history repeats itself. Instead of blue and gray, this time it will be red versus blue…though most of the red was gray at one time. Regardless…those of you behind enemy lines fear not…we here down south and out west (not too far west) will keep the home fire burning.

      • avatarSome Guy says:

        Thanks SCG and God bless you all. Rest assured that not all of us in the “Belly of the Beast” are as nutty as it presently seems, we’re just outnumbered right now.

  24. avatarGeoff says:

    Alexander Fraser Tytler: “The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.”

    Seems EL Jefe Farago is prophetic in his observation. I thought we were in apathy headed to dependency durring the election cycle. but now He shows us we are much further along.

  25. avatarJohn R Walsh says:

    Most people including Jewish people had or could obtain arms in 1930s Germany as the aftermath of world war one left many ex-soldiers which was most males over the age of 37 to 45 with their rifles and hand guns ,yet this didn’t stop the Nazis from rounding up and murdering nearly 6 million people, even those who didn’t have a gun would have no problem in obtaining one quite easily
    So all this nonsense about people power defending themselves against the state is hogwash , if you were confronted with around sixty armed black shirts dragging away your neighbour because you were told he was a criminal or some such ,would you risk your life trying to defend him if they said they would kill your family if you did so .
    Even if they could have organised themselves into an effective fighting force if they knew each other well enough beforehand that is , the firepower the State could muster in such a direct confrontation would wipe them all out in a moment.

    Of course the modern state would not sink to such silly tactics they would simply pick off people one by one or group by group so to limit any danger of safety in numbers.

    Next up , there is a myth in US History surrounding the so called “minutemen” Paul revere and all that jazz , in reality the British ( not known for self-ingratiation) never even once mention any confrontation between British regulars and the English /British colonists ( soon and much later to call themselves “Americans”) perhaps this was because ALL the English colonists were armed at the time , in fact it would have been almost impossible to survive in British America before 1776 without a weapon to either defend against Indians or the occasional robber or cut throat or both and to hunt and keep and protect your livestock in what was then a largely rural economy.

    The argument that these gun happy Yee ha red necks and ultra-right wing loony’s promote is about 200 years out of date,
    Of course the more sensible ones promote the idea as they would like to organise a right wing coup to overthrow the government, who they regard as liberal fascists and commies by another name ,who are attempting to create a post-modern world super state, while I think myself that they may have a point the way to oppose such things in the modern world is to join the Tea party and mass protest or elect a lobbyist, NOT come out shooting like in some daft Hollywood horror movie or stupid Rambo spree ,

    Given all the above they quite seem to missed the point that no guns shops and easy access to ammo like in seriously civilised countries that were free long before the United States was created ( as contrary to American propaganda the British in Britain were, as all the founding fathers were well aware, which is why the American revolution kicked off in the first place as a demand for the English colonists to have the same freedom and rights as their free born British cousins living in England) would mean NO easy access to deranged teenagers and mental cases to go and blow away 100 babies at infant school, NO infants pinching their daddy’s guns and having accidents resulting in their blowing their five year old best friends head off.
    The regular Police in Britain (the first in the world) still after 150 years do not carry firearms and yet crime in England is 36 times less than in any one city in the USA.
    So if you still want to protect yourself against the state read proper history and not US historical propaganda and gets yourself elected to congress and makes a difference that way.

    The civilised way like the rest of the world half of you don’t even know exists

    • avatarSome Guy says:

      I was going to answer your points about the Minutemen at the Battles of Lexington and Concord – not mentioned by the British? A casualty count of over 300 in a force of 1500 would be noticed by somebody don’t you think? Or the desperate Battle of Warsaw where a few couragous Jews with only a few dozen weapons held out for a month against the Nazi onslaught or the fact that the returning German soldiers from WWI did not get to keep their guns and what they may have snuck in were rounded up by the Allies, Weimar Republic or later by the Nazis but your tome is so disjointed and full of errors that it’s not worth it.

    • avatarDave says:

      // like the rest of the world half of you don’t even know exists //

      Some of “us” weren’t even born in the US, some of the rest have traveled, but I guess you said “half of you”, so that protects you against charges of being a bit too arrogant.

      Yes, guns seem to have been legal and easily available in Iraq under Saddam, so they are not some sort of automatic assurance of liberty – one would have to be naive and/or uninformed to think otherwise. But then, the US is not Iraq, so one may as well analyze the role of guns in the context of the US. My take on it is that gun ownership has psychological benefits as far as the sense of self-reliance, independence and autonomy. That’s not to say one can’t have basic screening for access to guns, but it shouldn’t be so onerous as to make the right feel like a privilege. In fact, I suspect most gun owners would be willing to accept a higher level of screening if there was no reason to suspect that that’s just a beginning towards very onerous licensing and/or prohibitions on more and more classes of firearms. If the Supreme Court were to establish clear boundaries on how far the 2nd Amendment protections apply, it might well be easier to convince the gun owners to accept a reasonable licensing scheme. Until such time, given the ridiculous legislation in some of the States, they have little choice but to fight tooth and nail.

    • avatarShenandoah says:

      Since you so graciously alleviated me of the burden of a logical and fact-based response to your comments by identifying me as the red-blooded, Jack Daniels drinkin, deer huntin red neck I am, I’ll keep it short and sweet: Go sip on your tea and crumpets ya pantywaisted limey. You stay on your side of the pond and I’ll stay on mine. I don’t know how you do things over on your “civilised” island, but last I checked most American babes don’t like their men neutered. And as long as it remains that way I’ll keep my F350 AND my AR-15′s. Cheers, pilgrim.

    • avatarjwm says:

      Well, I guess we’ve all been told and put in our place by John R. Feel the venom dripping from his words? Course, I’m not going to waste my time arguing with another slack jawed inbred from England. That country where all the subjects had so much freedom in 1776 and they still have it, what with all the cctv and whatnot all over the place. England, the fly over part of Europe.

  26. avatarConker says:

    Oregon introduced new bill to limit law abiding civilians to one fire arm, three “large capacity magazines and warrantless house searches!!! Along with the usual ban of 10 round magazines and one feature, of course.. They are tricking us Oregonian gun owners by proposing HB3006 which outlaws all federal firearm laws that conflict with the second amendment but they introduce this state bill to attack us instead!! This is the most invasive bill introduced in the country!!! Please spread the word!

    http://www.oregonfirearms.org/massive-gun-ban-introduced

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measpdf/hb3200.dir/hb3200.intro.pdf

  27. avatarD.G. Cornelius says:

    Frankly, I’m worried. I’m more worried than I ever been. I’m worried that the entire world tasted or is eager to taste that vicious drug that socialism is. I’m worried that the entire world might became a world of zombies, with slogans instead of thoughts. I’m worried. Very worried. I’m worried that the human mind, reason, logic, self determination, freedom will be forever gone and replaced by a brainwashed society, by a mindless race, by a psychotic civilization driven by fears, neurosis, irrationality and petty hopes.

    I’m from Europe, from the EU. And from were I’m standing the psychotic “old world” is carrying forward with it’s “plan” to punish the “new world” for the insolence of getting away and living otherwise.

    What is the USA? A country that supports individual responsibility. Gun’s add to personal responsibility. Freedom adds to responsibility. Self determination adds responsibility. Zombies, sheeple, want all their responsibility to be taken from them.
    As I see it, the biggest battle of nowadays, the real “zombie apocalypse”, is the ideological battle: the zombies want uniformity, and they will stop at nothing in pursuing that uniformity. And it pisses them off that there are still places and people that refuse to comply.
    I recon that USA, at the present time, and with significant chances for that to intensify in the future, is under an ideological attack. Zombies want uniformity. Zombies want to erase any concept of self determination, individuality, freedom. And they want to erase any example of those, wherever those might still survive. Especially in the US, where those mentioned do more than survive: they are the backbone of the American nation and society.
    Imagine, from their point of view, the alternative: the US model expanding. What would that do to the zombies, to the ones habituated to have obedient slaves, vast masses of sheeple listening to their delirium?That is the clash: the clash between the Old and the New World. It’s a clash that have been imminent from the birth of the New World as we know it: 1776, July, 4.
    Founding Fathers of your nation left Europe to escape the establishment, to gain their freedom, to elude the psychosis that torments Europe and most of the known world for many, many generations. And they had the “insolence” to succeed in their quest. They made a country and a nation that is fundamentally different than others, and it works as it was made. That’s the problem. That’s the problem for all the others.
    And socialism, make no mistake, is just another name and cosmetic different shape meant to preserve a certain “order of things” that has it’s glory days in the Middle Ages. Also, socialism is just the neurotic form of the psychosis called communism. And socialism once established, the line between those became thinner and thinner. Socialism is a drug, a vicious drug with no cure. A drug that gives, same as religion, to the masses, a blessing to forever relinquish any real responsibility. Here, where I am, I can see that everyday. Growing, suffocating everything step by step.
    I have no idea if what I said is of any help. But all that happens there, I’ve already seen happening. I’ve seen the results, the means to get to those and I live in the world of those results. And it’s a nightmare world to be awake and aware in.
    No matter how hard, no matter how though it might be, once reality and freedom are given away even for the most tempting form of the “socialist state”, a nation is doomed never to recover. Within no more than two generations, any form of “thinking for yourself”, self determination, freedom to rise above your condition, will be inconceivable for any individual. And so, they became “subjects”, falsely called “citizen”. Personal thoughts will be replaced by convenient slogans, and it’s “game over”. The real “zombie” is born and he/she has no other goal than complete uniformity all over.
    In the end, a quote than might put many other things into a much larger perspective:
    “Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished … The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” —–Bertrand Russell quoting Johann Gottlieb Fichte, the head of philosophy & psychology who influenced Hegel and others – Prussian University in Berlin, 1810

Leave a Reply

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