Liberal_Fascism_(cover)

Up to now, I have avoided writing about politics in our Guns for Beginners Series. And I may pull or rename this post to maintain this editorial distance from political considerations. But a twenty-something contemplating buying a gun posed a simple question the other day, one which I tried to answer as simply as possible: “Why would anyone want to disarm law-abiding Americans?” Now there’s a question . . .

“Progressives see civilian firearms ownership as dangerously irresponsible,” I said. “It doesn’t matter how safe or law-abiding an individual gun owner may be, they believe gun ownership in general victimizes innocent people. That’s why they want to disarm all Americans.”

I didn’t go into any more detail with the young lady, but I want to expand on that a bit….

When Progressives deny Americans their gun rights, citizens have to rely on the police for their protection – as they do in places where gun rights are severely curtailed (e.g. New Jersey and urban areas of California). Progressives are OK with this. They’re OK with forcing Americans to live in a state where the rule of law is protected by the police and the police alone – what’s called a police state.

Not all police states are fascist dictatorships. At least not yet. For example, the U.K. has banned civilian firearms ownership The Land of Hope and Glory maintains a semblance of democracy. But once a state deprives its citizens of their natural right to self-defense against criminal predation and government tyranny, it’s headed down the road to fascism. The fact that the UK is now the most surveilled country on planet earth indicates the trend of ever-increasing government command and control.

Progressives who acknowledge this possibility of a disarmed populace leading to an all-powerful state – and there are some who do – are not bothered by the prospect. That’s because they believe it will be their police state. It will be run by a well-meaning government for the benefit of all the people. People like them, who know what’s best for people who don’t know what’s best for themselves. People who can’t know what’s best for themselves because they’re uneducated or just plain wrong (i.e. conservatives).

What they fail to grasp: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Or, if you prefer, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. No matter how you look at it – providing you’re looking at it objectively – it’s only a matter of time before a happy-faced police state turns into something far darker. A place where all civil liberties go to die.

TTAG commentators get it. They regularly point out that a police state’s well-meaning founders are quickly and sometimes violently replaced by power mongers who care nothing for the rights of the average citizen. It happened in France, Russia and China. Make no mistake: it could happen here. Which is why the Founding Fathers enacted the Second Amendment: as personal and collective protection against government tyranny.

America is a nation of immigrants, created and populated by people who fled their native countries for the freedoms and opportunities protected by the Constitution. Some have forgotten the tyranny, criminality, corruption and deprivation their predecessors left behind. Many haven’t. They know they can’t trust the government — any government — to protect them, never mind curb its inherent desire to rule every aspect of its citizens’ lives.

Bottom line: Americans want firepower to protect themselves. One way or another, Progressives who would deny them their gun rights want to leave them defenseless. When you get right down to it, and I hope we never do, a gun is a free citizen’s best friend. And that’s the truth about guns.

[For more information on this subject, I recommend the book Liberal Fascism]

Recommended For You

132 Responses to Guns for Beginners: Why Progressives Want to Disarm Americans

    • Certainly excluding you, but I have found that most liberals just automatically assume their (liberal) position is just inherently correct and any other viewpoint (conservative, voluntaryist, etc…) is just inherently wrong. It’s as if people with a different viewpoint don’t even exist. It is evident in the way they speak.

      For example, many say that freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gay rights, etc are “liberal” values, as if all conservatives are anti-gay, anti-muslim or somehow not in favor of free speech.

      So I was glad that Robert Farago made this comment in this post:

      “That’s because they believe it will be their police state. It will be run by a well-meaning government for the benefit of all the people. People like them, who know what’s best for people who don’t know what’s best for themselves. People who can’t know what’s best for themselves because they’re uneducated or just plain wrong (i.e. conservatives).”

      (I’m a former progressive liberal sympathizer)

      • To me, being liberal means being permissive. I do think that we need some laws, some regulation, some control, some taxation, some limits, but I also believe in being permissive. You and I can own all the guns we want, all types we want, in the amount we want, but the moment you start behaving dangerously or irresponsibly, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable for law enforcement or the community to react accordingly. Act stupid with your guns and face the consequences. It’s one of the many reasons I don’t wear clothing or put any stickers on my vehicle advertising gun ownership or marijuana enjoyment. I simply don’t want that sort of negative attention for the things I enjoy. In the immortal words of Ice Cube, “don’t start none, won’t be none.”

        • I understand not putting stickers on your car, but you really should wear clothing, the mosquitoes will suck you dry otherwise.

        • Maybe you should identify as “Libertarian” (Not Libertine a la Jon Stewart) given what you are stating are your views. Some flavor of Libertarian, perhaps.

          Seems to me that you retain the label that has been changed by those that want to hide their fascist ways. But that’s what they do…”by any means necessary” including P.C. speech codes, redefining words, etc.

        • “I don’t [] put any stickers on my vehicle advertising gun ownership or marijuana enjoyment”

          Hmm. Not wise and I don’t want you at the range near where I shoot.

      • All things are relative. The ideals the US was founded on stem from a movement referred to as “Classical Liberalism”. Currently, the colloquial use of the word “liberal” seems to refer more to some variety of “Progressive” politics.

    • Please understand one thing Eric , before it’s too late for you and please try not to become to defensive while reading my response to your comment . I want to be constructive without sounding like a know it all , because I certainly don’t know much and would never pretend to know it all . I only offer this as an opinion on your world view .
      I believe there are many more Liberals out there than true Progressives but the slope you tread is extremely slippery indeed . It is by the very nature of a Liberal that they find their own ranks depleted and over run by the Progressives in government and in life . You see , Progressives are only the action arm of Liberalism . If you do a Google search of Obamas first speech before congress , as President , you will see the take over of the Democratic Liberal Party when he addressed Republicans and Progressives ( not Democrats ) .
      The nature of progressivism is control , whether conservative progressivism or liberal , control is the glue . A progressive wants to extinguish the right of a citizen to own everything , guns are just one of the top items on their long list of things they do not want a citizen to own because a gun is empowering , equalizing by it’s very design , a gun of equal caliber and function , with same ammunition , gives the beholder , no matter what their size , strength , political or economic stature or position in life , the same leverage as those who normally would be at an advantage , and this is empowering . Empowerment for an individual is a progressive adversary . The more guns , the more individualistic and independent a citizen can be and thereby less dependent on big government for existence .
      Land ownership is another problem progressives must overcome to implement their ultimate goals . These ideas and goals aren’t new , Progressivism isn’t new , not 100 years old , not even a thousand years old , it is an idea as old as mankind . It is truly a concept that has been around since the beginning . Progressive thought is a demonic concept . It postulates that humanity does not require a God and that the very reliance on God is the obstacle to mans progress . Man can provide , through government , the same and more that God provides and that the very process of eliminating Gods control is the breaking of the chains that hold humanity back .
      If and when one embraces the message of Christ , then and only then can one truly unshackle from this world and the laws of man and truly be free . Liberalism , like Progressivism , shackles you to the world and the rules of man , Conservatism also shackles one to a world view . Libertarianism may come closest to the body of Christ but it fails itself in so many ways to truly release people from the tyranny being alive and of the world .
      My point here is this , by your comments I feel you may actually lean closer to Libertarianism and not truly comprehend the danger of self identifying as simply liberal .

      • You make some very unwarranted assumptions, there. I realize that there is no god and never has been, and hold that, therefore, your convoluted theories are gibberish. I am not breaking any chains, advocating any changes or anything else.

        • Yeah Larry, as a once agnostic, libertarian progressive I saw all people’s of faith, including christians, as fools of the worse sort. As you say, spouting “gibberish” from dusty tomes of superstitions and myths that had mostly a history of oppression and mass murder.

          Until I was touched by that universal intelligence. In that moment, I knew the connection of all things; planets, stars, plants , animal’s , and humans as one being. All past, present and future was happening right now and in that timeless moment of the now, the universe was and is unconditional love. But there was no burning bush or face in the clouds, just an absolute knowing of the reality that the great teachers, the mystics, the Christ was correct in describing the reality, as they could verbalize in human terms. This personsl experience is what is now accepted as mathematical fact in the description of the universe by quantum physics. (Except for the part about the binding force as unconditional love).

          I explored that connection later in the American indian traditions, then I came to the Christ and became baptized.

          So you can believe as I had once believed, it’s a free country. But I look back at what I once was, and what I see was man that was lost and blind and through the gift of that universal intelligence, that I call the I A m, I was shown what is by direct experience , how the universe is truly constructed as shown by modern quantum physics.

          At least, that is my perspective. But you can continue to look at people that see a higher power, an intelligence that directs the universe with derision and contempt..
          I just look at people like you, like I once was, as a spiritual brother, because we are all one. and I hope that you to can have the experience with which I was gifted, and find that unconditional love that we all seek, but so few ever find from the frail vessels that are human beings.

        • Larry,

          You wrote, “I realize that there is no god and never has been …”.

          And why do you believe that?

          Important Notes:
          (1) In order for a person to say unequivocally that there is no _______ (fill in the blank with whatever you want, including a Creator God), that person would have to be all-knowing, for only a person who knows all knowledge of everything in and outside the Universe could declare such a “fact” with authority. I hope you would agree with me that no one is all-knowing. Saying it another way, just because YOU do not know about something doesn’t mean that it cannot possibly exist.
          (2) It is impossible to prove a negative for the reason that I just stated above. When you claim that there is no God, you are claiming a negative and you cannot possibly provide any proof of it.
          (3) I encourage you to provide evidence to support your worldview. Provide evidence of how everything came to be without a Creator God.
          (4) While your statement about God is the impetus for my list above, that list is a guide that all of us can use to correct gun-grabbers. Do NOT let them make negative claims as “truth”, because no one can prove a negative. Force them to provide evidence to support their positive claims.

        • Pot meet kettle. The very notion that God (or any variation thereof) does not exist is in itself an assumption.

        • >> The very notion that God (or any variation thereof) does not exist is in itself an assumption.

          The notion that X doesn’t exist for any given X is the reasonable default assumption, otherwise we’ll spend all our time addressing the notions of whether Santa Claus, tooth fairy or the boogeyman under the bed exist (after all, someone posits their existence, so surely it must be considered?). Some evidence of existence is necessary before existence can be assumed.

        • Absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence, otherwise, by your logic, cells and single-celled organisms did not exist until the invention of the microscope because up until that time there was no evidence such things existed given the technology of the age.

        • We also have equal evidence for Thor, Zeus, Krishna, Marduk, Ba’al, Allah, or any other deity that has been conceived throughout history. The main difference between those and the God of the Christian faiths is the general acceptance level of Christian belief in American society. If this overall conversation were happening in Republican Rome, then the unbelievers would be taken to task for not paying their due respects to Jupiter, Mars, and Qurinus.

          I won’t begrudge anyone their beliefs or their faith. People can believe what they want. But it is faith, a proposition accepted on scant or absent evidence, and I’m not willing to give it any special weight.

      • Well, I agreed with everything you wrote until you wrote about Christianity. I’m an atheist myself, and I just don’t care what religion you and/or anyone else is. Worship however, whatever, whomever you like, if you act right, you won’t get smacked, right? There’s a reason I’m a liberal, and not a progressive, a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, or any of those particular labels. I’m not going to go on and on about my particular beliefs here, but you ought to recognize that I have many liberal sisters and brothers who are proud, stubborn, responsible, conscientious gun owners out there, and that don’t feel like the average NRA member or pro-gun advocate is approachable, simply because of books like this and the video posted yesterday. Your key to 2A victory really is welcoming guys like me and not alienating people who don’t agree with you on all things 100%. I love my firearms, my CCW, and I’ll fight to keep them, too.

        • And once the 2A community stops “alienating” them, what are all those liberal gun-owners going to do for the cause of preserving the 2A? Are they going to stop voting the Democrat gun-grabbers into office for the sake of government-financed/mandated contraceptives? Are they going to start voting into office people who at least publicly commit to upholding, or at the very least, to not further curtailing, 2A-expressed rights, even tho the vast majority of such officeholders are Republicans? Are they going to donate to groups that lobby and file lawsuits for the cause of 2A rights? I’m willing to be educated, but frankly I am a bit skeptical of folks who come to a forum like this and say, Hey, I own a gun and I want to keep it, you guys should embrace me and not criticize the gun-grabbing Senator I helped put into office because I liked his support of Obamacare or gay marriage or free contraceptives or whatever. If the NRA came out for gay marriage , would you quit sending pro gay-marriage gun-grabbers to Congress? I don’t quite see how that works. Maybe you can explain?

        • >> what are all those liberal gun-owners going to do for the cause of preserving the 2A?

          How about working from within the Democratic party (in local elections, primaries etc) to make it less hoplophobic as a whole?

          And let me be frank; you right-wing guys need it. The next president will be a Democrat, and it’s not going to get better for you guys anytime soon – not for as long as you keep circling the wagons around the likes of Trump and Cruz and Carson. If you want your gun rights, your only hope is to change the Dems before they get both the presidency and the majority in both House and Senate. And that can only happen with liberal allies. If, instead, you keep mixing up guns with Jesus, abortion, homosexuality, taxes and other unrelated matters, and loudly claim that everyone who’s not with you on any of this is against you, it will all sink together, too – sooner rather than later.

          Your choice.

        • Int19h ,
          In the end , Jesus wins .
          Your position really is contradictory , you want gun owners to disenfranchise Christians , people opposed to abortion and believe it is murder , people who believe practicing homosexuality is sin , and people who would support a Christian conservative for president and yet you say gun owners should be more inclusive . Which is it ? Do Christians really irk you this much , that you would lose your normal balanced opinion and jump all anti-Christ . I do wish you well and would hope you could one day experience an incredible , joy filled , personal relationship with God . He really did allow his Son to be humiliated , beaten , bruised , tortured , and murdered for YOU and yet you give Him no respect every chance you get . I do still love you brother and have hope .
          Christians don’t hate homosexuals or women that have terminated pregnancies , or even people who deny God , a Christian does not hate . I could never hate anyone for being a sinner , I am not the one who searches the hearts , I am too a sinner , everyday is a challenge and a learning challenge in my
          ‘ Pilgrims Progress ‘.
          May God continue to bless .
          I am voting for Cruz .

        • >> Your position really is contradictory , you want gun owners to disenfranchise Christians , people opposed to abortion and believe it is murder , people who believe practicing homosexuality is sin , and people who would support a Christian conservative for president and yet you say gun owners should be more inclusive . Which is it ?

          You misunderstand my position. I don’t want individual gun owners to abandon their beliefs that you’ve listed (well, I do, but only in a sense that you would want me to accept Jesus – obviously, I want more people to agree with me politically, but that is unrelated and not what I’m asking here).

          Rather, I want gun owners as a collective voting block (as represented by organizations like NRA, but also any time you speak for gun owners as a whole online etc) to stop meshing those topics into the public political discourse on gun rights.

        • The problem is that you can’t unmesh these concepts come voting time. The President, Senator, Representative, Governor, etc. makes decisions dealing with all of these topics, ergo you must ultimately take these topics into consideration at the ballot box, which is the culmination of the political process.

        • Sure. But it’s up to every voter to carefully consider and balance all the things that they believe to be important, rather than forcing a pre-packaged bundle on everybody. With the latter, you risk outright rejection from those who find something in your bundle unacceptable. Otherwise, those people may still contribute to your cause, if not by voting, then by donating money and voicing their opinion to the politicians that they support.

          This political bundling is, to a large extent, the cause of the ongoing radical partisanship and the associated government dysfunction.

      • Nice reply. Well done.

        Afraid you are describing the elements of a classic liberal, such as were the founders. Non-progressive liberalism has been quite dead for generations. It seems the difference between actual classical liberalism and what you describe is covered under “social justice”. Classic liberalism was about personal rights and freedoms, and limited government. “Social Justice” is the adoption of the idea that when the people will not act according to some none enshrined sense of “right and proper”, the government must step in and “fix it”. That sort of thinking was not part of the founders theory of the relationship of government to the governed.

      • Actually Carlos , there is historical evidence of the existence of Jesus the man , correlating that into Jesus the Christ is generally considered the leap of faith .
        I personally believe there is also some very valid circumstantial evidence Jesus the man preformed some pretty remarkable miracles too , given the fact that Roman soldiers and Syrian soldiers under Roman control were scratching images of early Christendom on the walls of their encampments at the siege of Jerusalem in 68-70 AD , including the cross . This was probably because their friends , fathers , uncles or peers gave witness to his miracles , death , resurrection , assentation and the miracles of Pentecost . Why would anyone risk torture and a crucifixion without a conviction in what the risk was for .
        Thor , Zeus , Krishna , Marduk , Zoroaster , Ba’al , Apollo , etc. just fall far short of historical .

      • Always look at the source and data in the stats.
        Especially on political issues, since both sides like to play with numbers.
        Social statistics should always be approached suspiciously.

        Remember what Disraeli said:

        “There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics”

      • Data for 2015 is projected data and the only sources I could find of any graph that displayed that data was from a source called Bloomberg government.
        Real data we actually have shows more people die in car crashes than by guns, but even if guns and cars “killed” the same number of people about 70% of “gun deaths” are suicides and 80% of homicides are gang-related and located in well-defined territories. When you get down to evenly distributed homicides you get about 2,000 out of a population of 320,000,000. Auto deaths are much more evenly distributed, that means the risk of a random car accident you had no control of killing you is far higher than a stray bullet or murderer.

    • Unless by liberal, you mean, classical liberal(a la Washington, Jefferson & Adams), Erik, then you need to read “Liberal Fascism” ( as I recommend to every American).
      You will see that liberal/ progressive/fascist/ socialist/communist are merely points on a circle that lead to inevitably to totalitarian government.
      This is a valuable history. Again, I urge everyone to read it.

    • ‘That’s why I identify as a liberal, and not as a progressive. There’s a huge difference.’

      not really a couple of years back liberals started self-identifying as progressives because the term “liberal” had become politically toxic. unfortunately for them conservatives quickly realized that it was a subterfuge

      would love to know for you to explain the difference

      • Funny thing, isn’t it. Liberals started calling themselves “progressives” because they didn’t want people to know they were liberals (as that term was understood at the time). Now we get people calling themselves “liberals” because they don’t want people to think they are “progressives”. Meanwhile, conservatives keep calling themselves conservatives . I guess they feel like they have nothing to hide?

      • I know. It’s easier to just think that, and not think about it. Or read about it, as in, what I wrote about it. Reading is fundamental.

        • Truthfully, I don’t really care how you “self identify”. What I care about more is how you vote. If you vote gun grabbers into office because you are put off by the mainly conservative values that for some evidently massively coincidental reason seem to accompany political support for the 2A, then I don’t see how you expect the pro-2A community at large to not criticize your choices. If you don’t vote gun-grabbers into office, I don’t know of too many folks hereabouts who won’t support that choice, no matter what your other beliefs are. I certainly won’t.

      • If you think that the term “liberal” is considered toxic among liberals, I’m sorry to inform you, but you’re either deluded or living in an alternate reality.

        The truth is that there is a distinction. Progressives are those who want social progress. Liberals are those who care about human rights (unlike libertarians, they also care about positive and collective rights). Many liberals are progressives, but it is inherently a balancing act, because it is always so tempting to pursue social progress by force – be what I want you to be, or else! A progressive who fully commits to the cause starts to dismiss the rights and freedoms as unimportant and impeding their goals – and at that point they stop being a liberal.

        • Note the loose usage of the word “progress”. I find the desire of banning self-preservation against criminal and tyrant, censorship of free speech because it might hurt someone’s feelings, and the loss of meritocratic upward economic mobility to be regressive. Then again, regress is just progress in the opposite direction, back to a state where the “Haves” can trample on the “Have Less” and “Have Nots” with impunity. That is, until the latter two, usually being greater in number, revolt against the former.

    • Distinction without a difference or just an idiot pushing idiocy? I suppose like liberal gender benders some can be both.

    • I normally would identify as a liberal as well. Gay rights, women’s rights, all that jazz, I’m for it, whatever makes you happy. But as President Obummer said, “make this a one issue election,” that’s exactly what I’m gonna do. Ted Cruz FTW, hell, I’ll vote for Donald fu*kin Trump if it keeps Hillary and her gun grabbers out of office, but I’m wishin’ and a hopin’ it won’t come to that.

        • I’ll answer your question with two questions:

          How many problems did the US have with Japanese Americans attacking from within after the internment camps were set up?

          How many attacks would there have likely been had the camps not been set up?

          FDR suspended immigration from Germany, Italy, and Japan during WW2 for the same reasons that Trump is wanting to bar Muslims from immigrating here now: War

          In WW2, we were at war with nations that had defined borders. In this case, we are at war with a radical sect of a religion that has a billion followers and is not confined by national borders. The US has already experienced attacks on it’s own soil from said radical sect.

          Also, I wouldn’t call a survey of 526 people statistically significant in any way.

        • “If it keeps Hillary and her gun grabbers out of office” was the rest of that sentence. That was a pretty typical progressive tactic there, cherry picking my post to get what you wanted out of it. And this is part of why I’m starting to see the light, and am switching sides.

        • Again, I’m really hoping it won’t come to it, but when you get down to brass tacks, yea, I’d rather have this guy who has no idea, than have some broad who’s ideas will surely see us all disarmed and living in a fascist distopia. God willing, he picks someone with a clue as a running mate, and as quickly he tries to pull some stupid shut like rounding US citizens up and interning them, he will be removed and replaced by that someone. Again, really hoping he gets beat out by someone with a little more knowledge on how to run something more than a business straight into the ground.

        • Out of curiosity, would your opinion change if Trump openly promoted stripping a large minority group of people of their gun rights? Say, Muslims.

        • Hmm, I smell a trick question… I’m sure he’s already said something to that effect. But that’s that slippery slope there. I don’t want you to think I’m a Trump supporter, I’m not, that guy is a walking cartoon. Taking gun rights from any Americans is a bad idea, and unconstitutional to boot. But every vote for Prez Trump is a vote against Prez Hillary. Really, really hoping it won’t come to that, but yea, I stand by it. Once more, Ted Cruz for the win, but any vote against Hilldebeast is a good vote.

        • He hasn’t said anything like that, but given his positions outlined so far, and assuming he’d be consistent, he should be for it. I’m really hoping someone would ask him that.

          And it’s not a trick question, just an invitation to consider your position from various angles. Basically, I’m trying to identify what exactly you feel is so wrong about Hillary that even Trump is preferable – and the easiest way to do so is to keep piling on things that I assume you care about until you say, “okay, now I don’t have a preference”. I was sort of assuming that gun rights were that line for you, as they are for many, since you guys believe that all other rights can be temporarily lost, but so long as guns remain, they can be reconquered. But it seems that you’re fine with a step-back on gun rights, so that isn’t it.

          Or are you rather of the opinion that some groups don’t deserve those rights? If so, would you also be okay if Trump proposed a ban on firearms for all immigrants? Latinos and African-Americans (you know, for a good thing – to reduce criminal violence, to which these groups are statistically prone)? Mormons? Liberals?

        • Oh no no, you’ve got me all wrong there. No rights are to be given up even temporarily. It’s just that without the second, that being our only defense to tyranny is a well armed populace, the rest of them mean nothing. If they take away our guns, nothing, literally nothing can stop them from stripping us from the rest of our rights. Hillary is one of the “enlightened” whom believes they know better than I how to live my life. And the only way they can enforce their views is by disarming any portion of the population that would stand in their way.

          As for your other question, I would have to answer thusly: are said immigrants here legally? Do they have visas or citizenship? If so, absolutely not, they are here and afforded every right someone born here has. If they are here illegally, then they are afforded zero rights, as they have done nothing to deserve them. I understand this sounds kind of wrong; I was only born here, what have I done to deserve them? Well I pay my taxes, I contribute to society, and I work hard to obey the law. An illegal immigrant can only do two out of those three, simply by the fact that they are here illegally. I would never advocate taking gun rights, or any other rights from any minority groups, regardless of statistical data, because they have the same rights as I. As long as everyone in question is a legal citizen or resident, they should never be stripped of their God given rights. At the end of the day, Clinton wants to strip everyone, regardless of status, of their right to own and bear arms, and that’s the first step toward tyranny and the stripping away of the very fabric of what makes us a free country.

        • I’ll answer your question with two questions:

          How many problems did the US have with Japanese Americans attacking from within after the internment camps were set up?

          How many attacks would there have likely been had the camps not been set up?

          As far as I’m aware, there were zero attacks from Japanese American before internment. This kind of thinking can be used to justify any kind of tyrannical abuse. How many attacks have occurred where the attacker has used a gun? Well, then round up everyone who owns or knows how to use a gun and intern them, and now everyone is safe.

    • “Liberal Fascism” is a great book and well worth the read. A worthy companion piece would be “Ameritopia” by Mark Levin. May not be able to get it from Amazon before Christmas, but it is worth getting any time if you can.

      I haven’t checked, but I suspect either or both could be downloaded to a Kindle or any PC with the Kindle app.

  1. “Bottom line: Americans want firepower to protect themselves. One way or another, Progressives who would deny them their gun rights want to leave them defenseless. When you get right down to it, and I hope we never do, a gun is a free citizen’s best friend. And that’s the truth about guns.”

    This should be the mission statement of the site. Well said!

    • Why do Liberals want to take your guns?

      The same reason that criminals, crazies, terrorists and tyrants do…so that they have a power over you they don’t have otherwise. That only “their side” had guns and the implied power.

      And yep, as pointed out, they somehow think they will retain power. I’m guessing that if Trump or Cruz becomes President (should we survive that long!) then suddenly Liberals will be all about their Second Amendment Rights.

      Heck, even the Daily Kos let an article slip by that gets some thoughts about the Second mostly right:
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-

      Given their recent screed, I’m surprised it hasn’t been “archived” and deleted.

  2. The 10th Amendment is cited often in Castle Law explainations. The policing powers are temporarily taken back by the individual when a situation warrants it (home/property invasion, self defense). I know there is more to it, but all we seem to hear about these days is the 2nd Amendment, but I feel the 10th is very prescient in most matters concerning the gun.

    • Yep…a whole Bill of Rights…not just one.

      That get infringed upon unnecessarily by those that want to “enslave us to save us”.

  3. Robert, respecting laws and honored principles IS political. The only way to avoid politics is to stick entirely to gun reviews and dissecting shooting incidents (not the politics behind them). “Should have been a defensive gun use” is about as political as it gets. The commentary to new postings is also almost entirely political. Nothing wrong with talking politics regarding natural human and civilian rights (which are political everywhere on the planet).

  4. They assume we are ignorant and uneducated, yet they know nothing about the law, Constitution, or stats about ownership, crime, other countries, the NRA or any other groups (or even know there are other groups), or anything related to the topic except what is parroted on the news and mostly Bloomberg run outlets.
    Ignorance is knowledge. Slavery is freedom.

  5. This why, as a baptized Christian, I am also a libertarian.

    Both Democrats and Republicans want to use the force of law to force the people to follow either sides favorite tyrannies. Because no one is immune from the corrupting force of power.and willingness to use that that power for
    for the “good of the people”

    The only laws penalizing people’s behavior should be laws against unprovoked violence against others. All other behavior should be left to personal choice or between consenting adults.

    • “…unprovoked violence against others…” should be illegal, however, it should not only be left to the state to punish such actions. The proper response to unprovoked violence against others would be for one or more of the “others” to shoot the son of a bitch. The response of the state at that point should be limited to a “Thank you very much” and possibly a reward commensurate with the amount of tax money saved by not prosecuting and incarcerating the miscreant.

  6. Personally, I’m tired of the “if we don’t fix things soon,” and “if things keep going the way they are” rhetoric. We already live in fascist a fascist police state. Our masters have just been more careful this time around to keep people believing that they’re free.

    The other day I was pulled out of my car and subjected to a sobriety test at a DUI checkpoint. It was like the USSR! “But Salty Bear, you must’ve done something to warrant being singled out at the checkpoint!” Yeah, I refused to tell the cop where I was going. Apparently not telling someone where you’re going is probable cause now.

    We live in a nation where bullies with badges have unlimited authority to harass us and arrest us without fear of reprisal, and where we are locked in cages or killed if we don’t register our property or pay our rent/protection money to a national gang. Totalitarianism? I’d say we’re there.

    • I hope you asked for probable cause and gave ’em hell if they didn’t have any. I’ll also assume that you weren’t actually arrested. In Mexico, things would’ve gone quite differently.

      I oppose speed cameras, DUI checkpoints, red light cameras, etc. All those things make me a whole lot less popular in statist police circles.

      There’s been well-deserved backlash to red light cameras, speed cameras and checkpoints. I hope it continues.

      As much as folk don’t appreciate statist police tendencies, automated police practices are even worse.

      • I didn’t ask for probable cause. Hawaii actually has a statute that specifically authorizes DUI checkpoints. The bill of rights doesn’t exist here.

        What’s ironic (and infuriating) is that the only reason I live in Hawaii is because I signed up to “support and defend the Constitution.” So far I’ve been stationed in Illinois, California, and Hawaii. Maryland is the only other place I might hope to be stationed. I wish I’d known beforehand that the oath of enlistment is just BS propaganda.

    • I don’t see America cold and dead yet , I hear a faint heart beat and believe there is still a pulse of freedom circulating around the body here , but I do think Sepsis has set in and only a strong dose of constitutional antibiotics will right the boat now . If we cannot muster the courage to reverse our coarse and endure the temporary pain it will cause , I will cover the carcass with a worn American flag and pronounce her dead .
      With God , all things are possible .

  7. You can count me in as another ones of the ignorant people of the world. Until I decided to start exercising this right, I literally knew nothing. Now I know better. I supported the assault weapon ban in ’94 and here I am all these years later and I love AR15’s, AK’s and anything else I can shoot. Minds can change little by little. I feel that the more people who exercise this right, the less likely that a politician can pull the wool over peoples eyes. There will always be a misguided few, but let’s hope they are in the minority.

  8. ‘People like them, who know what’s best for people who don’t know what’s best for themselves.’
    I think this cuts to the heart of it. True, dyed in the wool progressives, deep down, seem to believe in the type of classist social hierarchy you find in a high school. You’ve got the jocks who want to influence you through the threat of force (law enforcement types who like their citizens passive), the cheerleaders who dazzle you with their looks (celebrities endorsing pet positions), and the student council preppies trying to impose some kind of majoritarian tyranny based on social pressure (politicians, telling us they’re disappointed we won’t do things ‘their way’). When you decline to participate in this rat race and choose instead to beat another path through life, they go bonkers because they can’t figure out what makes you tick. The thought that their three tools of power (threat of force, cult of personality, and shame) don’t work on you makes them totally insane.

    • The one thing that frustrated me about “Liberal Fascism” is that nowhere in the text did Jonah Goldberg actually define the term “fascism”. This quote was as close as any to the truth of the matter and after long consideration and finding no more concise definition anywhere I reduced the concept to: “We know what is best for you. If you know what is GOOD for you, then you will not oppose us!”

      Thank you, Jonah, for allow me to focus on this by providing the necessary background information.

      • How ’bout this:

        “Political ideology that imposes strict social and economical measures as a method of empowering the government and stripping citizens of rights. This authoritative system of government is usually headed by an absolute dictator who keeps citizens suppressed via acts of violence and strict laws that govern the people. ”

        Pretty tightly drawn.

        http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/Fascism.html

    • OUTSTANDING !

      Well, until you got to the last sentence. When you don’t go along, the progressives do not go bonkers, they go after you !!

  9. “Why would anyone want to disarm law-abiding Americans?”

    Because governments prefer unarmed subjects to citizens.

    • Because mankind is basically evil, and must learn to rein-in base instincts and actions. No one has to teach a child to lie, it comes naturally. Think of how easy it is to do the wrong thing, then think of how difficult it is to deny self-gratification and do good.

  10. Semantics…progressives, liberals, fascists, nazis. They all want the same thing. Tyrannical control of the proletariat by disarmament and pacification.

    • Nibble , nibble , chunk , chunk . The liberal manifesto . Like all their transformation agenda , they know they can’t drop the frog into the boiling water without slamming on a lid and as long as we’ve stayed heavily armed the lid was useless and full of holes . Their only game was nibble away with an occasional chunk and I fear their largest chunk is coming very soon .
      You know the old story . In time , all the nibbling and chunking leave nothing in the cupboard .

  11. It is often said the antis want us disarmed because of projection; if they had easy access to guns they would be the ones shooting people over stolen parking spaces and classroom lectures, not us, and therefore they need strict government control to control “us”.

    The same is true economically. If America were to ever return to its former glory as a land of hard workers with absolutely no government handouts, progressives would be the first to starve because they often have no marketable skills. They are too weak to compete in a free market economy, so they want the state to destroy the market.

    They create a culture that worships mediocrity, helplessness, and grievance mongering over anything considered “offensive” (read: not progressive) and there are no limits, no reaction too extreme when emotions and feelings govern your ideology.

    These are the rhetorical weapons they used to keep dissent out of their little fishbowl, and recent nonsense on university campuses sadly shows this culture has taken root

      • Of coarse there are , McCain and the gang , the congress is full of them . Progressive Right and Left both take you to the same location , just different routes .
        They are all smarter than we are in their world view and we need their control and guidance to progress
        ( regress ) to their desired destination .

  12. ” That’s because they believe it will be their police state. ”

    Their pathological altruism yields jackbooted do gooders.

  13. This analysis misses the mark by a mile. Progressives are not the real fascists/Nazis/or whatever.

    They want to disarm the populace to make them helpless in the face of their dispossession. They are waging war against the white majority in this nation and are playing the long game by importing more and more people who overwhelming vote Democrat. If the demographic trends continue we will lose our right to bear arms and our nation.

    • Then we are screwing up by not reaching out to the Latino and non white immigrant and teaching them about freedom and the importance of having a 2nd A. Everyone should want a right to defend themselves , particularly people of color or coming here from tyrannical governments . We should probably give every immigrate a gun when they legally enter into citizenship .

  14. “That’s because they believe it will be their police state.”

    It’s not that they beleive the police state will be benevolent, they simply plan to be the ones putting people in the rail cars vs the other way around. People like this can never be trusted; they will roll anyone over if they think it will place them into favor with their “supervisors”. Epitome of the “one way street”.

  15. Let us not forget that once you deprive citizens of firearms, the Progressive mindset’s hunger for control is only whetted, not satiated. Once firearms are banned, they continue on to long knives (“nobody needs a knife longer than [ insert arbitrary length here ]”) – the U.K. is there already: https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives – but of course, that is not the end, either, because this is not about “dangerous weapons”, but about “control”. In the U.K., it is against the law to use anything – ANYTHING – as an “offensive weapon”. TTAG covered this on 6/7/2015.

    One could easily see this extended further to knowledge and practice of the martial arts (“nobody needs to know *martial* arts – that’s “warlike”, and the only place for that is on the battlefield! Think of the innocent children!”)

    And so on and so forth…

    https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q589.htm

  16. Progressives see civilian firearms ownership as dangerously irresponsible

    Exactly. Also – they seriously believe that regular people absolutely are not responsible enough to bear arms. It is too much of a responsibility and therefore nobody should be able to do it. And that is the epitome of their ideals. More safety and less responsibility for the people.

    Personally I don’t think their idea is very safe and I reject their statistical analysis and psychological projection of my abilities.

  17. ““Why would anyone want to disarm law-abiding Americans?” Now there’s a question . . .”

    That’s the nub. Then make them make their case. From “The world will be less violent without guns.” to “”People” are not to be trusted with that much capability. (However, “we” are, for some value of “we.”)” (<- This is one formulation of the facist doctrine.) From this you quickly get to the several fallacies, or at least palmed cards of the "no guns for you" people.

    It's the same move as talking about "gun violence." Well, no guns, no "gun violence" but there are four palmed cards there.

    – Fallacy: Guns do violence. Refutation: Guns don’t do violence, people do violence. The correct term is "violence done with guns." (Guns just sit there, and even were they to sometimes burst into flames like the legendary pile of oily rags, the *agency* in in the blockhead who piled them up: mucked with a part of the world they don't understand, or didn't want to bother dealing with well.) Let's measure the right thing, shall we?

    – Fallacy: Everybody is equally safe without guns. Refutation: So born targets should become victims, because they were "born that way?" As regards person to person violence, we're much closer to equal under Samuel Colt's enabling than we are born. Why advantage the large, strong, fast, young, drugged up, crazy or amoral? Why let them retain the advantage of their biology, should they intend to extort from the rest of us? Go ahead and be a good eugenicist, Darwinist, if that's your preference. But own it.

    – Fallacy: All "violence" is created equal. Refutation: So violence by the mother defending her child, coed her person, or old guy like me his stuff and physical integrity still counts as "bad." I love this one for the followups: "So, initiated violence is the same as violence to protect yourself when words aren't working?"

    – Fallacy: All "violence" is not created equal, specifically "violence" done by the state, to coerce or to defend, doesn't count. Refutation: Really? I thought they were our agents. So, if I need protecting and they aren’t there to do it, they’ve dropped that ball. (<- This fallacy is the facist position applied to personal encounters that go violent.)

    I said "fallacy" and "refutation" but the fact is, many people who object to citizens owning guns (or generally other kinds of autonomous agency), actually believe these things. Many don’t know it, and will pause when the notice. Some, few, know that disarming law abiding civilians follows from all of these things, and are OK, or even enthusiastic about that.

    Mr. Golberg, in his book, inventories policies and claims from various self-proclaimed “facists”, but also notes that the term itself is fraught, and inconsistently used. Indeed this is one of his points.

    That said, the other two consistent points in “facist” movements, per Goldberg are 1) “Everything within the state, nothing opposing the state.” This is identified as a defining quote of the early Italian facists. 2) The charismatic leader as the intuitive – meaning not restricted by law or convention – embodiment of the will of the people, the nation, or dare I say it the “volk.” The recurring facist symbol of the ax handle bundled in sticks is an on-point metaphor.

    In this view, there is no legitimate “private” sphere. So, of course, in this view individual people with the ability provided by their owning guns is completely wrong. All agency belongs to the state. So of course, if anything need be done with guns, the state will be doing it, and “law abiding” citizens have no scope of action beyond that. Indeed to act themselves places them outside, thus in opposition to, the state.

    One other rhetorical move with such nonsense is the simple question: “Says who?” “Civilians shouldn’t have guns!” “Says who?” From there follows, “How do you know?”, “Who are you to decide?”, and “What do you make of people with other opinions?”

  18. ““Progressives see civilian firearms ownership as dangerously irresponsible,” I said. “It doesn’t matter how safe or law-abiding an individual gun owner may be, they believe gun ownership in general victimizes innocent people. That’s why they want to disarm all Americans.”

    It’s a nice thought, but that’s not it. As r-selected individuals with the accompanying reproductive strategy, their r-selected gene set has identified that K-selects can be made available to the same predation that they face if they are made as helpless as the r-selects. Bottom line, they WANT people on the left(r) and people on the right(K) to die in more or less equal rates because they know that r-selects breed more mediocre people faster that K-selects can breed quality ones, so losses hurt them considerably less that K-selects. In a political system that is based entirely on numerical superiority this strategy ensures that they get the lions share of resources for their side.

    Similarly, the reason that the left is so good at starting wars(look at the history of the 20th century) is because overseas wars pull the K-selects out of the population and send them off to die, or at least delay their ability to reproduce. They know that the right wingers volunteer to go to war, so they start as many as possible and hamstring them with stupid RoE hoping that we’ll get killed in large numbers while killing the K-selects in other countries for their own r-selects to flourish.

    They are fine with being victims. They are rabbits that are adapted to having one of two plucked up by the occasional predator, and they want the wolves of the society preyed upon, as well. and since they already live with wolves, they are fine with foreign wolves coming in to replace the native wolves, it doesn’t matter to them, which is why they have no loyalty to America. If foreign K-selects kill our K-selects they benefit.

    if this thought intrigues you, search “anonymous conservative r/K selection theory” and start reading.

  19. “Why would anyone want to disarm law-abiding Americans?” Silly serf, guns are for government. Run along now and pull the D lever and we will give you all sorts of free stuff.

  20. The left wants to disarm the law abiding has nothing to do with perceived safety. It is control.
    An armed populace impedes corruption and tyranny.
    Case in point. A neighbor works for a national retailer. His job requires him to travel to new stores that are opening. At a store in NY State, days after officially opening, the local chief fire inspector came into the store, found and employee, probably a supervisor, and said two things. “I think I see violations” followed by “the patio set would look good at my Florida home.” The employee knew what that meant. If the patio set was not sent to the chief’s home the store would have an ‘accident’ with the flammables in the store and the FD would be to busy to respond.
    Only two groups benefit from gun control/disarmament. The criminal and the corrupt.

  21. Progressives want a monopoly on violence, which they will use liberally (pun intended). As long as we have guns, the state’s monopoly on violence can never be.

  22. I have pondered the question of civilian disarmament at length and reached no conclusion of the reason why both fascists and progressives want to disarm us. Plausible answers are that fascists simply want be able to control us. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mao and recently Chavez of Venezuela exemplify this. Progressive utopians may think they can prevent evil by removing firearms from everyone but the state’s possession. We know both of these plans end in the loss of freedom and murder. What is really scary is how easily the two become allies to use the power of the state to disarm the rest of us.
    We can solve this problem relatively “easily.” If we teach our children to shoot and use firearms responsibly they will discover the value of the Second Amendment. It works for fire, knives and cars. Who would have thought it? American parents for 250 years, that’s who.

  23. Interesting that the “original” Progressive was Teddy Roosevelt. He knew a thing or 5,000 about guns, marksmanship, arming Americans, etc.

    • AR – you are correct. TR advocated teaching “schoolboys” to shoot. But he made no bones about using government power to get what he wanted. I think he could best be described as a proto-statist and neo-progressive,

  24. >> a state where the rule of law is protected by the police and the police alone – what’s called a police state.

    That’s not even close to the definition of a police state. Don’t fall into the fallacy of rewriting the dictionary to be convenient to your cause.

  25. It is fair to identify progressivism as an enemy to firearms owners simply because progressivism is all about the antithesis of everything the 2nd amendment was written to stop. It is about removing control, down to simple decisions from peoples day to day lives and turning over that power to the state. Whereas traditional liberals are much closer to Libertarians than progressives in their beliefs, generally speaking.

    • Written by a Progressive .
      True Christianity more closely relates to Libertarianism than any other political movement I have encountered . Except for rendering unto Cesar what is Cesar’s , following the teachings of Christ is paramount to anarchy . It is natural man that is of the world , not the Spiritual man .

  26. Some of you here are to young to remember how hard it use to be to get a permit to carry.
    It’s only been in the last few years that it’s been relatively easy and in some States now you don’t even need a permit.

    But don’t get too comfortable because there are ulterior motives and it’s base on revenue generation, which is why within the next few years as well marijuana will be legal nation wide. It’s a ‘cash cow’.

    With C&C look for mandatory requirement of gun insurance. And in requiring that insurance it will also give government a good look into who owns what and how many.
    Your so called 2nd amendment right is and will be pimped to the nth degree and it will not favor you.

    And unfortunately the NRA is the best we have. (hold your noses)

    • >> Some of you here are to young to remember how hard it use to be to get a permit to carry.

      In quite a few states, a permit was never required to open carry. For example, to the best of my knowledge, it has always been the case in WA. Generally speaking, it seems to be more common in western states.

    • I’m not too young-I live in Illinois and am over 60-I remember like it was less than 2 years ago. Illinois has a system that already freezes out the less well off. BUT this newfound CC is possible by court order-helped along by the NRA,2nd Amendment foundation,Illinois Rifle Assoc. and others. I take NOTHING for granted…and a mere mile from me Indiana residents happily open carry without problems-except for nervous nellies and paranoid girls getting their panties in a bunch…

  27. @int19h,

    Get ready to bend over and grab you ankles cause in order to quell that ‘progressive’ fear out there the other side, that faux side that claims support for us to be armed will open the door based on how much money can be made off of the new multi-million C&C holders.

    Your right to carry will be based how much money you can afford.
    And they’ll work it just like car insurance, so that depending on where you live your rates will be different.

    And no matter who gets elected from Trump to Paul to the Hillbill they’ll all cave into pressure, but secretly smile all the way to the bank from the Insurance lobbyist.
    Make sure you read the fine print before you chose your insurance, some may have a PC clause that says your out of luck if you shoot a Black or a Muslim.

    Good luck with your new found freedom.

  28. I really like Goldberg. He’s a little further than I on the conservative side of the conservative-libertarian penumbra I inhabit, but he brings an honest and thoughtful approach to these topics. I try not to miss his columns.

    • Actually no it doesn’t. Progressives are far from liberals nowadays which is why many have earned the name regressives.

      Anyone who says American liberals = communism wouldn’t know communism if Marx himself smacked them in the face with the means of production. It may make you feel good to say it so like minds with dwindling critical faculties can intellectually rub one off together but its far from accurate and its dangerous hyperbole that fascists have always loved to use.

      And no, Hitler was not a liberal – he was far right – this is understood by everyone that is not plaqued by Godwin’s law and Jonah Goldberg syndrome. No, he was not socialist. National socialism is not now and never was socialism as you know it. If you know it. In the same way that North Korea is not democratic. Hitler was ememies to the socialist and trade unionist and had many, many off them killed. He also liked to use rhetoric against his political opponents by labeling them communists. You, and many people on this site, should take a step back from your political ideologies that cause you to say such blatantly false and ridiculous things. Liberals do the same thing. And all that ends up happening is Americans talking past eachother. Not to mention the many liberals who are vehement Second Amendment supporters, yes they exist, that you alienate with idiotic rhetoric like that. Even the ones that aren’t you may find plety of common ground actually, beyond ecomonics. The word liberal has an actual meaning and most Americans possess a range of liberal values. We are, after all, a liberal democracy. Yes,yes a republic is a form of liberal democracy. If you’re going to be political learn your political science.

      • To be more precise, National Socialists did have an actual socialist faction (the Strassers and their followers). But Hitler purged them, precisely because neither he nor his wealthy backers needed such nonsense.

        • To a point true , but mostly semantics , Even Christians , at the first recorded great gathering after the assentation , were giving away their properties and possessions and sharing their assets . Was this communism ?
          Of coarse not , There was no one telling anyone to give what or how much or to whom to give to and there was no cohortion to give ones support to women who were considered murderers of their unborn . Most of these labels applied to political persuasions are interchangeable in many ways and must be differentiated by the actions after the facts . Many of the lines form circles when observed in the spectrum of history .

        • >> To a point true , but mostly semantics

          I disagree. Strasserites were genuine, bona fide socialists – their economic program was 100% socialist. Their difference (and why they called themselves national socialists) was that they believed in the superiority of the white race and of their own nation, and so their socialism was meant to be directed only towards that race and nation, and excluded others. If you remove all references to Aryans and Jews from their platform, though, it would be very hard to distinguish from your typical socialist party.

          >> Even Christians , at the first recorded great gathering after the assentation , were giving away their properties and possessions and sharing their assets . Was this communism ?

          It is a form of communism, yes.

          >> Of coarse not , There was no one telling anyone to give what or how much or to whom to give to

          Not all forms of communism necessitate that. You’re likely referring to the form practiced in the USSR (and spread from there to various other countries, either by backing insurgents there or by direct military invasion), which is the one that posits the necessity of a “worker’s state” to enforce. However, there are also such things as decentralized and even outright stateless socialism and communism – anarcho-syndicalists, libertarian communists etc. Arguably, early Christian communes, insofar as they practiced gift economies and sharing, were a form of libertarian communism.

          >> and there was no cohortion to give ones support to women who were considered murderers of their unborn

          We don’t actually know that. Historically speaking, Christians have been all over the board as far as abortion goes, but one thing that was common is the notion (inherited from Judaism, which, to remind, postulates that soul enters the body with the first breath) that abortion is not murder.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_abortion#Early_Christian_thought_on_abortion

  29. Did you really just start your article with the extremely questionable and thouroughly refuted book by Jonah Goldberg? Seriously? You should have a little more intellectual integrity than that. Castigate liberals, by all means, but don’t be like them.

    • “…extremely questionable and thoroughly refuted…”

      Help me out here. Spot-checking his primary sources – so not exhaustive in either what I checked, or checking the entire output of sources named – his claims of what they said & did do track.

      So, “thoroughly refuted”, how? Current people in the US who identify themselves as “liberals” don’t all regularly cite & quote pre-WW-II Italian facists? Dewey didn’t say the things Goldberg attributes to him? Current era, moving 17-ish percent of the economy into a much more regulated & subsidized regime (governed by 1,800, 2,000+, 2,700 pages of legislation, depending on which version and time you sample) isn’t an expansion of federal action.

      I’m a fan of refutations, so show me what I missed.

      • Don’t hold your breath. Also, 2maik7, Nazism was and always will be a left-wing phenomenon. To say otherwise is akin to eating your own shit just to say you did it. Stop parroting liberal lies.

        • Oh, on the one hand I’d appreciate an on-point reply, and on the other, I don’t expect one.

          One of Goldberg’s several points is that “facism” like many other words in the polito-sphere, has an inconsistent, varying meaning. Indeed the semi-standard “left” and “right” are misleading, inconsistent, and in the end, based on who sat where in the legislature in one of the earlier French republics. Even so, there are some useful projections of political preference similar to that “left” and “right.”

          Personally, I think the Pournelle Chart is quite useful, indeed more so than the Nolan Chart or Political Compass. Also, being a good student of Orwell, Swift and T. H. White, I’m a tad sensitive to connotation vs. denotation in these power words, and mutable meaning.

          Indeed, I think the best one-line description of “facism” comes from T. H. White: “Everything not compulsory is forbidden.” Or, maybe we don’t call that sentiment “facism” given all the baggage of the word. Rather, maybe we call it ThWAnt-ism (THWhite’s Ants – from the context of the quote in his Book of Merlin) Help stomp out ThWAnt-ism! Or something.

  30. Why do you keep referring to governments who confiscate firearms as fascist, when, in fact, most are motivated by communism? Hillary, UK government, Democrats, etc. aren’t fascists, but communists. Goldberg made this same mistake. Seizing guns is motivated by communism, not fascism.

    • Nonsense-both sides happily confiscate. It’s called the almighty state…so Hitler, Il Deuce,Franco and Japan weren’t fascists? Try again…

  31. In Switzerland we often say : A Man without weapons is a tax payer, a Man with a weapons is citizen. I think that pretty much gives an idea of the mentality.
    P.S : I don’t think it’s only a Swiss idea 😀

  32. “Why would anyone want to disarm law-abiding Americans?” Now there’s a question . . .

    “Progressives see civilian firearms ownership as dangerously irresponsible,” I said. “It doesn’t matter how safe or law-abiding an individual gun owner may be, they believe gun ownership in general victimizes innocent people.”

    ” … It makes sense when you realize that they don’t believe regular people are smart, responsible, and moral enough to do the right thing. Think they are – smart, responsible, and moral, that is – so define what other people may do.

    Since they can’t be everywhere, they do it with groups and rules, which leaves out circumstances. “Don’t shoot” is a good general rule, except when that hungry bear is mauling you. It’s OK with them if a few of us get eaten by bears when we didn’t have to, because they can’t imagine that given the option, we’d shoot only the bears and not each other. If they let us have guns, we wouldn’t do the right thing, but would do any number of wrong things.

    Really, I think it’s a poor choice for we citizens to give authority over us to people who think so poorly of us.

  33. This is one of the most succinct and well-written articles on the subject of civilian weapons ownership (or civilian ownership of anything that is potentially dangerous and can’t be directly monitored) that I’ve read recently. I wish more people would wake up. I also wish I could visit space. I suspect the latter is the far more likely scenario.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *