It’s Only A Matter of Time Before Gun Control Advocates Strike Again. Again. Only Worse.

The two terrorists who killed 14 people and wounded 17 others (some grievously) in San Bernadino were not on the TSA’s “No Fly List.” In fact, the killers weren’t on the feds’ radar at all. Nor were they white, Republican, NRA members or members of a militia. They didn’t convert their AR’s to full auto. But what if . . .

they had been white, Republican NRA members who belonged to a militia, who were on the “No Fly List” using full-auto AR’s and 3D-printed handguns? Just to make the nightmare complete, what if Hillary Clinton was President?

The assault on our gun rights would have been fierce. Unstoppable? Maybe. Maybe not. But I’ve got this to say to those who claim Congress’s failure to enact a universal background check bill after the Sandy Hook slaughter proves that our gun rights are safe from federal “intervention.” Wrong. They’re not.

You and I know that our gun rights should not be judged by the actions of, well, anyone. The United States Constitution’s Second Amendment doesn’t have any caveats. None. (The militia clause is an explanation, not a caveat.) What evil people do with their guns has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms. If Wayne LaPierre himself went postal, so what?

So we’d be screwed.

No one really knows, but it’s safe to say that nbcnews.com‘s estimate that one-in-three Americans own guns isn’t far wrong. Even if it’s a 50 – 50 deal, we can still lose our rights through the democratic process. Washington state’s background check bill is proof enough. The fact that politicians are even trying to enact new gun control laws (e.g., the attempt to close the “No Fly List” loophole) also tells the tale.

Which is both the problem and the solution. The more Americans who own guns, the better. As I’ve pointed out before, breaking the ban on firearms advertising in the mainstream media would go a long way to ensuring our firearms freedom. But we can all do something: take a newbie shooting. A grass roots First Shots push will do far more for gun rights than arguing with anti-gun statists. Your thoughts?

comments

  1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    The best way to protect the rights passed on by the Founders to their posterity is to close the borders and to start mass deportations. At this point in our history the open flood gates of immigration is the only issue that matters.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Amen…I am about finished with a very large post on how gun rights are harmed via mass immigration.

      We need to end this idea that everyone/culture can come to America, they can not. That is a fairy-tale and the world is now a nightmare for having believed such lies.

    2. avatar Harry_the_Horrible says:

      THe best way to protect Americans is stop training our citizens to be good little victims. Then we need National ‘Shall Issue’ Concealed Carry, Castle Doctrine, and ‘Stand Your Ground’ overriding all state laws.

      Crime should be very, very dangerous for criminals, and terrorism should be certain dealth for terrorists.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        We need “shall not be infringed” overriding all state laws. As it was written, so let it be done.

    3. avatar NjGunGuy says:

      Immigrant Mexicans and first-gens are leaving the US at a greater rate than they are entering now though. That is the block that we were always worried about voting solid blue, but they were more nomads than anything else IMHO. We need to convert migrants from wherever, that is the way to ensure our rights. If we do that now, it will pay off in the future.

      1. avatar Ed Haertel says:

        Do you have a good idea of how to go about changing the outlook/culture of a group of people? Previously people who came to the US did so with the idea of changing their lives for the better through hard work and adopting the culture of the US. That is no longer the case. Some come with the idea of hard work, then they intend to return to their homes. Some come as “refugees”*, complete with immediate eligibility for welfare. Both groups see no pressing need to change their culture. When my Mother started school my Grandfather decreed that only English would be spoken in the home as English was necessary to function in the US. Now we are required to adapt to their language instead of the other way around.

        And now we have a significant group coming to the US with an entirely different religion/governmental system, one which is, at its core, hostile to other religions.

        * The current definition of “refugee” is someone fleeing from conflict or economic hardship.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I have no problem with adherents to one religion running around killing adherents of all other religions, actually. When they start targeting those of us who really don’t care, it’s time to nuke them, and that is not quite an exaggeration.

      2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

        You do understand that people just come through Mexico, right?

    4. avatar Anon says:

      You’re kidding right?

  2. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Just to make the nightmare complete, what if Hillary Clinton was President? Even Hitlery has stated to the effect that the reasons, motives, and origins are unimportant; we just need more gun control.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      what if Hillary Clinton was President?

      Then we’d better vote as if our lives depended on it. Which they do.

      1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        I predict the Libertarians will still not get it.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Yep. “I refuse to vote for the lessor of 2 evils.” Which will give us the greater of 2 evils for president.

          And of course the people that don’t vote just make the evil’s job easier.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          If you are convinced that will happen, I’ll be counting on you to push the GOP candidate to withdraw.

  3. avatar mike oregon says:

    The word “vigilance” figures more and more into my world view and daily routine every day.

  4. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Arguing with anti-gun statists should be done only for enjoyment. Deploy enough facts and sit back to watch the show.

    Taking newbies shooting (I’ve done that a half-dozen times this year) is the way to go. (My tip: don’t go right to the range. Start at your house with unloaded weapons and snap caps to let them get the feel of handling a weapon and loading a mag.) Once people see what responsible gun ownership looks like, they start to change their minds. Or at least open their minds.

  5. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Soooo…all the guys who decry the NRA’S paranoia trying to raise $ are WRONG? Who da’ thunk it? They ARE trying to take my guns-I live in Illinois and know how fooked up things can get…

  6. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    In fact, the killers weren’t on the feds’ radar at all. Nor were they white, Republican, NRA members or members of a militia. They didn’t convert their AR’s to full auto.
    That was some of the saving grace of this attack as this was clearly Caliphate Hussein Obonzo’s favored group of fabulous folk. Which is why he will never admit this is Islamic terrorism.

  7. avatar W.P. Zeller says:

    Even in the early ’70s when handguns really were very close to being banned from “civilian” possession, my mantra quickly became: Take someone (especially a woman) to the range and show them shooting- then they’ll never vote against us.
    Still true four decades later.

    1. avatar Timmy! says:

      Not to be “My One Example Proves Your Statement Is Wrong” guy but… I have a very good female friend who is opposed to guns. She was taken shooting and even posted pictures of herself shooting a 10/22. When I asked her about it, she was still anti-gun and actually said to me something to the effect of, “It was fun… but I still wish they (guns) would all go away!”

      1. avatar Jim Barrett says:

        Your example is not the exception. It is more common than we sometimes think. My wife is in the same camp. She’s been shooting. She’s not totally opposed to having guns in the house as she sees the utility, but she’d be the first in line to vote for more gun laws. She buys the whole package (universal background checks, no ARs, high cap mag restrictions) hook, line, and sinker.

        Trying to argue facts is useless. Her mind is made up. Unless/untill something very unpleasant happens to her or someone close to her that having a gun would have prevented, things are not going to change. She clearly fits the example of a liberal who is a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          Your wife and mine are similar. My wife was brought up in a liberal anti-gun household, even though, or perhaps because, her father was a WWII vet who had the distinct displeasure of being at Dachau shortly after it was liberated. She has an unalterable hatred of firearms. She will not touch a single modern firearm. (She approves, reluctantly , to my black powder revolvers.) Her immediate reaction to San Bernardino was that ARs need to be banned.

          But at the same time, since she is totally disabled, she is fearful of any attack, and world-wide terrorism frightens her to the core. She is willing to accept, therefore, that that we have “one” modern firearm in the house for self-protection, but thinks that that is more than enough. [I have therefore made it a practice to not tell her what she does not need to know, as to the true number of modern firearms in various locations around the house.]

  8. avatar jwm says:

    We proved what in CA? I want some of what this idiot is smoking.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      The only thing California has proven is that if you live in a heavily gun-controlled state and congregate in a posted “Gun Free Zone” it is still possible to get shot by criminals or fanatics who don’t give a flying f about any of those rules. Go figure.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      No kidding. I think that quote is in competition for the stupidest thing ever said by a sitting US Senator, which is saying something.

  9. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    They work just like the war on drugs worked, and just like they worked in this case.

  10. avatar Geoff PR says:

    To: Barbara Boxer –

    Message follows:

    …………………./´¯/)
    ………………..,/¯../
    ………………./…./
    …………./´¯/’…’/´¯¯`·¸
    ………./’/…/…./……./¨¯\
    ……..(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
    ………\……………..’…../
    ……….”…\………. _.·´
    …………\…………..(
    …………..\………….\…

    Have a nice day,!

    1. avatar jwm says:

      + eleventy billion.

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Old School ASCII Art FTW…

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Why not aim ASCII art at someone who is such an AS?

  11. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Because ‘gun violence’ dropped 56% in CA at the same time ‘gun violence’ fell 57% in the rest of the country where gun laws were mostly relaxed… Something tells me that she’s not really that stupid. But I think she’s counting on you to be.

    1. avatar Jack says:

      Stats are a tricky thing, especially pre-highspeed internet, stats before the turn of the century are almost useless. The best explanation I have heard for the drop in crime, in California or anywhere else in this country has to do with the fact there are cameras everywhere, which is a great deterent to a guy who wants to mug you in a parking lot. Active shooters, don’t care so much about being seen, many want to. Last I heard, violent crime has been on a steady decline in the u.s. everywhere except gun free zones, where crime has increased exponentially.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        To borrow a phrase Mark Twain borrowed from Benjamin Disraeli, ‘There are three kinds of lies; Lies, damn lies and statistics.’ Statistics are fine when you have the full research and analysis of all the pertinent facts, but when politicians start quoting them they’re usually full of sh!t.

        There are a number of reasons for the drop in violent crime including more LEOs, longer sentences for criminals, the fact cops have learned to use computers and the prevalence of cameras. Combined, the dumb criminals just don’t stay on the streets as long as they used to. California’s gun laws had absolutely nothing to do with it.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          ” Statistics are fine when you have the full research and analysis of all the pertinent facts, but when politicians start quoting them they’re usually full of sh!t. “

          Thank-you for a clear statement on Mark Twain’s quote.

          He was commenting that HIS use of statistics would be a “lie” because HE does not understand the math behind them.

          The bottom line is that “statistics” are nothing more than quantities computed from a set of data. They can no more lie than a gun in a holster can spontaneously shoot up a restaurant.

          The problem we have is that the politicians and the media (and perhaps a few others) count on bad math education to manipulate the statistics and data to fit their message. Once we start talking about averages and standard deviations and mean errors and T tests and regressions…their hope is that the eyes of the “dumb masses” glaze over and they can say whatever they want.

          In this day and age, math is a weapon. Never forget that.

      2. avatar samuraichatter says:

        Crime is going back to levels where they have always been. There was a spike in crime from the mid 60’s to the early 90’s. Much having to do w/ the baby boomers. As they aged (meaning died, got incarcerated, or grew up) levels returned to normal. There was a disproportionate amount of young people for a while and young people tend to commit more crimes. At the same time the war on drugs was kicking off.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “The best explanation I have heard for the drop in crime, in California or anywhere else in this country has to do with the fact there are cameras everywhere, which is a great deterent to a guy who wants to mug you in a parking lot.”

        Then you are dealing with feel-good generalizations and unfounded assumptions. Read “Freakonomics”, one of the chapters presents actual evidence to support the concept that the decades-long drop in crime owes its start to Roe v Wade, legalized abortion. Try it, and figure out how to argue using facts instead of feelings.

    2. avatar Sammy^ says:

      Yes, they fell everywhere except in gun free zones. Mass shootings have skyrocketed under he who shall not be named. Ironic, ain’t it?

    3. avatar Ad Astra says:

      For all that drop Los Angeles is still in the top 5 cities for murder rates after such crap holes like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore I believe.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Uh-huh, and we all know what populates those cities and which brand of politics thrive there,

  12. avatar AM says:

    The “Gun Shopping Network” that will be starting up soon is one way to show that guns are just another tool and not something to be dreaded.

  13. avatar Joe R. says:

    Dictator’s with the worst safety plan and a cratering record, love to tell us how they are going to give us their plan.

    Dictating is the only thing they apply themselves to. So while they suck AT EVERYTHING, their skills are strongest there.

    FUCA, your state needs more Syrian “refugees”, because you definitely need some distraction from fucking with us. I remember once, David Letterman had a TOP 10 segment that was the Top 10 Reasons NASA needs to launch another shuttle (~ a year after a shuttle loss). The number one answer was “because the Pentagon is starting to look at the earth again”. Yeah, you definitely need some more of your own foreign-influenced, broke-d_ck, jihadi sh_t, to distract you from trying to F with us.

  14. avatar Sammy^ says:

    We’re 1 Supreme Court appointment from losing it all.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      So let’s make sure that a right-wing Republican makes the next appointment. And maybe the next four appointments.

      1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        I agree Ralph, but the reality is that by 2020 it will be statistically impossible for a Republican to win.

        Unless we round em up, ship em out and shut it down that is. They are importing D’s faster that we can create R’s.

        1. avatar Accur81 says:

          Yep. Combine that with no voter ID requirement and plenty of dirty democrats can vote once and vote often.

        2. avatar JSJ says:

          We are not creating R’s.
          Young people are often turned off to the party because of it’s position on things that should be secondary, or perhaps should be left alone entirely. Gay rights, etc.
          R’s need to decide what their priorities are and be willing to scuttle some secondary items in order to broaden their appeal to new voters. The alternative is to lose everything.

      2. avatar Sammy says:

        They have my vote(s)

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      1 Supreme court appointment and 300 million firearms. 9 bullets will reshuffle the votes of the Supreme court, and again the following week, if necessary.

  15. avatar Last Marine out says:

    And again more talk about gun control is going to send gun and ammo sales into outer space…. they are shooting their self in the foot again.. they never learn.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      No, they’ve learned just fine. to them, they “win” if gun sales skyrocket. It allows them to continue “on message” as if the the gun sales are the problem.

      It’s about spin, propaganda and lies.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, but I do love their assumption that passage of a law will somehow alter the course of millions of people who have JUST NOW spent billions of dollars on new firearms, they’ll just hand them over to be melted. If I had not seen other evidence of just how stupid a liberal can be, I would think it impossible.

  16. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    How about we end mass immigrant, keep out the 3rd world hordes, kept our culture, rights, and future and dump the cultural marixst lies?

  17. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I would help if special activities at gun ranges were advertised on radio. In Kentucky and Tennessee I hear radio ads for gun stores and ranges all the time. Local celebrity shoots, organized competition shoots, date night shoots, etc have no radio ads.

  18. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    We must always be on the offensive. we need to be donating whatever we can whenever we can to outfits like the second amendment foundation, NAGR, NRA, etc..
    We need to file lawsuits. Fight for the repeal of stupid laws.

  19. avatar Jack says:

    “What evil people do with their guns has nothing to do with my right to keep and bear arms.”
    i know its a matter of semantics, but to be clear, I disagree with this statement as it is written. This has everything to do with your right to bear arms, the Constitution was written a long time ago and could not have predicted the complexities of modern America, an active shooter is an enemy of the state and the people, not just an individual, and as such, I believe our founding fathers, had they been able to see the future would concede that the spirit of 2A was written to defend us against exactly this kind of thing.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Amazingly unclear, your point is what? The whole idea of 2A and armed citizens is not absolute safety, but each citizen contributing to the safety of the nation. If everyone is armed and trained, any attacker, whether lunatic or fundamentalist, would die in seconds, making that course of action unpopular pretty quickly. If everyone has been disarmed, for “safety”, one person with a gun can kill hundreds, even thousands, killing and killing and killing until he’s so tired he has to sleep a few hours, and with current attitudes, his intended victims will still be “sheltering in place”, so he can start killing again.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Retrying; A good example would be the Garland, TX, massacre or cartoonists (similar to Charlie Hebdo). Does everybody remember the particulars of that glorious victory of Allah, the martyrs who accomplished such magnificent murders of the Great Satan, and on and on? No, nobody remembers it, because one man with a gun killed both those dumbasses before they even started. We all need to just GUN UP!!!

  20. avatar Anonymous says:

    Yep – they are never going to quit until all handguns, MSRs, semi-automatic rifles, and rifles that are black in color are banned. We will be able to own one single shot break over shotgun or one single shot rifle with a one year waiting period, background checks, fingerprinting, CLEO sign offs, ridiculous sums of British style unnecessary paperwork, licensing, fees, registration, insurance, and a mandatory permit and declaration of shame that must be carried at all times.

    But they will still “support” the second amendment while they implement these.

    Bloomberg will still have his guards with SMGs however. That’s permitted.

  21. avatar MLee says:

    Yeah but but…..gun crimes are down everywhere since the 90s….except maybe that sh– hole Chicago
    You can’t attribute a reduction to one just thing. I thought that’s why they want to fund the government gun research thing again?
    Boxer must be so stupid to believe that we all can’t read a simple graph on gun violence by the decade.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Ah NO MLee-the murder rate was MUCH higher in Chicago in the 90’s. No cell phone cameras or 24/7 news then. Check it out on the interwebz…

    2. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      SEE: Crime in Chicago on wikipedia…much worse years ago.

  22. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Just saw a rumor(on FB) that bury soetoro is announcing “executive action” on his address to the nation tomorrow. Massive civil war to follow…unless it’s halting muslim invasion LOL.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Just heard the same thing on the 9:30 pm EST radio news.

      A special address from the White House on Sunday evening.

      Anybody want to lay bets?

      1. avatar CRF says:

        He hasn’t the requisite testicular fortitude to do such a thing. Though, if he does, I fear more and more for this country’s future.

        1. avatar JSJ says:

          Geoff, I’m in for a buck or two on his using Executive Orders to expand background checks and require them on all sales and transfers except those between family members.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        JSJ, I think he’ll announce making those on the ‘no-fly’ list denied gun approval.

      3. avatar Raoul Duke says:

        More import bans. That is all he can do.

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    Take a Democrat shooting, and teach him the Four Rules. Rule Number One — stand behind the target.

    1. avatar JSJ says:

      The art of Zen shooting, you become one with the target.

  24. avatar Highwayman says:

    Gun control advocates feel that their time to act is now. For the last few months it seems that they have controlled the narrative. Since the tv reporter and cameraman were murdered in Virginia all forms of media have kept up a negative portrayal of guns.
    The negativity in print and on TV is relentless, it’s as if it is orchestrated. The gun control lobby has the ear of the media, and they use it effectively.
    Every time there is one of these incidents the incessant cry is that we need to do something about guns and the NRA also gets bashed pretty good too.
    ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NEW YORK TIMES, local tv and newspapers echo the drumbeat from the Whitehouse. Our facts don’t matter cause they don’t get honestly reported. The Civilian Disarmament Propaganda Machine is on a roll.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Actually, this has been going on full tilt since the day after th gay marriage ruling, since those activists now have nothing to complain about. So they moved to the next item down on the liberal agenda (sure puts into question their motives in pushing the gay marriage issue, too)

  25. avatar ButtMunch says:

    You fail to take into consideration the 10’s of thousands that are ready to remove the government when the civil uprising happens.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I’m not seeing it. Americans aren’t just a peaceful people, they’re a passive people. So long as they have enough Doritos and Happy Meals to feed their obese children and enough pot to keep themselves anesthetized, they will kowtow to whatever their rulers want.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Don’t forget the NFL. Superbowl Sunday is approaching, and nothing will detract attention from that.

        Cuz, you know, commercials on TV are so important to our survival. Or something.

        Between the “holidays” and the superbowl, the next two months are the perfect time to enact whatever…

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          JR_in_NC –

          I’ve heard the story years back when a network pre-empted the last few minutes of an NFL football game and their telephones didn’t just melt down, they burst into flame…

  26. avatar jesse bogan says:

    So we are one supreme court appointment away…. From what? Even if they had the balls to declare a ratified part of the bill of rights to be “unconstitutional”,no one with even a democrat sized working brain would comply. Words on paper cannot rule you unless you voluntarily choose to comply. That is the big secret big government prays we never figure out. Look at New York, and Connecticut after their commie legislatures passed bad gun laws. The compliance rate is so low they will not tell you what they are. In LA, LA!!!, where the commie government passed a law demanding the surrendering of your personal property , IE standard capacity magazines, the number turned in is exactly 0. Do not submit, do not comply. Our rights are God given, and not dependent on what the tyrannical government of the moment thinks is best for you.
    My answer to them is simple. No. Your move.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” Words on paper cannot rule you unless you voluntarily choose to comply. That is the big secret big government prays we never figure out. “

      The secret is out in a big way and has been for decades.

      This was the very essence behind Heinlein’s “Rational Anarchy” philosophy outlined in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.”

      (Contrary to the nature of the term, it had nothing to do with “anarchy” per se…it was just a term Heinlein chose to describe the philosophy).

      No, wait. It has been out since the Founding Fathers did their bit to alter human history. There’s all that “Endowed by their creator” and “inalienable” business they mentioned….

  27. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    That last part there is key, take a new person shooting, don’t be a dick either while you are shooting or while teaching a new person to shoot, don’t give them more than they can handle, and focus on safety and having a good time.

    The last person took shooting was an Aussie coworker, we maybe shot half a box of 9mm and most of a pmag out of the AR, we went at his speed, we spent a lot of time talking about function and safety followed by a lot of dry fire. He spent the entire next week raving about what a load of fun he had.

  28. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    I’m pretty sure my rights are safe regardless of elections, laws or rulings.

    If you lot want to surrender them for fear of being branded a criminal, well then that’s on you.

  29. avatar jesse bogan says:

    No, the civil right destroyers masquerading as the gun control movement does not “have the ear of the MSM.” They ARE the MSM. And the Democrat party (which is indistinguishable from the communist party), and Academia. And the SJW “movement” And the (some) Black Lives Matter movement. Wake the heck up will ya?And the GOPe is part of the above too. Just a charade to the not paying attention Americans, so it seems there are 2 sides of the coin.

    Vote against EVERY incumbent. If we don’t right the ship NOW America will be done for in the very near future.

  30. avatar JPD says:

    Just took a newbie to the range yesterday. With her new LC9S Pro. Another next week. She has a Taurus 357, but has never fired it or any other firearm. Oh yeah, one more person in the pipeline. So…..talk it up, invite to the range. Best idea ever.

  31. avatar Anonymoose says:

    We need to remove these lefty scumsuckers from office. Since getting into guns I’ve found myself running farther and farther to the Right Wing, even though I used to be somewhat of a liberal treehugger. The Right of Self Defense is the absolute most important right we have, and all other rights rest on it.

    1. avatar IYearnforanARinCali says:

      My sentiments exactly. The more interested you become in your second amendment rights the more you see how much the rest of the party wants to take them from you. This San
      Bernadino terrorist attack and it’s subsequent anti-gun news coverage (smear campaign) has opened my family’s eyes to the tactics used by the MSM advocating for removing our 2nd amendment rights, here in Cali.

      I for one want no part of it and will vote on this issue.

  32. avatar Wrightl3 says:

    Exactly why I plan on registering to vote.

  33. avatar W says:

    Suppose you’re a Huckabee supporter and Rubio gets the nomination. Please don’t pout, stay home, and enable HRC.

    1. avatar ChiDog says:

      Ulster County (NY) Sheriff Paul Van Barclun

  34. avatar Bud Harton says:

    While i agree with everything RF wrote, I still see a problem for the anti-gunners.

    That’s people like me. I am 68 years old so I am probably waaaayyy past half way through my life. I have been sworn to honor, support and defend the Constitution a number of times going all the way back to when I was 18. It would be really hard for me at this point in time to change my opinion of or for that matter my love for the US Constitution.

    Have any of the anti-gunners (like the Editorial Board of the NY Times) really considered what taking my guns away from me would involve?

    You see I really believe that the 2nd Amendment was put there to keep government in place.

    No, really. I was taught that from a very early age. I have lived my life knowing that thought was the absolute truth and I have also spent my entire life watching how governments routinely slaughter their own citizens.

    The ones that don’t have the protection of the 2nd Amendment.

    You know, everyone else.

    Quoting historical challenges like “Molon Labe” and “from my cold dead hands” is all well and good but frankly. somewhat theatrical but what about people like me?

    Because while those challenges may be true, I’ll never say them because I will be too busy reloading.

    You see I honestly believe I need my firearms in order to protect my family and me from radicalized Islamic terrorist, gang members, armed robbers and what is becoming entirely possible my own government.

    No one really considers “what if” people like me, and i hardly consider myself to be the only one, decide no, you can’t have my guns.

    Do they seriously think I would just hand them over?

    1. avatar Hasdrubal says:

      You’re not thinking the long game. They don’t need to go door to door, they need to change the culture. Young people don’t want to smoke anywhere near as much as they did when I was in high school, and that’s only 15 years ago. If the youth start to perceive guns as uncool, then all they have to do is wait.

      Eventually, when we pass on, they are horrified to discover we didn’t turn the guns in when we were supposed to. This summer, I went to a 911 call where a Vietnam era Army Ranger had died without telling his wife about the box of grenade fuses and military explosives he left in the attic. EOD got called out and took the stuff for disposal. The same will happen to your guns and mine if we don’t make damned sure to teach the next generation properly.

      I bet you’ve already done this, and I’m just starting to now (son turns 4 in January and gets a pellet rifle), but how many others will fail?

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        The issue they face with that is guns are cool, and there will always be cool portrayals of guns around. I just saw a movie today, and one of the movie posters prominently on the front of the theater was for Spectre, with James Bond looking cool in his tux and silenced Walther PPK combo. Call of Duty, as ridiculous as it is, will introduce people to ARs, AKs, holographic scopes, and all that fun tacticool silliness. So your movie watching, CoD playing kid goes to a range and rents a Glock and an M4gery, and discovers this stuff is a blast in real life too. Then it’s up to the rest of the shooting community to bring them along.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Have any of the anti-gunners (like the Editorial Board of the NY Times) really considered what taking my guns away from me would involve?”

      A silly question, actually. The people you address are living in La-La land or they wouldn’t even want such a thing, imagining it to be simple is a piece of cake for them. If push ever does come to shove, we’ll need to figure out how to kill every adult who is not capable of defending him/herself, they are the enemy.

  35. avatar Joe says:

    How do you like ISIS on Facebook, pledge allegiance to them online, travel to Pakistan, and have connections with radical mosques and imams and NOT be on the feds radar? Epic effing failure NSA/FBI/DHS/TSA/Alphabet soup worthless boated POS unConstitutional gencies..

    1. avatar JSJ says:

      Gun control is the first thing the California shooting proved does not work.
      The NSA’s bulk data collection program is the second.

      1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        ^Truth right there ^

  36. avatar Silver says:

    Technically, we can’t lose our rights to the Democratic process. We can certainly willingly abide by the illegal and immoral oppression placed upon us, but the right is not lost. It can’t be lost because it’s a natural right. We merely agree to be subjugated.

    Perhaps we should stop doing that.

  37. avatar mark bennett says:

    To my American friends I wish you the very best luck.

    I wouldn’t go down the immigration route as a solution as unless you are a native indian then you are an immigrant as well and we all know what the original immigrants did the native indians.

    No the answer has to be controlled immigration of the right people – yes a few bad ones will get through. At the moment me as a white European that has a generation going back many centuries gets the third degree treatment when I come to the USA. That is I come to visit, to stay within the law, spend dollars and take home good memories – I don’t come to get welfare or cause issues. Yet I and others get treated as if we will.

    So all the time and money wasted on us could be diverted to to target the likely crowd – see photos of the California couple to give you a big clue what they look like….

    On the other side we as shooters need to go on a winning offensive – I am a happy gun owning individual who loves his pistols, revolvers, semi autos and hunting rifles.

    Those of you who have friends or relatives who have never shot have to get these people onboard. A hunting weekend, a trip to the range, etc. Every person that comes through that is another on our side and one to help best those anti-idiots who would disarm everyone and then the terrorists and killers have free roam.

    Fight hard and keep fighting – I think we are in our darkest days of the struggle.

    God bless the good folks…

    Mark (member and supporter of the NRA, but living in Europe and caring for you guys)

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      Yeah, no. We as Americans can reduce immigration. the whole “you can not reduce immigration unless you a Native America” but is a tried cliche, we have every right to reduce immigration as this is our nation, and the will suffer the same faith the natives did if we do not take action.

  38. avatar Hamman says:

    If this latest attack somehow enables the anti gun regime in power to further restrict our rights the terrorists will have a victory.

    Barbara Boxer is a terrorist.

  39. avatar Southern Cross says:

    The anti-gun diatribes in the Australian media since San Bernadino has been deafening, until the point where the ethnicity and allegiance of the perpetrators was revealed.

    What the anti-gun media progressives don’t realize is that Americans don’t want to be victims.

    While being a victim might give you moral authority, it’s difficult to have any moral authority if you are dead!

  40. avatar 2Asux says:

    RF has it right. How many gun rights surveys indicate the public is split nearly 50-50 on the idea of unfettered gun possession? When the populace is so evenly divided, elections matter, court cases matter. No provision of the constitution or BOR is immune from destruction through “the democratic process”. The nation went crazy in the 1920s and banned alcohol consumption, really. Yes, the amendment was overrun by another amendment, but the original denial of the right of citizens to be safe in their homes (free of government interference with their choice to consume booze, or not) was not illegal, or executive ordered, or done by majority vote in the congress. We stand on the precipice. Always.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email