Why The Left Should Thank Conservative Gun Owners

I’m one generation removed from the Holocaust. My father was a survivor. My grandparents were not. That’s one very important reason why I’m a gun owner: to prevent and/or defend against government genocide. Walking that back a bit, I’m armed against government tyranny.

If, for example, the U.S. government created death squads to eliminate political opponents, I’d be armed against them, defending myself and those targeted for extra-legal assassination.

Writing for theguardian.com, Rebecca Solnit reckons that’s where America is headed, now that Donald Trump is President-elect.

In the United States we are probably headed for a very grim phase of uncertain duration. We will see much that we love under attack. . .

We would do well to study the countries that have sunk into tyranny or despotism and survived. To discover how Argentina and Chile and Brazil went through an era of dictators and death squads and emerged, in part because people like the Argentinian women in las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo stood up to their fears and their regime.

El Salvador is now governed by the FMLN, which fought against the death squads in the 1980s, and Chile’s current president is Michelle Bachelet, who was kidnapped and tortured under the Pinochet regime. Most of the countries in our hemisphere besides Canada have gone into horror and emerged, many more than once . . .

Note that Ms. Solnit credits peaceful protesters as “part” of the overthrow of homicidal South American dictators.

She makes no mention of the fact that the oppressed people overthrew the fascists and murderers by force of arms. El Salvador’s FMLN, for example, only managed to get the government to the negotiating table after battlefield victories.

Other liberals fearing a Donald Trump-led tyranny aren’t as naive as Ms. Solnit, or, perhaps more accurately, as coy. As we’ve reported, many formerly anti-gun liberals have suddenly found ballistic religion. They suddenly see the potential future than The People of the Gun have kept in their minds since 1776.

It must be said: the libs’ hypocrisy is stunning. These are the same people who cheered when Barack Obama dissed conservative gun owners as paranoid fantasists who “cling to their guns and their religion.” The same people who worked, indeed still work, to implement gun control.

These Johnny-come-lately gun owners owe conservative gun owners yes, even the NRA, a tremendous debt of gratitude. We conserved (i.e. protected) their right to keep and bear arms.

In fact, if it weren’t for armed Americans, there wouldn’t be liberals. Government tyranny would have swept them aside long ago. And us as well.

We have a responsibility not just to our country but to the world to contain and weaken and try to defeat Trump and Trumpism to the best of our abilities. Those of us who are not in immediate peril have a grave responsibility to those who are.

Substitute the word “fascists” for “Trump” and “fascism” for “Trumpism,” accept that this “grave responsibility” needs ballistic back-up, and we’re right there with you Ms. Solnit — believe it or not.

Meanwhile, I’d like to point out that fascism is a liberal disease; the Nazis that killed my family were socialists after all. Sad to say, I don’t expect liberal gun owners to make that connection, or to remember it’s us vs. the government. Any government.

But I’ll say this” if and when left-leaning politicians return to power, rest assured that we won’t give up our guns. Why should we?

comments

  1. avatar Billy says:

    Clinging to their guns and progressiveness…

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      And this is why the right loses Rob…We are willing to protect our enemies.

      Do you think they would do the same for us? They will not, so why bother protecting them? Hell they have been waging and inter generational war against us, our rights, our nation, hell against the very make up of this nation, and you would protect the ones who started this crap…..Why again?

      They started this war against us, and if that means to end it they have to be throw out of helicopters or be deported to the beloved 3rd world they adore so much, then so be it.

      1. avatar Vcaine says:

        This!!!

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Clinging to their guns and climate change is more like it.

  2. avatar Ralph says:

    I’d rather arm every Crip, Blood and MS-13 with automatic weapons on my own dime than see a single leftist with a twenty-two.

    1. avatar James Stewart says:

      Wow, you’d cry if you saw my gun closet then.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      Can you tell me which particular gun would make you most mad, so that I can add it to my liberal arsenal of 40+?

    3. avatar pwrserge says:

      Agreed. Ganbangers aren’t known for mass murder on an industrial scale. Leftists are.

  3. avatar Nanashi says:

    Unfortunately we already lost the protection of the 2A in 1934 and had slavery reintroduced by Presidential fiat in Feb 1942, both of which were upheld by the most corrupt supreme court in history.

    1. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

      I’d say the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 is where the the feds really got us by the ‘nads. Thank you greatest generation! May I have another?

      1. avatar Katy says:

        Not sure I would call the members of legislature at the time part of the greatest – those folks were busy ducking into foxholes in 1943.

  4. avatar David says:

    History does not repeat itself per se. However, it frequently echoes rather loudly…

    1. avatar Humphrey Dinduton says:

      (((Echoes))), you say?

  5. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

    I am tired of Progressive projection of their own hate upon the rest of us. I am particularly tired of the Trump as Hitler mene. Trump is the one with the Orthodox Jewish Son-in-Law, the converted to Orthodox Judaism daughter and the strong supporter of Israel’s right to exist. The defining element of Nazism isn’t concentration camps, secret police or the suppression of political opponents. There are lots of governments with and without ideology that do/have done that. The defining characteristic of Nazism is Jew hatred. If anybody fits the Hitler narrative it’s Obama, not Trump.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Nailed it!

      I know that you never favored Trump (yes, that’s an understatement), but you never fell into the trap of likening him to that pr!ck, Hitler.

      1. avatar tdiinva (now in wisconsin) says:

        That doesn’t mean I didn’t vote for him.

    2. avatar Parnell says:

      I think you put that extremely well. The antisemitism of the Nazi regime was the defining difference between them and the other repressive regimes of the twentieth century.

    3. avatar tmm says:

      Remember Bush = Hitler? Nothing new.

      And the Nazis didn’t invent anti-Semitism.

  6. avatar neiowa says:

    The marxists in this country are loosing their (addled) minds over the reality of adults controlling the Presidency/House/Senate beginning in Jan. Pretty damn funny.

    1. avatar the ruester says:

      It’s like they think they are Anne Frank and people take them seriously.

  7. avatar James Stewart says:

    This article is just inflammatory. There are many of us leftists that own firearms, strongly support the 2nd amendment, and voted for Trump!

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Liberals are decent folk who peacefully own firearms. Leftists are dangerous scvm. So which are you again?

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Spot on.
        JFK and Patrick Moynihan were liberals whereas todays Democratic party is mainly controlled by Leftists.

      2. avatar James Stewart says:

        I believe in individual rights and laws to protect individuals from government and corporate overreach. Have the wealthy, corporations, and churches pay their share of taxes. Maybe I’m a Socialist and supporting the 2nd amendment is just my way of socializing homeland defense? Hehe

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Well, if you’re a socialist… You’re officially supporting a policy that killed 250 million people in the 20th century alone.

        2. avatar GS650G says:

          So Mr. James Stewart is now implying the corporations and “rich” don’t pay their fair share of taxes, which is what exactly and how is it determined?
          20%? 50%? 90%?
          You do realize companies don’t pay taxes, people do. Think about it.

    2. avatar C.S. says:

      There are true/classic liberals, and there are Progressives. As far as I can tell, being a Progressive is just a nicer way of saying Communist, because words matter… If someone can explain to me otherwise, I’ll happily listen.

      1. avatar Matt inTx says:

        I was just thinking the same thing. “Leftist” or “Progressive” is just another word for communist. All three would happily throw you into a prison for what you think.

    3. avatar fishydude says:

      Classical liberals is a better description.
      The ‘leftists’ believe only the government and criminals should have guns. They also have no qualms about killing those who oppose them.
      Obama buddy Bill Ayers is known for saying their revolution would require murdering 10 to 20 million who refused to submit.
      A ‘liberal’ who owns guns and votes for democrats is one who is clearly voting against one’s own self interest.
      The irony is that modern ‘liberals’ define voting against one’s self interest as voting for anyone who says they will lower taxes and decrease the size and scope of government.

  8. avatar Mister Fister says:

    Am I the only who baffled by the continued use of liberal/conservative?

    Many of you consider yourself conservative – but 2A rights is actually a concept of liberalism – i.e. free to do what you want to do. Conservative philosophy is to LIMIT those – tell them what they can and can’t do.

    So, you’re a liberal if you want women’s reproductive health, but you’re a conservative if you support gun rights?

    And you’re a liberal if you want to tell everyone they have to have health care, but a conservative if you want state’s rights?

    Just baffling.

    1. avatar James Stewart says:

      This, exactly!

      1. So YOU support killing defenseless, viable children in the womb. It’s nice to know that according to YOUR ie. Liberals/Progressives standards the rest of America can go out into the street and kill every defenseless person they come across without fear of prosecution.

    2. Define “women’s reproductive health”.

      1. It’s ALL about the “narrative” remember when “they” held signs demanding “ABORTION”? “THEY”, the “Left” keep changing the terms because “ABORTION” has a negative connotation (as it should) just like “Gay marriage” became “Marriage ‘Equality’, it makes me want to puke.

        Oh and “Gay Marriage” yeah as a 50 year old male a “rough” kind of guy, I had to explain THAT one to my “proper” 90 year old mother-in-law who asked how Gay man and women “do it” ie. consumate their “marriage” when she saw that crap in her newpaper and began inquiring (you should’ve seen her face). Guess what? After voting Democrat her entire life she voted for the GOP John McCain that year

    3. avatar Rincoln says:

      You seem to have a novel definition of conservatism. The only thing they want to “conserve” is your rights. It is not the “we must have a law for this” sect like liberalism. It is the “there’s no reason to have a law for this” sect. Conservatives believe in limited (conservative) government and the minimal amount of “law” possible. Liberals (a true misnomer) believe that the government must regulate every part of its subjects’ lives, because they cannot possibly do it on their own. Their “freedom” must be mandated. They can’t be trusted to get along.

      There are a few nutjob zealots who don’t follow the conservative values, and indeed impose their own will on the people. Thus why calling either party liberal or conservative is patently false. True liberals ARE conservative and only create law to protect people FROM the government. Both members on the left and right create laws that inhibit liberty. The party system really needs to be abolished, as it is tantamount to organized crime, made glaringly apparent this election cycle.

    4. avatar Ralph says:

      I favor guns and abortion. No, not “a woman’s reproductive health,” or whatever Madison Avenue slogan you use.

      “Right to choose?” Unless she was raped or suffered a catastrophic failure of contraception, the woman already chose when she let the guy ride bareback.

      As for me, I call it was it is — abortion — and I favor it. Judging by the cretins running around America, we need a lot more abortions, and a lot more guns.

      Am I a conservative? I don’t think so.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        I agree with this 100%.

    5. avatar TXLawyer says:

      Blame your confusion on F.D.R. He was a socialist/progressive.

      These one/two political philosophies were anathema to classic American political ideologies, but people are stupid. Knowing people are stupid, Roosevelt said I’m not a socialist/progressive, I’m a liberal and the Republicans are conservatives.

      Conservative came to mean what liberal meant, and liberal came to mean socialist/progressive. It turns out socialism/progressivism is still anathema to a large portion of Americans’ value systems. That’s why Democrats are calling themselves progressives now instead of liberals. Progressive is a vague term that literally means someone who believes in progress or that history is progressive, i.e., that it is moving inevitably towards a better future. Socialism is a progressive political philosophy that believes “the march of history” will inevitably lead from an agrarian society to a corrupt capitalist to a communist government run society to a governmentless socialist utopia

      As a side note, the term conservative, when used in a political context, originally meant support for monarchy. It made sense to use that term to describe American liberals because virtually no one in America was a conservative, so no one used the political term and liberals were largely conservative in a non political sense. They believed in well ordered liberty.

      1. avatar Mister Fister says:

        Even the socialists couldn’t agree on what socialism meant. Stalin believed in “communism in one country” while Trotsky believed in what you’re describing – a progressive movement toward socialist utopia.

        We all know what happened to Trotsky.

        Anyways, thanks for clearing some of this up.

        I don’t know what label to call me, just keep your government hands off my guns, land, money, body, and mind.

        1. avatar TXLawyer says:

          Yeah, the meaning of words are murky enough (especially words describing complex ideas like a political philosophy) without someone coming along and convincing the majority of people that certain words mean the opposite of what they previously meant. Do those words still mean what they meant? (It’s a rhetorical question, I don’t expect there is an answer).

    6. avatar Davis Thompson says:

      Conservative/Constitutionalist/Libertarian: Favors a limited federal government which constrains itself to the enumerated powers in the Constitution and maximum possible freedom for the individual.

      Liberal/Leftist/Progressive/Statist: Favors less power for the individual and more for the state. Does not necessarily trust the individual to look after his or her own interests.

      Of course, on each individual issue you will find great variance, but in general these are the guidelines. More simply: would you rather be free or equal? Conservatives answer “free” and liberals answer “equal.”

      As for gun control, it is, by definition, a product of liberal/leftist/statist thinking.

      1. avatar Matt inTx says:

        Stole this right away and facebooked it.

    7. avatar strych9 says:

      “Am I the only who baffled by the continued use of liberal/conservative?”

      There is a difference between a Classical Liberal and a Modern American/Modern Western Liberal. The latter is anything but liberal in the classical sense. They’re statists.

      Modern Conservatives are, in effect, the new Classical Liberals. These things changed in the 1960’s when the hard lefties, who had gone full circle back to Classical Conservatism (statism) appropriated the title of Liberal for themselves. It’s lie. In reality the title changes nothing more than if I decided to identify as a UH-64 Apache. I can say it all I want but that doesn’t make it true.

      Don’t fall for the lefty new-speak, which is all these titles are at this point. The political struggle of our age in the Western world is whether or not we will continue to embrace those things which made us “the West” or if we will follow the lies and relabeling and embark back down the path laid out for us by the very same type of statists we overcame to create the modern Western world.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        That’s left (old) “new-speak”. Conservatism is still NOT anything goes, if it’s “statist” it’s not Conservatism. It’s a matter of equality. Equal is Equal, anything else. . . ISN’T. Saying you’re a Conservative doesn’t make-it-so, and paying someone else to call you one DOESN’T MAKE-IT-SO EITHER.

        Conservatism has not changed much. If Conservatives haven’t killed you for being a POS liberal, THAT IS CONSERVATISM. But I wouldn’t bank on that policy continuing.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          In North American history Classical Conservatives wore a red coat and would shoot you for talking shit about the King.

          Classical Conservatives were statists, usually Monarchists. Classical Liberals were the lovers of liberty. Today Conservatives are the lovers of liberty and the Liberals have stolen the term “liberal” and slapped it on a box full of fascism.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Conservatism didn’t start with the U.S. Colonies (and would not exist at all if it did not start from GOD with Adam).

          Many people have worn the mantle of “conservative” where it doesn’t fit. But conservatives have always loved liberty, their professed inhibitions are only a pronounced threat that the inpinging/infringing actions deemed a threat to continued Society.

  9. avatar Joe R. says:

    The liberals are PROJECTING and that’s a Saul Alinsky rule up near the top of the list.

    F them all in the eye, f the guardian.

    Nobody suffered immediate loss (of life) like the Christians in Poland who attempted to counter the Blitzkrieg (the Poles were the first to see it and they were, despite the shock and awe, definitely steel that sharpened Hitler’s steel). The Blitzkrieg worked, but people fell in direct countermand and in attempting to protect/hide the Jews.

    Next person who says Trump is Hitler deserves a 4 hour wet flip-flop beating. If Trump does go Hitler on us he better watch his ass ’cause were still ready to go from the last election on many matters.

    Nobody at the Guardian ever gave a flying F what a POS Communist / muslim radical sympathizer Ohole was
    SO FU<K THEM

    We all know the Guardian is fake news, we all know to keep an eye on them, but you've multiplied their readership by thousands citing them here.

  10. Typical argument with a Liberal:
    L: You don’t need a thirty round clip to hunt deer.
    Me: I don’t hunt.
    L: Well then why do you need so many guns?
    Me: To fight a tyrannical government.
    L: You are insane! The U.S. isn’t ever going to become a tyrannical dictatorship.
    Me: You know why?

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      The correct answer to that is: “What do you think of Donald Trump?”

      https://youtu.be/JvAbophptmM?t=3m2s

      1. avatar int19h says:

        I’m a “leftist” liberal, and I approve of this message. Spread it around. Trump is a bucket full of shit, but if there’s anything good to come out of it, it’s the learning experience for the liberals.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I consider the utter destruction of the Democratic party to be a good outcome for the elections. Just look at them, they’ve been doubling down on stupid ever since they lost. Hell, they gave us concrete evidence of DNC voter fraud in a national election. At this rate, we’re going to have the votes to pass constitutional amendments on straight party line votes by 2019.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          What party line votes? You need 3/4 of the states to ratify amendments. 3/4 state legislatures all going to a single party to the point where they can pass amendments by party line vote will never happen, thankfully. At least, not without carving up states into a lot more smaller states, which is a pipe dream itself.

          As for the rest of your opinions, well, we’ve already firmly established that you’re a fascist. Further details hardly matter.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          … and you’re a socialist… Funny how it’s never the fascists who murder millions of people. (Fun fact, Hitler was a socialist, not a fascist.)

          You might want to go back do your math… 3/4 is actually not that hard. It’s 38 states. The GOP currently controls 32 and the DNC only has clear control of 13.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          I don’t believe that all (or even most) means of production should be publicly owned, nor that it should be illegal per se to extract economic rent from them. So no, I’m not a socialist.

          I have to note that this is seemingly the first time you didn’t object to the “fascist” label being applied to yourself – even though you have defended it on the grounds of “whatever, if leftists call us that, it can’t be bad” before. Did you finally go through the acceptance phase? Are you wearing the badge proudly now?

          As far as how many people fascists have killed – well, we could ask the citizens of Italy, Austria, Romania, Hungary… or Ethiopia, for that matter. Of course, your coalition has genuine Nazis, too, so it’s not like there will be deficiencies on that matter, either. I’ll grant you that you personally aren’t a Nazi though. Not racist enough; although, as all right-wing authoritarians, you definitely have the streak.

          As for the Constitution and the states – well, Republicans had to gerrymander the hell out of them to get to the current state of affairs wrt state legislatures; just look at North Carolina! The problem, of course, is that you can only gerrymander so much – at some point, you’re going to get slapped down for the courts, when it becomes just too blatant, and district lines cannot be handwaved away as accident (again, look at NC, and the next year’s special election). What it tells me is that this is more or less the end of the line. Democrats have ways to flip states that don’t expire: urbanization and demographic shifts do it for them. Republicans, now that they have made their bet on a coalition that is inherently demographically challenged, have to play with the cards that they’ve got.

          Or turn the table over. You guys can still come with some crazy ideas, like, say, splitting up some conservative states to get more Senate seats and EC votes, and maybe even enough for that 3/4 majority for constitutional amendments. After all, this only requires a majority vote in Congress, and consent of the state legislature. But the only reason why blue states still aren’t seriously thinking about secession, is because they know that they’ve got a chance in future elections. If you blatantly stack the deck to the point where the other side has no hope, even remote, of ever using democratic mechanisms to regain control, what’s the point of sticking around?

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          The last time the Demokkkrats tried to secede they got their teeth kicked in. This time will be no different. The reality is that they only control 13 states for a reason. It’s because most Americans don’t like working for a living to feed the clowns who vote for a living. The “demographics shifts” only exist because Demokkkrats import illegals by the train load to keep up with their rapid loss of the white working class. Now that we have someone with balls in the white house. I expect America to be importing a whole lot fewer Demokkkratic voters.

          Oh, and you confuse communism (something that has never existed, and can never exist with humans in the picture) with socialism. Even under the Soviet Union, not all the means of production were state owned.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          You know that “most Americans” live in those states, right? Who’s going to do the “kicking”? Do you really expect that you, the minority, can subjugate the majority by force of arms? And even if you do, the fact that you dream of such tells volumes about your fascist tendencies.

          Last time any state tried to secede, it was done by people like you. People who believed that only they are capable of understanding and appreciating freedom and liberty, and that others – not like them – had to be subjugated to secure that freedom for posterity. People who didn’t believe that “all men are created equal”. People who didn’t believe that other human beings are people.

          No confusion between communism and socialism, thank you. Socialism is collective (either state regular socialists, or some kind of self-organizing collective for anarchists) ownership of the means of production in a class-based society. Communism is the hypothetical future stateless and classless society that is the endgame, as far as Marxists are concerned. Any economy in which the means of production is predominantly privately owned is a capitalist economy, by definition. This includes all Western states, from US to Canada to Sweden. High taxes and welfare don’t make socialism.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          You keep spouting bullshit and yet you still haven’t addressed the main facts…

          The reason the Demokkkrats will lose is the same reason they always lose. Sooner or later, you either run out of other people’s money or the ability to own people as property.

          Simple fact is, the DNC was in deep trouble long before Trump took the White House. His inauguration will just be the final nail in their corrupt little coffin. Now that he has the evidence to prove that the DNC has been winning elections by fraud (how quickly people forget the Detroit ballot box stuffing) he has a mandate to eradicate the group responsible. There will never be another DNC controlled Congress. Their party is dead and nothing proves it better than them spending the past two months doubling down on the same retardation that lost them the general election…

          As for the “population” issue… Please try to remember the last time numbers actually made any practical difference in a war. If the few DNC strongholds tried to secede they would get crushed. Both by pro-constitution holdouts in their own states (I’m looking at you upstate NY) and from the fact that such a secession would basically give the sitting president carte blanche to annihilate any vestiges of the DNC remaining in the US.

          I actually sorta hope CA decides to secede in 2018. Watching them get stomped into the ground would be endlessly amusing. This is especially true given that without the rest of the US, they can’t even keep the lights on.

  11. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    It’s weird how the loony left seem to genuinely think that just because Trump was elected, there all of a sudden will be some sort of dictatorship complete with roving death squads. It can only be projection as that’s what they secretly want to happen to those that don’t follow their beliefs totally.

    1. avatar Ironhead says:

      They see trump as some sort of super dictator. But somehow miss all the corruption and hate coming from the clintons.
      Even if I was ever a Clinton supporter, which I never was, the basket of deplorables comment would have turned me off to her faster than any of her corruption scandals…. well except for benghazi. Insulting the people you expect to vote for you is both haughty and insane. It, to me at least showed how disconnected her brain really is.
      I agree with Ralph I don’t want to see people associated with trying to get that vile woman elected. They have no concept of reality or moral responsibility.

    2. avatar Klaus says:

      And no one seems to realize how much closer we have been to a dictatorship with the guy who has a phone and a pen. Especially the pen.

  12. avatar Mad Max says:

    I think they confuse American nationalism (a.k.a. – patriotism) with European ethnic nationalism. The Left is so anti-America, it is easy for them to do.

    Hopefully, contrary to what the Leftists believe, Trump will keep his promise to support the Bill of Rights by signing pro-gun legislation and vetoing anti-gun legislation.

    1. avatar TXLawyer says:

      “I think they confuse American nationalism (a.k.a. – patriotism) with European ethnic nationalism.” – Exactly.

      American nationalism cannot be ethnic nationalism. I’m the descendant of English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh colonists. Those are four different ethnicities that all hated each other at some point in history. Since all those ancestors arrived here on or before the Mayflower, I’m probably just about everything else from Europe too. I either don’t have an ethnicity or I have one that is inherently inclusive.

      Saying that my ethnicity is “white” is like saying “Chinese, Japanese, Korean, what’s the difference.” The answer is “a lot, a lot is the difference.”

      1. avatar Friedrich Schmidt says:

        Your view of ethnicity is not quite correct. If people of various Asian ethnicities conquered a continent and created a nation in which they assimilated with each other both culturally and genetically, then they would have formed in that nation an Asian ethnicity. Replace “Asian” with “European,” and that is what we have done in the United States. The ethnicity of Americans is European or White. Yes, there are other ethnicities here such as African Americans, but they always have and always will remain as foreign and unassimilated groups who cohabitate with us in our country. Their impact on our culture are only minor contributions to food and music. The founding ideas and institutions of America are White. These other groups that have already been with us for centuries are welcome to coexist as long as they don’t cause too much trouble, but true American nationalism is White nationalism.

        1. avatar TXLawyer says:

          “Race is the classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics or social relations, or the relations between them.” – Wikipedia

          “the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.” – google definition of ethnicity.

          I grew up in a town that had a small African American population and everyone else was white. Or so most of us actually white kids thought until forced to actually examine the racial and ethnic make up of our town. It turns out a large number of those white kids were some kind of Hispanic (most of whom had a fair share of Native American blood), Vietnamese, or Filipino. We just didn’t think about it like that because the media constantly ran the narrative of black vs. white.

          And if you’re right that “Your view of ethnicity is not quite correct. …” Then the ethnicity of America would be either English or British, not white or European. I mean, sure there is plenty of influence from the rest of Europe, but there is also plenty of influence from other places in the world too. And while most of those examples are the exception, not the rule, there are enough exceptions that Americans are not really ethnicly English or British, especially after 400 years of cultural drift. I mean I guess it would be fair to call everyone who speaks English as there main language Anglo like we did a church to differentiate between the English speaking services and programs and the Vietnamese and Spanish speaking ones, but the term Anglo would also include places like England, the Republic of Ireland, Australia, South Africa, and India to name a few. There are a lot more.

          The American ethnicity really is one of a melting pot because most of us can no longer distinguish between this ethnicity and that one. Being from different parts of the United Kingdom (back when it still contained all of Ireland) use to be a huge fucking deal. Papers ran stories saying things like the best thing for America is if every black (black was not the word they used) would kill an Irishman and be hanged for it. (It could have been the other way around).

          My point is that f you you fing Jew hating Nazi Kraut. Hey look there is another example of when being a member of one of many European ethnic groups was not great, and that was in living memory. That’s why African Americans worked security stateside during the war. Once glance and you knew they weren’t fing Krauts. (But with the name Friedrich Schmidt and saying Jews hate America and aren’t American, you really are living up to the now mostly defunct stereotype).

          P.S. I don’t have a problem with Germans or people of German descent, just making a point. Besides, as long as my family and Germans have been here, I probably have a health does of German blood myself. I know I have some Dutch, which is pretty close anyways.

        2. avatar TStew says:

          Cute name, Fred. Named after the architect, maybe? Perhaps you are just another troll that is using the name of an SS commander to be extra special fun, or are you a genuine NAZI prick?
          If you could answer that for certain so I can properly tell you what I think of you, I’d sure appreciate it…

        3. Welcome “Friedrich Schmidt” but beware that are a fair number of “cucks” here.

          #StopWhiteGenocide

  13. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Talking political ideology by geometry ought to start with the Nolan chart, n the Pournelle chart. (Yes, that Pournelle.) Those show some useful distinctions.

    “Left” and right” have roots in who sat where in the French assembly of the new, last and final regieme, after The Glorious Revolution. I don’t recall which last regieme, eternal republic, or Glorious Revolution. At least the Germans number theirs.

    In any case “left” and “right” just fogs things up.

    As for our “leftie” friends n their newly discovered attachment to the right to bear arms… (Also free speech, limited govt, free association n assembly, due process, and even the quaint notion that in the US congress makes laws, not the executive.)

    Welcome to the party.

    Now you get our P O V that government, like a firearm, is a powerful tool, never to be handled casually. Govt, like a fire arm is only useful as much as it can be “dangerous.” With Govt, like a firearm, we have protocols and rules to let us wield that power safely. With Govt, like a fire arm, the key is being ablento point it where it’s needed, without having it destrou anything else. We tolerate these risks because Govt, like a firearm, for all the risks, is sometimes the least bad option. Govt, like a firearm; when you need it, you need it, because nothing else will do.

    Neither govt, nor guns, nor any effective tool makes sense in the hands of someone who refuses to understand what they hold.

    Today we have another example of “I’m Stupid, So Ban Guns”, in which reporter-guy (who had done a prior article on the gun issue, so perhaps ought to know something) picked up a toy “glitter gun”, assumed it wasn’t loaded, aimed it at his eye, and pulled the trigger. (“So, ban all the things.” is assumed and implied. Plays With Sparkles doesn’t come out n say it.)

    This event will doubtless be added to the “gun violence” statistics. Ban assault glitter!

    (We would lose nothing with that ban. Milo, yes, *that* Milo, is a creative chap. He’ll be able to drive the weenies to distraction, glitter or no. I’m not a yuuuge fan, but much like President Elect Trump, Milo is a bizarre, flawed messenger we’d have never seen if the “right” folks had been doing their jobs. More popcorn!)

    Practically, on-point in tbe pereniall holding action against Bloomie’s Brigades, glitter bomb-guy has given us a lovely response to every call to ban lead bullets, cheap ammo, or folding things that go up.

    “Well, when a reporter manages to shoot himself in the eye with a toy glitter “gun”, *after* doing an article on guns, maybe the problem is the stupid, not the gizmo.”

    “Here’s a hint. The stuff only comes out the one end. So, maybe don’t point that at your eye. (What, you stick your face in front of a garden hose n pull the lever and it’s the hose’s fault. Ban assault water!)”

    “Here’s another hint. The thing only “goes off” – maybe – if you pull the trigger. So, maybe don’t do that.”

    “Here’s a last hint. The thing only “goes off” if it’s loaded. So, if you must mess with it, maybe check whether it’s loaded first. (Also, don’t “mess” with a gun. That’s just dumb.)”

    “Last hint. If you get hurt when a gizmo does exactly what it is designed and intended to do, maybe it’s not the gizmo’s fault. Some tbings in the world are not, in fact, fluffy pillows you can’t hurt yourself with no matter what. You might want to figure out which.”

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      They’ll manage to suffocate themselves with a fluffy pillow.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      “Now you get our P O V that government, like a firearm, is a powerful tool, never to be handled casually.”

      You are far, far to charitable.

      The general voter on “the Left” has no idea what you’re talking about and doesn’t have the brain power to understand an explanation. OK, that’s not fair. They’re ignorant and educated indoctrinated which is by design.

      The movers and shakers on the Left have known what you’re talking about for decades. They intend to control government in such a way that it’s dangerous for you not them. That is, quite literally, their Raison D’être. Nothing they do is casual or stupid. It’s calculated and ruthless. It involves, at some point, killing a lot of people in one way or another because those people block the “road to utopia” which is just a bullshit term that means “get in the way of our plans in terms of the state” which, of course, includes wielding supreme power.

      These people, the latter group, are not stupid. They intend to be modern day slave owners with everyone in the country outside the elite bubble as the slaves.

  14. Is that Abbie Hoffman?!?

  15. avatar Klaus says:

    Say what you want but the Argentine’s did know how to handle Marxists and leftists.

  16. “In fact, if it weren’t for armed Americans, there wouldn’t be liberals. Government tyranny would have swept them aside long ago.”

    I’m one generation removed from the Holocaust as well. My Father was an armed agent of the US government. He and his generation of American conservatives ended the Holocaust.

  17. avatar Ghetto Tarzan says:

    The left wouldn’t lift a finger to help anyone here. What don’t you get about the left being enemies. They’re the bad guys. They can’t be reasoned with and they shouldn’t be protected.

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    I don’t comment much on politics but this is the kind of thing that grinds my gears. I won’t get real deep into this because it would be pages of history and observations but I’ll point out the following.

    The Left loves to raise the specter of Nazism whenever they refer to their political opposition. Now, no party in it’s right mind would openly Neo-Nazis or others others openly espousing Naziish views. Those views and policy objectives are generally abhorrent to rational and normal people.

    So then, why does the Left and the Democratic Party openly embrace Progressives and why does no one call them out on it? Progressives are the ones who invented the like idea of “liquidating the undesirables in society” and using a “humane gas” to do it. You can find clips of George Bernard Shaw on YouTube where’s he’s giving a talk on the subject and says [very close to verbatim here] “If you don’t produce more than you consume then your life is of no value to us and likely isn’t of any value to you”. He goes on to suggest that a board be created and that every citizen be forced, upon pain of death, to show up to the board every so often and “justify your existence”. It’s pretty fucking clear what happens if you fail to justify your existence to the satisfaction of the board here folks, pretty fucking clear: it’s the gas for you.

    These are the folks that decided that Jews were not generally worthy of continuing to draw breath due to their presence in the banking industry which “produced nothing of value”. Ditto gypsies. While Gypsies were just loafers it needs to be understood that Jews were blamed across Europe for WWI and that this scapegoating was especially popular in Germany which was suffering rather greatly under the rules imposed on it by the Treaty of Versailles following their loss in that war. It was a popular idea that they produced nothing of value to society and caused the war, which made them as a group rather disliked and also made it acceptable to think of them as sub-human. The rest is history even kids know.

    Let’s be honest here: Hitler mainly got his ideas on who was and who was not fit to be in society mainly from the Progressives. He added a bit of old fashioned racism to the whole thing with his “pure race” shit sure, but the basic idea was championed by Progressives as early as the 1910’s and has it’s roots in the Fabian Socialism of Britain going back to the mid 1880’s (1884 to be precise). The concept being that there are groups of people who via laziness (or Jewiness as it may be) are holding society back which is why Socialist Revolutions don’t work and fail over time. Therefore to reach the socialist utopia we must gradually work to get there and such work requires the elimination, over time, of those who block the road to utopia. The lazy, the disabled, the old, those who disagree with “us” and anyone else “we” just don’t really like.

    Stop the bullshit. The history of the Progressive movement is drenched in the blood of innocent people from the jump. It’s a sick, twisted, fucked up way of thinking that demands conformity or death and has absolutely no problem working people to death like slaves in the sugarcane fields of old (or new in the case of Cuba) to advance it’s own agenda. In the eyes of a Progressive you are chattel, a pawn of the state to be used and discarded at the whim of those who pull the levers of power.

    When the Left talks about “death squads” they need to look in the fucking mirror. Quite frankly when people identify as Progressives I automatically assume them to be 1) stupid 2) ignorant, 3) people who have no problem with mass murder or 4) all three. My personal feelings towards them approach the feelings Serge has about Commies. The distinction, possibly without a difference, with Commies is that while they do the same basic things as Progressives they don’t start from the idea that mass murder is acceptable/necessary. It becomes necessary as their plans fall apart. The Progressives, IMHO, are worse because they start from the premise that mass murder is acceptable and necessary. It’s not an unpleasant job that might or might have to be done, it’s part of their stated goal from the jump.

    So, in closing I say this: Fuck Progressives and fuck the Left for embracing them. In my eyes you’re all a couple fries short of a Happy Meal and history suggests that while you don’t tend to say it publicly now, you’re perfectly A-OK with mass murder of your political opposition. I’ve met you fuck-tards in private and I’ve heard this view espoused as late as this year. You can even find people like that Brit Twit (Piers Morgan) who was fired from CNN talking about machine-gunning the folks he doesn’t like. Mass murder is not just a fantasy on the Left, when they’re truly in power it’s business as usual.

    Sorry about that rant above. This really does piss me off. Mass-murder-championing assholes masquerading as peaceniks and getting away with it because no one calls them out.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Very well said. Thank you. It is the evil of the administrative (i.e., progressive) state that allows and promotes the kind of authoritarian/totalitarian state that Nazism, Fascism, and Communism represent. History shows us that there’s a very short step from the progressive’s eugenics to Hitler’s “final solution” for the Jews. Those horrors come from the various administrative state models of the hard left. It is the left, that argues for a one-world government (see Agenda 21) and rationally discusses the practicality of withholding medical care from elderly people who “no longer contribute”. Not surprisingly, it is also people like that who are also fixated on disarming private citizens.

      One of the great canards of modern politics is the left’s claim that Donald Trump is a Fascist or Nazi when he is, in fact, a sterling example of the kind of market-capitalist who has historically led the charge against the murderous practices of the left. Guns up.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Actually that was pretty poorly written. I need to stop using my phone for this because editing a post longer than a few lines while using such a device is a skill that escapes me.

        The issue that I see with this is that you can find the same root tendencies in everything the Left proposes. No matter what set of policies you look at with them a ton of people are going to die.

        Withholding medical care for the elderly isn’t much different from their ideas on Global Warming/Climate Change/Whatever The Fuck They Call It Today. They want to withhold the resources of electricity generation and power distribution from people so that we’re “Green” but that will, quite literally, kill hundreds of millions if not a few billion people. When you get these dickbags in private and talk to them like you’re one of them they’ll tell you that this will happen and that it’s necessary. Earth simply cannot support our current population and a lot of people need to die.

        Convenient how the same assholes who say this think they’re the ones who get to decide who lives in opulence and who dies in filth and poverty for want of resources that the elite are “controlling”. Call me a jerk but when I hear people say this sort of shit my first thought is “You first, buddy”.

        You can see this with gun control as well. Gun grabbers don’t hate guns they want to control them. A shockingly large proportion of the “elites” who champion this stuff have been caught saying things that make it clear that their idea is to control all the guns and, if necessary, use them to “control” a population unwilling to bend to their desires. When it comes to “death squads” the Left reigns supreme.

        You can go down the list of policy objectives for the Left and you’ll always find that, at some level, they’re talking about controlling something in a way that’s going to end a lot of lives. Usually, that’s a big part of the point of the control; to kill those who are “undesirable”.

        Leftists disgust me. It’s really that simple. I don’t hate them, but if they all decided to suck-start a pistol tomorrow morning I wouldn’t be terribly concerned about it.

    2. avatar Cicero Smith says:

      Well said! Any kind of “progress” towards a perfect utopia requires the removal of all undesirables, whether by Zyklon B or a small caliber round to the back of the head.

      There’s the joke that progressives aren’t in reference to progress as in moving forward, it’s progress as in cancer…

  19. avatar int19h says:

    I’d thank you for the guns – they will indeed come in handy like as not – but then again, you also did elect this guy, so it kinda cancels out.

  20. avatar barnbwt says:

    So good to hear what many on the Left apparently had in store for the rest of us. Not sure which is better, their blatant projection revealing their tyrannical goals for all the world to see and ultimately discredit themselves, or their jilted terror ultimately ending the gun control debate for generations.

    If they are armed, like we are armed, we may at last reclaim a polite and peaceful society based on mutual respect (of lethal force)

  21. avatar Friedrich Schmidt says:

    You begin the article by conspicuously informing us that you are a Jew, and then you declare your willingness to kill Americans acting under the authority of the United States Government, in order to defend Leftists who have for a century been actively working to subvert and destroy our institutions, nation, and culture, including the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. How utterly unsurprising that those two things should go together. I’d call you a traitor, but then you were never really one of us to begin with, were you? Real American conservatives take note–you don’t win by defending your enemies, but by defeating them. If you want to defend Leftists, you are a Leftist.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Gray poseur zim, is that you?

    2. avatar Nikolas says:

      I reread this article again after reading this comment, it reads very different now.

      1. avatar int19h says:

        This one just happens to be particularly upfront. But look up what (((this))) means also, where “cuck” comes from, and who came up with that whole “white genocide” thing.

        That’s the ironic part of this: the moment you mention “Trump” and “Nazism” in a single sentence, you get an onslaught of alt-right commenters, who will tell you how you’re 1) wrong, and 2) probably a Jew or someone else who just hates “white America” anyway.

    3. “You begin the article by conspicuously informing us that you are a Jew, and then you declare your willingness to kill Americans acting under the authority of the United States Government, in order to defend Leftists who have for a century been actively working to subvert and destroy our institutions, nation, and culture, including the right of Americans to keep and bear arms.”

      Maybe his REAL name is Georgy Schwartz aka “George Soros”

  22. avatar Oolong says:

    The problem with this article is that it assumes all left wing people are the same. There have always been gun owning liberals but because many who do use guns don’t glorify them it’s hard to find them.

  23. avatar Tom in PA says:

    Inside every liberal is a sociopathic, totalitarian Marxist trying to get out….

  24. avatar James Herzog says:

    Trump is going to initiate a holocaust? How silly.

    At most, he might deport all illegal immigrants, which is nowhere near that bad. And even that probably will never happen.

  25. avatar FlamencoD says:

    Good for you for remembering history, and especially (and obviously), your family’s history. The holocaust wasn’t that long ago in the grand scheme of things. Because of the 2A, I think it would be extremely difficult to pull off another Nazi-like nightmare in the US. This is a good thing (that it would be very difficult, that is). The founding fathers realized this and put that protection in the Constitution.

  26. Leftists/Liberals/Progressives/Communists/Socialists/Cultural Marxists/Marxists and their Anarchist pals? As for me I say leave them to their fate one that I hope is extremely painful. I would NEVER expend a round to save any of them, EVER!

  27. Yes let us NEVER forget, let us remember “history” particularly the Spanish Civil War where the Anarchists allied with Socialists and Communists. First the Commies and Socialists killed the Anarchists and then the Commies did away with the Socialists leaving the Communists to be defeated by Fransisco Franco and his culturally superior patriotic Nationalists. Yes “Good Times”, “Good Times”, the scum of Spain did most of the work eliminating their rivals while weakening themselves a REAL “win-win” if you ask me.

  28. avatar LHW says:

    These armed leftists are the ones we should be protecting ourselves against.

  29. avatar int19h says:

    I love how you’re making my point for me, and so eloquently at that.

    I only hope that others here are paying attention, and making conclusions. Especially RF, since this all is of most immediate concern to him.

  30. avatar int19h says:

    RF, I noticed that Mark Kelly’s comment (about “Jewish traitors”) is gone.

    Is this one-off, or a general change in moderatorial policy?

    1. The “truth” not only hurts but makes some “uncomfortable, yet we MUST address why a disproportionate number belonging to a particular “community” is so prone to acting against us, our nation and it’s values. What irks me is that those here that scream the loudest about the course of our country and the constant attempts to strip us of our rights are too cowardly to engage in thoughtful discussion probably for fear of being labelled an “anti-Semite” and THAT’S why we always find ourselves “behind the 8-ball” in preserving our rights. It’s the same resistance Sen Joseph McCarthy faced not only from our nations enemies, the traitors, members of the Democratic (Progressive/Communist/Socialist/Cultural Marxist) Party and even fellow Republicans. Is it any wonder we label those who won’t stand by us “cucks” and that we voted in overwhelming numbers for Trump?.

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