faf4fdc0da2a59fc4f2d505344ad3304

“And herein lies the crux of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, the part that most Australians don’t understand. All of those we spoke to believe that it is a citizen’s duty, as explicitly stated in the founding document of the United States, to be armed in order to keep the government in check. They say that the country was founded after their British rulers became corrupt and an armed uprising saved a whole nation from tyranny. They say it will happen again, and they’re ready to protect their freedom if and when it does. And they might stand a decent chance, given there’s more guns that people in the US right now.” – Nick Maher in Unplanned America: It turns out that America’s gun nuts are really hard to argue with [at news.com.au]

Blue Force Gear

Recommended For You

109 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: It’s Hard to Argue With America’s Gun Owners

  1. What’s to argue about? It’s a Constitutionally protected right, thus if you want to change it, go through the amendment process.

    Good luck.

    • Keeping and bearing arms for righteous self-defense is, well, righteouseven if there is no U.S. Constitutional Amendment declaring it so.

      So, even if gun-grabbers could eliminate the Second Amendment, it would not change what is inherently right or wrong.

    • .

      The problem is that there is no definition of freedom that is agreed upon. Bundy thinks it means free profit off public lands. Others think it means no taxes. Still others think it means the government will catch them when they stumble financially.

      When hot-button social issues wrap themselves around the American concept of freedom and guns are viable solution, then the right to bear arms is just another tool for inciting a philosophical civil war.

      Everything looks better on paper.

      .

    • Select fire, silencers, SBRs, SBSs, “braces”, FFLs, background checks, waiting periods, approved lists, mag cap limits, “assault weapon” bans, etc.

      They’ve already managed to do a lot.

    • Yeah sure bud, our constitutional rights have been stomped on for the almighty war on terror, before that the war on drugs, before that the cold war, gimme a break already. The title is gun owners are hard to argue with, not gun owners are hard to defeat legally or otherwise. Try walking down the street in cali with a 15 round glock on your hip see how far that constitutional right gets you. Or for that matter try open carrying anywhere that an unfriendly populace realizes that anytime you o.c. its only legal until you cause a domestic disturbance, at which point that o.c. can turn into brandishing real quick. How about hunting with a homemade suppressor? Not without paying your $200 “tax” first, oh yeah and you have to invite the atf into your life. I could go on and on. If the gunners don’t want to lose this fight they need to find a middle ground because the constitution was written to be amended and evolve with society and licensing may very well be in our future, maybe not, but I guarantee telling the anti’s or people who might be somewhere in the middle to duck off cause 2a rulz is gonna backfire. You need to realize that this country is violent and full of crazy assholes with guns and people are rightfully shaken up about it. Talk to them rationally, counterpoints to their arguments are usually pretty easy. Its funny a bunch of fucking stoners have managed in several states to do in a few years what all you hard core right wingers have been unable to do in decades. 2a all day, wooooot!!!

      • As you d@mn fool “middle ground” ID10ts have been told over and over we will not give ground. Not. One. More. Inch!

        Middle ground nonsense is what cost us what we have already lost. They will always come back for more. Time for me to buy more ammo and magazines for what I have already.

        • And by not giving an inch you mean that you have homemade silencers, sbr’s, and fully automatic weapons with all the ammo you can cram into it and you carry across state lines, loaded, on your hip, in your pants, in your car, rifle or pistol, doesn’t matter right? An if you want to sell those guns just sell them to anyone you damn well please right? And oh yeah u have grenades and shit like that too, or wait, maybe not, because if you actually lived by the ethos you so enthusiastcally claim to live by, you’d be writing us from a federal fucking prison and never be allowed to own a gun again.

        • I’m happy to meet in a middle ground; the end points being 100% subsidized civilian arms ownership up to and including NBC, modern warships and military aircraft, drones, ICBMs, etc, and (on the other end) total civilian disarmament.
          I think it is clear that the middle ground is licensing (perhaps some prohibitions) on weapons of mass destruction, limitations on where many/most arms can be discharged, and no subsidization of arms ownership, but otherwise no controls.

  2. I still want to corner one of those writers and ask “What’s a gun nut?”

    I read a post on social media about challenging stereotypes for women by asking men to explain the joke. Things like “Why do women belong in the kitchen?”

    “What’s a gun nut? I thought ridiculing people for perceived mental illness was intolerant.” “What’s an ammosexual? I thought ridiculing people for their sexuality was intolerant.”

    And my favorite: “You ever wonder whether you’ll get more and better responses by not insulting people?”

    • The definition is whatever the user wants it to be. It’s like calling someone a loser. It’s subjective to the user.

      You’re not going to get a straight answer on any of it. Like assualt weapon – it is what they want it to be.

    • Well, the reason I would say that women belong in the kitchen is because they make sandwiches taste better. Whenever someone other than yourself makes you a sandwich, it is generally going to be more tasty.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2013/07/03/why-do-sandwiches-taste-better-when-someone-else-makes-them/#649a55267239

      Part of it is anticipation, part of it is being desensitized to the scents of the materials.

      (Sorry, this is what your comment made me think of)

      • My woman belongs in the kitchen cuz i procured the raw materials and the kitchen itself. We are both pretty happy about the way it is.

      • My wife is better suited to the kitchen because she is a better cook than I am. Better in the sense that her food tastes better, and she’s much faster and more efficient in preparing it than I am. Of course, not all women are as intelligent and gifted as mine, so I’d hate to stereotype.

        I wouldn’t take it personally if a woman said that a man’s place is outside doing chores. I’m better at doing the outside chores than my wife. She doesn’t possess the strength to start our snowblower, and working on the roof is pretty much out since she doesn’t like heights. Of course, not every man is as intelligent and brave as me, so I’d hate to stereotype.

      • “I seem to spend all my time cooking and cleaning instead. [Jayn said.] Frankly I sometimes get a little annoyed that I seem to have been relegated to the ‘woman’s work’ category.”
        “All alone with three handsome men, [Maria responded]. Lots of girls wish they had THAT problem. And don’t be insulted when the boys seem to shut you out. Men’s work is almost always dirty, dangerous and labor intensive. You may feel left out, but on a subconscious level they are doing what good men always do – trying to protect you.” – Cliff H “The Future Rhymes”

    • Actually I’ll be your huckleberry. I am a gun nut, because the far left thinks my small penis propels me to compensate for it by buying weapons of death, you know, for fun and sport, blasting pumpkins and shit. And the far right thinks I’m a gun nut because I try to tell them that no matter how many times they pound 2A, 2A, 2A, into the keyboard with their gorilla fists, it doesn’t change a god damn thing in the real world. Guns are fun, I’m a fucking gun nut.

  3. “Behind every blade of grass is a charred body freshly cooked by an Apache, clinging onto a gun.”

    This is what every anti would say.

  4. “Ending gun violence is one of the most serious and complex problems this country faces. And the most unique to the ‘land of the free’.”

    Serious, complex, unique… like hell it is…

    • There are half a dozen modern militaries that just got their butts kicked by some 30,000 jack wagons in the desert.

      Who controls Libya today? Afganistan? The myth of American military power continues. Now, I’m not suggesting we go all out in those places. What I am saying is that we don’t even go all out against nameless, faceless terrorists. We’re certainly not against our own people.

      • Nobody ever wins in A-stan. Nobody. Except the locals. Been that way since there were invading armies, the Soviets had just gotten done relearning that truism, and yet, we still went.

        Hubris, stupidity, and self delusion. Over a $1T that could have been allocated for something actually useful, like roads, bridges, schools. In the US, where they are far less likely to get blown up.

      • Had our forces not been hamstrung by asinine ROE, Afghanistan would be about 60% glass sculpture with brand new McDonalds and Starbucks franchises that opened about 6 months ago. There will be no such ROE if a home grown insurgency takes hold here. Remember that.

        • Saw a pic a while back of a hand-lettered sign in the Sandbox:

          “Future home of Fallujah Walmart Supercenter, as soon as demolition is complete.”

    • The fire bomb is the enemy of armor, not small arms. They spill need to breathe in there. If the heat doesn’t get em the lack of oxygen due to the combustion process will. Combustion consumes oxygen and replaces it with carbon oxides. Where do you think the air inside of that vessel comes from? Do modern tanks have supplied air systems?

      • Tanks have had crew central air filtration systems for NBC protection for decades. If the crew is in MOPP4 your molotov cocktail will not deprive them of breathing air. It may however cause many other significant problems if you succeed in dropping one on the top. Keep in mind tanks don’t operate solo and the wingman is in charge of keeping crunchies away. DATs are also HIGHLY motivated to preventing your operation.

        • Right on. Thanks for the reply. Though filtration doesn’t put oxygen into an oxygen deficient atmosphere. It simply filters contaminants organic or particulate. Do they have supplied air to accommodate for lack of breathable atmosphere is the question presented.

        • I’ll concede you’re correct there, however it took them over 30 years. I’m quite surprised that after that long the conflict wasn’t renewed in some way.

      • “Name one true insurgency that’s been soundly defeated. Ever.”

        Romania, from the late 1940s to the mid-1950s…

    • History is replete with demonstrations of large “all-conquering” armies falling before an unorganized, unregulated force (militia.)

    • No – not “AR-15 vs Abrams Tank”, more like “milk jug full of Thermite VS. parked Abrams in the middle of the night.”

      The last time members of any insurgency in history lined up in an open field to fight the superior force head-on was the Revolutionary war, and then we realized that was stupid and started using guerrilla tactics.

    • The Abrams Main Battle Tank is the Tyrannosaurus Rex of the battlefield – an unstoppable monster controlled by a political brain the size of a walnut.

  5. “So why do Americans love guns? Why the hell do they need them? Why do they take such joy in owning and shooting these things, when so many Australians would be terrified to even touch them?”

    Boooo!

    Bwahahahhhahahaha!#(&@!

  6. Nothing to argue about. A mature responsible adult provides first for their own food, shelter, warmth and self-defense. Then they provide for their family, then they provide for the common defense, as the first line of defense, of their community, then of their country. This is what is required of a free citizen.

    I am a responsible adult and a free citizen.There are many, on the other hand, that are emotionally arrested children in adult bodies that feel that their adoptive parents, the government, should take care of them from birth to death. They would be considered subjects.

    If someone wants to argue for the joys of arrested childhood, that is their choice, but they are arguing for what is ultimately, enslavement.
    .

  7. Many, such as these Australians, who have never been to the US and have no actual statistics are fed a steady diet of propaganda from their inevitably left wing media about how terrible violence is in America, and while it may be higher on average than in Australia or England and a few other fairly civilized places, it is nowhere near as high as most others. Furthermore, what these same people do not realize is that if one actually excludes from these average statistics places like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and a few others, America’s murder rate is no higher than Australia’s. Then as they discuss “gun violence” it is fair to ask which weapon they prefer to be killed by, as it is difficult to see how being stabbed or bludgeoned to death is preferable to being killed by a bullet.

    • it is difficult to see how being stabbed or bludgeoned to death is preferable to being killed by a bullet.

      Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows? – Archie Bunker

    • Leon,

      You bring up a poignant fact: the overall violent crime rate in the United States — regardless of whether or not the attacker uses a firearm — is vanishingly small as long as you are not a criminal involved in criminal activities in urban centers.

      And you omitted an even more important fact: as long as you are not a criminal involved in criminal activities in urban centers, you carry a handgun for self-defense, and you are able to use your handgun competently, your odds of suffering serious physical injury at the hands of a violent criminal is effectively zero. That includes armed women who have effectively zero chance of being successfully raped. No one in Australia, England, Sweden, or wherever else can make that claim. Period. Full stop.

      We should hammer that last point home. How many armed non-criminals will be seriously physically injured this year in a violent crime in the entire United States? Two, maybe three people? Out of 330 million people … I really like those odds.

  8. Because on record, politicians saying they could pass a bill to confiscate our arms if they could. On record a president candidate saying she would look into an Australian type “buyback” which is code for take our guns. Citizens are infringed frim lawful self protection based on what zip code you live in. And when that is reversed by long court fights, new legislation is introduced and passed faster than other bills. Then they add a safety card, then tax on Ammo, then adverts, then require registration that you must pay for. Then by 2022 only revolvers will be sold in California.

    All this to stop lawful self defense. Make no mistake they ARE coming for our guns.

    • I would tentatively consider a “buy back” procedure (voluntary sale of personal property, not a mandatory turn-in) just as soon as the government has cleared all its debts and is able to pay for the guns with gold or silver at market rates.

  9. The piece itself was actually very well written despite its use of derogatory terms. I hope many people read it. I now have a much better understanding of Australian views on guns and I am sure many Aussies have a better idea of our perspective now that they’ve read it.

  10. In the article, he repeatedly equates holding/firing/owning a firearm with violence. Kind of an insight into why the two sides are worlds apart when discussing the issue of firearms ownership.

    • I noticed that. I’d love to explain to him that he still hasn’t experienced armed violence, that was armed recreation.

  11. Nice to see the “Patriot” rifles. (SKS) I wish somebody built these in .223. Accurate and ultra, ultra reliable. Simple to maintain and no teflon coated, purple followers with +10% wolf springs required etcal. Shove a stripper clip in it and shoot or load by hand. I like them because they were battle tested,used to be cheap and the common man could have a quality rifle if needed. Not to mention it’s got a spike on the end of it!

    • They are prohibitively expensive now. Certainly not worth what you are getting for the price. Just a little more gets you an AK. Around the same price gets you an AR. A decade and a half ago they were ~$100 or less.

      • If I was going to replace the 99 dollar russian sks that I had until recently I would just go ahead and buy a new ebr. The sks is a great piece and lots of fun. But at the prices they want now? No.

        I do like the 7.62×39.

    • Norinco had built a limited number of .223 SKS prototypes just before the import ban in 1989, and the project was shelved. A few made it into US and Canada, but are made of unobtanium. Only a few photos exist.

  12. Haven’t read the whole article, don’t know how the author come down (tho I have a guess), don’t know how the quote was presented in context. But just by itself, it looks like this guy “gets it” a helluva lot better than our home-grown antis. Oh, and BTW, I would say they are “hard to argue with” because for the most part, they (we) actually have the facts and logic on their (our) side.

  13. If only they could find a way to stop turning their weapons on each other. Ending gun violence is one of the most serious and complex problems this country faces. And the most unique to the “land of the free”.

    The “gun violence epidemic” is a media created facade. We are talking about two to three additional people per 100000. Most of which comes from very large cities. Seemingly the larger the city, the larger the homicide rate (with or without guns) increases exponentially. While the remainder of the state sees <1 homicide/100000.

    Furthermore, mass killings are here to stay. Every depressed/repressed teenage or adult ready to off themselves know that their upcoming rampage will be broadcasted globally for everyone's entertainment and in accordance with their wishes.

  14. “If only they could find a way to stop turning their weapons on each other. Ending gun violence is one of the most serious and complex problems this country faces.”

    Um…, its not the “gun nutz” that are shooting each other. Subtract gang on gang, drug-related, violence and that “serious and complex problem” evaporates.

  15. So, the gun owners they talked to had well thought-out reasons for what they do, and guns are fun to shoot besides.

    Is that the take-away here?

  16. I love it when Australians like Nick Maher (Countrymen of a place which began as a Penal Colony for England) tells/scolds/berates Americans (Countrymen of a place began when the English were pushed back into the ocean by force from our soil).

    Hey, Aussie Journos I’m gonna need you to uh…..come over here and uh…… $uck!t. If you could just do that, it would be greaaaaaaat (I’m in a cubicle right now).

  17. Nick Maher was clearly terrified — terrified! — of all the guns he saw in private American hands.

    Australia, formerly a penal colony, once enjoyed a true rifleman’s culture. Now it’s become a Penile Colony for hysterical little pansies.

    I thought that only New Zealand had more sheep than people, but I was wrong.

  18. They equate shooting with violence. That’s totally dependent on the target. What pus, I mean Aussies!

    The people turning guns on each other are not the people interviewed. Should have included a weekend in Chiraq with that road trip.

  19. .au ?

    Aint it funny how non American people don’t get America or Americans?

    NO!!!

    Go #NaCl world. If ya’ll woke up you’d recognize that there is not a patch of this round rock that we live on that is governed by aliens / robots / animals. Everywhere you find a “government” it is (hopefully) there because the people needed a few chores done and they organized one. The people who work for those governments ARE PEOPLE. They are just your a-hole neighbors that needed a job.

    JOBS and power need to be “governed” NOT PEOPLE.

    In America WE EACH AND INDIVIDUALLY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS so that we can kill ALL of our neighbors who wish to gang-up on us, call themselves ‘government’ then seek to obtain / exercise power not proffered to them. You might think that’s an inflammatory statement, but that would only be because you are DENYING LOGIC, and haven’t honestly played the whole game out to the end in your head.

    OUR RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WILL OUTLIVE EVEN THE IDEA OF AMERICA (should some of our a-hole neighbors make it untenable and sh_t-can it). Further OUR RTKABA will outlive YOUR COUNTRY.

  20. As an Aussie, I must be one of the few who “gets it”. Americans don’t want to be victims.

    While being a victim may give you moral authority, it’s hard to have moral authority if you are DEAD!

    • Howdy,
      I appreciate your comment, and your recognition that Americans, by and large, despise being victims. I must, however, profoundly disagree that being a victim confers any moral authority. Assuming that the function of morals is to promote the good, the righteous, and the decent; allowing oneself to surrender to an evil aggressor, thereby tacitly promoting the evil, the intolerant, and the vile, is an incredibly immoral position to take. If one wishes to be moral, they must take it upon themselves to not be victimized. They must also guard their fellow innocents from the aggressions of the immoral.

      Cheers,

    • Greetings! I get what you are saying, full stop. It is unfortunate that your government does not understand it. When I was in school I was taught humans were part of the animal kingdom. I’ve got a beagle. She’s a great family dog. Even she will defend herself with the best tools she has available (teeth). Why should we humans be any different, government or not?

  21. Missed the important quote as usual, TTAG

    “When we spoke to Matt, the young leader of the 1100 strong group we found an ex-soldier who feels deep guilt for the things he did in Iraq and thinks that the US wars in the Middle East are based on government lies.”

  22. Even here in Australia very few people watch SBS it was started by government to re-broadcast news from overseas in native language for migrants when we had very left wing government. All their shows are PBS left wing style. No one I know watches it even migrant families but maybe it is all of us have jobs etc and grew up.

    TAG just seems to like to stereotype Australia like media does USA

    I hadn’t even heard of this person or show until I saw this in TAG. Don’t claim to be an expert on USA but have worked in or visited 36 states over the years. Have met a few gun nuts though – they own more than me!!

    More important things to do than watch rubbish. Deer season opened yesterday and I’m trying to get my work week finished early and go hunting

  23. If an armed resistence to .gov overreach is to work in this country we will need the support of as many vets, cops and active duty military as we can get.

    • It’s funny when bootlickers believe the government goon rank and file will suddenly and magically change sides when some yet-to-be-defined invisible line is crossed.

      It’s not like cops haven’t been ignoring the Constitution with court permission for decades. No, they really respect Constitutional originality, they’re just maintaining cover by being the primary violators of said Constitutional originality. LOL.

      • Some of our comments have already been deleted. So, instead of getting caught in an endless troll loop with you I’ll leave this here.

        If you make an intelligent comment that’s not an obvious troll attempt, I’ll reply.

        Have nice day.

        • Pro-tip: disagreement isn’t trolling. Crying troll doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t come up with a logical explanation for your claim.

          Now, if you can explain why you believe the government employees, who have been the willing executors of every unconstitutional outrage in the last half century, will suddenly abandon their paychecks and pensions and turn against their employers, go right ahead. Let’s hear some substance behind the claim.

        • First, I said we’d need their support. as many of them as we can get. Unless you want to do all the work yourself. And I know we won’t get all of them. But if you’d like to see real change you better hope we get at least half.

          And I never said you were a troll because you disagreed with me……

        • And why would they support you? They have been willfully following orders and pushing the legal boundaries of state power for years for a taxpayer-funded paycheck and pension without complaint. When’s the last time a police union file an brief against an expansion of state power in order to preserve civil liberties? Oh right, never ever.

          Just face it, the vast majority of people who willfully dispense violence for the government are lost causes, and the tiny handful of them who see the facts about their “service” view the whole “support the troops” chant with total contempt. Therefore you can stop with your little pro-government blurbs, the ones worth saving couldn’t care less.

        • So, I ask once again, what’s your plan? And I will continue to support honest cops and soldiers and vets in their endeavors. Just not their bosses.

        • Obviously the only path forward is to point out the criminality of the state to dissuade people from working for said state to begin with. That said, there are plenty of psychopaths who enjoy killing and have no qualms doing the state’s dirty work. Can’t stop them all, right?

          “honest cops and soldiers and vets”: who willfully and voluntarily follow orders to assault and kill for the politicians you claim to despise. I do enjoy how you omit that inconvenient bit of context.

        • So your plan is to shame folks into not working for the .gov? And that gets us where? And if it fails? Turn the other cheek?

        • Bingo. So, care to explain how well your contradictory and hypocritical approach is working out?

          “I support you, I just don’t support what you consciously and gladly do for a paycheck. Oh, and I will repeatedly thank you for your service, even though I supposedly disagree with the actions that make up that service, as well as the politicians you actually serve.”

          Super compelling argument, bro.

        • Yep. And your trolley just jumped the track. We’re all just going to join hands and sing Kum-by-yah.

          Good night.

        • Well shucks, you claim to “support” the cops, troops and vets, but completely fail to enunciate what exactly you support (the person? the job? the work involved in said job? the people they work for? the goals they claim to strive for? the goals the politicians claim to strive for? what exactly?), I am simply summarizing your own words based on your contradictory stance: you support the people who do the dirty work of the politicians you claim to hate.

          So, if you actually want to explain what you mean by support, by all means, go ahead.

        • How about a simple, straight forward question? Do you see all cops, soldiers, .gov employees past and present as evil? If you do then we have no further discussion.

        • Gee willikers, that is completely dependent on the government/politicians they serve, as well as the system of law they enforce. Do you support the current regime? If not, why do you support the cops and troops that serve said regime?

          Moreover, you profess to oppose government overreach in this very thread. So, how do you explain your support for the willing instruments of that overreach? Again, what do you support exactly?

          Yessir, today’s cops and troops are either evil or extremely gullible, no doubt about it. They are merely a reflection of the system they dispense violence for.

        • Can you not read? I said, evil or gullible. Gullible if they are not capable of recognizing the government evil they serve, evil if they do recognize it but willingly serve anyways.

          So, speaking of simple, straight forward answers: what exactly do you support?

        • It’s a good thing you’re a person of no import with that black and white, no shades of gray, attitude.

          I support all Americans excersing their civil rights and hopefully some day we can all come together and reign the .gov in. But it will take all of us.

          Not just those that pass your personal approval. You’re too narrow minded and unwilling to compromise.

        • >I support all Americans excersing their civil rights
          >I support the government employees who strive tirelessly to deprive those civil rights

          Super compromise!

        • Note how you fail to answer a single simple question, and fail utterly to defend your obviously contradictory positions with any sort of logic. Instead you present the tired old fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

          Yet again: what exactly do you support? It is easy to mouth empty mantras about supporting the troops, but it’s so much harder to have to explain the words that come out of your mouth.

        • I’ve explained my position. If you fail to understand it….too bad. Good luck with your crusade to drive all potential supporters from your cause.

        • No, you did not explain anything.

          “I support the troops”/”I support the cops” is not a logical position, it’s a meaningless chant mouthed by automatons. It has no depth at all. In your case, it is also contradictory towards your purported views of state power and overreach. But I suppose one can hardly expect any actual logic from today’s police statists and militarists.

        • Dude, am I the only one paying you any attention today? You want to cling to me like a tick? Or are you being deliberately dense?

          Doesn’t matter. I need to get ready for work in the morning. Go play with your cat or something.

        • You can always come back tomorrow and answer that simple question.

          Or maybe cognitive dissonance will finally overwhelm your mind tomorrow. One can only hope…

        • Wow. How many ways does it have to be explained to you? I drive the short bus. You’d fit right in there with the rest of my ‘specials”.

        • Heh. Looks like you belong with your ridership, because you haven’t explained anything at all.

          It’s simple really: explain your contradictory belief that the voluntary instruments of government overreach (i.e. cops and soldiers) can be depended on to defend against the exact same government overreach. How does that work?

        • Not all of them will be of use. But to turn them all away without question cause they currently or at one time used to work for the .gov sounds like a good way to creat enemies and lose any chance of change.

          Reaching out to all should be our course. But you probably don’t feel any but you measure up to your standards. Good luck with that.

        • These people willfully take a paycheck and pension for their work in dispensing government violence. You hardly ever hear of them quitting or even complaining when their representatives and superiors side with state power. In fact, in one supremely rare case of a cop attempting to halt state abuse, the hero was harassed, assaulted and fired: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-departments-good-cops-buffalo-officer-fired-stopping-brutality/

          And we all know the case of Frank Serpico, who says he receives calls and emails every day from a small group of cops who are scared to death to report the routine, approved malfeasance that occurs in their precincts.

          Meanwhile you hilariously insist that these willful government employees are the key to building resistance against government power. Quick question: when do you expect these cops and soldiers to suddenly bite the hand that feeds them? Where is the Constitutional line now? They’ve already stepped countless lines in the past decades. Why would they change now?

        • So you don’t want to succeed or change the system? Eliminate all but the one’s that meet your idealo
          gical purity test and what do you have left? You want no current or former soldiers or .gov employees. Who does that leave. You and your cat?

          It’s plain to me that you want and wish for things to remain just as they are. You want no change.

          Are you one of the “bad” cops?

        • “You want no current or former soldiers or .gov employees. Who does that leave”

          This isn’t North Korea, no matter how much you wish it were. The vast majority of people in this nation will never spend a single day taking orders from politicians.

          I call out the cops as willing pawns. The small handful of cops who have the moral courage will see that truth may well quit. Most will not, since most cops are statists.

          On the other hand, your slavish support of cops only hides the ugly truth and protect the government overreach that you profess hatred for.

          You do not want any change and you subconsciously project that desire onto others so you can continue your contradictory charade.

        • Yep. You’re in the .gov. Maybe not a cop, but a .gov man. You falsely, and knowingly, equate wishing to build coalitions of supporters as being a desire to protect the .gov.

          Wasted enough time with a plant. Have a good day, officer.

        • Observe, yet more projection. You have openly stated, nay, bragged about your proud service for the state. Your subconscious guilt regarding that service now forces you to lash out at anti-government critics as G-Men trying to subvert your lame attempts to atone your past.

          You should really resolve this inner conflict raging inside your head, it is definitely not healthy.

        • Hah. Cops and FBI goons only wish they were as well paid as I am in the private economy, doing non-violence, non-murder based work.

          Face your inner demons. Face your guilt. I have faith in you.

        • So you must be supporting the fbi goons and the murder machine with your tax dollars if what you say is true. You want to shame the .gov people into quitting their jobs while all the while you’re willingly supporting the evil .gov.

          And don’t hand me that ‘I don’t have a choice….” drivel. You chose to stay in the system and support it while barking about it.

          If what you say is true.

  24. He reports that they thought all the “gun nuts” would be racists, Muslim haters, etc…but found them this to not be the case and such people to be smart and respectful. I don’t know why then he insists on calling them gun nuts.

    But the “gun nuts” aren’t the ones “turning the guns on each other,” that’s the violent criminals. And as for the mass shootings, those can’t be due to the guns, because we had far fewer mass shootings back when the gun laws were more lenient than they are today.

  25. Actually, reading the original article, it sounds like they were quite close to being converts. I wouldn’t be surprised if any or all of them made plans to go shooting on their next trip to the US.

  26. I was one of the people that they met, spent time with, and shot with. They were truly open minded, did a great job of listening, and not putting words in our mouths. They’re good dudes, and I would venture to say that we changed their mind quite a bit. Not to the point of some of us, but they aren’t opposed to guns now. I’d venture that they can’t speak their true mind for fear of political backlash, and much like it’s an almost sure death sentence for American actors to come out as conservatives, it’d be the same for them.

  27. Ha! You mean all us gun owners aren’t halfwit inbred old fat white guys who couldn’t put more than three syllables together? Who knew?

Leave a Reply

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