Gun Owners are Some Flavor of Anarchist Insurrectionists

courtesy subMedia

“Why are they making these silly ‘It’s not dangerous for untrained people to have a gun’ and ‘It’s not dangerous for criminals and mentally ill people to be able to buy a gun’ arguments?

“All those arguments are just a smoke screen. They’re fake, cover arguments. The gun people do have a good reason why they don’t want gun buyers to have to be licensed and pass a background check and why they don’t want firearms to be registered.

“At their core the ‘no gun registration, no background checks’ people are some flavor or another somewhere on the continuum of the anarchist political religion, and they want unregistered guns in the hands of anonymous people so that some day, when they decide that the government has gone ‘too far,’ they will have guns to mount an armed insurrection against the government.” – David Grace, Prove to Me that Unlicensed Guns Owned by Untrained People are Actually Dangerous, Decentralize Today

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    As opposed to those people who would rather be disarmed so that when the ‘government has gone too far’ they’ll just herd into the cattle cars and submit.

    1. avatar Cz Rider says:

      “But that could never happen!”

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        That’s right! Never in recorded history has that happened. It is so foreign a concept that there is no term for murder of a large group of people by their own government.

        I don’t need a gun to protect myself from my own gentle, benevolent, never harmed anyone they didn’t like, government employees. And neither do you!

      2. avatar Chris Morton says:

        Tell that to George Takei… scratch that, those weren”t racial concentration camps, they were “happy camps” that a Democrat created via PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER.

        1. avatar RMS1911 says:

          Adult fun camps

        2. avatar bill knight says:

          You said the magic word Democrat. No registration scheme ever instituted has gone on to a confiscation and roundup of resistors has it?

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      Now that I clicked and skimmed through the article, coming from a web site that is devoted to decentralizing the money supply (taking it out of government control), it seems peculiar that they not only advocate for government control over fi rearms ownership but control over your ability to do business in your chosen profession. It seems they implicitly trust the government in every aspect except the printing of money. I guess that’s their bridge too far.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Have you ever wonder who created crypto currency and why there is such a strong push for it without government resistance? Why are governments, corporations and bankers embracing it? Why was government so ruthless and quick to kill hard currency companies who wanted to create an alternative medium of exchange for fiat currencies?

        1. avatar burley says:

          One world currency, it harkens the end. I’ve read the book, you should too.

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The idea that eliminating cash will shut down crime is as absurd as the idea that banning guns will mean the criminals won’t have them anymore. First, every single country on earth would have to eliminate their paper currency. Criminals could just as easily trade in Bangladeshi taka as US dollars. After that there’s crypto-currency. After that gold. After that just about any highly portable commodity – perhaps drugs for stolen i-phones. And if all else fails there’s the time honored dummy corporation. The only real effect would be on the governments to spy on and control the law abiding.

          That said, the only thing with less real value than Bitcoin is Tesla stock.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        Notice at 7m20s in the video he mentions control of gun related businesses through financial restrictions.

        What’s been increasing lately? What are corporations and politicians doing to people on the right and gun related businesses? Imagine if they had some virtual currency they could control from a computer and there was no other form of legal payment.

        Look what’s happening with Google’s Youtube censorship of people on the right and gun channels. Since the people on the right do not have their own alternative, they are calling for government to step-in and take control to free them of corporate tyranny by giving them government tyranny instead. Alexander Jones is so upset that he can no longer use far left companies’ services to push his neo con populist agenda and his comrades are not swooping in to save his multi million dollar operation.

      3. avatar Ardent says:

        Really responding to the Gov. Petomane here, but drugs are the commodity. It is easier to transport a given value of heroin than cash or gold, and it is redeemable for just about anything one could want. In fact, money cannot always be traded for heroin, but heroin can always be traded for money…just a thought.

    3. avatar Bloving says:

      I considered registering with that site just to have the chance to argue with them… looking over that article and site in general I realized it would be an exercise in futility… those dudes are a bag of granola – nothing but a bunch of fruits, nuts and flakes.
      🤠

      1. avatar Robert Powell says:

        you can damn well bet that somewhere back in the wood-pile there is a clinton or o’bummer fan cutting kindling for the communist take-over fire.. A DIS-ARMED POPULACE IS A SLAVE SOCIETY.

  2. avatar Bob Jones says:

    The REAL anarchists are democrats pursuing a one party dictatorial nation. Their playbook is straight out of the Russian revolution and civil war. They are opposed to the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment and secret balloting. They also know that they can never succeed as long as the middle class is armed.

    1. avatar Timothy says:

      Anarchists want no government control. Democrats want total government control. They are polar opposites.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        The people who call themselves ‘anarchists’ are actually commies.

        1. avatar Scott says:

          I remember I was listening to a video by Stefan Molyneux when I heard for the first time the phrase, “Anarcho-Communist” (btw, it’s represented by the black and red flag in the picture). I had to alt-tab out of the game I was playing and listen to that bit again. I was like, “Stefan, you’re a smart enough guy to know that anarchism and communism are mutually exclusive. Anarchy means ‘no rulers,’ and communism has always resulted in the largest possible bureaucratic state.”

          The people who call themselves such are not very bright.

        2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

          Same idea with the people who call themselves Antifa being the most fascist outfit around.

          The ones who irk me most are the socialists who reject the liberal label, because the discredited and rejected liberal brand represents a panoply of deep and repeated failures. So they call themselves libertarians or, worse, “classical liberals” in the mold of the Founders and Framers.

        3. avatar joel says:

          I would say that historically and today, anarchists are a tool often used by communists, which is why i believe they are so often associated with each other. Ideologically they are very different.

        4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The reason why anarchy and communism is so closely associated is that communists revolutions can succeed in a prosperous and organized society. Everything has to be torn down first. So they’re more like temporary anarchists.

        5. avatar anonymoose says:

          “Anarcho-communism” is what communism is “supposed to be” according to Marx, and the goal of socialism is to work towards communism, but all those “anarcho-commies” vote (D). Also, Marx was against civilian disarmament since the common workers were supposed come together and rule themselves, not be controlled by a strongman and a bunch of grafty bureaucrats as happens with every “communist” movement. As a utopian ideal, true communism is nice and fluffy, and kinda, sorta works on a small local scale when everyone has a good moral compass. However, it can never be implemented on a wider scale because diverse groups of humans naturally bicker and quarrel, and left-wingers are idiots who are always bowing down to the next Stalin-wannabe promising nice fluffy things and backing them up with goosestepping, door-kicking death squads.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “As a utopian ideal, true communism is nice and fluffy, and kinda, sorta works on a small local scale when everyone has a good moral compass.”

          Indeed.

          The founders declared that a “good moral compass” was essential to our form of government, combine freedom, liberty and democracy with an utter lack of morality and you get the Russia of the last twenty years.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        A true anarchist does not want government control. The people we see in the streets protesting for gun control and against free speech are just lackeys of the fringe left.
        The types of people that are for small government, federal government running international and interstate trade and little else, have much in common with Libertarians and rightists.
        Many revolutions talked about anarchy and use the new believers as cannon fodder. When the smoke clears, the purges begin, history is rewritten and these ideas fade away. We can never allow or BOR and/or the Constitution to be superseded, this is what the control freaks or NWO want. It doesn’t matter if it is the right or left, the limiting of our basic rights by government, religion, or big business is wrong.

      3. avatar neiowa says:

        Tim – you are vastly confused by the reality of modern politics

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          You mean the redefining of words in the effort to confuse the general populace and have them advocate for something they would have otherwise not.

      4. avatar Ardent says:

        Leave communism out of it for a moment…whats wanted it a revolution…anarchists are easily coopted to bring down what is…and communists are happy to offer what’s next. It’s not as if there is no example of communists aligning with anarchists…and then eliminating them after the revolution. In a way, both are nhilists. The standard of living in the US is so high that any revolutionary goal here must have nhimism at its root.

    2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      By definition, those in favor of an authoritarian government are not anarchists.

      1. avatar Free Texas says:

        Isn’t anarchy one of the final stages before the dictatorship of the proletariat? Brought about by agit prop and subversion of traditional social and economic structures? I think they see anarchy as a means to the end of communism, which actually means transferring property, not from the rich to the poor, truth be told, but from the hands of the goyim into the hands of you know who (such as occurred in the Bolshevik Revolution).

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Absolute lawlessness is not anarchy. Anarchy is a society without centralized government power and monopoly, so people can live in a voluntary manner. There will always be some form of “governance” regardless of the societal structure. You can say the smallest form of “government” is the family unit. There will always be rules to follow. How those rules are created and enforced defines the type of society.

          The founders of the U.S. didn’t want to go all in on anarchy. They decided to settle on a Constitutional Representative Republic. Eventually that system was subverted by the creation of political parties, judicial rule/law making from the bench and the formation of the law enforcement apparatus.

      2. avatar Danny Mann says:

        Not trying to be funny. SERIOUS question. In an Anarchist State, who would be in charge, call the shots, etc…? Or would they just run amuck?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In an Anarchist State, who would be in charge, call the shots, etc…?”

          An “Anarchist State cannot exist/survive because it cannot defend itself. By definition, an “Anarchist State” cannot develop a cohesive organization with a singular purpose.

        2. avatar Ardent says:

          Boiled down, what Sam is saying is that whenever a place and people have anarchy, they will soon be subsumed by some external force that is possessed of state like organization. Since an anarchist ‘state’ cannot form an army, and presumably has some value (land, possessions, and if nothing else, labor) whole being basically defenseless, it makes an attractive target for conquest to an organized state.

          If small enough, poor enough and pugnacious enough, anarchy may survive is some form…the Afghan-Pakistan border area comes to mind…but even such a wild place as that is rules to some degree…by religion, family and warlords if nothing else.

          Birds fly in flocks, deer run in herds, and humans form organizations…it is just what we do, of instinct and necessity.

    3. avatar Pg2 says:

      Yes it is right of the Bolshevik playbook, and funded by the same people.

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Prove to me that they are. Then we can start having the conversation.

  4. avatar Marcus says:

    I don’t see gun owners masked up in the street clad in black with bike locks in hand.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      It really doesn’t matter as long as gun owners are continuously attacked and portrayed as a fringe element of society. Unquestionably the narrative is that gun owners are generally irrational and paranoid.

      Control is much easier when you turn society against itself…and can then go after the small elements first.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        That would be one awfully large fringe group at around 128 million (40% of the population by some estimates) strong.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          “40% of the population” who own 500 million guns and 16 trillion rounds of ammo….. If we were violent anarchists, then there wouldn’t be any anti-gun’ers left.

        2. avatar joel says:

          agreed.

          Gun owners in America are anything but a fringe group. fractured, and divided maybe, but all we need is a common enemy.

  5. avatar Sgt of Marines says:

    I have never heard anyone make the argument that crazy and criminal people should be allowed to own guns. We have argued the opposite, gun registration is solely for creating a list for future confiscation. Yes we (mostly) believe that the 2A is there to allow us to resist a tyrannical government. For those that believe we wouldn’t stand a chance against the greatest military in the world I don’t believe that all or most of the U.S. Military would stand for subjugation of the American citizens.

    1. avatar D Y says:

      Yet the Bundy ranch standoff occurred, without the government overpowering armed citizens. Or the revolutionary war. But leftists aren’t limited by facts.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        D Y …..Many facts in history support what you have stated. I have been reading a book about Francis Marion, ” The Swamp Fox”. He like the rest of the rest of the militia and the continental army were always in need of more men, food, clothing,powder and shot. The British had everything that the colonists did not have. And the result…..

      2. avatar Robert Powell says:

        the Bundy ranch was a test by some sitting democraps to test the waters ,if the patriots would allow this to happen without a push-back, the liberal/communists would have made this a regular action to take-over . the so called police, the feds that were involved were not regular employees. they were not sworn officers of the law. they were part of the letter agencys and not authorized to be there by congressional mandate.

    2. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “I don’t believe that all or most of the U.S. Military would stand for subjugation of the American citizens.” Ditto for the LEOs I know and run with. Their bosses, and the miltary academy non-warriors? Perhaps not, but those under their command who will actually live in the country? I’m confident in them and their intentions.

      1. avatar Docduracoat says:

        The military can go all in if they want.
        You need only look at the Afghan war.
        A bunch of guys with AK’s, improvised explosives, and some light machine guns have fought the U.S. to a standstill.
        I would even say they are winning as the day after we leave the Afghan government will fall.
        U.S. citizens would do even better against the U.S. armed forces.

        1. avatar Cz Rider says:

          In fairness, I feel like the military going “all in” would look less like Afghanistan and more like Dresden. Or Hiroshima. Not that I’d think that’s a reasonable possibility, but it isn’t impossible either.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “A bunch of guys with AK’s, improvised explosives, and some light machine guns have fought the U.S. to a standstill.”

          That is a pleasant thought, but motivations dictate the outcome, more than a comparison of weaponry. There is an enormous difference in effort between “unconditional surrender”, and “sending a message”. A difference between putting an end to the ability of an enemy to rise up in the future, and “nation building”.

          WW2 was the last (and first?) war the US fought where the intent was to annihilate the enemy. After that, it was all about containment and spreading American democracy. Essentially, we no longer had the will to put an end to our enemies. Which is the problem in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 1945, the US has been about “limited wars”, where we proposed to care about collateral damage, protecting enemy civilians.

          America chose to not win wars after 1945, because we are oh so caring about innocent people. The motivation is not to win militarily, but politically. We would be foolish to believe that when the American government comes after its citizens, there would be any intent other than annihilation.

          In the original revolution, the English were trying to put down an insurrection, not wipe out the colonies; we benefited from that, militarily. Ever think about how different the outcome if the English had decided to apply the Carthaginian bargain? I am convinced that the US government would be satisfied to wipe out insurrectionists.

      2. avatar rt66paul says:

        Our local and state LEOs are usually for the people. Remember W and then Obama using the so-called “Patriot Act” to militarize as many federal government institutions as they could. The IRS, the food and drug, etc should use the same agency only, I believe that many of these speciality police forces are federal and not in control of the justice department. This is how dictators make up “hit squads” and get their “bully boys”.

        1. avatar Oldsarge says:

          Remember in Boston after the Marathon bombing, militarized police searched houses and herded occupants out and down the street at gunpoint. No warrants. House to house unconstitutional search and detainment.
          After Katrina in New Orleans the police and National Guard confiscated citizens’ firearms on the Mayor’s orders. Unconstitutional seizure and 2A violation.

          Far too many will follow orders, even if illegal.

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      There is that…there is also the fact that Vietnam is a united, communist country and Afghanistan is just about as un-ruleable as ever. The US military has the largest air and sea lift capability in the world (more than the next 8 nations combined). Fighting foreign wars is quite easy for them, yet insurgencies are very difficult, even in small, sparsely populated theaters. Within CONUS, the challenge is massive. We are huge, highly populous, well educated, rich and well armed at least for individual weapons. We are highly mobile and technologically highly advanced.

      We have an undefended and indefensible petroleum/chemical and electrical power infrastructure without which the nation’s ability to manufacture, feed and transport itself is virtually non existent. Anything as energy and material intensive as a standing army would not resemble anything we are accustomed to for very long.
      Meanwhile the centers of insurrection are apt to be rural, while the bulk of the forces would be needed in the cities to deal with the inevitable extreme conditions that would prevail there in the event of civil war.

      Power needs lines and transformers, trains need rails and bridges, trains and trucks both need diesel, as do farm implements…and give. An all out civil war on US soil, there wouldn’t be enough for the bare basics, especially with trying to keep up with planes, helicopters and armored vehicles. You simply can’t defend 1000s of miles of rail lines, power transmission cables and pipelines that cross the most rugged and remote places on the continent. Before long, soldier and insurgent would fight on much more equal terms.

      The military has studied the problem, several times over the last 150 years or so, and largely determined that without a swift conclusion to hostilities, the on the most likely outcome of a large insurgency in the US, the victor is whomever has the most foreign support.

      Either way, after the first few months, this is, and will be for some time, a desperate, anarchic, third world hell hole. That is what the brass sees when they contemplate orders to go to war with the people.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        There are only six bridges that cross the Mississippi River. Recommend the novel “Trainman” by Peter T. Deutermann. Deals with the fragility of supply lines ripe for attack by terrorists. Even since the publication of the novel, it doesn’t seem government has done much to improve security of the bridges.

  6. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Sounds to me like Grace has it right in his last sentence. Wonder why he thinks that is such a terrible thing? Those of us who revere the Constitution and structure of this great nation have been more than patient that our participation as voters, our elected representatives (in this representative democratic process which is not democracy) and a court sysrem that determines Constitutionality of law and regulation can and will maintain our original charter without our armed intervention. Put that along side the true anarchists such as Antifa, the other hired mercenaries from the Bloomberg, Soros and obama bunch in terms of actual violence and refusing to allow the process to work. I believe “we” have been DAMN patient and under control…

  7. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    I mean… that is the purpose of the Second Amendment. It takes some pretty significant mental gymnastics to argue that a group of men who just fought off the most powerful army in the world with privately-owner firearms would suddenly reverse their policy in victory.

  8. avatar Cliff H says:

    The argument is not that crazy and criminal people should be “allowed” to own guns, they will own them anyway, allowed or not.

    The argument is that the Second Amendment prohibits “…shall not be infringed.” the government from deciding who may or may not bear arms.

    Crazy and criminal people will be dangerous whether or not we allow a chink in the Second Amendment that gives the government permission to set the standard for exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

    So long as the right exists for EVERYBODY, the crazies and criminals will be automatically outgunned, as will the government.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Indeed, today’s law abiding citizens are tomorrow’s criminals by the dictat of a tyrannical government.

    2. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      That was probably the most profound statement I have heard yet, on the subject of preventing unstable and murderous individuals from owning weapons of any sort, by disallowing complete ownership of privately held arms.

  9. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    I don’t want criminals or the mentally impaired to have guns either.
    At the same time…maybe they should not be able to drive…vote…have kids, either.
    If they can’t be trusted with a gun…surely they can’t be trusted with any of those other things…right?

    1. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

      You forgot to mention that they shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office either.

    2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Yes, I agree! The same for the gun violence, extreme violence protection orders… If someone is a credible threat, it doesn’t make sense to just take their guns for a year and say have a nice day, they can still do whatever. If they are a danger, charge them, let them defend themselves in court, if not you can’t just swipe some of their stuff.

      As for age limits, if 18-21 year olds as a group can’t buy guns because they aren’t responsible enough, they shouldn’t be allowed to drive, smoke, open credit cards, or buy cell phones. Or vote. And curfew at 9:30 every night. And no sex, that is for responsible grown ups. If they want to be treated like kids, then be consistent.

  10. avatar Shire-man says:

    Decentralize Today calls for more government control.
    I wish I was surprised.
    My kingdom for some intellectual consistency.

  11. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “. . silly ‘It’s not dangerous for untrained people to have a gun’ . . . arguments”

    Silly, yet proven overwhelmingly true by the millions and millions of untrained, yet responsible gun owners who pose no danger to their law-abiding neighbors and who quite likely have a beneficial impact on the level of danger in their communities by their mere existence.

  12. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    And the answer? Ban guns?
    Did not work here for alcohol or illegal drugs. TOTAL failures on both counts. made some people VERY rich, though.
    A gun ban would do just the same.
    Why not enforce the laws already on the books with stiff sentences?
    Straw purchases or lying on background checks ? Pursue every one.

  13. avatar Gralnok says:

    What on Earth is this idiocy? When have gun owners ever advocated for arming mentally ill people? We do believe in limited government and the possibility of an armed insurrection should it be needed, though.

  14. avatar Wiregrass says:

    I’ve seen in other words essentially the same argument made in the Federalist Papers so call it what you will.

  15. avatar Owen says:

    When these type of discussions occur and people think we need a “new” government/system I always worry. What do they suggest we replace our current system with? One the “old” tried and true versions? They have been tried and we actually rejected them to create a new system in the US. The US is very special in it’s design and so far I haven’t seen a better replacement system. Before we go throwing it out for some old system how about we stop trying to make it something different and instead return to the original design. That is what the real problem is. We need a tune up where we dump all the added on crap and go back to the framework we started with.

    Plus it’s cheaper.

    1. avatar Oldsarge says:

      IMO, we just need a convention of the states and get Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments passed.
      The system we have is good. The problem started with the Progressives, kicked off by Woodrow Wilson and expanded by FDR, Johnson, and the Democratic Party.
      We allowed them to twist the nation of course, consolidating power in the Federal Deep State, ignoring the 10th Amendment and usurping the power from the people and the States.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “IMO, we just need a convention of the states and get Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments passed.”

        I love the idea of a COS. It would be great theater, entertaining, and instructive. However….

        What difference would all those phantom amendments make? “This time we really mean it”?. Good start, but then what? “We” really meant it the first time around. How did we end up here? What/who is the guarantor that amendments proposed (not passed/ratified) would be more effective than the second national compact?

        Let’s take just the “balanced budget” amendment. Does anyone rationally think that such an amendment would be “absolute”? Like the Second Amendment? A balanced budget amendment could not be ratified unless and until there was a safety valve built in that permits suspending the amendment when some emergency or other erupts. Once that safety valve is established, the meaning of “emergency” becomes a political football, like everything else in the constitution.

        Without wholesale dismissal of elected officials across the nation, without scrapping the current federal judiciary, nothing flowing from a COS would be more effective than the second federal compact.

        Calls for a COS seem to fall into the thinking, “First we change the laws, then we figure out how to make them work”. Therein lies the self-defeating proposition.

  16. avatar Pg2 says:

    The author sums it up nicely, the 2nd Amendment needs to be a privilege, which can be revoked for “bad behavior”. This is the kind of overreach the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect against.

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Why are the states with the least 2A restrictions generally the safest? WE know why. Compare Chiraq to next door Indiana(except Gary). Any guesses leftard’s???

  18. avatar FedUp says:

    So, Gun Owners are ANTIFA?

    Wow, I never realized that about myself.

  19. avatar MyName says:

    While it might seem to the uninformed that having a large number of “untrained” people with “unlicensed” guns is a recipe for disaster, the data show otherwise.

    Each year, in the U.S., about 3 one thousandths of 1 percent (0.003%) of the population is killed by a gunshot wound that is not self inflicted. Given that there are over 100 million, largely “untrained” gun owners and over 400 million “unlicensed” guns in the country, it would seem that this is, indeed, not very dangerous.

  20. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    “At their core the ‘no gun registration, no background checks’ people are some flavor or another somewhere on the continuum of the anarchist political religion . . .”

    This is pure, unadulterated, agitprop shuck-and-jive. At its core is a rejection of the basic idea of liberty and freedom being unfettered by government intervention. What the author implies, not surprisingly, is that “rights” are not natural but are instead granted to people by government. What he’s talking about is not anarchy, he is criticizing the fundamental premise of a revolutionary America. This is not surprising— progressives are predictably uncomfortable with the US constitution. When the state gives itself permission to take away some constitutionally guaranteed rights, all rights are threatened. Guns up.

  21. avatar New Continental Army says:

    If gun owners were half as violent as liberals claim we were, there would be no liberals.

    1. avatar ACP_armed says:

      Yep.

      1. avatar Robert Powell says:

        at this time ,today the drive-by shootings and the open borders are biting seattle/burien in the butt.we have had numerous ‘drive-by’ shootings last night,and yesterday. the gangsters that came from el salvador, mexico and other central american shit-holes for the safety of our OPEN BORDER/SANCUARY CITYS, are in the process of showing the police and mayors who is the most ruthless killers. the socialist and mexican mayor of burin and the idiot in seattle’s mayors office HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE AS TO WHY.

  22. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    The fact that tactical pants are popularly sold in waist sizes up to 54 inches, pretty much puts the lie to the canard that the people of the gun go traipsing about plotting violent insurrection.

  23. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “At their core the ‘no gun registration, no background checks’ people are some flavor or another somewhere on the continuum of the anarchist political religion, and they want unregistered guns in the hands of anonymous people so that some day, when they decide that the government has gone ‘too far,’ they will have guns to mount an armed insurrection against the government.” – David Grace, ”

    As the founders intended

    “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
    – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

    “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
    -George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788

    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”
    – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

  24. avatar CZJay says:

    I see David M. Alexander thinks the Alt Right are anarchists when they are really national socialists who want a ethno-state. Also, you can’t be a Communist and an Anarchist at the same time — that’s like having a penis and claiming to be a female.

    Why is he so scared that his lovely notion of liberty can be challenged by the people? Is he afraid to be free of the white man’s concept of control? Does he want to regress to a place that is like Europe but without so many white people? Does he want to fill North America with Africans, Hispanics and inbred Asians so white people like him can rule over everyone without resistance (especially armed resistance)?

    A lot of Asian and white people are waking up to the BS. Too bad for statists like David Alexander, they now feel the need to replace the east Asians and non statist whites to keep their machine going. They are going as far as colluding with internet corporations to censor people in order to keep their matrix running like they intended.

  25. avatar GS650G says:

    They want only well trained officers of the law to have guns. Like that messed up woman in TX who killed a man in his own apartment.

    Those kind of stories remind us cops are not magically genetically gifted to handle guns.

  26. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Anarchism: the radical notion that other people don’t own you. Words have meanings, and anarchism means “without rulers.” Insisting that “Nuh uh! Anarchists are all communists that throw molotovs at storefronts!” is just playing into the hands of leftists who win arguments by ignoring facts and by making up their own definitions.

    The anarchist is the POTG’s best friend. His philosophy of freedom is uncompromising. He believes that no person – government or otherwise – has any say over your RKBA. He may have little love for much of your constitution (which either gave us such a government as we have now or was powerless to stop it), but the principles embodied in the Bill of Rights are the spirit of anarchism – the ideas that other people have no authority over you.

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “…they want unregistered guns in the hands of anonymous people…”

    “All your base are belong to us?” Really?

    People using a gun are hardly anonymous. They know who they are, and you can see them doing it. Some central scrutinizer doesn’t know what you have, or which dossier to connect you to is very, very different from being anonymous. Your identity is not the integrated health record the state decides to associate with you. Or whatever records they use when deciding to issue you a passport, or not. Passport or no, you exist.

    So, State-y McUberAlles, there, only gets identity and anonymity in terms of a government authority not him (or you, or us.) Apparently he recognizes ownership only in terms of some central, official registry. Ownership is an agreement, a convention among people: That is yours; this is mine. A ledger can help, only if people agree to its authority.

    “All your base are belong to us.” Thus, I have declared. Says so in this ledger right here. Gimmie.

  28. avatar el Possum Guapo Herr Standartenfuher they think we're making pizza's" Oberst von Burn says:

    Gun owners are some kind of flavor… I’ve not yet eaten a gun owner nor an anarchist that I know of so my opinion of the flavor would be an assumption.

  29. avatar burley says:

    He said: “At their core the ‘no gun registration, no background checks’ people are some flavor or another somewhere on the continuum of the anarchist political religion, and they want unregistered guns in the hands of anonymous people so that some day, when they decide that the government has gone ‘too far,’ they will have guns to mount an armed insurrection against the government.”
    Isn’t he talking about the bulk of the founders of our Nation? I’m pretty sure those were the first guys to write exactly that thought down on paper and then print it for everyone to read.

    1. avatar DaveL says:

      Of course, they were hardly anarchists, as the first thing they did after their rebellion was sit down to work out the details of a new government, with democratic legitimacy and committed to the rule of law.

  30. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    David Grace has this radical idea that just anyone can express an opinion. Obviously journalists should be registered, be able to prove that they have a complete understanding of history and various government systems and their effects on populations and have interviewed at least 10,000 people who have lost family to socialist regimes before becoming a journalist. Any misrepresentations or mistakes they make should be punishable with jail time, or exile to socialist dictatorial states such as Venezuela or North Korea for a minimum of 5 years.

    The fact is the only gun problem we have in the United States is a lack of access and education among youth, lack of access to sound suppressors and too many restrictions on what can be owned. Bringing back competitive shooting to high school’s would go a long way towards preventing accidental deaths.

    We have one political party encouraging violence against citizens who don’t believe their party line, the murder of police officers, and lack of prosecution/expulsion of criminally violent illegal aliens. Make a pass at a girl from a party when 17 and you are evil in their eyes, but guilty of multiple counts of rape or murder and also here illegally? A model party member.

  31. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Another moron who doesn’t realize there are already a dozen or so States that allow permitless concealed carry, and more that do not require a permit for open carry. And many states do not regulate private sales or require background checks for private sales. If POTG were the problem everyone would know it.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Had this same argument (not conversation) with B-I-L, last year. Told him that there was a bit of schizophrenia in the constitution. The constitution authorizes the central government the power to put down insurrections (using the militia as necessary). That means insurrection is illegal, a federal crime. At the same time, the Second Amendment was written specifically to permit insurrection against tyranny.

      Explained to B-I-L that it takes an adult to comprehend mutually exclusive concepts.

  32. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Historically the United States has had rebellions. However those were small in scale. With the exception of a civil war the other rebellions involved at most a few thousand people.

    The most recent example the Bundy Ranch involved a few thousand people. Not everybody had guns and ammunition. Most supporters brought food water and other supplies to maintain the Bundys resistance to the federal government for quite some time.

    The Deacons for Defense and Justice involved several hundred people across several Southern States resisting state and local government tyranny.

    The Athens Tennessee Rebellion involved several hundred people resisting city and county government tyranny.

    In all of these examples machine guns were used or presented as a defense against a tyrannical government. And in the case of the deacons and the Tennessee Athens Rebellion explosives were used against government tyranny.

    I will have to send a comment to this authors comments about gun owners and anarchists. I bet he’s never even heard of the Deacons For Defense and Justice or the Tennessee Athens Rebellion.

  33. avatar kanuuker says:

    There’s a lot of ignorance in the comments about anarchism and cryptocurrencies.

    Anarchism simply means ‘without hierarchy’, it does not mean no rules, chaos, or marxism. An anarchist society is simply one organized around mutual consent as opposed to the systems of authoritarian rule we live under now. Now keep in mind, there are a lot of morons who claim to be anarchist who aren’t. The left leaning “anarchists” like block bloc, ancoms, syndicalists, anti-capitalists, etc aren’t really anarchists because when they interpret “no hierarchy” they take that to mean no voluntary hierarchy as well (such as employee/employer, teacher/student, landlord/tenant, etc). The problem with their interpretation is that it takes a involuntary hierarchy to enforce the restriction of voluntary hierarchies. Their philosophy is self-defeating.

    Regarding cryptocurrencies, to those of you who claim they’re going to lead to a one-world currency controlled by the establishment: please take some time to actually understand cryptocurrencies and how they work. They were designed specifically to destroy centralized control of our money – they literally cannot be taken over by governments or banksters. Someone who gives a strong opinion about something they don’t understand is simply a fool.

  34. avatar Terclinger says:

    If you love freedom
    comes the total break down.
    those shitheads with the red and black flags
    should be your first targets
    (cause you will be theirs…)

  35. avatar RedRed says:

    If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the Revolutionary generation are some flavor of anarchist insurrectionists, then count me in!

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