Pro Gun Rally Virginia
Demonstrators stand on the capitol grounds ahead of a pro gun rally, Monday, Jan. 20, 2020, in Richmond, Va. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Nicolas Johnson

If you ever call yourself a “law-abiding” gun owner, stop. It’s degrading. It insults the shooting community, and it hurts private gun ownership. Stop now and never use that phrase again.

Mindset: We Do Not Abide

“To abide” is “to bear patiently,” “to endure without yielding,” or “to accept without objection,” according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary. suggests alternatives like “to submit, “to put up with,” “to receive,” “to take,” “to stomach,” “to swallow.”

If you like to take it, swallow and submit (outside of playtime), then perhaps you are “law abiding.” You probably also have dirty knees from all your kneeling.

Abiding is about compliance, obedience, and subservience. It’s submitting out of obligation instead of acting powerfully from choice.

‘Law-Abiding Slave’

Subjects and slaves abide. “Yes, Master. I abide by your laws.” Free, empowered, responsible citizens don’t abide by the law, we make the law.

We are the law.

(The theory/game of democracy says we do this when we vote.)

Political Language – Pathetic Political Tactic

Outside of gun ownership, where have you ever heard the phrase “law-abiding”? At work? Do you call yourself:

  • “law-abiding” teacher
  • “law-abiding” farmer
  • “law-abiding” doctor

Do you call yourself:

  • “law-abiding” car owner
  • “law-abiding” golfer
  • “law-abiding” boyfriend

The only time anyone ever uses the phrase “law-abiding” is with “gun owner.” It’s a pathetic political tactic to save your guns. Using that phrase means you’ve already lost them.

Words Create Worlds

One of the most-powerful ways we create our world is through our language and labels. Depending on the world you want to create, you’ll say “AR-15,” “patrol carbine,” “murder machine,” “target rifle,” or “safety gear.”

The mission of anti-gun activists is to use words that create a world where guns and gun owners are viewed as bad so the radicals can eliminate us. When you cave to their attacks by twisting yourself from a “gun owner” into a “law-abiding” gun owner, they own you.

Psychologically, you got on your knees to beg them to leave you alone. “I abide by all your laws. Please don’t take my guns.”

Screw that!

Own the Frame

Be a gun owner and a citizen, and stand the heck up. “I own guns. I am a gun owner.” Period.

Claim it. Wear it. Own it.

When to Qualify

In some contexts, a qualifier makes sense. We want to emphasize the difference between “good guys” and “bad guys.“ The point is to avoid the subservience of “abiding.” Use something strong and empowering, like:

  • Honest gun owner
  • Lawful gun owner
  • Proud gun owner
  • Responsible gun owner
  • Law-demanding gun owner
  • Justice-defending gun owner
  • Freedom-loving gun owner

Political Action – Demanding vs. Abiding

Refusing to abide by the law doesn’t mean we disregard or disobey the law. Not at all. We demand good laws and defend justice with everything we’ve got. The key is that we don’t do it from subservience, submission and abiding. We do it from freedom, power and choice.

Think of driving. The law says you aren’t allowed to cross the yellow line. You stay on your side of the road by choice, not by obligation. It’s easy to cross the yellow line when you choose to.

Citizen vs. Victim

What happens when the yellow line shifts, and you end up on the other side of the road? That’s what happens when firearm prohibitionists get power. They turn citizens into outlaws.

Kneel Down or Stand Up?

We don’t cross the line. They move it. Subjects and slaves kneel, swallow and submit.

If that’s you, you aren’t a law-abiding gun owner. You’re a law-abiding former gun owner.


Nicolas Johnson is the publisher of TheGunBlog.caThis article was originally published at and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. a·bide

    verb: abide; 3rd person present: abides; past tense: abided; past participle: abided; gerund or present participle: abiding

    accept or act in accordance with (a rule, decision, or recommendation).
    “I said I would abide by their decision”

    I don’t support or accept. I abide. Until there comes a time when I can no longer abide, at which time I will reject with extreme prejudice.

    • Everyone,

      Pay attention when Ralph posts. Often hilarious, but savvy, well-thought.

      If he runs for office, vote for him.

        • My sentiments too! Thought about it years ago, then looked at my wife and kids, decided I loved them more than a position, and that was the end of that.

        • I wonder if that would help, if we all ran for all the offices we were eligible for. Just do it.

    • BLM is the most powerful political force in the U.S. today by causing havoc, instilling fear, and killing their opponents. They have the leaders of both the Repubs and Democrats cowering and kneeling in front of them and getting some of their demands written into congressional action in record time.

      We should be learning things by these examples.
      If the rules are changing we need to adapt.

      • BLM is a TERRORIST puppet org…pro jihad,profoundly anti-Semitic,anti- Israel,anti-American and anti-black people who don’t agree with their communist blather. And dumb.

        • Yep they’re all that


          They are getting what they want from state and federal politicians in record time

        • “anti Israel”

          So? Would you be just as outraged if they were “anti Costa Rica” or “anti Italy”? Israel is a minor nation in Asia that has no historical ties to the United States or the American people.

      • I see your point. What are your ideas? How can a 2A movement gain similar traction in a short period of time?

        • Well, the progressive left has spent many years paving the way for BLM to break out. Everyone who has gone through this country’s education system has been primed for the paradigm of systemic white racism and the irredeemably tainted nature of America itself.

          Aside from that, gun owners would have to actually gather in large groups *everywhere* and visibly, forcibly refuse to abide. And KEEP DOING IT over and over, even when it’s inconvenient.

          It would take a huge mental paradigm shift. We’d have to do what the progressive left does and project local problems into national ones.

          George Floyd was just one guy (and a bit of a scumbag at that) who got brutalized by one bad cop in one city. Virginia is just one state that recently went blue, and may not remain that way.

          But they’re not the only examples. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon have gone out of their way to persecute gun owners in recent years. Arrogant, authoritarian cities and counties in just about every state. And then there are California, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, where it’s even worse. No matter what state you live in, there’s a political contingent that wants to put its boot on your neck and turn YOUR state into another California. And if you’re in California, you know there’s no point where they’ll stop and say they’ve done enough; there’s no limit to the indignities the progressive pecksniffs will inflict on you for your own good.

          It’s not local, it’s national. And it affects everyone. This is when “liberals” join up and march together and start breaking shit. And yet gun owners say “just move,” or “I don’t join groups,” or “it’s not *that* bad yet.”

          For BLM style tactics to work, gun owners would have to develop a strong group identity — to collectively develop a spine — and decide that it IS that bad. Inaction gives our enemies permission to make it worse. There’s real power in identity politics, and a strong group identity is exactly what we ain’t got.

      • “We should be learning things by these examples.
        If the rules are changing we need to adapt.”
        I totally agree, as well as with Kenwood Reply.

      • Use lengths of pipe to explain to BLM and other hoodlums the error of their ways — then perhaps they will understand.
        (Even if they don’t, they will find it difficult to continue throwing their tantrums.)

    • I abide. I pay $200 taxes to own certain guns and accessories and wait unreasonable amounts of time to take possession. I pay fees every few years for permission to have a shirt covering my pistol, and I don’t go places I’m not supposed to go with it . I put “pistol braces” on some guns instead of “stocks.” I’d prefer to just convert a Glock to full auto with a backplate and carry when, where, and how I choose. Instead, I submit to the laws and regulations rather than the alternatives of going to jail or shooting at government employees.

  2. That’s the media doing that…..The Gun Blogs & so called internet writers.
    But while you’re at it STOP SAY: “Social Distancing” the term is PHYSICAL DISTANCING!
    Unless you’ve been totally indoctrinated by the left for using Social “everything”!!

    • I could honestly care less what anyone calls it. I have been practicing it my whole life and it’s obvious how germs spread, especially airborne ones. So, politely, stay the fuck back 😉

    • YES! Amen. It’s physical distancing. That’s my new pet peeve. If I obey the “social distance” signs, I stick my nose in the air and turn my head away from you….and do NOT talk to you. If I physically distance myself from you, I talk to you from a (physical, tangible) distance.

      • I say, “DiTTo” And, I would love to physically distance myself from all the Libtards in America who go around looking for feet and backsides to kiss. The just deserts these Antifa cretins get is the business end of a gun. They are NOT interested in “rights”. They are in the “game” to destroy and burn whatever they disagree with. Same way with the democrabs.

  3. Now we have stirrings of thought and language police on “our side”?

    The general public understands “law-abiding” as a descriptor. The general notion is that people who are “law-abiding” don’t think in terms of disruption, disorder, disregard. Truth is as “legal gun owner” can be expressed/understood as someone who isn’t an illegal gun owner….yet”.

    Don’t we have better things to do with our branding than to internally war over terms?

    • An interesting point you raise. And, more interestingly to me, is that I actually half-way support the author.

      On one hand, language police are annoying and the antithesis of free speech, OTOH hand language is powerful because it’s the basis of ideas. Allowing the other side to control langauge cedes them the W every single time. This is why the Left very clearly uses “talking points memos” to stay on target and hammer the message they want. Every major TV talking head uses the same terminology on the same goddamn day. That’s no accident. In the gun world just look at the term “assualt weapons ban”, parse the language and ask “Why the hell is this even under discussion?”. It’s like talk about “unicorn fart bans”.

      But it’s not. Because “assault weapons” are, in fact, quite real. The idea exists and is common among people because we ceded that linguistic territory. And every single thing exists in two forms; the idea and what the idea produces. You can argue “assaut weapons” don’t really exist all you want but it matters not a whit if what you own is classified as something that is legally impermissible to possess. In this regard it’s like asking “Does God exist to an atheist?”. Of course God exists to an atheist, just in a different manner, that of the idea. One cannot reject the existence of an idea one has never had. The fact that they ever use the word “God” is proof positive that God exists in their mind, at bare minimum, as a theoretical construct.

      So, I think the point is not a terrible one but I would say it’s off target. The key distinction here has little to do with “abiding” but rather another word the author uses, obligation, which the author uses improperly. There’s a distinction between obligation and obliged and it’s neither lacking a difference nor is that difference minor.

      Obliged has nothing to do with your rights, wants, needs, desires nor even the concept of justice. The unarmed man is obliged to give his wallet to the armed robber or suffer for the failure. Obliged in no way denotes a respect for of the rightness or wrongness of an action or a circumstance, it’s a recognition of the consequences of non-compliance with the situation as it is.

      Obligation on the other hand is entirely different in that it’s an internalized recognition of a fundamental concept of right, wrong, justice etc. You have an obligation to do things like tell the truth or obey an just law.

      You can be one and not the other. An unjust law is one someone can be obliged to obey while lacking any obligation to obey said unjust law. Jim Crow laws were a notable example. Similarly, one can be simultaneously obliged to handover that wallet to the criminal while having no obligation to do it.

      And this is why the 2A, and civil rights in general, are so important. The whole idea is that outside actors cannot oblige you to do something for which you have no obligation by using force or threats of force.

      • I understand your thought line, but….

        The radicals keep warping perfectly good words, and we keep running away from the confrontation. The situation is that the radicals can always co-opt the language until we have no words left to express ourselves (we’ve seen this already, right?). The end result is normals are always losing the argument.

        • Which leads to the obvious question of how you stop such a thing.

          There are two ways. “Grammar Nazis” (technically Diction Dictators) or education (English Teachers).

          Both are manipulation. One is just less appealing than the other but either way you’re manipulating people.

          This is why I beat that education drum so goddamn hard. It seems to fall mostly on deaf ears but that alternative is to eventually face total defeat.

          I’ve had this argument with older folks for a long time. They’ll ask “Why does it matter?” but then complain that their kids are morons who can’t write a simple sentence. That’s why it matters. Standards slip, other standards follow and pretty soon you’ve got intellectual malingering. That’s bad, very bad, because malingering is shit that spreads like a fucking yeast infection in a lesbian sorority.

        • Which leads to the obvious question of how you stop such a thing.

          There are two ways. “Grammar Nazis” (technically Diction Dictators) or education (English Teachers).

          Both are manipulation. One is just less appealing than the other but either way you’re manipulating people.

          This is why I beat that education drum so goddamn hard. It seems to fall mostly on deaf ears but that alternative is to eventually face total defeat.

          I’ve had this argument with older folks for a long time. They’ll ask “Why does it matter?” but then complain that their kids are morons who can’t write a simple sentence. That’s why it matters. Standards slip, other standards follow and pretty soon you’ve got intellectual malingering. That’s bad, very bad, because malingering is shit that spreads like a fucking yeast infection in a sorority of girls who prefer girls. (TTAG won’t allow the L word apparently.)

          • “Which leads to the obvious question of how you stop such a thing.”

            First, we refuse to give.
            Then we attack the warped language by refusing to use it.
            Then we address the core issue, education.

            What is most urgent is to stop the retreat.

        • The problem there Sam is that the counter attack, by definition, contains a correction to the improper language. That counter attack, if properly directed, is against the term(s) and therefore by extension all users of the misapplied terminology.

          This is tacit admission that the “internal war” you reference is, in fact, required for any sort of eventual victory. If our people can’t police themselves then someone has to or the the fact that we have people who use such language casually will be seen as an internal hypocrisy, and rightly so.

          That hypocrisy will be highlighted by our adversaries as evidence that we don’t care about people and just want “dangerous toys”, which is already an argument they use to greater effect that many would like to admit. We know this is true, shit, it’s one of Alinsky’s rules.

          But worse it’s the same issue with the “It’s my God given right to own a gun” argument. That’s going to get turned around on us in unfair ways, and it in fact often is.

          Welcome to politics. A knife fight in a telephone booth where the losers whine about how “unfair” the result was.

          • “Welcome to politics. A knife fight in a telephone booth where the losers whine about how “unfair” the result was.”

            Yes, we are losing, but that doesn’t mean retreat. It doesn’t matter what the oppo says about us, we simply resist, resist, resist. If we cannot “sell” our defense of the constitution, then it is on us for allowing things to get this way.

            Resist the leftist control of the language. It isn’t unfair that they outfight us, it is our just reward for complacency. Noticed on a news feed that 200 armed gun rights members demonstrated at a governor’s mansion last nite. They were not the usual POTG, they were minorities proclaiming the right to keep and bear arms. 200 almost on a whim. How many do the “standard” gun rights group manage to organize, on short notice? I am still stinging from two years ago when all we could muster at a 2A rally in Tallahassee was 500, from around the whole state.

        • “Yes, we are losing, but that doesn’t mean retreat. It doesn’t matter what the oppo says about us, we simply resist, resist, resist.”

          That’s how you turn a retreat into a rout. Either you move forward and get enveloped or you hold ground until you’re destroyed. There’s no third option to that line of reasoning.

          We are faced with either policing language to some extent and trying to find the right balance there or going in an entirely different direction and pulling an end-run around the entire situation.

          And again, we’re back to manipulation. Now the question is that of which group to manipulate?

          Your idea works provided you’re willing to pull the end-run, which goes back to things I discussed months back about pattern recognition and its relation to advertising. This is targeted manipulation of the middle. It can be done without enforcing significant discipline on our own side.

          But no matter how you cut it, freedom minded people regardless of what they call themselves, are generally of a “live and let live” attitude which is not going to work when the enemy has picked a fight specifically by refusing to leave you alone.

          Liberty, freedom… whatever terms you prefer are a constant struggle in multiple directions. Against those forces from without and to balance the forces from within. The latter is a tricky proposition, it always has and always will be. Regardless of that fact people are going to have to line up in some sort of semi-disciplined way at some point or there isn’t going to be a “center” to defend and without that all you have is a pincer which cannot ever function without basic discipline.

          To resist the manipulation of language, by default, means resisting it across the board. Done unevenly it’s at best worthless and at worst counterproductive.

          • “And again, we’re back to manipulation.”

            Not understanding that using words as they are, as they were designed for transmitting thought, is manipulating. For instance, “No” has clear meaning. “I think not” is less certain. Can’t see one substituting for another, nor that either is a form of manipulation. A law-abiding driver conveys a concept of a driver not constantly looking to misuse driving privileges. A legal driver merely identifies someone legally holding a permit to drive.

            Having trouble with the false equivalence between intentional warping of word meanings, and insisting on using correct word meaning, both being some sort of manipulation. However, the idea of “end-run” is interesting. Not sure of the meaning, but interested.

            Agree that when faced with the onslaught against civilization, resisting is pretty much a binary proposition. Resisting individually is useless, and wasteful. Resisting as a large group (concentration of force) can be powerful.

            Evil never rests, and you cannot negotiate with it.

      • Strych9,

        Just want you to know, I’ve read, twice now, your prior post about what is going on at our universities. It is a lot to digest, and I will read it a third time before I reply. Since I asked you to post it, I want you to know I am studying your thesis, taking you quite seriously.

        Thankfully, the demands of my job are taking a great deal of time. It is nice to be needed and to know that every hour I bill is profitable for my employer.

        That being said, still not sure you are correct about Nietche. Just haven’t made it a priority. LOL. 🤣

        • Take everything I say with a grain of salt (actually, consult your doctor first on the salt). I’m just some fuckwit on the internet.

          That said, it’s a theory 20+ years in the offing. My parents taught chemistry at the PhD level and I’ve been in and out of the university system on and off for 16 years at various institutions, as has my wife. I also have a unique view on K-12 because I’ve been in the educational systems of other countries at that level as a student and an instructor.

          IMHO, there is serious rot in the system. However, I’m not of the opinion that it’s terribly hard to fix once recognized because the people causing the rot are 1) not very smart, 2) not from important departments and 3) punch way, way above their weight class through the use of weaponized language in the form of PC. This generates fear in the rest of the system that “the mob” might come for you. However, IMHO, FDR (surprisingly) applies here. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. If we get over that, we can crush this with ease.

        • Where is this prior post? I want to see how your evaluation matches up with mine.

          Also, if you’re the product of two chemistry professors, that explains a lot. In a good way. 🙂

      • Dear Mr 9,
        Is there a preorder application to be used for the purchase of your au courant philosophy book?
        I have always appreciated your posts. And now I want to partake, with you, in the consumption of glass of Blanton’s. Thank you for the insight.

        And I thank the author of the article for awakening me from my cognitive slumber.

        Carry on.

        • Your kind words are appreciated, though I’ll pass on the [admittedly damb fine] whisky as I quit drinking a few years back.

          It’s damned strange how many people in the last year have suggested that I write a book.

          Personally I think it would sell <100 copies worldwide.

          • “Personally I think it would sell <100 copies worldwide."

            Self-publish on Amazon, price it at $.99; I'll buy five; for me and my friends.

          • “That would be at least a 99x overvaluation.”

            Doubt it, but it is what I could afford, to include my four friends. I think $.99 is also the min Amazon will allow.

        • Getting picked up by college courses, Amazon, and then e-books provided tremendous legs to my book and the mailbox money just keeps on coming 13 years on.
          e-books is less per, but makes up for it in volume.

      • Strych9…No one I know conceded to redefining “Assault Weapon” to include something that may resemble an assault weapon but does not function like or close to an assault weapon. If someone hands you an AR15 and sends to Afghanistan it’s time to go AWOL. The Pentagon defined what an Assault Weapon is so no mealy mouth gun control zealot can redefine the meaning…law or no law.. Should I call a roller skate a car because both have wheels? And because both have wheels should the roller skate be subjected to state inspection fees, licence plates, etc? Because someone says 1 + 1= 3 and morons agree does not make it correct. If some busy body asks if you own an assault weapon and you own an AR15 the answer is No.
        You sound like a smart person…Instead of going tit for tat with Gun Control insanity perhaps you should put Gun Control Zealots on the hot seat and ask them to justify their racist and nazi based gun control agenda. After all Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide. And while you’re at it how about asking the democrat party to cough up Monetary Reparations payable to the victims or descendants of the victims of democRat Party race based atrocities such as slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics and Gun Control.

        • “No one I know conceded to redefining “Assault Weapon” to include something that may resemble an assault weapon but does not function like or close to an assault weapon.”

          Of course they did. They even accepted the title of a law with those words in it back in 1994.

          The point is that if *they* control the language then it doesn’t matter what words they use or what words we use. Call it mealy mouthed all you want, it doesn’t matter when the cops kick your door down because you own something you’re not supposed to have.

          Hence my point on “Unicorn Fart Ban”. If society in general accepts, which we have for “assault weapon” (so much so that members of the gun community who hate the term accidentally use it from time to time by the way, rather than referring to it as an MSRB or SARB they call it a AWB) the term then what the term is doesn’t matter when the state uses it’s basic monopoly on force to enforce that law.

          Hence, if there’s a “Fairy Dust Ban” and under the definition “Fairy Dust” means “Semi Automatic Rifle With A Detachable Mag” then falling it a “FDB” or a “SARWADMB” is just semantics. There’s still a government agent looking to put your ass in prison for possession of an object that you happen to have, what they call it or you call it doesn’t matter if society accept their definition.

        • “After all Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide. ”

          Correct. And if guns were taken away from whites, the people of color would not need those forbidden firearms. See how that works? Even today, Dan Z is reporting again about how police violence is claimed to be caused by gun owners owning guns. There is nothing a twisted mind cannot twist further.

    • Between Sam and Styrch, this was better than the article. Well said gentlemen. Very good points made. I am not nearly as educated as either of you. HS drop out, joined the Army, trade school, build weapons. I use emojis and my calligraphy sucks. But it certainly does not mean I don’t understand the idea behind the every changing meaning of words, or the manipulation that causes them to change. I agree, we do have better things to worry about and time could be used more efficiently, however, a lot of people who use the “law abiding” terminology fail to understand that sometimes reasonable people must do unreasonable things. So sometimes, a pop up book and a set of crayons gets the message across. Especially if they are Marines (zing). So just wanted to say thanks for the read and don’t think about it too deep. You are both clearly on the same page, and I think most people here are too… but there is always that one *Cough* *debbie* *tdiinva* *cough*… who take the “thin blue line” support a little too serious. Everyone is law abiding until someone in a law enforcement position decides they are not. Compliance is not synonymous with freedom. Sometimes, reasonable men must do unreasonable things to prove it.

      • “Sometimes, reasonable men must do unreasonable things to prove it.”

        Double-edged sword there. I can conceive of the radicals using that as justification. In fact, it was already done…the rioting and looting are the result of reasonable people having no other way to deal with the freedom/liberty lovers.

        Since law-abiding people generally are “live and let live”, not interested in forcefully pushing their ideas onto others, the question is when do the crazies cross the line that causes reasonable people to become unreasonable?

        • A thought re: radicals…

          The people who were radical 40+ years ago are no longer; they are the establishment, and BLM and similar orgs that claim to be radical are their darlings. WE are now the radicals — and if we and our ideas are to continue existing, much less thrive, we had better start acting like it.

        • I believe the word you are looking for is oppression. When they start enforcing their temper tantrum through force is when it becomes unreasonable. For a long time, it was “I just want to be heard, for equality purposes” (even though it was a false sense of it, or myth if you will) and now it is “You will hear me, whether you like it or not”. When these people invade your space and call it not being violent simply because they don’t touch you, or block your means of travel with the same methods in any form (like road blocks and such), then it becomes unreasonable. When innocent people are told to comply and if they do not are threatened with violence, it becomes oppression.

          • “When they start enforcing their temper tantrum through force is when it becomes unreasonable.”

            “Unreasonable”, based oh whose idea? Individuals? A small group? A larger group?

            To clarify, when does the bulk of the nation decide that the acts of revolutionaries are unreasonable….and take action to end it (however that may unfold)? You and I can decide someone is acting unreasonable, but what is our redress? Right now, I can “see” that the bulk of the nation’s populace may agree that BLM is Marxist, and their acts “unreasonable”, but the effect of the unreasonableness is relatively limited in scope/territory. If the decision to put an end to unreasonableness is delayed until a vast swath of the country is burning, it may be too late to resist.

            I don’t think “reasonableness” is the decision-maker in these circumstances. Everyone thinks everyone else is unreasonable, justifying their agenda to restore “reasonable”; now what?

        • When they start enforcing their temper tantrum through force… that I guess I should have specified this… puts innocents lives at risks or hinders their ability to make a living or move freely. Freely, not to be taken out of context as the word reasonable was previously.

          Reasonable enough?

          Personally, I could care less who currently defines reasonable. If my way of life and limited freedoms are hindered as a result of being caught between a group like this, my definition of reason lies in my ability to prove I felt a great enough threat to my life to take someone else’s… and that ridiculous lawyer retention fee that I’d be more than happy to pay to prove my innocence, then turn around and sue everyone who let it happen in the first place. This is how cases that define the importance of the Second Amendment are made, you know, like the ones you are probably currently aware of…

    • I actually enjoyed that movie. Recently watched it too. I mean, kinda sick and twisted, but not a totally terrible watch.

  4. “Words Create Worlds”

    The AR in AR15 does NOT mean assault rifle!
    It means Armalite.

    There are no hammer fired guns that are ‘hammerless’ unless it’s in pieces.
    They are spurless.

    The onboard ammo container is NOT a clip
    It’s a magazine.

    YEAH, words mean things. How long has this arguement been going on?

    Soft drinks do not make you fat. They rot your teeth and harm your kidneys. It’s the burger and fries that make you fat.

      • You were right the first time. AR stands for ARmalite. Otherwise Armalite calling a shotgun the AR-17 would make no sense.

        • RE: “You were right the first time. AR stands for ARmalite. Otherwise Armalite calling a shotgun the AR-17 would make no sense.”

          It’s ArmaLite Rifle. Not ARmalite which omits the key word, “Lite” in “ArmaLite.” Like it or not right or wrong to me AR means ArmaLite Rifle. ArmaLite products ranged from an AR-1 to an AR-17.

      • Simple carbohydrates are used by your muscles, keeps you moving and alive.
        Excess is passed through urine.

        • Technically true but exceedingly misleading.

          Excess sugar is not passed via urine in normal people over about 14.4mg/dl. That’s 5.5g of sugar per gallon of urine. That means one gallon of urine can process 14.03% of a single 12oz can of coke or 7.1% of a 20oz Mt. Dew.

          Sugar above this level in the urine doesn’t mean you drank too much soda and are eliminating it through some sort of normal process, it means you have diabetes because for one reason or another your pancreas can’t get you enough insulin to cover what you ingested. The rest is not clogging up your bloodstream, it’s not a crystal unless it’s attaching to your A1C hemoglobin. Those crysals are attached to blood cells, speeding through your body and shredding your capillaries and other cells they contact. The rest your body will try it’s best to eliminate via making you exceedingly thirsty so you drink a fuckton of water. If you can’t consume enough water to accomplish this (you basically can’t) your body will dump water from cells to try to flush the system leading to extreme dehydration and electrolytes imbalance eventually leading to shock, coma and death.

          If you’re not a diabetic your body will compensate for the excess blood glucose by producing more insulin so that the glucose can 1) be used or 2) stored as fat. The side effects of this excess insulin are what produce hardened and clogged arteries.

          If you’re urinating much sugar you need to see a doctor stat.

          Ask me how I know.

      • The crystalline sugars end up in your blood vessels creating clogged arteries. This is part of the filtering process that hurts the kidneys.

    • I suppose your right, but I think the battle over most of this is just a silly waste of time. I use the term mags and clips interchangeably. I also dont mind my “Pints and Quarts” when I “mind my P’s and Q’s”. I dont beat my wife with a stick when I use a “rule of thumb”. I dont expect someone I’m speaking too to perform a sex act, when I tell them to “suck it”. I dont where bells around my neck when I “Show up with Bells on”.

      Sometimes, words dont mean what they once did.

      • That’s just mostly slang. Which is a different thing.

        As to the article and what its talking about:
        I don’t cross the yellow line because I’m not interested in hitting other vehicles. It has nothing to do with obeying law.

  5. The left controls 3/4 of the society. Now they want to take control of the final 1/4. They control the media and even the companies that write the encyclopedias. They control the language.
    The only thing one can do is to yell out loud “I reject your weasel worded pinko speech”. I also reject your desire to turn me into a neutered slave. One must take every opportunity to fight the evil that wants to destroy your liberty.

    • They have the colleges too so students have to put up with the indoctrination. Public schools get the kids on board early. It’s really hard to raise a kid that doesn’t buy the shit.

      They are going after the rural areas. The economies of rural America are decimated, drugs are every where, and the feds have resettled immigrants in these areas to further dilute what’s left of the culture.

      I guess once they owned the cities they decided they needed to swallow the rest of the country.

  6. It’s time for the various governments to abide (accept or act in accordance with) the supreme law of this country – the Constitution. It clearly says what the government can do about our right to keep and bear arms: not touch it.

    • If their freedom of speech cannot be infringed, ever, as they push everywhere for things that are not even “speech” related, then I’m pretty sure there is no room to interpret the actual clause of “shall not be infringed” in the following amendment.

  7. Considering we’re supposed to be upholders of the Constitution and defenders of the faith etc, we seem to be doing a whole lot of abiding while most government employees, elected officials, and “enlightened” protestors run amok…

  8. I feel like this is an article written by the same people brain washing millenials into creating the issues we are all now dealing with. It’s an aspect of subversion. This article is a bit more cerebral than most.

  9. It doesn’t matter what we call ourselves. The left will not be satisfied with anything short of our disarmament.

  10. Now we’re talking. I just refer to myself as an American Patriot. I also happen to be a weapons freak, with firearms being my favorite style. My speech and arguments extend from there within the context of my audience and the context of the conversation. I am for this article and I agree with what it posits.

  11. As my grandpa Used to say: You can call me whatever you like…Just don’t call me late for supper. I have never allowed anyone to define me or my actions with words. I do as I do. I simply don’t care what others say. Especially when I don’t respect them.

    • That’s the counter move. Speak from your own definktion of what you are (to borrow another truth hijacked into the useful idiots.)

      Myself, I like “responsible gun owner” when a qualifier is needed.

      “Several 10’s of millions of responsible gun owners didn’t kill anyone last weekend in Chiraq or Antifastan, on purpose or by accident. You don’t need a lot of how to laws when people understand what they’re doing.”

  12. Yeah and also stop with the “Modern Sporting Rifle” nonsense with regards to ARs.

    • “Yeah and also stop with the “Modern Sporting Rifle” nonsense with regards to ARs.”


  13. The author seems to be a gungho doofus. You bailing me out when I fail to “abide”?!?

  14. After some cogitation, I will now refer to myself as a Constitutional First Responder.

  15. Dictionary or no dictionary I’ll continue abiding by the law and come to a complete stop at stop signs and look both ways before proceeding otherwise if I don’t I might get a ticket and my insurance goes up or hit by a truck and spend time in traction, etc. Now if democRat Jim Crow Gun Control zealots think I am going to lay my cherished 2A Right at their smelly racist and nazi feet they can and will eat poop.

  16. Obviously, we are not of the same mindstate as the people of chaz or chop – whatever tf its called now. I mean, it’s stupid to say fuck all rules, because some rules are obvious to most people. The fact is, they exist because of stupid people and the opportunity to control them was easily achievable. We are not talking about fucking stop signs, and speed limits – but we could be. All I know is that I miss driving in Germany and most of Europe. Drivers in America can’t even figure the basics out and it fucking sucks – and it’s dangerous. It’s funny how less “rules” on the road allow for the adoption of common sense, like merging to the right and using your lights to signal you want to pass, or clearing the middle lane during heavy traffic for emergency vehicles. But in America, people need to be told to go 35 and given shitty restrictors on their vehicle. That, and we are so stubborn we won’t even go metric. C’mon now… there really is no reason not to. Where was I? Rules… oh yea… come and take them or something. I dunno, I just wanna drive now – straight through a crowd of choponians without being arrested.

    • Imperial measurements have built-in ergonomics. Metric system is great for science and engineering, but is a less good fit for every day uses.

      • Having used both, I get it. I like the imperial system. Why can’t the world just compromise and make the best of both? lol… funny right…

        • “Why can’t the world just compromise and make the best of both?”

          IIRC, NASA tried that with one of the Mars rovers: designed and constructed using the metric system, navigation and control software designed and constructed using Imperial measurements.

  17. After reading this entire thread, a certain poem comes to mind.

    “The Gods of the Copy Book Headings”, by Kipling. I’m sure at least a few of y’all are familiar with it. 🙂

    • Was not aware of this poem. It is very insightful and scary. As an indictment of the times and predictor of things to come when written in 1919.

    • The dangerous part is where the police “stand down” and allow lawlessness. Clearly pointing a weapon at someone is illegal.

  18. And exactly what will that do, Hmmm? Play games with words all you want, if they are not communicated the way you wish or at all then all the word smithing in the world will not help your or what you wish to happen or not happen.

    It’s mostly the left that believes that relabeling something makes a difference in the outcome. It doesn’t. It only hides what the truth is.

    Since we don’t control the mass media, we must speak as close to the truth as we are allowed. So what gets past their censors is what’s useful.

    This opinion isn’t wrong, it’s just a waste of time at best.

  19. I disagree with the premise that “Abide” only has a subservient use (word etymology wise, that use came much later). It can also be used to Hold Fast, Steady, Faithful, Unyielding and a host of other Strong and Dominant uses. Just like the Snowflakes that think the words “Chief” or “Chieftain,” are only derogatory and racist names Whites gave to the Native American leaders. Nothing can be further from the truth. If anything, it was a sign of respect, as the word comes from the Old Latin “Capum” meaning LEADER (Captain also derived from Capum).
    If you’re going to Nit Pick over word use/choice, Son of John, make sure you know the complete etymological historical use of a word.

  20. Over the last one hundred years, the majority of our enemies have been Marxist Based. Marxism is the direct polar opposite of our Bill of Rights. One of the Founders of B.L.M. has admitted they are trained Marxist Organizers and their organization is Marxist. ANTIFA is Marxist. They are the Foot Soldiers of the D.N.C. I now consider the D.N.C., the Democrat Soviet Socialist Party. They are using civil rights as a vehicle to overthrow this nation in the name of Marxism. They tried this in the 60’s with Dr. King but he saw through them. This bunch of race hustlers who have found a new hustle in Marxism make an abomination of the Civil Rights movement. This behavior during Reconstruction led to the founding of the K.K.K.. It drives people to such organization for safety and protection. It is time for Congress to recognize Marxism as a treasonous political philosophy and outlaw Marxist Organizations.

  21. Just as there should be no “law-abiding” gun owners, there should be no “law enforcement” officers. I consider myself a “peaceable” gun owner. Now, if only cops were “peace officers,” like in times past, things might be a little less crazy these days.

  22. To the tune of Ghost Busters!
    When they abolish the police and there ain’t a cop in site.
    Who you gone a call when the thugs break in at night?
    Who You Gone a Call? Sig Sauer

  23. NY SAFE Act COMPLIANCE RATE . . . 4%


    If the Supreme Court is with those that subvert our RIGHTS . . . we are left with only one option.

  24. I’m guessing why gun owners say it is because it seems to be a touchy subject and more often then not we use the term in defending ourselves and
    seperating ourselves from the criminals to the anti-gun groups who think everyone that owns a firearm is a criminal for doing so.

    The word that I find really bothersome is Privilege over a right. I feel the Government gave up that idea of brainwashing people into using the word privilege over right when they forced people to fight in WW1 and WW2 for their own agenda and had no problems handing out firearms to those to fight those wars and forcing them to fight and die for their Country and for what? What was Canada in danger of? Absolutely nothing.
    The war was never about Canada’s Freedoms we where already free. No Country threatened us. It was about fighting for another Country and our soldiers forced into battle unwillingly died doing so. How many didn’t even make it to 19?.
    I feel its a right for everyone take the course pass the test, pass criminal background checks and etc.

  25. When using the word Privilege means it’s something they can take away such as banning all semi autos

    When using the term Right to me means you took all the necessary steps to legally obtain firearms. Everyone has a right to take the course and pass all of the background checks in doing so.

    Governments like forcing brainwashing people and instructors to use the word privilege so they can alter and ban firearms at anytime. It’s not right.

Comments are closed.