◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

A recent paper released by Johns Hopkins’ Bloomberg School of Public Health not only exposes the real purpose of gun control, but also shows that the school is rather unserious about the promotion of actual public health.

Entitled “Preventing Armed Insurrection: Firearms in Political Spaces Threaten Public Health, Safety, and Democracy,” you’d think the authors would be actual public health professionals, doctors, or, well, anyone with public health expertise. Instead it’s written by three lawyers including Josh Horwitz.

We’ll get to the substance of their opus in a minute, but first it’s helpful to keep some things in mind about the Bloomberg School of Public Health. And Horwitz. First, the school’s name is no accident. America’s most ardent anti-gun billionaire, Michael Bloomberg, has given the school almost $3 billion. That’s why his name is on the door

Last year Johns Hopkins absorbed the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), formerly known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. That org was headed by Horwitz, one of the authors of this latest scholarly work.

In other words, Bloomberg bought himself a school and now he’s using its good name to try to lend legitimacy to his ongoing gun control efforts. This exercise in advocacy is veiled in academic and even (pseudo) medical legitimacy rather than being just another an anti-freedom screed on an anti-gun website written by a lawyer who hates civil rights.

What really sets this Bloomberg School paper apart from all of the others is how open it is about the real purpose of civilian disarmament and its attempts to associate gun ownership with insurrection.

Instead of doing the usual thing by claiming that more and stricter gun control is essential to promoting public health (a claim the actual Democratic Party public health experts don’t make, even when pressed), they to full Washington Post, raising the specter of insurrection and implying that carrying guns in public spaces is a danger to our democracy.

They lay out their argument that insurrection is illegal and that the Constitution doesn’t specifically protect any right to rebel. They conveniently leave out the fact that that the Declaration of Independence says that it’s not just our right, but our duty to remove governments that violate our natural rights instead of protecting them (more on that in a bit).

The authors also lay out a short list of policy recommendations. They’re mostly the usual demands anti-gun organizations routinely make rather than proposing any innovative, public health-based mitigation ideas.

While they may be able to make a semi-reasonable argument that red flag laws somehow relate to public health, banning guns at protests and banning “military-like training” and  “paramilitary activity” definitely falls well outside the domain of public health. Not to mention violating Americans’ freedom of assembly. It seems these hoplophobic attorneys just can’t manage to stay in their lane.

They Say ‘Danger To Democracy’ Like It’s A Bad Thing

You don’t have to be on the bigoted far left or right fringe to see that democracy itself can be highly dangerous. For example, as a lesbian, I know that there are places where a democracy would prohibit me from being with my wife. But that doesn’t happen because we set limits on what democracy can do to the individual.

Sane people like these limits because they protect the individual rights we cherish even as they protect the rights of people we may disapprove of. That balance is essential to a functioning, peaceful civilization.

Without essential guardrails to protect individual rights, democracy can quickly become Byles’ “Three thousand tyrants one mile away”, stripping everything from freedom of speech and religion to the right to due process to life itself whenever it seems fashionable enough to a plurality of voters.

That’s why our democratic system is constrained within a republican framework that keeps power in check, sets hard limits on government power, and takes a layered approach to the protection of essential human rights.

Insurrection is one of the last resort layers of defense of these rights, and it most definitely is contained in the Constitution, even if bigoted lawyers want to bury it or deny its existence. While the Declaration of Independence isn’t law like the Constitution, it’s still a highly influential document that we can and should use when interpreting the Constitution.

The Second Amendment’s prefatory clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”) tells us that the militia needs to be well-armed and well-trained to protect a free state. Combine the original militia acts with the Fourteenth Amendment, and the militia is basically…everyone, not just men of military age. This well-armed and well-trained reserve force exists not to protect democracy, but to protect a free state defined by the Declaration as one that respects individual rights.

Therefore, the duty to rebel against tyrants in a non-free state is implied in the Second Amendment. But only a fool would expect a non-free government (democratic or otherwise) to respect the human right to rebel against it. Of course their kangaroo courts and historically ignorant “scholars” would deny any right to rebel.

Taking them on is always a high stakes roll of the dice. Few seriously consider violent rebellion because it’s a dangerous, deadly endeavor. It’s not something people do unless the status quo is worse than risking death.

What these phony public health “scholars” are trying to do is lay out the case for prior restraint against the right of rebellion. We must ask ourselves why the right to rebellion scares them so much. Unless they plan to do things that would make Americans so unhappy that we’re willing to gamble everything, including our lives on rebellion, there’s nothing to fear.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

110 COMMENTS

  1. first, we are not a democracy…we are a constitutional republic with a representative democratic form of government…not a democracy and never have been. the left wing would love our country to be a democracy because in a democracy the majority makes the rules and rules…but thankfully our founders knew that and instead formed a constitutional republic for the specific reason of not allowing a tyranny of a powerful majority like the left wing wants to be.

    second…the ‘paper’ is pure BS especially about democracy.

    • for example, someone who thinks we are a democracy….The Governor Who Thinks She Can Disarm Her Citizens for Any Reason. (She thinks this is a democracy and can have her way ’cause she says so. that’s what happens in a democracy, those in charge get to make up the rules and do as they please to the people…its called tyranny)

      • “…that’s what happens in a democracy, those in charge get to make up the rules and do as they please to the people…”

        Kinda describes the current condition of our republic, does it not?

      • Wild that statement from the governor was almost a year and a half ago…………and still standard operating procedure.

        • We used to have a class taught in public schools known collectively as ‘Civics’, where the students learned boring things like how the government worked, how laws got passed, etc. My favorite was the constitution, and how all ours laws were supposed to hang on that ‘framework’. The pesky second amendment bothered them so much they scrapped the whole class.

          Now we have morons harping on and on about “our democracy” when we have no such thing, thankfully. They want ‘mob rule’ very badly… 🙁

    • “first, we are not a democracy…we are a constitutional republic with a representative democratic form of government”

      A distinction without an effective difference.

      Our Republic operates on the core base of democracy…political decisions are determined based on votes of the people (not withstanding that virtually all politicians are bought by the corporate oligarchy). All voting in the US is direct, from the people, then voted upon again by our representatives. In all instances, the core of democracy (majority rules) is at the heart of things.

      Since at least 1946, the public viewed/s our form of government as “democratic” (majority rules), and all non-authoritarian forms of government considered as “democracies”. With the perversion of the word “republic” in the official titles of communist nations, the term is muddied beyond usefulness.

      Perhaps, once upon a time, “republic” was fully understood by the electorate as having popular understanding. Today, it is irrelevant to the people. Rather than slicing the egg ever thinner, we should focus all attention in trying to find representatives who are truly “conservative”, willing to fight the Dims and communists (redundancy) tooth and nail in the public arena, representatives willing to understand that “the moral high ground” is a bankrupt concept, if there is no high ground left to occupy.

      Fight the war your enemy is fighting. Power must be employed against power. Platitudes are for the platypuses.

      • OK, to clarify…

        We are a constitutional republic —- constitutional.

        A constitutional republic is a form of government in which the head of the state and other officials are elected by the country’s citizens to represent them. Those representatives must then follow the rules/limits/orders of the constitution in governing the people.

        Some believe that the U.S. is a democracy, but it is actually the perfect example of a constitutional republic. A democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions and those in power and/or the majority can rule and make the rules (called the ‘ruling class’) and as a result impose their will upon the people – this is how all socialist (and communist) countries begin. Communism is just a different flavor of socialism and all socialist countries eventually become communist) begin. In a democracy the ‘majority’ ‘rules’ with unlimited power and minority groups have no protection – those in the minority are those which are determined by the majority ruling class to be not of their majority ruling class and are the ‘undesired’ and ‘enemy’ of the society.

        In a constitutional republic, however, government cannot take away or violate rights of the people.

        What we have right now is a constitutional republic with a representative democratic form of government. A representative democratic form of government is also known as an indirect democracy and is a type of democracy where elected officials represent a group of people (e.g. special interest) and not all the people in contrast to direct democracy.

        We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic with representative democratic form of government.

        • correction: “this is how all socialist (and communist) countries begin. Communism is just a different flavor of socialism and all socialist countries eventually become communist) begin.”

          should have been…

          …this is how all socialist (and communist) countries begin. Communism is just a different flavor of socialism and all socialist countries eventually become communist.

        • “A democracy would be a form of government in which the leaders, while elected by the people, are not constrained by a constitution as to its actions and those in power and/or the majority can rule and make the rules”

          “Republics” vs. “Democracy”.
          The list of “republics” is very interesting
          https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/republic-countries

          As noted earlier, when a government uses the “most votes wins” process for passing legislation, the people on the whole think of that as a “democracy”, and there is nothing to be gained from trying to explain the academic difference between “democracy”, and “republic” because it is pointless when elected representatives act as if there are no constitutional restraints.

          In the end, our “republic” looks very much like your definition of “democracy”

      • Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
        Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

        Starting in the 20th century after World War II, many countries used the term “democratic republic” in their official names most of which were Marxist-Leninist, or soshullist, one-party states that did not allow political opposition, free press or other democratic norms and institutions.

        States which use the term “Democratic Republic” in their official names also include many that do not hold free elections and have been rated as “undemocratic” or “unfree” by organizations that gave such ratings. Algeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, North Korea, Laos, Nepal, Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Democratic People’s Republic of China and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic do not hold free elections and are rated as undemocratic “hybrid regimes” or “authoritarian regimes”.

        • “Republic: A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives”

          Of course….academically. Look around. Do you see “the people” having power, or the rich, famous and self-absorbed?

          Do we really have a republic, when our “representatives” (who only represent the rich, famous and self-absorbed; i.e. the donor class and their hirelings) tell us our constitution is a flexible guideline, not a guardrail?

          Trying to make a distinction between “democracy” and “republic” does not move our position forward; arguing over angels on pinheads is deflective, and a waste of what resources we have left.

          Note: If polls/surveys are anywhere near accurate, over 66% of the populace supports firearm confiscation. A margin that high should force “our representatives” to propose and ratify an amendment that repeals the Second Amendment. When you have “representatives” who insert their value systems into governance, they are no longer representatives, but tyrants.

        • 54% of states have passed some version of Constitutional Carry, be pretty hard to get a 2/3rds majority to pass a firearms confiscation “amendment”… Follow the money on the polls, who was polled? Where? NYC or FL? Who, what, when, where? Polls can be manipulated to give ANY response you desire… Who did the poll? Who did they poll? How was the question worded? Who PAID for the poll? Eggs are bad, Eggs are great… Get the jab, the jab doesn’t work… Polls are as much bullshit as percentages/averages, I can make numbers say whatever works for me… Yeah, I just had a shot of Patron and I’m ready to roll…

      • “Our Republic operates on the core base of democracy…”

        No.

        Our form of government, constitutional republic, is based on ‘self-evident (immutable) truths’ — truths that can’t change over time, or bend to the will of the masses, majority, or those in power.

        A democracy has no such truths, only the will of those that hold the power. As such, if you subscribe to the belief and practice of democracy, then there was: no holocaust, no unjust slavery, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Those that held the power decided that Jews had no rights, therefore they didn’t — that’s a democracy; those that held the power decided that blacks could be enslaved – that’s a democracy.

        That that bleat for democracy had better be ready to accept those dirty truths.

        • “Our form of government, constitutional republic, is based on ‘self-evident (immutable) truths’ — truths that can’t change over time, or bend to the will of the masses, majority, or those in power.”

          Our form of government is built on democratic principles, not myths. At the core of “democracy” is the individual holds the power of the vote. In the US, we have three voting levels: individual, representatives, senators. At each level, majority rules, the base principle of “democracies”. The intentions of having three levels is largely irrelevant at this moment in history.

          In the US, the historical meaning of “our democracy” refers to the first level: individuals get to vote on things; everyone gets to vote, and majority rules. Going up a step, and our “representatives” (which they are not) get to vote on things, and majority rules (not bound by the vote of “the people”). “Democracy” by proxy is a system of democracy. Else, the individual would have no vote at all.

          There is nothing magic about a constitutional republic. The layers of govt what were intended to suppress heat-of-the-moment changes to society are long past their effectiveness, and the ruling elites become the mob.

          In short, “our democracy” is simply shorthand (an innate characteristic of Americans) for our government as established. If all three voting levels are operated by a corrupt coalition of billionaire donors, business, and media, “constitutional republic” has no tangible meaning, no real “guardrails”.

          There are many, much more, important issues deserving attention, than trying to teach goats the arcane difference between “democracy” and republic.

        • There are many, much more, important issues deserving attention, than trying to teach goats the arcane difference between “democracy” and republic.

          If only EVERYONE was as smart as you appear to THINK you are…

    • A democracy is ruled by the will of the majority, period. Since there is no such thing as a pure democracy, it is manifest through a representative democracy where the power of the majority is concentrated in a few. (In the end, it is all about the power. Any form of government that is designed to concentrate power is inherently corrupt. Our constitutional republic was (originally) designed to DE-centralize that power — the powers are held by the people, some are delegated to the states, and even fewer are delegated to the federal government. Not perfect by any means, but the purpose is to decentralize and bring order to the exercise and use of power.)

      Further, under a democracy there ARE NO rights, only the will of the (representative) majority in power. If the majority decide that Jews have no rights or protections, then they don’t, to name but a single example.

      • “Further, under a democracy there ARE NO rights, only the will of the (representative) majority in power. If the majority decide that Jews have no rights or protections, then they don’t,”

        We may see that come to pass in/under our “constitutional republic”, afterall “no right is absolute”.

    • I saw last night there is a new movie coming out starring Kirsten Dunst called “Civil War,” where the unimaginable comes to pass. Texas and California (really? These two?) join to secede. The President calls out the Army and the Air Force to crush the rebellion. Apparently that move is quite unpopular and much of the west soon joins, etc., etc., etc.

    • Gipper’s Ghost,

      I am saddened every time a lesbian couple refer to each other as “wife”–that is NOT the definition of a wife. A wife is a woman who is married to a man. That has been the definition of “wife” for, well, all human history.

    • No, you aren’t trying to clear anything. You’re trying to fit everyone else into your limited homophobic worldview. They’re not going back in the closet just so you don’t have to be discomforted by their existence.

    • gipper&jw…Out of the entire fact filled article you two lovebirds ride something that by now in the year of Our Lord 2023 should be water off a duck’s back.

        • I’ll always love Ashlee Evans-Smith (a real girl) for beating Fallon Fox (a dude pretending to be a girl, and fighting girls in MMA – yes they actually allowed that to happen).

    • I remember when people laughed and mocked Dennis Prager a decade or so back saying that L/G marriage would not be a slippery slope but a step off a cliff. Civil unions is what he was pushing for instead. In the end he was proven 1,000 times right.

  5. These people sound a lot like how Gov.Hutchinson or Gen’l Gage must have felt about those damned colonial rebels.

    Statists and power hungry elites never change.

  6. “… raising the specter of insurrection and implying that carrying guns in public spaces is a danger to our democracy.”

    Consider the Battle of Athens, Tennessee where (a corrupt Sheriff) absolutely raised the specter of insurrection, carried guns in public spaces, and was a danger to our democracy: he stuffed the local ballot box and refused to let the local folk audit the election–and even shot one of the local folks who was trying to get at the ballot box to count it.

    Had it not been for armed local folk who engaged in an hours long gun battle and stand-off with the Sheriff, they never would have been able to ultimately audit the ballot box and prosecute the Sheriff for election fraud.

  7. If this “anti-insurrection” argument tossed in with all the coming “civil war” media is indeed predictive programming 2024 is gonna be lit. Keep an eye on Ray Epps.

  9. The amount of federal government involvement in such “insurrections” right now is extremely interesting. We need another Church Committee and real teeth behind reeling in the feds at this point. Never gonna happen, but it needs to.

  11. “Horwitz” eh? Of course he’s one of the bad ones which comprise 90%+ of his community, guaranteed he also demands Israel surrender 1/2 of their nation to the murderous Hamasocrats.

      • Most of the population in Gaza doesn’t have electricity 24/7 (since before the recent strikes). They’ve been treated like sh** and sub-humans for decades, what do you expect? Most Palestinians do not support Hamas, they had another political party (Fatah), far more reasonable, and they got ousted by Hamas.
        You should also watch “Last Week Tonight” on Israel-Hamas war; Some leaders in Israel want Hamas to prosper. Both Israel and Hamas are pure evil.

        • FATAH got ousted and squashed cause they launched an ARMED REBELLION with support from the West against the elected Gov’t of Gaza!!

          Hamas won control of GAZA from an election!!

          Which immediately the Western Gov’ts rejected and imposed sanctions on Gaza…

          West only recolonizes elections that go OUR WAY!!!!

        • Both Israel and Hamas are pure evil.

          Name a governing body that isn’t… Extends far beyond politics to sports and whatever… Power (money) corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely… While the people of Gaza are struggling for food, water and medical care, Hamas’ wealthy leadership lives luxuriously in Qatar. its top three leaders have a combined net-worth of over $11 billion, according to reports confirmed by the U.S. Treasury. There is a web of men who lead the terror organization, but Abu Marzouk, Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh are the primary heads, each is worth billions. Haniyeh, the “prime minister,” does not live in Gaza and allegedly flies between Turkey and Qatar in a private jet. So much for “sanctions”…

        • When the Israelis controlled Gaza, they build a huge greenhouse complex that sold fruit to Europe and generated millions in income not to mention hundreds of jobs. When the Israelis withdrew, they handed the place over to the Gazans, who promptly destroyed it.
          That shows what Gazans are made of.

        • Citing late night TV as a credible source for anything completely invalidates your opinions and places you firmly in the rolls of ‘scroll past, do not read’ local trolls.

        • You should also watch “Last Week Tonight”

          No, you should NOT… That smug, self-important, America hating, Limey POS would like nothing better than to see our Republic become a Soshullist shithole overnight… Anyone who supports that scumbag is as unamerican as he is… FUCK John Oliver…

        • Just want to jump on the MaddMaxx bandwagon and say, fuck John Oliver with a rusty cleaver until he dies from bowel cancer.

        • Just want to jump on the MADDMAXX bandwagon and say, fuck John Oliver with a rusty cleaver until he dies from bowel cancer.

          I’m sure there is plenty of room on this wagon…

  12. I have to say without equivocation that any person who believes the Left doesn’t promote insurrection all you have to do is look at the months of riots we had primarily in Blue Cities and how these people were not even prosecuted for crimes far worse than occurred at the Capitol inspired Government farce. (Yes not by President Trump but by the Leftist controlled Government we currently have in Washington DC and in many Blue Cities and States). Joe Stalin had a term “Useful Idiots” that referred to the people in Russia who actually believed what he said and then had over 50 million of them killed. Well we have plenty of those here as well. They ignore things like 100,000 Americans dying from fentanyl, open boarders which brings in drugs and human traffic, criminals, terrorists, increased violence and crime, and a cost to the American People in billions to support these unwanted people. So their focus on firearms is for one and only one purpose, to disarm America so they can impose their will on anyone who disagrees with their narratives which they spout despite knowing and not caring that they are dead wrong. This article is a perfect example of how they ignore the real problems and only focus on a path for power and uncontested control. When they force the real insurrection with their bad policies then they will learn what an insurrection really is and they had better have some good hiding places because there will be a great many people looking for them.

    • Those weren’t riots. They were legitimate expressions of rebellion against an oppressor.

      Same way they feel about Hamas raping and murdering children and grandmas.

      The left are all straight up psychotic, homicidal monsters at this point. The best part to me is that grandma lefty who’s still wet for JFK doesn’t realize her lefty granddaughter would toss her old ass off a cliff in a second if it meant student loan forgiveness or a free apartment. Their alleged altruistic motivations of justice and equity are just selfish personal desires in a terribly unconvincing disguise.

  13. Not a Democracy.

    A violent mob against one person is democracy. That one person carrying adequate armament will remind them it is a Constitutional Republic that defends the rights of the minority.

  14. They say “insurrection” as though it were a bad thing. Fortunately, our Founders held a different perspective of “insurrection.”

    “In 1776, we had to clean house. The house is filthy again.” (tee from Lilicloth.com) But, that is the WHY behind Libturds’ gun control, guns “for them not We The Little Peeps”, protecting their own tyrannical asses for their plan to destroy America.

    • Chopping off heads wasn’t the French’s problem the problem was they didn’t have a plan after the chopping was done… new boss, same as the old boss.

  17. stripping everything from freedom of speech and religion to the right to due process to life itself whenever it seems fashionable enough to a plurality of voters. That’s why our democratic system is constrained within a republican framework that keeps power in check,

    Yet our “government” has conspired with the media to deny individuals “freedom of speech”, spied upon American Christians labeling them “domestic terrorists” AND held hundreds of American citizens in jail for years while denying them their Constitutional rights to due process, hell they even “fixed” a national election… Sorry, I must be missing that “constraint keeping their power in check” thing of which you speak. They don’t need no stinking “plurality of voters”…

  18. I thought the only thing we had to do to preserve our democracy was ditch Drumpf. Now we have to do this other thing too? Will there be complimentary drinks?

  20. I’m a free market anarchist. Everyone can take their democracy and republic crap and F right off. If I am not harming another person or their property leave me the H alone.

    • I’m a free market anarchist

      There’s no such animal… There is no place for a “free market” in an Anarchy… It is every man for himself, if I don’t like your sales “techniques” I just put you out of business (aka waste you) and take over your business, that is NOT free market… You evidently don’t know what an anarchist is…

  21. Been carrying for over 60 years as a civilian, a cop, and a military NCO. I carry to defend myself and others! F*#K you anti weapon ass holes in your biden!

  22. Until the idiots in charge stop listening to the dictator and his cronies, nothing will change.
    Guns do not kill people. People kill people. Deal with the people, using guns in the commission of a crime, with extreme prejudice and there will be a better response than when attacking law abiding citizens.

  23. @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit”
    “Now we have morons harping on and on about “our democracy” when we have no such thing, thankfully. They want ‘mob rule’ very badly…”

    “Mob rule” is different from “Majority rule”, how? Both are “whoever gets the most votes”. Think about states with “ballot initiatives”. Where are the elected legislators of our republic? In states with “ballot initiatives” the “representatives” step aside and let democracy prevail.

    Does Democracy/Republic matter when the result is barely perceptible?

      • “Mob rule? If I can kick the current leaders ass (aka kill him) then I am the leader til someone else kicks my ass…”

        Majority Rule:
        If my tribe can get more votes than the other tribe, then I am leader til someone can produce more votes.(i.e. ballot initiatives)

        • THAT is a democracy… Mob rule (aka anarchy), there is NO vote… Pay attention, If my tribe kicks your tribes ass then I am your God… Get used to it… There is NO vote in Mob Rule

  24. Sane people like these limits because they protect the individual rights we cherish even as they protect the rights of people we may disapprove of. That balance is essential to a functioning, peaceful civilization.

  26. To the Left, ‘Democracy’ is the totalitarian one-party rule of the Commiecrats. They want you disarmed so they can do things to you that otherwise would get them shot!
    This is why we have a 2nd Amendment; the most effective way to stop tyrants is the application of ‘Romanian Term Limits’ in the form of well-aimed rifle fire.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here