Marjorie Taylor Greene
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Trevor Zantos

Jennifer Sensiba’s stunning article regarding Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is full of a range of dishonest talking points that ignore the fundamental underpinnings of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. I’m not going to deal with the other distractions Ms. Sensiba is apparently obsessed with, but stick with the ideas that caused our Founding Fathers to include the Second Amendment in the Constitution and how those ideals are fundamental to the American experiment.

The United States is a unique experiment and the Second Amendment is one of the greatest representations of our unique founding and principles. First, western civilization is built on the ideas of the Greeks that, in turn, influenced the Roman world. Simultaneously, the Jewish religion has a long and complicated history that also influenced a number of other cultures. Then in 300 AD, Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and so began the formal Judeo-Christian western philosophy.

In 1215, King John of England signed the Manga Carta. This is the first time in western civilization that a monarch was forced to acknowledge that his subjects had rights that were inherent to their being Englishmen.

The following centuries created a tradition of Common Law and the right to self defense and the idea that having arms was the most effective method to do it. There is a solid argument that the English civil war, was partially kicked off because of the threat of the Catholic crown seeking to limit Protestants’ rights to posses arms.

In order for there to be human rights — or more specifically inalienable rights — they have to come from somewhere. Otherwise there are only “rights” that come from government, which means they can be justly taken away by government at will. Before the Age of Enlightenment, it was generally believed that those rights came from the creator.

During the 1500s, the idea of Natural Law started to be discussed. Contrary to many “experts”, Natural Law does not necessarily mean the lack of belief in God or creator, it merely means that by observing nature, humans can see the order and law that exist in nature and translate that to our understanding of basic human rights.

In my opinion, and that of many of the Founding Fathers, the best book on Natural law is John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Alexander Hamilton expressed this sentiment in The Federalist Number 28 . . .

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government….

Whenever discussing the Second Amendment or human rights in general, it’s important to establish where the individual thinks those rights come from because it really frames any future discussions. Not all pro-gun groups believe in the Second amendment. Ms. Sensiba listed some in her article that clearly cannot believe in the Second Amendment as written because they fundamentally believe that rights come from government.

I’m all for having discussions; real discussions featuring the exchange of ideas with people who are willing to listen and consider changing their mind if presented with superior evidence. I have had many of these discussions over the years. Many converts were individuals I took to the range for the first time.

With all of the new gun owners, our community needs to reach out and help in any way we can. While we do that, we need to share the stories of gun control and its effects, including the devious game that the gun control groups play, as generations before us have done.

As far as politicians go, I don’t like or trust many of them, but there are some facts that need to be recognized. Firstly, I don’t think gun rights should be a Democrat or Republican issue. The First Amendment shouldn’t be partisan either, but it is.

With the most recent gun control bills that have passed in the house, HR8 and HR1446, only a handful of Republicans voted ‘yes’ and fewer Democrats voted ‘no.’ The right to keep and bear arms shouldn’t be partisan, and maybe one day it won’t be, but the subject of gun rights is partisan now and trying to pretend otherwise is foolish.

As far as Rep. Greene, she’s not my representative and i don’t agree with her on everything, but I agree with her on most subjects and at least she has the guts to fight. These are exactly the type of people that we need in congress, people who will fight.

I have the same problem with her that I have with most “pro 2A” politicians…they always talk about defending the Second Amendment, but there is never a vision to restoring the peoples’ Second Amendment rights. It is uninspiring to only be againt things, people want to be for something.

I am for:

  1. Eliminating the Second Amendment “poll tax” aka the excise tax
  2. Eliminating the restrictions regarding silencers, short barreled riffles, machine guns, destructive devices, and AOWs
  3. Destroying all NFA files
  4. Restoring the idea of innocent until proven guilty, unlike NICS which is guilty till proven innocent
  5. Eliminating the ATF as an organization, folding relevant groups into other agencies, focusing prosecution on crimes committed with firearms and ensuring the add-on actually is applied. We should go after large scale international arms trafficking going through ports or borders, remove classification authority and necessitate that all correspondence must be public and posted in real time online.

So give me fighters and fearless politicians. I will work on trying to evangelize to them, to try to get a collective vision that the people want on how we restore our rights. All are welcome.

I will do what I can to help any new shooter in any way I can as I have done since I started in the industry 18 years ago. However, I will never accede to the idea that government grants us “rights.”

In order to unite, there have to be shared values. I propose the best building block is the idea that there are certain inalienable rights and government’s purpose is to defend those rights with the least amount of intrusion.

As an aside, if you have an interest in actually hearing about Majorie Taylor Greene from herself I recommend at least watching these videos (here and here) and then making up your own mind. We are involved in a zero sum game in America. We got here through timidity and comprising on everything. I’m only interested in leaders who fight so “lead, follow, or get out of the way.”


Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Love it! The 2nd Amendment doesn’t need “Bush-B***”, Romney, McCain etc, etc Republicans. They have practically destroyed our Court because they are cowardly enablers of the Democrat Party.

    We need, however, Eugene McCarthy, JFK, and William Promised Democrats (TRUE DEMOCRATS) as well.

    • Unfortunately I did not get much from both Sensiba and Zantos. Both failed to define Gun Control. How can anyone fight Gun Control when most gun owners can only assume what Gun Control is?

      To define Gun Control travel back in time to its roots. There you”ll see Gun Control walking hand in hand with slavery, s5egregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics and other race based atrocities. All of those race based atrocities are seen today as despicable and unacceptable…All except for Gun Control. And why is that?

      That’s simply because you have people using well worn platitudes to defend the 2A instead of stepping up and doing what matters. What matters is using the Truth About Gun Control to yank Gun Control out by its roots.

    • “…they are cowardly enablers of the Democrat Party.”

      Yes they are. Even more than that, it seems that the Bush and McCain families outright supported Democrats. Which conservative values were they fighting for again? No mean tweets? More wars? Revenge for being humiliated?

    • Here’s the problem: “Much of the public, many of them Republicans and independents, are disgusted . . .”

      This is a road many, if not most of us, has been down before. Jennifer’s mistake—and in terms of 2nd Amendment rights it’s a very, very big one—is her convection that the preservation of a constitutional right is dependent on a nebulous population of people who are not “disgusted” at People Of The Gun’s ferocious support of gun rights.

      During his entire term in office a constant litany of If-only-Trump-would-be-nicer-and-not-make-those-tweets-the-moderates-would-like-him complaints accompanied everything the man said or did. Although the basic assumption was entirely wrong, it was something repeated over, and over again—by people who didn’t much like Trump or us much anyway.

      And so now we’re once again invited to believe that everything will be better if only we try to be nicer.

      Note to Jennifer: There IS NO moderate demographic out there who’s opinions will somehow save our 2nd Amendment rights. We know this to be true. Marjorie Taylor Greene knows this to be true. And so does President Donald J. Trump. Deal with it.

  2. There were no “Protestants” or Protestant ideas involved in the War of the Roses. The English Civil War was later under Cromwell, after the Tudors and in the midst of the Stuarts. England became Protestant under the Tudor King Henry VIII, who had previously spoken out against Martin Luther and got the title “Defender of the Faith” from the Pope. Henry became a Protestant over divorcing his first wife Catherine of Aragon, who had previously been married to Henry’s brother Arthur.

  3. Gun rights are not a partisan issue. Most Republican law makers do not believe that any citizen should be able to own, carry, or keep a firearm in his home. For them as for most Dems, it is guns for me, not for thee. We have to prove that we are worthy of being able to protect ourselves. They do pay lip service, but make no mistake, if they could pry them from our hands and homes, they would.
    Both parties are like the different sides of the same coin. The corporations the pull the strings do not want an armed populace, so they are working to that result. NEVER let your guard down.
    Trump is and was not a true member of the Republican establishment. Now that he is gone, it is all about giving corporations power.
    God, help us all.

    • “Most Republican law makers do not believe that any citizen should be able to own, carry, or keep a firearm in his home”

      Oh Bullshit. You’re are a card carrying idiot and deciple of minormoron9er.

  4. “The next time we tell someone that we support gun rights because it’s a human right, and that it protects human dignity from the ravages of tyranny and criminal attack…” – apparently too confusing for Mr. Zantos to understand.

  5. What seems to go unnoticed by many who read Sensiba’s article is that not everyone who visits here has seen every posting since the beginning of the blog. There are always newbies who need to be informed. People coming to TTAG for an echo chamber are frequently stunned to find that TTAGF is not an echo chamber.

    MTG may, indeed, be a whacko of the first order. However she is a Representative, a person chosen to represent a majority of voters in a congressional district. Maybe, the majority of voters in MTG’s district are also whackos. Still, those whackos have the right to choose who they want to represent them. Please be reminded how many true whackos make up the constituency of the radical Left. Whackos they may be, but they are all singularly committed to advancing the revolution, and all welcomed in the parties of the Left. Win first, then deal with your whackos.

    • I agree the voters in Georgia have spoken on whom they want to represent them. However I also believe that a person that has some of her beliefs should not represent gun owners. We need someone who will appeal to the people that sit on the gun control fence.

    • “MTG may, indeed, be a whacko of the first order. ”

      So says the MSM and congressional demtards. ALL 100% demonstrated to lie 100% of the time. So disregards EVERYTHING they say on EVERY subject and you will seldom go wrong.

  6. Why is it that we have to keep fighting for our God given rights?

    Because Satan’s evil forces, the democrats, liberals, socialists and communists do not believe in God. It’s really that simple.

    When you watch powerful people like Nasty Nancy, Lying Biden, Lieburn Clyburn, Gruesome Newsom, Hussein and Moochelle O, you can see and hear Satan’s immoral evil just oozing out of their mouths.

    As a signer of The Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush said: ” Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

    • Sadly, you’re quite mistaken. Though it’s somewhat comical that you claim the problem as being unbelief in God and then rattle off a list of Christians and Jews (newsflash: Christians and Jews believe in God), there’s something far more important you miss: Plenty of religious cultures in the world, including Christian and Jewish ones, never did conceptualize rights the way the US did. Most of the world is very much “government-issued privilege” and not “presumed moral limitation on government” even though they’re believers.

      It’s on us, not God or even other religious believers, to defend that conceptualization of rights.

      • One might point out how frightfully sobering it is to not only witness the tacit misapprehension of, but also the actual iniquitous championing for an ideology of “…people who matter…”.

        All right here on the happy little microcosm called TTAG.

  7. The “atheist puritans” in every part of life, including the 2A community, demand “a pure” defender. As they define it. And that is the problem. Christians already knew Donald Trump was not pure. That didn’t matter. He was great on the things that were important to conservatives. Christian or not.

    And yes as a former Bumpstock owner he was a disappointment. But so was, and still is, the “gun communty”. For never supporting the bumpstock in the first place. Especially as an inovation, and use of modern technology in gun making accessories.

    The Fudd asks, “Why are you wasting ammo?” Asked as if it’s any of your business what I do with my ammunition since I paid for it.

    Yes the bump stock was created to get around a federal gun law.
    And so what if it was???
    We as humans find ways to get around obstacles. It’s what we do. But there are some people who are much more interested in following the law. And not trying in any way whatsoever to get around that law without breaking it.

    There are already many things in the gun world that have been created that get around gun control. And will those same people who abandoned the bump stock also abandon these other Innovations?

    There are a lot of old style gun manufacturers who would find the making of 3D printed guns and ammunition to be competition that they don’t want to have. So I wonder if the gun community will abandon 3D gun technology as well. Especially from a small upstart competitor.

    Bill Ruger the Creator of the 10/22 rifle. He supported the AR-15 ban. Because he wanted the government to buy his Ruger Mini-14 that use the same caliber. Having the government destroy your competition is one way a business can advance.

    It’s why YouTube channels are getting banned. It has nothing to do with racism or whatever someone wants to makeup. These companies and individuals are going after the competition that they don’t like. Or that competes with a company that they do like.

    • One doesn’t have to be an atheist or a puritan (not sure why religion matters?) to ask why we don’t see real pro-2A action when R’s are in power.

      At the state level things are improving (caveat: in red states only), but at the federal level a RINO herd can do a lot of harm. “Not Democrat” is not enough.

      • “…ask why we don’t see real pro-2A action when R’s are in power.”

        The answer is because it was never a priority. I think people are finally waking up to that reality. It isn’t enough to just vote against Democrats. The Republican party is in the process of being remade, and the old guard elite are resisting. It’s time to primary every one of them. Remaking the Republican Party will be easier and more realistic than creating another powerless third party.

      • You are correct. Libertarians and Conservatives have forgotten. Its much easier to get Liberty when you are dealing with a smaller goverment. Like a state. Instead of the federal governemnt.
        Which is why many are moving to a different state. But if you are a puritan, atheist of religious, you will not get everything you want. The battle is a very long term one. And the puritains don’t understand this.

        Any small victory is a good one. And that is what Trump was. And got the small victories for us. But the puritans were impatient.

  8. We’ve already given Sensiba more attention than she expected or deserved. Her post was worthy of the NY Times or the Washington Post. Which is about as far from a compliment as is humanly possible.

  9. “..People started commenting that they were calling the advertisers..”

    Trolls started commenting is what you meant.

      • You called an advertiser because some writer wrote an opinion piece that was not in line with YOUR opinion? On a free gun board? That publishes opinions across all spectrums about 2A Rights, guns, and the ‘politics of’?

        Perhaps Troll is not the correct term after all.

      • “I called. I am not a troll.”

        Do you work for Media Matters or Sleeping Giants? That’s what they do. The Left prefers to silence the opposition instead of countering with their own ideas.

  10. Made it to 4:21 in the first video before turning it off.

    One could argue that the issue here is putting party ahead of principle. Principle abrogates endorsing a “faction” because they espouse sharing “some” of your ethics. That’s not how principle works- “least evil” is anathema to morality.

    And by principle, ethics, and morality I mean things that do not contain hate, cruelty, egoism, deceit, corruption, contradiction, or malevolent dogma.

    Inherent human rights are manifest outside of any government, political party, religion, society, or any other factitious construct. The people worth supporting (not politicians) are those whose goal is to actualize a system invulnerable to partisanship and the vicissitudes of transitory political culture.

  11. FYI, this was not solicited by Dan, I reached out to him and asked if he would be interested in posting a rebuttal. I obviously took it in a bit of a different direction but these are my thoughts. This is my first published article and I appreciate that Dan providing a space in the op-Ed’s to share different ideas as it’s a cornerstone of our republic. Thanks for the feedback so far, hopefully I will continue to improve and there will be more from me posted soon.

    • Dan is pretty cool about opposing views.

      We may disagree on things, but it’s good that we support each other’s right to say them without cancel culture.

  12. Wow – a guy wrote a serious post about how Juedo-Christian is an oxy-moron, but it was deleted.

    TTAG where they censor you if you point out fake history. TFB never censored anyone.

    • As someone who has been censored on TFB for disagreeing with the writer of an article (Nathaniel F.) I can tell you that’s just not true. And no, the comments they deleted were not about politics.

      TFB isn’t better than TTAG, both are websites that are chasing clicks and can and will censor anything they don’t like. TTAG has a more liberal policy on free speech but I’ve had perfectly acceptable/polite comments deleted for no given reason.

      Don’t delude yourself into thinking either blog gives a darn about free speech. It’s all about the clicks.

    • The firearm blog?!? When did they ever get po-litical and give a damn about 2A??? There is NO parallel blog/site for 2A anywhere on social media. Been here since 2013. Lurked longer(Farago was pretty odd). Sensiba is far from the worst “contributor”….that would be Fiream Concierge. My opinion. You pay for what you get(it’s free genius).

      • Firearms Concierge was/(is?) a grade-A jackwagon, can’t disagree with your analysis on that.

        Personally I always hoped Dyspeptic Gunsmith would write for TTAG whenever he got tired of making custom rifles. Haven’t seen a comment from him in ages though.

      • Oh I agree…I came here as a non-nervous middle-aged novice. As is my custom knowing everything is what I do with any hobby/interest or vocation I engage in(lot’s of trepidation about AR15!). DG as a regular would be great but I get the feelng he has little interest. Like Ralph. As it is I spend far too much time on gun sites,shops & YouTube. It’s gotten worse as my good friend is quite ignorant & somehow I’m his guru because I “know stuff”😏

      • “Sensiba is far from the worst “contributor”….that would be Firearm Concierge.”

        Holy smoke, fww! I’d forgotten about FC. What an obnoxious dildo he was!

    • Oh whatever. I like both TFB and TTAG but find TTAG superior due to its open comments section and they’re not afraid to get political. TFB has good stuff but they use Disqus which is biased to the left.

  13. “(((DZ))) is trying to cover his tracks after readers of this blog did not take too kindly to being told “if you oppose trans, you’re hurting gun rights.” ”

    I didn’t pick up on that, at all. Maybe it was Sensiba’s words. However, every potential vote for gun rights is more important than who is what. In essence, throwing “trans” people off the island does hurt the campaign to gain more 2A defenders.

    If Al Capone (Meyer Lansky, Bugs Moran, Frank Nitti, Jimmy Hoffa could vote to expand/restore the Second Amendment, I would make room, and alliance. Either the Second Amendment is more important than anything, or we are just squabbling over opinions.

    • The trans lobby is not going to leave the reservation and become 2A supporters. Thinking they will is wishful thinking at best and delusion at worst. The trans lobby is deeply wedded to the concept of a democrat superstate that gives them special rights and privileges based on their place in the hierarchy of victim groups. They depend on that system to forcefully oust anyone who stands in the way of enabling their mental illness. They’re not going to give up their right to be in women’s sports and receive preferential treatment wherever they go in society just so they can have AR15’s.

      So all you do by “creating a big tent” is piss off the people who matter and water down your ability to enact change to try and woo a demographic that might, MIGHT feel badly about people getting red flagged but ultimately will conclude it is for the greater good and vote for the bluest candidate they can find.

      I live in a large urban area with a large LGBTQ presence and out of the easily hundred or so LGBTQ+ types I’ve met in the last 2 years and interacted with, only 2 were libertarians. The rest were full SJW.

      • A damn good thing the ‘trans tent’ will never be more than a very few percent of the total population, then.

        There is going to be a *massive* blow-back in the future when children converted by their parents while pre-pubescent realize what horrors were permanently done to them by mentally-ill parents…

        • Nobody would be more deserving of the wrath for the absolute harm that they will have done to their children.

        • “A damn good thing the ‘trans tent’ will never be more than a very few percent of the total population, then.”

          That’s never the point when they push these small groups. The point is to amass a virtue signaling army that will follow along with them. You’re also “not allowed” to criticize these groups which gives them even more power.

    • Throwing trans people off the pro-gun island wouldn’t hurt either our numbers or the cause. They’re a VERY tiny percentage of the population, for one thing; and as De Facto pointed out, virtually none of that tiny number of people were ever going to visit Pro-Gun Island, let alone live here alongside us.

      *Not* throwing them off wouldn’t hurt (or help) either. If not for the lunatic left’s fixation on their special victimness, they’d be 100% irrelevant.

      But the current fracas here at TTAG isn’t actually about whether trans people can or should be allowed to join the big 2A tent. It started because a TTAG writer said that a pro-gun congresswoman wading into the gender-politics morass, getting into slapfights on Twitter, and making herself a cultural lightning rod wasn’t a good idea. Nobody said anything about supporting the left’s insane ideology.

      Yet for some stupid reason here we are anyway, arguing about who does or doesn’t support “the queers” and who must therefore be canceled. This whole thing is so ridiculous it’s giving me a headache just thinking about it.

      One thing that *would* would be actually harmful to our cause would be listening to the loud coalition of idiots that wants TTAG (and the rest of us) to “cancel” Jennifer Sensiba and others like her, who are fully on our side and very numerous and needed. Especially when they can do the necessary work of reaching persuadable people.

  14. Good article, regardless of the “rebuttal” moniker.

    I can work with those disagree with me on certain topics if we have a goal we where we do agree.

    We need our representatives to have some cods and follow the constitution even when it is “unpopular”. Pure and simple.

    I have two US senators (FL), that find it difficult to apply the constitution when presented with emotion arguments.

    Application of the constitution is the desired goal, regardless of party. The congress needs to take ownership of their role and reverse the trend of ceding power to the executive branch.

  15. “The trans lobby is not going to leave the reservation and become 2A supporters. ”

    You have never read me encouraging 2A defenders to chase “unicorn” 2A defenders as a group. As individuals, however, LGBQWERTY are humans, endowed with natural, human and civil rights that cannot be denied simply because they believe in fantasy. However, if any gun owner is LBGBQWERTY, are we smart to excommunicate that person? While I don’t believe there are enough “unicorns” to tip the balance toward expanded/recovered 2A rights, I also don’t believe we should scare the one or two off.

    Alliances are not about principle, but sharfed interests.

    • Why would you excommunicate the LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP (or whatever the string is today)?

      Loads of people in the gun community hold what might be considered “oddball” views on something. Goldbugs, 3gunners, 2gunners, mall ninjas, FUDDs, revolver fans, semi-auto fans, muffler fans, people who use words like “heater”, “four pound” or “smoke wagon”. The list goes on.

      No one is perfect. I’d prefer that these people have some skin in the game because statistics says that some portion of them will take it seriously because they don’t want to lose what they now have. What percentage that is doesn’t matter, it’s still a win for us because each one is someone we didn’t have before and I doubt anyone’s going to renounce their support for the 2A because some gay guy suddenly discovered the rights enshrined therein. And let’s suppose it does rarely occur; If someone says “Screw it, I’m turning in all my guns and going anti because of the queers!” then were they ever really a solid 2A person anyway? No. They weren’t and we’re better off without them because it was only ever a matter of time until they defected over something else anyway.

      Sure, some of these LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP people might be willing to “take the L” (ROFL!) in some cases but how is that different from the people who are all about “muh hunting rifle > your mall ninja gun”? How is it different from the people who are such 1911 fanbois that they’ll happily go along with mag limits because it doesn’t affect their precious (yet)? How are they different from any number of “I support the 2A but…” group?

      They’re not. But I’ll take the additional people even if it only works out to five people nationwide because this isn’t an issue where we are being pennywise and pound foolish.

      Picking up LGBTQ+ people provides the 2A community people who can then go forth into the LGBTQ+ community and spread the 2A message in a way that the rest of us cannot do. Even if the advantage provided here is small it’s still an advantage and if we start stacking small advantages we’ll start to create larger advantages.

      Jesus didn’t covert people by disassociating from them. He went out and hung around hookers, thieves and liars and did so because he recognized that it wasn’t possible to convince people that you’re right if you never talk to those people.

      • “Jesus didn’t covert people by disassociating from them.”

        Christians will never convert these people. Because gun ownership is in the Bible. Which they hate.

        It’s hard to take the LGBTQxyz crowd seriously when they, have a very long history of, writing and passing anti civil-rights laws. And if they decide to buy a gun one day, there is nothing that prevents them from doing so. Unless they happen to live in a state where the politicians they voted for, passed unconstitutional gun control laws. They also have a very poor record of support for the 1st Amendment.

        You spend a great deal of the time writing about Christians. And very little about the Libertarian boogaloo guys. Why do you need the
        Christians all of a sudden???
        You were happy to tell them to follow government orders and not go to Easter services. Your anniversary for saying that is this month.

    • The mentally ill don’t have the capacity to handle firearms. Their 40% suicide rate is indicative of the tranny’s mental state.

  16. MTG is a wacko, but wacko is good. We need more wacko. It breaks through the crust of political correctness and inertia. People respond to wacko because its what they themselves are thinking.

  17. “Eliminating the restrictions regarding silencers, short barreled riffles, machine guns, destructive devices, and AOWs”

    “Destroying all NFA files”

    A laudable goal, but I’ll settle for re-opening the MG registry in the meantime.

    Turn up the heat on them slowly the same way they are doing to us…

  18. Need to remove some of the old rotten lumber in congress (Feinstein) and put more 2A proponents in. There is so much the Republicans can do to rally and avoid the tainted messages from Trump, and make it a better party. if they don’t start building momentum and fight for 2nd A issues they will start losing ground exponentially.

      • *Purge Siren Intensifies*

        Damned interesting that a intraparty fight within the Democrats was somehow lost by the Republicans, who weren’t even a party to the quarrel.

        • Yes. Idjits. Pfui. If we give the cancel warriors enough time, they’ll eventually cannibalize themselves. Leave their tools to them; we’re not sufficiently devious and sinister to use them effectively. All we end up with is a circular firing squad on our side. For crying out loud…

      • “How?”

        Hold them accountable for their voting record by purging them during their next primary. We have to stop supporting people just because they’ve been around forever or they have an R beside their name.

        • It’s a nice thought, but the reality is different. Take Sen Graham, one of my Senators. He doesn’t get re-elected because he’s a friend to gun owners. He gets re-elected because the political machine in SC wants it. The Senator is beholden to them and conversely. Any Conservative running against him finds this out, unless they have a bunch of millions of their own money. So say super 2A supporting person is elected. Now they are in the Swamp and the Swamp will turn them to the ‘dark side’ or else super 2A person will be alone and no one will know their name. No committees, no deals to be brokered, no power other than 1 vote at a time. I’ve met Sen Graham and he’s a nice guy, but he is a Swamp made creature. Has to be to get anything done for SC.
          I wish it were not so, I support accountability 1000%. My thoughts are to repeal the 17th Amendment. Imagine that!

          Two movie references for the win! lol


  20. Pro Tip:

    Using ((())) or similar causes most people with a modicum of internet savviness to immediately discount whatever you’re going to say because you already made it very clear that, in your mind, the “problem” is “dA JoOooOoOOoOoOOoOOOOOOoOoOs!”.

  21. No right should be a partisan issue. However, the reality is that they ALL are.

    The simple fact of that matter is that the vast, vast majority of people of all ages these days don’t know dick about the actual philosophy behind this country or… well, anything else either.

    The Enlightenment, to some extent, made educating yourself on a range of topics a fashionable thing to do. In this case fashion and pragmatism dovetailed nicely. That’s been undone by the educational system and, if we’re truly honest, not a single person alive today in the USA has been through a system that was actually well designed to produce free people capable of critical thinking. Not a-fucking-one because that system had disappeared by 1890.

    Some people naturally find the current system has something wrong with it. They seek information on their own. However, this takes time and effort and those spending those two things on anything outside of work (employment) has been greatly discouraged in the last 100 or so years.

    The result is that the vast majority of people get what they get from the educational system and ask no further questions. A questioning mind that seeks truth is decidedly unfashionable and has been longer than any of us have been alive.

    The lines have become badly blurred at this point. Gun control is common sense but a high speed internet connection is a “human right”. Which is a complete inversion of the concept of rights.

    You will note that not a single actual right requires action by other people, it springs forth from the individual’s existence. Where rights intersect with the behavior of others true rights do so in a negative way, which is to say that they constrain the behavior of others. Including groups of others like, for example, governments.

    Rights are never truly safe. They must be constantly defended against what, at root, is our baser nature. But when the vast, vast, vast majority of people have no idea what a right is then everyone’s rights are truly in danger.

    When PhD philosophy professors look at one quizzically due to a statement that states a squirrel in the clutches of a raptor has the same rights as a woman facing a rapist or any person facing a murderer, particularly in relation to self-defense, and this misunderstanding occurs specifically during a conversation of the theory of Natural Rights alarm bells should be ringing, loudly. This confusion is not rooted in a disagreement, it’s rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the topic at hand and while the PhD often can use flowery language to cover up their own ignorance that ignorance remains, eating at the core of society like an undiagnosed cancer.

    • One could argue that the first order of business for the categorical defense of natural human rights within the framework of a constitutional republic must include a constitution whose verbiage is so incontrovertible that it cannot be misunderstood, misread, or, especially- misinterpreted.

      One might say that until the “less than unequivocal” wording in the U.S. Constitution is elucidated conclusively- the poignant slow slide into oppression will continue.

      • “…must include a constitution whose verbiage is so incontrovertible that it cannot be misunderstood, misread, or, especially- misinterpreted.”

        This is a fool’s errand in both the medium and the long term.

        The medium term because mostly people don’t bother to defend language at all, allowing those who twist it to shape the way that people think.

        In the longer term because English isn’t dead and so the meaning of words evolves. Which gets into what Scalia used to talk about and was raked over the coals for saying. He was right but those who wish it to be otherwise cannot accept that framework of thinking simply because it means that they don’t get what they want.

        Even if you wrote your Constitution in a dead language what you suggest would still be an impossible task. In doing this you would either bring that language back to life or you would have to translate the Constitution into a living language which could then be twisted to suit the goals of whomever was doing the twisting.

      • It doesn’t matter how it is written. People will read and interpret the Constitution how they want the end result to be. If that weren’t the case I don’t see an outcome that wasn’t 9/0.

      • “a constitution whose verbiage is so incontrovertible that it cannot be misunderstood”

        How about this? Stop appointing elites to the Supreme Court. There are plenty of smart judges who respect the Constitution that didn’t attend an Ivy League school. The elites are the problem.

    • Rights have become a partisan issue because we’ve been infiltrated by people who don’t think rights exist. Or think that rights come from the government, which is effectively the same thing. A government will only recognize your rights until they’re in the way of something they want to accomplish.

      • “Rights have become a partisan issue because we’ve been infiltrated by people who don’t think rights exist.”

        Not to be a cryptic asshole here but… What if I told you that there was no infiltration?

        What if I told you that the writer of this article made several mistakes just in the single sentence “Then in 300 AD, Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and so began the formal Judeo-Christian western philosophy.” and that these errors are, to put it mildly, grievous?

        What if I told you that upwards of what 90% of the people who get it right actually get it wrong because they don’t actually understand what they’re saying due to myopia?

        What if I told you, simply as a singular example (because there are almost too many to count) of truth that cannot be spoken in polite company, that early Christians were, in the modern parlance, a bunch of radical Commies and that numerous strains of that thinking survive to this day? That these things are at odds with Rights as we conceptualize them and that this creates massive cognitive dissonance which is a major problem on “the Right”? That the Left sees and exploits this while also committing the same basic errors?

        Most people around here would ignore all of that as poppycock or get very heated about it. Which is why it’s not really worth mentioning. But these things are, nonetheless, true. They’re problems that we make for ourselves, kinda like the whole “science vs. Christianity” thing. At base there is no problem, but in our haste, ignorance and arrogance we create the problems.

        • Not just the early Christians, the Puritans who settled New England were commies as well.

          Not to mention delusional fantasy believer religionists who happily murdered little old ladies because they knew how to cure the fever with herbs.

  22. No patriotism for my beloved country.
    I ‘ve helped kill a bunch of people 1970-75 . Pol Pots shit too, and felt very heroic. Walking like a stud.
    Communist agression.
    And now the people that run the show are selling out to China.
    Do you know how that makes me feel?
    .one tin soldier.
    It’s not about gunms, theres more at play.
    Biden and his regime are on the inside , and that’s where things get done.
    Me no chu hoi

  23. “In my opinion, and that of many of the Founding Fathers, the best book on Natural
    law is . . .”

    The Holy Bible.

    Yeah, they were well read, post-enlightenment dudes. The Declaration of Independence was and is a post-enlightenment document. And the source of mankind’s rights according to it is “their Creator”. As a wise man on the internet once stated “you might be an atheist if you believe the founding fathers were Christians when they were beating their slaves and deists when they wrote the constitution.”

    I am with Trevor. Eliminate the NFA & ATF.

  24. Greene spews so much garbage and stupidity that even when she is right it is hard to listen or care. This isn’t currently a fight that involves killing your opponents, it involves winning them over, convincing to change their mind or to move on to things that are a better use of their time fighting for. With as much vitriol as she spews she won’t win friends or allies easily in Congress and that means her ability to do anything will soon approach the level of Shiela Jackson Lee who hasn’t done a damn thing but be a second on legislation.

    We need fighters but we need smart fighters more when it comes to the 2nd. We need tough, charismatic, polished speakers who can charm as well as lambast and have the sense when to change their approach. Leaders that are strong, civil and are more easily admirable. Greene is not any of that.

    • A poignant contemplation, indeed. Imagine how successful Trump could have been if only he were charismatic, polished, strong, civil, and more easily admirable.

      Pity he was not astute enough to pursue any of those faculties.

      Be smarter.

  25. “When PhD philosophy professors look at one quizzically due to a statement that states a squirrel in the clutches of a raptor has the same rights as a woman facing a rapist or any person facing a murderer, particularly in relation to self-defense, and this misunderstanding occurs specifically during a conversation of the theory of Natural Rights alarm bells should be ringing, loudly. ”

    Yes alarm bells. Your illustration argues for animal rights vis-a-vis the actions of humans. Was that your intent?

    (The rest of your comment was interesting, and informative_

  26. “I ‘ve helped kill a bunch of people 1970-75 ….And now the people that run the show are selling out to China. Do you know how that makes me feel?….one tin soldier.”

    Been there, did that. However….

    It was a different America before the storm. But, by the time I was given a bit part in the play, my motivation was not patriotic, but to kill as many of the people trying to kill Americans as I could. The mission was rescue, not victory. No shame in rescue. MacArthur was correct !

    But eventually I saw the slide begin, and after leaving the Chair Force, I refused to recommend a military career for anyone. Specialized, or free technical training? Got get ’em. Then get out.

    My operating theory had always been, “The military is a collection of gunfighters, brought to town by the city council, to do a job. Once the job is finished, the gunfighter rides out after dark. There is no ‘greater cause’.” While it is still my theory, having lived it, I am greatly aware of the “deal”, and the aftermath.

  27. “Greene is a nutball and will only serve to drive people away from spring gun rights.”

    That means the people who elected her are nutballs to. They too should be cancelled and thrown out of the pro-2A collective? And this emphasis on dissing 2A supporting voters will somehow end in victory for the Second Amendment?

    Alliances are transactional, not principled. Anyone who prefers to die a principled political death should not be allowed to engage in politics, in any form, including society (which is inherently political). People who demand principles for politics thus declare they are volunteers for isolation and ineffectiveness outside their own physical sphere. And they forfeit the right to be critical of others engaged in politics.

    Win the war first, then you can navel-gaze about principles.

  28. “As a wise man on the internet once stated “you might be an atheist if you believe the founding fathers were Christians when they were beating their slaves and deists when they wrote the constitution.”

    1. Many of the founders were Deists, not Christians.

    2. Understanding that there is a Creator, and how one works with that concept are two different things.

    3. Being a “moral people” is possible without being a religious people.

    4. The failure of a person to be perfect in living their philosophy, moral principles, religious precepts, is always the fault of the philosophy, moral principles, religious precepts; never the fault of the individual. Strange how that works out, because the only way to be perfect then becomes to have no guiding standards at all, only situational responses that best serve the individual.

    • Deist? They were predominantly Masonic. With a smattering of born-again Christian’s. Right’s of Man,natural law et all. And the whole “Judeo-Christian ” was not a thing. Constantine “converted” politically and persecuted the Jews who he considered Christ killers. He forbad the Jewish feast’s & festival’s as evil. I have a rabbi FB friend(he grew up across the street) who rants against Constantine. He is an extremely legalistic “messianic jew”. The Judeo-Christian thing is a modern construct…and damn near every country on earth had slaves. Likely your forebears.

  29. I follow your argument, but disagree that our rights are so secure that we can dismiss even a single vote, for whatever reason. Again, alliances are transactional, not principled. One can accept a person’s vote and support without endorsing that person’s choices in other areas.

    IFRC, Reagan was asked why he didn’t disavow and reject white supremacist organizations who were announcing support for Reagan’s campaign. Reagan said something like, “They are endorsing me; I am not endorsing them.”

  30. “This is a fool’s errand in both the medium and the long term. ”

    Nice, reasoned comment.

    When @Peter Gunn first posted his comment, I wondered what was not incontrovertible in: “Congress shall make no law…”, or “….shall not be infringed.”

    Thinking no amount of modernization of English (the sloppiest of all existing languages) could make those two statements not be clear, precise and incontrovertible.

    • Clear, simple, absolute wording negates any need to “modernize” the English language. Palpably elemental word choice that is reiterated using multiple syntax paradigms is how to make one’s objectives patently clear.

      If the Second Amendment was written incontrovertibly- there would be no argument over its “interpretation” (e.g., we wouldn’t be having to defend comma placement).

      Daily, here on TTAG and innumerable other places, one can read eloquent, axiomatic compendiums of what most reasonable people accurately comprehend the Second Amendment to be articulating. Yet, we continually find ourselves having to “defend” its intention. That is due to a failure of wording.

      The Founding Fathers did a consummate job- for their time. But I do not believe they foresaw just how malevolent the forces working to undermine their work could become. We must learn from their miscalculation.

      Let’s consider engaging in contraposition- instead of espousing how obviously clear the Second Amendment currently is, I entreat everyone to propound their own version of what an incontrovertibly worded Second Amendment would look like.

      Go ahead- don’t be shy…

      • The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment isn’t about comma placement; it’s a perfectly clear and grammatical English sentence, and means exactly the same thing today as it did when it was written.

        Grammar and vocabulary haven’t changed. What did change was that a powerful bunch of people (including lawyers, whose job is to twist words and logic) decided that they wanted it to mean something other than what it plainly says — and so the long obfuscation campaign began.

        Bottom line: Someone will ALWAYS be able to misconstrue written words, no matter how simple you make them. (Heck, Bill Clinton even tried to cast doubt on the meaning of “is.”)

        • I do not disagree with you, however, there are specific “issues” (substantive or absurd) that have been the source of much antipathy which could be conclusively abrogated with palpably elemental word choice that is reiterated using multiple syntax paradigms within the Second Amendment.

          One of the reasons I’m “on about this” is because it is not outside of the realm of possibility that we may be facing the occasion where we are able to “correct” the “weaknesses” in the Constitution- and in so doing repudiate any future infringements like the ones currently escalating.

          One could simply view it as an intellectual mind exercise for future substantiality… if one so chooses.

  31. “The mentally ill don’t have the capacity to handle firearms.”

    Knowing my second cousin would put that assertion to rest. Yes, he is always hearing noises outside his house at night, and is convinced that his city is overrun with gangs shooting up every neighborhood. But my second cousin is a good marksman, understands the laws of self-defense in his city and state, knows right from wrong, and is one of the nicest people you could meet. He has been diagnosed with paranoid delusions, but only as a result of voluntary admission for diagnosis and analysis. Second cousin has his limits, but being a safe and law-abiding gun owner is not one of them.


    There is no “mental illness” exception to the application of the constitutional limits on government identified in the Second Amendment.

  32. “Remaking the Republican Party will be easier and more realistic than creating another powerless third party.”

    I dunno.

    Look up “Whig Party”. It was one of two major parties (Democrat being the other) from 1830 to about 1856, when it disintegrated. After that, a “third party”, called “Republicans”, arose to become the second major party in America.

  33. “Greene is not any of that.”

    Who cares? The only people with a vote on the matter are the voters in her congressional district. The majority of those who voted are happy with their decision.

    So, let’s say that the majority of the voters who elected Greene hate everything about her, except her stance on the Second Amendment. Do we dismiss them as “whackos” also? Do we disavow their votes? Do we get to demand those voters throw Greene out because people outside Greene’s district don’t like her?

    Like however many LBGQWERTY* people will vote to protect the Second Amendment, we must welcome the voters who elected Greene, and who will vote to protect the Second Amendment. Under no circumstances must we welcome them into our homes, just into our political tent.


  34. “Hold them accountable for their voting record by purging them during their next primary. ”

    But can we “primary them” with candidates who can win the primary, and then the general election? Does it matter? Will it be a victory of every current Republicrat office holder is “purged” via a primary election, and then all of the new candidates fail to be elected? Will it be a victory just to show, via running a primary challenge, that the incumbents can be challenged?

    Politics ain’t Tiddlywinks.

  35. Dan was just doing his job as editor. Jennifer wrote what she wrote, meant what she said, and Dan published it in the spirit of good journalism. This is what it’s all about, guys. A gun-blog is criticized for publishing an article it’s readers might not like and so it’s suddenly legitimate to start calling TTAG’s advertisers to complain? People who don’t know enough to reply to a controversial topic are the exact kind who run whining to advertisers. That sure-as-hell ain’t something to brag about.

  36. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

    Regardless of the opening words, the decisive sentence cannot be more clear.

    But, let’s play with this.

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted by any governmental agency, division, source, representative, for any reason, purpose, or public sentiment, no how, no where, no time, not ever, under any circumstance imaginable by humans. This right is not subject to judicial review, legislative action, or operation of law.”

    Now, that sounds pretty incontrovertible. Except….

    “The founders could not have meant this to apply to criminals, or suspected criminals, or formal criminals, or people with mental deficiencies. And even if the founders did mean to permit such people to possess firearms, that was a long time ago. Life was much more simple, and the founders could not have conceived of the complexities of a hugely non-agrarian society, the stresses of large cities such as Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc.

    The founders were reacting to what they had just experienced, and would, simply and obviously, have a different opinion after seeing that 230 years later any threat of a tyrannical central, elected government was long buried, and not a realistic consideration. Even the founders would have agreed that no natural, civil and human right established by the Creator was absolute when asserted among flawed humans.

    The founders were not dunderheads; they understood the need to apply common sense to every human action and interaction. The founders depended upon sensible persons to adjust the meaning of the Constitution to meet modern, not 18th century, needs of a modern nation; thus the creation of a means to amend the Constitution by the will of the people.”

    The same interpretation appertains, even if the wording was, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, of any kind, shall not be infringed.”

  37. Your point being?

    You are way off from my comment.

    But as to your accusation that my fore bearers held slaves, they were slaves. Poor Scots, subsistence farmers exploited by British royalty, escaping in the mid-1800s to America. My dad was the first of them to hold a skilled job.

  38. “We need someone who will appeal to the people that sit on the gun control fence.”

    If a handful of 2A defenders can damage the “image” of gun owners, we are doomed already, fence-sitters or no.

    There are not enough “fence-sitters” to make much of a long-term difference. We need an overwhelming majority of voters to put 2A at the top of the priority list, something on the order of 75% of the alleged “150 million gun owners”. Think about it for a moment. If the alleged “150 million gun owners” were 2A defenders, we would not even be having political discussions around “gun rights”.

  39. This woman is not good for the 2A.
    She is not intelligent, she is not articulate, and she resorts to stunts rather than substance.

  40. “…and she resorts to stunts rather than substance.”

    If she adds even one staunch 2A defender, it is worth it.

    • And who is she likely to convert to the cause? People who want to protect their right to own Jewish space lasers?

  41. “Pity he was not astute enough to pursue any of those faculties.”

    The war is on, battle lines drawn in stark relief. I didn’t want a politician. I wanted a hard-hitting street brawler to play smash mouth football with the enemy. Politicians with the characteristics you admire got us to where Trump was necessary (he defeated 15 “polished, strong, civil, and more easily admirable” politicians for the nomination).

    Honorably losing is no virtue.

    • There is more virtue in losing honorably than losing as Trump did- dishonorably.

      But I will defend your right to voice your own opinion.

  42. “There is more virtue in losing honorably than losing as Trump did- dishonorably.”

    Trump lost, and went out a fighter. I don’t want a leader who values “honor” over winning.

    • Attempting to place “value” on honor and winning would not be a zero-sum game (if one could consider it a game in the first place).

      It appears you might assert that ends justify means, too.
      And so be it- that is your prerogative.

      This is good information to know about individuals when going forward.

  43. “It appears you might assert that ends justify means, too.”

    Who, in their right mind, goes to war to be nice about it? When faced with an attacker, the end point is victory for me, by any means necessary. The Romans got it right regarding Carthage. So, yes. In war winning is everything. All else is rubbish. Politics is war by other means. We are at war.

      • So, let’s dissect this sentiment a bit…

        If you sincerely assert that “…the end point is victory for me, by any means necessary… In war winning is everything… Politics is war by other means”, then what you’re actually saying is:

        “My way- or I’ll kill everybody.”

        What an appealing sociopathic ideology you both share. How fun!

        I’d suggest you starting a club for like-minded misanthropes, but…
        it might be a challenge for you all to get along.

        Hmm… maybe the Fletcher Memorial Home would welcome you…

  44. ” “My way- or I’ll kill everybody.” ”


    If you are engaged in a shooting war, killing all the enemy is a rational intent.

    If you are engaged in a political war (as in votes, voters and elected officials, policies), you destroy an enemy intent on destroying you. Is there any doubt that the leftists/statists/authoritarians/demohypocrites aren’t out to destroy their opposition? To create a circumstance where deplorables, gun owners and other untermensch have no political power?

    So yes, in the current political war, destroy the enemy by any means necessary, short of physical violence (until the political war becomes a shooting war). The left needs to be utterly vanquished such that their destruction alters the course of our nation for generations. Let their names be removed from the history books, and they be remembered no more.

    • And by logical extension we apprehend the malevolent nature of this ideology:

      “…destroy the enemy [as defined by me] by any means necessary…”
      “…The [insert whomever suits you] needs to be utterly vanquished…”
      “…Let their names be removed from the history books [because history is whatever I decide it will be], and they be remembered no more.”

      You are espousing absolute oppression. And that’s fine… as long as you own it.
      I will support your right to believe what you want- that’s your prerogative.
      And your candor is appreciated… again- this is very valuable information to know about someone.

      Things to consider:

      No one escapes a scorched earth policy- including yourself.
      Silencing all opposition is antithetical to freedom.
      An eye for eye makes everybody blind.
      Radical intransigence is viciously iniquitous.
      If you want to rid the world of everyone who thinks differently than you-
      you’ll reduce the world’s population to one… you.

      And if that’s how you want it, well… you ain’t gonna get it.

      Recognize the monster in the mirror… it’s you.

      Be smarter.

  45. “You are espousing absolute oppression. ”
    – Nope. Utter obliteration. Oppression takes too much time and energy. In armed combat, destruction of the attacker (enemy, if you like) is moral. In politics, the destruction, demise, dissolution of a political party bent on oppressing the population is moral (what’s been heard of the American Whig Party?).

    “Silencing all opposition is antithetical to freedom.”
    – Nope. Silencing opposition bent on silencing, oppressing, eliminating me is expanding, protecting, restoring freedom.

    “No one escapes a scorched earth policy- including yourself.”
    – History shows otherwise.

    “Radical intransigence is viciously iniquitous.”
    – If being a radical in service to reigning in a radical oppressor is being a radical, so be it. Intransigent? Yes. I utterly reject an oppressive, radical, leftist government, and all its enablers. There can be nothing but intransigence regarding an evil political party, an evil government. There is no compromise in a battle for life.

    “If you want to rid the world of everyone who thinks differently than you-
    you’ll reduce the world’s population to one… you.”
    – That would be lovely outcome, but….unachievable. I will settle for being left alone, physically, and politically. We are in a political war of annihilation. There is no substitute for victory.

    No matter how one wiggles, giggles and pontificates, there is no compromise with evil. It either defeats you, or you destroy it. It is extremely rare that a bargain with the devil ends well.

    So, real-world manifestation: the Second Amendment is absolute. There can be no compromise, interpretation, nuance, with a political party that wants to eliminate the amendment via simple legislation rather than a constitutional amendment. The only “compromise” possible is that the overwhelming majority of the nation wish to amend the amendment. That changes the legalities. I wish any party seeking to do that is politically destroyed. However, once that amendment is ratified, it is the law of the land. My choice is to capitulate to the Constitution, or engage in political warfare to repeal the amendment to/of the Second Amendment.

    The founders created a conundrum with the Constitution. It is designed to protect natural law stemming from “nature’s Creator”, yet provides a rational means of obliterating those natural laws. If the Constitution is amended such that any, or all laws of “nature’s Creator” are constrained (eliminated), what do we really have remaining?

    The founders created a Constitution fit only for a moral people, but not necessarily a nice people. There is no profit in being nice to people who would render your status sub-human.

  46. Remarkedly applicable to your ideology is first defining your own morality and then you systematically “obliterate” anyone that doesn’t “get on board” with your sovereignty… and then you culminate it with your “lovely outcome”. Truly sobering.

    Notice your obligatory reversion to ordaining everything you find appropriate for “Utter obliteration” as “evil”, “radical”, “oppressive”, “immoral” etc… all because that is what is necessary to rationalize a depraved ideology.

    What’s intriguing is how we agree on some points- I explicitly agree that the Second Amendment is absolute. In fact, I would support amending it so as to make it even more manifest through augmentation using more redoubtable, incontrovertible articulation.

    Human beings will always have to deal with other humans who hold a contrary opinion- and they will always have as much right to their opinion as we have to ours. It is how one goes about existing in this world of conflicting sentiments that matters.

    Where we differ is that I do not condone the “Utter obliteration” of those who disagree with me. I will absolutely defend my rights against subjugation, but I will only act in defense of them, with in-kind force, employing the minimum amount of force that is required to invalidate the violation.

    I do not promulgate sanctimonious aspersions and consequently endorse the eradication of those who may embody a perspective that differs from mine. I acknowledge that humans will always disagree- but only the very truly evil will resort to bloodshed over those differences.

    What I am consistently witnessing is overt glorification of “virtuous” hostility- a lamentable “blood lust” that is startlingly common… invariably at the “radical” ends of the spectrum. And, as always- it’s only the “other” side that behaves that way. Yeah, right.

    It unfailingly boils down to simply being able to designate your enemy as evil- that’s the eternal “free pass” for the righteous execution of “them”. And it’s always tolerable as long as it’s “us” doing it to “them”.

    I sincerely hope you have the capacity to discern the propriety of my ethos. I am perfectly willing to “agree to disagree” with you- and I will defend your right to impugn my sentiments. But it would be eminently disappointing if you would still deem me worthy of extermination for simply possessing a viewpoint incomprehensible to you.

    I’m optimistic… yet rational.

    Never say die.

  47. “Remarkedly applicable to your ideology is first defining your own morality and then you systematically “obliterate” anyone that doesn’t “get on board” ”
    – Now you are intentionally appearing to be obtuse. My “own morality” is defensive, not offensive. Attack me with deadly intent, I won’t hesitate to do whatever it takes to win. Attack me politically, I will work to eradicate your politics, by any legal means necessary, and available. Nothing irrational. So simple, even a caveman can understand.

    “Human beings will always have to deal with other humans who hold a contrary opinion- and they will always have as much right to their opinion as we have to ours.”
    – Contrary opinions are one thing. Deliberate efforts to politically (and physically) eradicate me will not be met with a smile and a humble demeanor. That is not irrational. Never doubt someone who declares they want you politically, or physically eliminated because you are “other”. Limp response to evil (look about you and tell me the leftists are benign) allows more evil. Notice that so many leftists have boldly written their intent to oppress opponents, including through murder, and, to the surprise to the world, did just as they promised. So yes, fighting back against evil intent, obliterating leftist parties politically, is rational.

    “Where we differ is that I do not condone the “Utter obliteration” of those who disagree with me. I will absolutely defend my rights against subjugation, but I will only act in defense of them, with in-kind force, employing the minimum amount of force that is required to invalidate the violation.”
    – The only difference here is you would allow your political enemy, who has declared you are to be subjugated, eradicated if necessary, to remain a viable future threat. The only way to even hope to end that threat is to make your political enemy’s political stance so intolerable, so dangerous, so deplorable, so unacceptable, that your enemy’s political party dies from being so toxic no one wants to be associated, ending their political party forever. Attacks on the Second Amendment must be rendered so unacceptable that no political party can build or sustain itself on those attacks.

    “I acknowledge that humans will always disagree- but only the very truly evil will resort to bloodshed over those differences. ”
    – Precisely my point. When that happens the only rational response is destruction of evil, not sending “a message” of displeasure.

  48. Let’s not stumble over semantics. I honestly believe that we agree upon more details than we disagree on- it appears our contention may simply be ascribed to the consideration of scope (logical extension- as I mentioned before).

    How about comparing politics to chess- for example…

    Life truly is a game of chess- there is an arena, there are rules, there are pieces that each play a role, and there is a goal- winning. Some are naturally good at chess, for most it takes a lot of effort, study, and experience to become proficient at it, and for others it just simply can never be mastered. The point is: there’s always another game to be played- you learn from your experience and utilize that knowledge to the best of your ability in the next contest. What’s inevitable, though, is there will always be another player sitting across from you- that’s how it works.

    Now, what you appear to be saying is that instead of engaging your opponent at the start of a game- you want to wipe your opponent’s pieces off of the board in one officious swipe, and then “Utterly obliterate” the person sitting across the table from you physically- in the misbegotten expectation that in doing so you ensure the seat will never be reoccupied.

    What I am saying is that we all have to play the game before us, against the player seated across from us, according the rules stipulated by the game. No one is guaranteed a win- the only guarantee is another game.

    I agree that one does not have to play “nice”- but you must play by the rules. Any attempt to negate the rules by simply abrogating a legitimate opponent is immoral. One cannot participate in a moral game and employ immoral tactics- and then still claim to be a moral person. That’s not how it works.

    Sure, it cannot be argued that if you choose to act immorally and deceitfully ambush an opponent illegitimately outside the proper rules of engagement – that should improve your chances of “winning”. But it will not be a legitimate win- because you were not playing the actual game. Furthermore, it will be a hollow “victory” because all you have done is proven your disreputability- and in no uncertain terms. I’m sure, in your mind, that that doesn’t really matter because you’re the “winner”… and that’s all that matters- right?

    Just be aware of the personal horror in store for the vainglorious vanquisher who self-crowns themself “Winner at all costs”… only to find out you’re just sitting alone at a chess table facing your true opponent- a reflection in the mirror of the monster that you truly are. Evil begets evil.

    If the only rational response to evil is its destruction, than I suggest starting with a long, hard look in the mirror. Maybe evil is best stopped at its source.

    After all- it’s the only moral thing to do…

  49. The three L’s would be glad with having socialism in the US if it got them the Degeneracy that they want in socciety. When we lose our guns. That’s ok with them. They have their sexual and social liberation. Degeneracy, the break down of the Traditioanal family. That they crave so much.

    The Academic Agent in the UK, I think puts is very well. Libertarianism and Socialism have the same goals. In the end Libertarians are confortable with a disarmed population. The more Degeneracy you have. The more socialism you have. And the fewer conservative barriers to degenerate behavior.

    The three L’s are comfortable with a woman having 5 kids from 5 different men. They are comfortable with a big all powerfull government being constructed to support this lifestyle. And they are comfrotable with the social problems this causes. The sexually Liberated have always supported the Welfare Industial Complex.

    “Issues with Libertarian Arguments Against Socialism”, Part 2, video 17 minutes long.

    • edit

      “Traditioanal family”

      I was going to fix this. But then I thought it fits the three L’s mind set perfetly.

      • Chris T, in deference to foundational politeness and common decency I have previously elected to refrain from broaching the subject of your recurrent promulgation of vulgarity here on TTAG- but I can no longer be silent on this subject.

        Are you frankly aware of how often you interject irrelevant and repugnantly inappropriate subject matter in your comments here?

        Seriously- what gives?!

        Going on two years now here on TTAG I have continually been astounded by your chronic compulsion to particularize specific sexual determinatives, acts, preferences, and desires. What is up with that?

        Your preoccupation with the intricate details of other people’s sex lives is altogether bizarre. Is this a fetish of yours? Whatever your personal fixations are is wholly your business- but please be aware that not everyone wants them shared here publically. Habitually.

        If you misrecollect making such distasteful asservations (regularly) here on TTAG, I highly recommend you simply go back and reread your comments- they are blatant, recurrent, and lascivious.

        It’s (almost) humorous to (daily) read (multiple) comments from Debbie W. remarking on the connection between gun control and…
        slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics and other race based atrocities, the DemocRats, etc., etc… (ad nauseum), and people regularly call her out on it, too. But as far as I know- no one has called you out on continually inserting unsolicited exemplification of sex acts into posts where they are neither relevant nor appropriate. So, I’m calling you out on them now.

        There’s a difference between having appropriate, educative, and illustrative dialogue concerning differing intimate human behaviors and what you’re actually doing here- purposefully wending your comments to include unmitigated pornographic minutia on a public online firearms blog. It’s sick, really.

        Chris T- you appear to be the consummate example of a hypocritical ad hominem huckster. You vociferously pontificate pablum superficially appearing to be appalled by the actions you insist upon describing- and yet… you inexorably are the only one infatuated with the very actions you seem so determined to vilify. And- oh, the irony of you mentioning mindset. Pot, meet kettle. It’s pointedly offensive, and it’s well past tiring.

        A redress of your disequilibrium would be appreciated. Posthaste.

        Good luck with that.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here