Image by Boch. Base image courtesy Johns Hopkins.
Previous Post
Next Post

John’s Hopkins University elitists suggest that gun control for the little people will end or reduce the threat of insurrection. Why, it’s almost as if the Ivory Tower types over there missed their American history classes in junior high school, high school and into college.

Their ignorance of history or the real reason why the Second Amendment was included in the Constitution doesn’t impair their ability to pursue their goal of victim disarmament. For the little people, of course. Racist, classist and sexist gun control wouldn’t apply to their families.

Because, of course, they will keep their guns to defend their families and their homes. Because the rich can aways either afford the regulatory burdens or get exemptions. Hence the classist angle of gun control measures. The poor, single mom living in the hood? She’s on her own.

What are their recommendations, specifically?

• Regulate the public carry of firearms

Regulate comes first, then bans on the public carry—just like gun registration precedes gun confiscation.

• Strengthen existing laws, or increase the enforcement of current laws, to prohibit paramilitary activity

Perish the thought that everyday Americans would learn how to use their firearms safely and effectively. Especially to become riflemen.

Image by Oleg Volk. Used with permission.

• Prohibit the civilian possession of firearms in locations essential to political participation, such as polling places, legislative buildings, and protests, to protect the core functions of government

Why is their answer to always ban guns? Why, it’s almost like they want us all disarmed and helpless.

• Enact and implement Extreme Risk Protection Order laws to temporarily disarm people who pose a high risk of violence

Never mind that stripping people of fundamental constitutional protections without due process is a big no-no in our jurisprudence—for now at least.

• Repeal or create exceptions for firearm preemption laws to give local governments the ability to create policies to address risks of insurrectionism in their jurisdictions

There we go again—stripping people of fundamental, constitutionally-protected rights without due process, only on the grand scale.

• Break the insurrectionist permission structure by openly denouncing violence

“I pinkie promise not to overthrow our government.” Yeah, that’s the solution. Just like they pinkie-promise to uphold and defend the Constitution.

The College Fix has the dirty details:

Lawmakers should pass gun restrictions in order to prevent an “insurrection,” an academic paper argues.

“This report is both an examination and a warning of the threat that armed insurrectionism poses to democracy in the United States,” the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University stated. “It also counters the false narrative that the Constitution creates rights to insurrection and the unchecked public carry of firearms, and rejects the notion that violence has any place in our nation’s politics.”

The center is housed within the Bloomberg School of Public Health, named for former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a supporter of gun restrictions.

“As the events of January 6th showed the world with painful clarity, the threat insurrectionism poses to democracy in the United States is not hypothetical,” the authors wrote in their report, titled “Defending Democracy: Addressing the Dangers of Armed Insurrection.”

The study’s executive summary notes that the country’s increase in guns is a threat not only to “public health” and “safety,” but also to “the functioning of democracy,” pointing to the “January 6th insurrection.”

The violence was part of “a long line of events in which individuals have sought to use political losses to justify violence or threats of violence to disrupt our government and limit civic engagement,” according to the report.

“These attacks on our nation and democratic institutions are preventable, but not without taking purposeful action,” the report stated. The academic paper outlines what “purposeful action” might look like.

The authors put forward six policy recommendations.

They included “regulat[ing] the public carry of firearms,” legislation against “paramilitary activity,” and banning guns “in locations essential to political participation.”

The authors also want “Extreme Risk Protection Order laws, otherwise known as red-flag laws, and to “[b]reak the insurrection permission structure by openly denouncing violence.”

But a former DOJ economist who has extensively studied crime and guns criticized the study.

Concealed handgun permit holders are “extremely law-abiding” and make up an insignificant portion of violations, John Lott told The Fix via email.

The Crime Prevention Research Center president said permit holders are convicted of firearms violations at thousandths or tens of thousands of one percentage point across the country. He pointed to a study he conducted that was published several month ago.

In particular, Lott took issue with the violence on January 6, 2021, being the basis for any gun regulation. “January 6th was not something anyone supports,” Lott told The Fix. However the evidence would seem to indicate political violence as stemming mainly from progressives he said, pointing to the 2021 Lafayette Square riot and the 2017 riots during President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

He also criticized the recommendation that people not be allowed to carry guns in polling places or government buildings. He shared a study, last updated in 2021, that found “23 states officially allowed people to carry guns in state capitols, and there were no problems reported,” Lott said.

He shared other research he conducted that questioned the value of “red flag laws.”

“If a person is a danger to themselves or others civil commitment laws are much better ways of dealing with these problems,” he told The Fix.

It would seem as though John’s Hopkins is trying to foment an insurrection with recommendations like these.


Previous Post
Next Post


    • “Lawmakers should pass gun restrictions in order to prevent an “insurrection,” an academic paper argues.”

      It’s so simple, even a Leftist can understand the concept.

      Don’t give the citizens a reason for insurrection. Don’t start trouble, there won’t be any trouble.

      Over 200 years ago, the founding fathers had this to say about insurrection –

      “–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

      Insurrection is a fundamental civil right, just deal with it. I bet the people of North Korea would *love* to be able to hold a free election. They could, if only they had a civil right to be armed…

  1. War On Drugs? Check.

    War On Alcohol? Check.

    War On Guns? Check.

    War On The American People? Check.

    But they act shocked when the American People discuss war on them? Check.

    • JWM –

      *Breaking News*

      Today is day one of the trial of the armorer for the movie ‘Rust’, and it’s *Live* :

    • Pompous busy body hopkins Gun Control ratbassturds should be much, much more worried about, “Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.”

      Bolt Action…

    • “Not to worry — the American peoples are too lazy to insurrect.”

      Oh, how I desperately hope they believe that.

      It will a shock like the morning of Nov. 9. 2015, only on steroids…

      • What evidence do you have that Americans will rise up to claim their stolen rights?

        Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I present our first witness — the Wuhan Flu. When you were ordered to cower in your homes while your economy crashed, wear your damn masks, stand 6 feet apart, don’t gather in groups of three under threat of arrest, take the goddamned jab or lose your jobs and careers. And you did.

        Our next witness — the stolen election of 2020. With a surprise appearance of the January 6 protest in Washington, where your fellow citizens exercising their “right” to petition their government ended with thousands in prison, hounded by the media, and turned in by their neighbors. Many are still in jail and many more are still being reeled in.

        Finally — numerous actions by your duly-elected (HA! again) President, who has opened your southern border to facilitate an invasion, taken your tax dollars to support the invaders, using some of that treasure to (illegally — HA!) buy votes, defying your supposedly Supreme Court (HA!) to pay off government student loans, and turning the legal “system” against you by using lawfare to punish those who dare to resist.

        I see that it is close to the lunch hour, judge, so we will keep it short as we expect to have a unanimous jury decision (HA!) before we break.

        The prosecution rests.

        • “What evidence do you have that Americans will rise up to claim their stolen rights?”

          Historical facts.

          They did it in the late 1700s, they can do it again…

        • Because everything is the same today as it was in the late 1700s.

          Oh, I see that the jury is back with their verdict. They unanimously find the American public guilty of being more interested in bread and circuses than in reclaiming their stolen constitutional rights. Case closed — time for lunch.

  2. Guess they missed the Congressman saying you can tell there was no Insurrection because they haven’t charged Mr. Trump with Insurrection…FYI to the cowards and fools who don’t own firearms: It’s in the Congressional record.

    So cowardly they won’t protect themselves or others and so foolish they think they’ll never have to…

    • How do you have any “insurrections” without gats? Answer: You don’t. Even in Aztec daze the in juns in old Meh-he-co outnumbered the conquistadors by a thousand to one but still lost to the most basic matchlock gunz. That & diseases + ruthlessness. Maybe John’s Hopkins hates America & gat owner’s?!?🙄

      • APPENDIX 1
        First Amendment Analysis: Gun Are Not Protected Speech

        Well. OK. Explain that to my little friend here…

        “We” play nice, rally, protest, address our grievances.
        “They” shoot incendiaries at Police, and burn our cities.

        WE have rules we would LIKE to follow, in order to form a more perfect union.
        THEY have only one: WIN

  3. Strangely, how did the “insurrection” of Jan 6 end? Was there a standoff for a month? Did the “insurrectionists” depose the government and institute a new regime of their making? Did police or the military sweep in and battle the heavily armed rebels, and force them back with fierce fighting?

    Either the “insurrectionists” were defeated or forgot to give demands once they “captured” DC, or maybe they weren’t actually overthrowing the government, so they just wandered around, snapped some photos, and headed home.

  4. Pardon me for pointing this out, but the whole POINT of the Second Amendment was to ensure the PEOPLE always had the means to mount an insurrection.

    • “the whole POINT of the Second Amendment was to ensure the PEOPLE always had the means to mount an insurrection.”

      That statement is dangerous, and insurrectionist. Naughty, naughty. You could get cancelled for thinking like that. In fact, you could become a “person of interest” to the authorities. You might even have your access to the internet monitored. And worse yet, you could be included in the basket of deplorables, and marked a MAGA extremist.

      Obviously you completely misinform the public about the real meaning of the Second Amendment; hunting and sport. Patriots are a threat to our democracy.

  5. This morning, multiple cell network carriers are experiencing (unexplained) ‘outages’. started for all at the same time it seems. So if you don’t have cell service today, that’s probably the reason. All three of my phones, on different carriers, were not working this morning but suddenly a few minutes ago one of them started working but the other two still show “Mobile Network Not Available” after numerous restarts.

    So might not be a prelude to attack by China or terrorist like others are speculating elsewhere. So dacian and Miner49er, as much as you wish that would happen don’t get excited yet.

      • Uh, *no*.

        The vast, vast, VAST majority of phone calls are terrestrial, via microwave links and fiber optic cable, anonymous dumbass…

        • I’m vastly more intelligent than the idiot who thinks backbone telephone traffic happens on orbital assets with over millisecond long lag times.

        • Rodney,

          Wow! How about you take a chill pill, walk away and take a few deep breaths, and CALM THE F*CK DOWN??????

          Hystericus has every right to make his comments (just like dacian the demented and MajorLiar), and you have every right to criticize/mock them. All cool. But your first response was mildly unhinged, then you plunged completely off the cliff, after that.

          Perhaps deal with the substance of what Hystericus said, and save the “unhinged rant” space for dacian, jsled, and MajorLiar?? Just a suggestion.

        • “Perhaps deal with the substance of what Hystericus said,..”

          OK, here we go –

          His comment – :

          “Russian space nukes fried the satellites, obviously.”

          He’s fully welcome to his own opinion, he doesn’t get to claim his own set of irrefutable facts.


          Therefore, it’s clear that his comment was, at best, lacking of any serious substance. At worst, it was a clear demonstration of his intellectual vapidness.

          I also have the right to call them like I see them, and mock them.

    • “This morning, multiple cell network carriers are experiencing (unexplained) ‘outages’. started for all at the same time it seems.”

      Wrong, the cause has been identified. Look at this graphic, and note the time it happened :

      Note how *massive* the spikes were…

  6. “It also counters the false narrative that the Constitution creates rights to insurrection and the unchecked public carry of firearms…”

    1. The constitution does indeed ‘create a right of insurrection” just not specifically, and such is a right if its in its proper context such as throwing off the tyranny, ya know, like sortta our government has become now. So the ‘false narrative’ here is yours John’s Hopkins.

    2. The Constitution its self, in the Bill of Rights, does indeed give a right to ‘unchecked public carry of firearms’, there is no place in the the constitution its self that gives a government authority to say otherwise. In fact that right in the 2A specifically says ‘shall not be infringed’.

    • “Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?

      — Patrick Henry, 1788”

      “In his famous quote, … Patrick Henry expresses the concern and frustration over the idea that a society might reach a point where its citizens are deemed unfit to be entrusted with the responsibility of bearing arms to defend themselves. This quote, spoken in the context of the American Revolution, highlights Henry’s strong belief in the fundamental right to self-defense and the importance of an armed citizenry to uphold liberty.

      At its core, Henry’s quote questions the notion that a government or any authority should decide whether its people can be trusted with weapons. It calls attention to the inherent danger of giving too much power to those in authority, potentially leading to a state of subjugation and degradation for the people.

      This sentiment resonates not only within the historical context of the Revolution but also in modern-day discussions surrounding gun control and personal liberties. However, beyond the surface interpretation of Henry’s quote lies a deeper philosophical concept: the fine line between trust and control. It raises the question of whether trust can truly exist in a society without allowing individuals their rights to bear arms. This concept introduces a broader discussion about the balance between personal freedom and governmental control, forcing us to contemplate the nature of trust itself. Trust is often regarded as a crucial pillar of harmonious human relations. It implies a willingness to place confidence in others and assumes a certain level of responsibility.

      But what happens when trust is arbitrarily withheld? Is it truly trust if it is imposed by external forces, rather than freely given? These questions force us to critically evaluate the nature and legitimacy of trust that is conditional upon surrendering certain rights and freedoms. One could argue that trust cannot exist without a sense of autonomy. A society that is deprived of its ability to defend itself through arms becomes wholly dependent on the government for its safety, which raises concerns regarding the potential for abuse of power. Henry’s quote reminds us of the dangers inherent in this dynamic, urging us to question whether a society that cannot be trusted with arms is truly trusted at all. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the concept of trust and control extends beyond the realm of arms.

      While Henry’s quote primarily focuses on the right to bear arms, it serves as a broader metaphor for the potential erosion of trust in the face of excessive control and authority. It prompts us to think about the ways in which trust can be undermined by the overreach of those in power, leading to a degradation of societal bonds and a loss of individual freedoms.

      In conclusion, Patrick Henry’s quote serves as a powerful reminder of the delicate balance between trust and control within a society. It challenges us to critically evaluate the nature of trust itself and raises important questions about the legitimacy of trust that is imposed by external forces. Beyond its historical significance, Henry’s words prompt us to reflect on the potential dangers that lurk when authority is allowed to dictate the rights and liberties of its citizens. By contemplating the philosophical concept of trust in relation to control, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue of arms and individual freedoms.”

      (and it seems that, like all anti-gun, John’s Hopkins doesn’t want to gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue of arms and individual freedoms and instead goes for the ‘no such right’ thing all anti-gun want to push. John’s Hopkins ‘fear mongering’ with their report is overall nonsense. I have a solution for your angst John’s Hopkins: You go after the criminals and stop trying to take away constitutional rights of the law abiding and you will not need to worry about that ‘right of insurrection’ in its proper context such as throwing off the tyranny.)

  7. Government IS violence. Governments seek to obtain a monopoly on the use of violence. The real question is whether the power of violent action should be a government monopoly or whether it should be more widely distributed among the people.

    • “The real question is whether the power of violent action should be a government monopoly or whether it should be more widely distributed among the people.”

      Criminals the left-wing lets run amok have already decided the answer to the question, and that answer is to widely distribute their violence among the people.

  8. Plenty of societies give lip service to the concept of rule by the consent of the governed. The United States, however, is unique in that they mean it.

    • Dave,

      Nice theory, Bro, but . . . recent events give the lie to that pleasant delusion. Look up the numbers on the number/type of firearms and ammunition belonging to the IRS, the EPA, and the damn DOE, for that matter. Government IS violence, either actual, threatened, or implied. I agree that we were FOUNDED on that principle, but it has been long-since abandoned. Starting with Marbury v. Madison, on to the Whiskey Rebellion, on to the westward migration (mostly to get the eff away from our benevolent government), on to Lincoln and the Civil War (the draft, the (unconstitutional) income tax, suspension of habeas corpus, etc.), on to the execrable Woodrow Wilson (that racist bastard), Teddy Roosevelt, and on to the horrific fascistic reign of FDR, on to LBJ’s “Great Society” nonsense, on to the Lyin’ Hawaiian’s “pen and a phone” fascism, and finally to Senile Joe’s RAMPANT fascism. Our American history is replete with evidence of ongoing fascism, for at least a century or two. While I WISH we were true to our founding principles, I’m afraid reality differs with you.

  9. Insurrection? I do believe the last time this country experienced one of those was 1776. And no, I wouldn’t call the Civil War an insurrection any more than I would accuse Nancy Pelosi of leading a coup against a sitting president.

  10. Its cute/naive if Boch actually thinks “missed their American history classes in junior high school, high school” is taught today American government schools. Certainly not the case in the Peoples Rep of Illinoistan. Or any other “blue” cesspool” The same fascist teachers monopoly decides what BS is taught in the “Red” schools. It is NOT about Concord Bridge/Breeds Hill/Patrick HenryEtc. ALL woke multicultural BS.

    • The Ivy League has truly become the Poison Ivy League. Fortunately the perception of value that use to cling to that bunch is evaporating along with their sullied reputation.

  11. No apostrophe in the university’s name…

    Johns Hopkins is the name of the guy who founded it.

    Details matter – don’t mean to disrupt the discussion, but we tend to harass ignorant gun-grabbers when they don’t know how a semi-auto works, so we should get our details right when we write good stuff like this.

    • “I believe this is what the Crown had in mind at Lexington and Concord circa April 19, 1775.”

      and those darn colonist got all insurrection’y

  12. Since when was January 6 an ARMED insurrection? The only guys who had guns were the cops and the marshals. Further, was it even an “insurrection” as opposed to a protest that got out of hand? How may participants were charged with insurrection?

  13. or…
    democrats could just stop:
    1 stealing elections
    2 wiping their ass with the constitution 24/7/365
    3 forcing lgtbq on everybodys kids
    4 using the courts system as a tool for punishing republicans
    5 using the msm as palace guards for all their misdeeds

  14. I need to look up the regulations for hand cranked Gatling Guns. How bad is the tax and how ridiculous are the regulations. Copied the blue prints from a library reference book and wonder if I could build one. Yes, some of us old farts do still go to the actual library and look at real print books.
    Come the revolution/insurrection I want something a little more convincing than a simple rifle.

    • “I need to look up the regulations for hand cranked Gatling Guns. How bad is the tax and how ridiculous are the regulations.”

      It may have recently been changed, but traditionally, crank-operated rifles and Gatling guns were treated no more differently than any other firearm, they were exempt from the NFA.

      Most likely, because they were so cumbersome to be handheld. Pike Arms made an affordable Gatling, using 2 Ruger 10-22s :

  15. It is Johns Hopkins – not John’s

    Johns Hopkins was the name of the philanthropist that gor the whole Johs hopkins sheebang going.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here