Previous Post
Next Post



Despite definitive Supreme Court rulings, historical evidence and simple common sense, gun control advocates continue to maintain that the Second Amendment’s prefatory or militia clause means there’s no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right is reserved for citizen militias. At the same time, gun control advocates vilify citizen militias, painting them as intellectually challenged paranoid proto-insurrectionists. See what individual firearms freedom leads to? Trigger-happy right-wing gun nuts! Organized trigger-happy right-wing gun nuts!

JACKSON, Ga. — “Put the guns down!”

The order crackled over a loudspeaker from two sheriff’s deputies crouched behind the doors of police cruisers, semiautomatic rifles at their sides.

Several middle-aged militiamen were toting loaded AR-15 rifles and 9-millimeter pistols at a makeshift checkpoint — two lawn chairs and a narrow board — on a dirt driveway in central Georgia. The men, members of the Georgia Security Force III% militia, grumbled but laid their weapons down on the red clay earth.

The brief standoff ended with an amicable chat, and the men retrieved their weapons the moment the lawmen drove away. But the episode further stoked the militiamen’s abiding fears that their cherished Second Amendment rights were under assault.

That’s the lead of A Militia Gets Battle Ready for a ‘Gun-Grabbing’ Clinton Presidency published yesterday at A curious reader might like to know what precipitated this potentially deadly confrontation between a citizen militia and local law enforcement. Scribe David Zucchino’s hit piece on Peach State militia men and women only solves the mystery in passing; the answer’s buried deep within the text of his voluminous hit piece.

One of the militia members suffered a break-in. The cops were responding to the burglary (presumably invited to do so). Why were weapons drawn? Who cares! Weapons were drawn! It’s foreshadowing!

Mr. Zucchino’s desultory interest in the incident reflects the author’s desire to live up to his employer’s reputation as The New York Slimes. A news organization that never met a Trump supporter they didn’t despise. Hence his visit to the Georgia woods to talk to armed Americans who support The Donald’s presidential ambitions. Like this:

When Mr. Trump says he wants to make America great again, a message that has appealed to a broad segment of the electorate, Mr. Hill and his roughly 50 local militiamen are particularly enthralled. They long for an America they believe has been stolen from them by liberals, immigrants and “the P.C. crowd.” Their America is one where Christianity is taught in schools, abortion is illegal and immigrants hail from Europe, not faraway Muslim lands . . .

They are machinists and retirees, roofers and factory line workers, all steeped in the culture of the rural South. They say Mr. Trump, a Manhattan billionaire and real estate tycoon, speaks for them.

“Within the extreme right, many of Trump’s most passionate backers come from the militia movement,” said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow at the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League. “The militia movement is overwhelmingly behind Trump’s candidacy.”

For militias, Mr. Trump’s anti-establishment views “play right into their paranoid style of politics,” said Ryan Lenz, editor of the Hatewatch blog at the Southern Poverty Law Center . . .

Mr. Trump has retweeted posts from white nationalists and Nazi sympathizers, but Mr. Hill and his followers insist they are not racists, only staunch citizens and patriots with an admittedly apocalyptic outlook. They consider Mr. Trump a bulwark against the candidate they call “Shillary” Clinton . . .

“Donald Trump would fit right in with our little group,” she said. “He wants America the way we want it, back like it used to be.”

What follows, of course, is a full-on attempt to show how armed militias are a bad thing, not a good thing. The implication of the headline, photos, and carefully selected quotes is crystal clear: anyone who supports Donald Trump is a dangerous deplorable. A threat to the country.

It’s not too big a leap to suggest that Mr. Zucchino’s article is based on one of The Times’ favorite memes: all armed Americans are a threat to “civilized” society. In case you think I’m just another paranoid gun owner, the article’s conclusion drives the point home with all the subtlety of a head-on collision.

Mr. Hill, who calls his group a “defensive militia,” predicted unrest and violence from extremists on both sides no matter who wins the presidential election. If Mrs. Clinton wins, he said, millions of gun owners will march on Washington at the first attempt to restrict gun ownership.

“If the people decide they can no longer suffer the inequities,” he said, “I’d be with the people and I’d take my guns up to Washington, D.C.”

For The New York Times and other hoplophobic harridans, the mere idea of an armed rebellion against tyranny (a.k.a., full implementation of the Progressive agenda) must be strangled at birth. Hence the left-leaning media’s constant campaign to degrade and destroy Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. A fact that the “paranoid” militias know all too well.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Meanwhile illegals are pouring across our southern border, dentained, documented they are present and ordered released by Obama’s administration.

    What was America is no more and Hillary and the DNC are working to accelerate us to a third world nation.

    NOVEMBER 9th

    • The NYT has become nothing more than anti-American, anti-white, anti-male and anti-Semitic rag. We can only hope that its circulation and profits continue to plummet.

      • The problem is they’re supported by billionaire investors like Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos (Washington Post) who don’t mind losing a little money in exchange for a propaganda platform.

  2. No, really, it is obvious that the second amendment was not put in as an individual right. I mean, we do have to ignore the fact that the Bill of Rights were specifically included in the constitution to defend individual rights. Except for the 2nd. We also have to ignore the last clause of the 2nd that says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is confusing because what the founders really meant to say was the the right of the states to arm a militia shall not be infringed. We just have to infer what they really meant and not what the 2nd actually says. So the other nine amendments defending individual rights? Check. The 2nd? Nope.

    See? It’s obvious.

    • Even then, States don’t have the right to arm a militia. That is a Federal Power. That States can select the officers in the Militia.

      Article 1. Section 8 US Constitution
      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      Nor, can States keep troops without the consent of Congress.

      Article 1. Section 10 US Constitution
      No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay

      Even when we are joking about how absurd it is to read the Second Amendment as the right of States to keep troops, it’s impossible without violating some section of the US Constitution.

    • To be fair, that stupid flowery cause in the beginning should never have been in there. We don’t see it in the 1st Amendment, there was no legal need to put it in the second.

      • Yes there was, because that’s how the entire nation was supposed to defend itself — a trained militia of individual citizens who kept and bore their own weapons and were called upon at need. The prefatory clause tells the government what it’s obligated to do with the individual right and why the right needs to be protected.

  3. I read that article yesterday, it’s disgusting and full of edits (such as removing “illegal” from illegal immigrants) to smear gun owners. On the plus side, the New York Times reported a 95.7% drop in quarterly profit! The reaper is coming for the New York Times…

  4. The full court press is on…what a media shit show.

    Serious question- where is a citizen of these United States to go to read objective and independent news? All I see is messaging, not journalism. Is the free press truly dead?

      • Except for Shika Dalmia articles, those can be skipped. She has a bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. I’m no fan of Trump, but dear god, enough with the Trump is evil articles. We get it, he sucks. So does Hillary.

    • “Serious question- where is a citizen of these United States to go to read objective and independent news?”

      You’re kinda fornicated on that one. It *all* has some bias in it, unfortunately, some much more than others.

      As Cj noted, ‘Reason’ isn’t bad. Myself, I read a lot of it, on both sides. You can start to get a ‘gist’ of where things actually are, that way. Drudge turned me on to ‘Zero Hedge’ this past week. It’s written by finance guys that seem to have some interesting insight on things:

      • Zero Hedge has a lot of good stuff.

        As for truly unbiased news, there isn’t any. There’s only more reliable/honest and less reliable/honest within any particular idiom.

        The idea of an objective, unbiased press came around in the days when TV was new. It almost, kind of did, exist for a few years, at least as long as people like Edward R. Murrow were upholding the ideal. Now it’s just an illusion exploited by people who hate the very fact that you and I exist.

    • You say that as if there’s ever been some perfect unbiased press. The press never even bothered to TRY and act unbiased until around the mid 20th century. Before that you would have republican papers, democratic papers (i.e. Fox vs MSNBC), and they would each sell their narrative clearly.

  5. At least The NY Times admits it’s not a Clinton presidency that gets these people going it’s a government coming for their guns or further restrictions placed on them. Based on the lefts own declaration that no one is coming for anyone’s guns there is nothing to worry about.

  6. If you separate the Globalist/Elitist/Hillary supporters on one side and the Nationalist/Constitutionalists/Trump supporters on the other side, who has more arms and armaments?

    I think the Trump side wins the Civil War (in a landslide).

    • Depends on who is more willing to fight and on who has the best strategies and resources.

      The Evil (POS) Globalist D, as Joe R. would call them, have a much better ability to organize, a better understanding of communication and propaganda, and far more resources in the war for public sympathy. The conflict is more likely to be roiling, unpredictable unrest than outright armed warfare — the Constitution-and-liberty side has more guns, but I think we’re badly outgunned in the figurative sense.

  7. “Their America is one where…immigrants hail from Europe, not faraway Muslim lands . . .”

    Wanting (legal) immigrants who come from places with culture/values similar or near identical to ours is a bad thing how? Wanting people who are willing to assimilate and contribute to our society is a bad thing how? And these shills wonder why nobody listens to them anymore. Though sadly Europe is already a faraway Muslim land.

    Now if I were a homosexual I would be very frightened right now, because pieces like this are prime proof that the media and their liberal masters care more about people from cultures that still to this very day throw homosexuals off rooftops for fun, or dispose of them in other grisly ways.

    • Did you even read that BS you just wrote? Sure, we will take immigrants from Europe but my Islam phobia doesn’t allow it from those other places. How about you all stop making excuses for Trump’s ignorance and actually blame it on the message he was throwing out there or hell even his inability to convey it in a way that didn’t make him seem like a freaking racist. You never heard anything about his policies or plans for office but his promise to protect the 2nd Amendment and build a wall makes him your champion.

      He disrespects our soilders and generals and we gloss over it like it’s ok cause hey he’s going to protect our gun rights and build that wall baby! It’s not Democrat or Republican, it’s America a country built by IMMIGRANTS! Suck it!

  8. Oh look. We have another Clinton trying to be president and we’re seeing hit pieces about militias. Again. Still.

    Totally not a repeat of the 90s. Totally not…

  9. MsM painting militias as dangerous, unstable, and crazy? So we are just suppose to ignore the msm bias on everything but their thoughts on militias?

    Sounds like just the thing America needs!

  10. Yeah, because the Second Amendment was really about the Government granting itself the right to keep and bear arms. Uh huh, that makes sense. Not those pesky citizens that had just used those very same arms to win a revolution over a tyrannical government. Got it now. Thanks, NYT. We’d be so lost without you.

  11. If these supposed machinists and retirees, roofers and factory line workers, all steeped in the culture of the rural South hold up Mr. Trump, a Manhattan billionaire and real estate tycoon, as their spokesman, then doesn’t that oddest coupling ever put the lie to the claim that these people seek only absolute uniformity in culture, heritage, background and philosophy?

    Aside from the multitude of lies they have to keep up with, it’s the arguments replete with circular reasoning, false premises, and internal contradictions that would either drive me crazy, were I a liberal, or drive me to become a conservative.

    I’m on this planet for a number of reasons, some of which are clear to me and others are yet to be revealed. However, none of which is predicated on my going around all day lying, denying, and browbeating others into submission and acceptance of B.S. belief systems like liberals attempt.

  12. We are the militia. All of us in each state. Except politicians who wish to remove the gun rights of their fellow citizens.

    We should pass a Catch-22 law nationwide thusly, “Concerns for the rights of others in the face of dangers imaginary and shielding of personal ambition is the process of an irrational mind. Gavin Newsom, Dianne Feinstein, Kamala Harris, Barbara Boxer, etc… (California Edition) are irrational and can pass gun legislation. All they have to do is advocate for gun control; and as soon as they do, they are no longer irrational and thus legally blocked from advocating for gun control.”

    That should do it.

  13. libtards keep saying conservative people are dangerous and want to kill them with guns, if that were true there wouldn’t be any libtards around now would there……^_^

    and they keep saying guns are bad but not theirs or the ones they approve of, weird huh.

  14. The mere fact these guys are giving interviews to the New York Times is an indicator they are not to be taken seriously. A government honeypot to draw in the witless maybe?

  15. So “machinists” and “factory line worker” are now rural jobs? Well I guess anything outside a NYT office is rural to this dude.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here