“I realized that only we can protect ourselves in the event of the unthinkable. We have a right to self-defense, but if we don’t have the right to the guns, then the right to self-defense is theoretical. The fact is that no matter what we do or how many laws we pass, our schoolchildren are still vulnerable, even in a city with the toughest gun laws around. I wondered as I sat alone in my car driving home later that day: since gun laws will stop no motivated criminal, why do they really want us defenseless?” – Mary Anne Marcella in Lockdown: A Teacher’s Thoughts [at americanthinker.com]
It’s not about guns. It’s about control. The left wants to control you.
Yep, and here is the proof. The most effective firearm for a mass shooting or common crime in close quarter is a pistol. The AR-15 is one of the least lethal rifles on the market. The AR-15’s biggest advantage is the ammunition is light, so a person can carry lots of ammunition over a longer distance, which is why militaries use the small round. The number of murders committed with an AR-15 is so low, you are more likely to be killed by a vending machine than an AR. So, put that all together, and there is only one reason the Progressives are attacking private ownership of AR-15’s and not pistols: They do not want us to have the ability to resist a corrupt, tyrannical government.
From a purely practical/tactical point of view, if you are taking fire it makes little real difference to you if it is coming from a .22 LR or a .50 BMG. Aside from the ability of the different rounds to penetrate cover a person’s willingness to expose their body to such fire is approximately equivalent.
The 5.56 may be, probably is, less lethal on target, but the psychological effect of its incoming rounds is significant. Considering the high number of rounds fired in combat that do not actually impact a living target, this psychological effect is significant and the number of rounds carried per combatant is important.
Then there’s the 19th Century military doctrine that says that suppression fire is wasteful (at least for individual soldiers) and that you should make each and every shot count, and rifles were designed to be outright overkill on human-sized targets. This may be lost on the current generation of Glock-packers and their “mag-dumping into the abdomen” tactics, but I wouldn’t want to be in a crowded nightclub, school, or other place with lots of people packed in when some nut bursts in with a .30cal bolt gun and some stripper clips and takes careful aimed fire at his victims.
I know if someone “killed by a vending machine”, literally flat ass killed him, but he was an idiot…
And if it was the usual way, “flat ass” is the appropriate descriptor.
“there is only one reason the Progressives are attacking private ownership of AR-15’s and not pistols:”
Many of us remember, as I’m sure you do to, their attempts to do just that: ban (or severely limit) handguns in the late 80’s / early 90’s.
Remember Handgun Control, Inc? When it failed in its primary goal, it morphed into “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.”
Many of the early ‘mag capacity bans’ were handgun magazines.
They’ve TRIED it with handguns, and failed. They tried it with “Assault Weapons” and struck out twice (first one total fail, second one sunsetted). They even tried it with bolt action rifles for a short time by calling them “sniper rifles.”
It’s a never ending revolving set of goalposts, none of which are designed to effect ‘gun violence.’ It’s ALL about control and manipulating the short memories folks have of their past failures.
“It’s not about guns. It’s about control. The politicians and bureaucrats want to control you.”
In their machinations to obtain and retain absolute power over your life, and the perks such power bestow upon them, their families and their cronies, what happens to you and yours is at best considered unfortunate collateral damage, so long as it moves them towards their goal.
“A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic.” – Josef Stalin
In the minds of Progressives the victims of “gun violence” are nothing more than a means to an (their) end.
Cliff, you nicely, though likely inadvertently, summed up the vaccine agenda.
I found the antivaxxer. The risk of your children developing autism after being vaccinated is the same as their risk of developing autism after abstaining from vaccination. For fuck’s sake, even the researchers behind the study that corrolated autism with vaccines said they were wrong.
There was no reason to do that study really because the conclusion it came to had to be wrong. It quite literally could not be right.
Autism can be detected in utero before the child is born. Vaccines are given after birth. Therefore autism being caused by vaccines isn’t possible because the effect cannot precede the cause.
Vaxxers are a bunch of people who don’t understand what they’re talking about and are scared of “chemicals”. You can literally find items in a Whole Foods or health nut store that say “chemical free” which isn’t possible unless they’re selling you a jar in which they have pulled a perfect vacuum, which isn’t possible.
Pg2 has to ride his hobby horse, even though people here either don’t believe him or aren’t buying what he’s selling.
Maybe some of us should go to a vaxxer site and ramble on about guns.
Yeah, it’s better to ignore Pg2’s ignorant rants of this subject guys. He is set in ways and all the logic and/or data in the universe will not convince him of the error of his antivaxx ways. On to the next subject…
Too much stupidity or international lying to respond to it all of these, but Anonymous. cite the reference for your statement. ” The risk of your children developing autism after being vaccinated is the same as their risk of developing autism after abstaining from vaccination” Cant wait to see this gem, is you have the guts to post it.
@strych9 , another gem, “Autism can be detected in utero before the child is born. Vaccines are given after birth. Therefore autism being caused by vaccines isn’t possible because the effect cannot precede the cause” i’m calling you out as an intentional liar, or very ignorant. Cite the proof of this statement.
@steve, What exactly am I selling, parental and/or individual rights? If you’re not “buying” that, than you’re an idiot. And please do go a “vaxxer” site and discuss 2nd amendment rights, you’ll get nothing but agreement from people that post there and respect the 2A and individual rights.
“Autism can be detected in utero before the child is born. Vaccines are given after birth. Therefore autism being caused by vaccines isn’t possible because the effect cannot precede the cause.”
I’m not an anti-vaxxer, but the above argument is just fallacious. It’s like saying that missing limbs can be detected in utero, therefore missing limbs being caused by activities after birth are not possible.
The statement is true only if congenital autism (detectable in utero) is the only way autism can possibly exist. Anti-vaxxers claim it can also be caused by external factors after birth, so this statement doesn’t even address their claim.
Now, if every vaccinated child with autism had been tested in the womb and been found to be already autistic, this would be a great argument. Except, of course, we’re not even close to having done that.
Crickets. No citations or references, just ridiculous claims and troll-like attacks. No surprises here.
You can call me whatever you want. It doesn’t change the fact that amniocentesis can detect the genetic anomalies that are indicators of autism and that this process, by definition, happens before birth and therefore before any vaccines are given.
The testing isn’t 100% at this point because there are dozens of known genetic factors involved in autism spectrum disorders but the fact that biomarkers can be detected before birth means that autism simply cannot be caused by vaccines because it can be detected before a vaccine is given to the child and before the child is even born.
You’re free to believe as you wish. Vaxxers have been around since the early 1800’s. I don’t expect them to disappear. It is however true that no legit study has found vaccines to be causally linked to autism.
I got no problem with the anti-vaxing people. My kids will be vaccinated, I’ll take my chances; his wont, and he’ll take his.
Free country means free country.
@strych, It’s unlikely you actually read the study you are referencing, seemingly less likely you understand it if you did. These blood samples were taken from mothers after children were born and diagnosed with or without autism. Your study does not prove what you claim it is does, nor does the study itself make the claim to do so. BTW, did you read the author of the study’s conflict of interest?….of course you didn’t. Note, there are over 100 published, independent, peer reviewed studies showing a vaccine(or vaccine ingredients)-autism connection. At the same time, there is not a single double blind, TRUE placebo safety test for any vaccine, or their scientifically established carcinogenic and neuro-toxic ingredients. If you insist on the safety of these products, produce the legitimate evidence. Whole you’re at it, you might want to inform the ‘vaccine court’, which has rewarded the families of autistic children for damages, and to date has paid out over $3,000,000,000USD in damages to permanently injured and children killed by vaccines.
lol, what falls from shaking the ignorant tree is always entertaining.
So, do you know how autism works (as a concept), or do you just have it? I mean, if you seriously entertain the idea that you can contract autism in some fashion, then uh, you have problems…
@klp, Speaking of autism, In case you missed the social cue….I didn’t respond to you the first time round, you’re not worth the calories.
Except for, you know, the response you just made… Doesn’t particularly matter as I imagine you are still butthurt about me living in reality and you not. I posed the question just to see what kind of response I would get, and it was pretty much what I postulated.
As terribly entertaining for me as it is to watch you contort reality to justify what ever the hell your ‘logic’ process is, why don’t we all do ourselves a favor and stop bringing up stupid unrelated crap on a gun rights website?
@KLP, some trolls are funny, some are entertaining, some are clever enough to almost be believable. You are none of the above.
Or not. We can go back and forth in this witless repartee as long you like. The point is that you keep bringing up unrelated anti-vaccine crap in a firearms blog. The site is TTAG: The Truth About Guns; not SBAV: Stupid Bullshit Against Vaccines.
Call me a troll or whatever you like, it doesn’t particularly matter what you say because I have long since established that you do not inhabit the same plane of reality as the rest of this universe on this issue. You don’t want a vaccine? Cool. Do us all a favor and stay your ass out of public where you can very likely be a vector to others. And if you fall victim to those related illnesses, well, don’t cry about it either. Your choice, your consequences.
@KLP, The reality is that you chose to respond on a subject matter you either have very little knowledge on, or for some reason are intentionally lying about. You had the choice to NOT respond to my original post to Cliff H, there is plenty of material here that is not 100% gun related.
I was merely trying to prevent another thread hijack by you. Your tenacity for denying reality obviously outdid me.
Take off the tinfoil hat for a moment. I am not lying about vaccines. What exactly would be the point in that? If your postulation is true, what kind of lobby could possibly exist to intentionally expose people to periodic, limited risk for a paltry sum compared to the rest of the pharmaceutical industry? Seriously? Where is the logic (or money) in that?
So if we put *that* aside, that leaves you thinking I am just ignorant on the subject. Well, I may be an AE and ME by trade, but that does not preclude knowledge or interest in other fields. Quite frankly the idea that vaccines are related to autism stops chugging along once you realize the complete causal disconnect.
Let’s think for a second: how can vaccination (through the mechanisms of variolation or modern inoculation), cause a disruption in the genetics of forming a ‘normal’ brain (or in some cases from your vaunted ‘vaccine court’, which in reality is nothing more than a settlement clearing house as medical litigation is ungodly expensive even when innocent, neurological function)? If the diseases from which the vaccine confers immunity to do not cause these symptoms (nor do the related antibodies), then how is it that these individuals can be afflicted as such? If no physical or chemical means of disrupting neural pathways, brain tissue formation, or genetic information is present from the biological agents of the vaccine, then how are they the cause?
Ah ha! You’ll point to the stabilizers or preservatives present in the solution! But none of them cause those symptoms or afflications either. “But what about thiomersal or methyl mercury?” you’ll cry!
What about them? Thiomersal breaks down into *ethylmercury*, not methyl mercury. Ethylmercury does not bioaccumulate and clears from the blood too quickly to cause damage (14 days in baby monkeys, and 8 days in adult humans). Thiomersal breaks down into *ethylmercury*, not methyl mercury. NO METHYL GROUP. And if thiomersal was so mind-numbingly evil, why is it used in so many other applications with little to no ill-effect? Does everyone who gets a tattoo or anti-venin ‘contract’ autism? What about blood transfusions? No? What about their futute offspring? Also no? Huh. Weird.
Even weirder is that thiomersal was removed from all European early childhood vaccines about 15 years ago, with the US following. And ‘autism spectrum’ rates continue to climb regardless. Mayhaps another cause is at play…?
Please, I beseech you to educate yourself first on the issue before opening your mouth. Learn somethings about genetics, dose dependency, the FDA approval process, and basic chemistry before claiming you’re the smartest person in the room.
Krog, you’re full of shit. You only attempted to derail a subject you either have very little knowledge on, or you have some motive derailing the content using buzz words mixed with emotion…much like the tactics anti-gunners use, which is my point on posting this here….exposing frauds like yourself that allege to support the 2A and the Constitution, yet at the same time use the commonly used anti-2A propaganda talking points to attack individual liberties.
‘Kay. *I’m* the one who is ignorant and/or full of shit, and *I’m* the one who derailed the conversation. Got it. Facts, logic, and reading comprehension be damned! The only thing that matters is *your* right Pg2, not any one else’s! Got it.
FYI you have as much an enumerated right not to vaccinate your kids consequence free, as I have a right to never fall ill. That is to say for both of us, none.
Krog, maybe you’ll recall the Constitution limits the powers of the government, and the document does not grant authority to the government to force medical procedures on the public. Your enumerated rights argument is a fallacy, We can discuss the constitutionality of making law from the bench, and the purpose of the judicial branch as expressed in the constitution, but it’s highly unlikely even if we agreed anything would change. As a gun owner I’m sure you realize the courts can and do make erroneous rulings, and special interests can and do play a strong part in high court rulings.
I am well aware of the wording and intent of the Constitution. Not once have I advocated laws demanding vaccination or anything medical relates on the national or state level. What I have said is that it can be considered (on a state level at its highest considering the structure of the Constitution) a requirement for public goods and/or services. E.g. public school admission. Don’t want to vaccinate? Cool. But then you’ll have to home or private your kids. Pretty simple, right? The parsing comes from what we as a society accept as the limit to said impositions for the receipt of public goods. Legislation created on the bench is anti-thematic to our republic and indeed a pressing problem as the courts can radically and un-democratically expand these ‘requirements’. People for some reason think the courts can never be challenged on these and wrong decisions. Even when they wipe away everyone’s rights with the banging of a gavel.
Look, you can believe whatever you want about vaccines. That’s cool. You can make sure no one in your family is vaccinated either. That’s cool too. What you can not do is somehow expect those decisions to not affect other people you interect with. It’s just a function of our biology and epidemiology.
Last word on this, denying children access to public schools or services is segregation, and unconstitutional on several levels. If CA gets a fair trial, 277 will be overturned. Firearms are already essentially illegal on school properties, at some point children of registered gun owners may very also be forced to homeschool for the same falsified public safety reasons.
Guns =/= germs, dude.
Anti-liberty propaganda = anti-liberty propaganda. You’ve established yourself as someone who wants segregation, which is a violation of civil rights, and not even not based on scientific evidence, but based solely on emotion. You make the anti-gunners proud, dude.
Here is the cite you are looking for (remove the space:)
Lol, cute, but you’re going to need more than that to convince a growing minority of the public that vaccine safety science has gaping holes.
What does vaccines have to do with being armed with a gun?
…..you’re going to need more than that to convince a growing minority of the public that is discovering that vaccine safety science has gaping holes. Had to re-post, left out 2 critical words, completely changed the meaning of the post.
A defenseless person needs the State for protection, an armed one does not.
It’s not either or. Without the police you would have to deal with every potential threat. Are you ready to be George Zimmerman?
Interesting that you bring up GZ. I had a random thought last night and wondered: If George Zimmerman had been Open Carrying that night, would we even know his name? The true question being, would the punk Treyvon Martin have considered assaulting Zimmerman if on approach he had known Zimmerman was armed?
Inquiring minds want to know.
you’re assuming skittles would have noticed the firearm. it’s amazing how clueless people are and rarely see such things.
Yeah, from my own personal experience, I also have to wonder if he would have noticed. Even open carrying in a shoulder holster, it boggles my mind how often people fail to notice I’m carrying. Normal strong-side carry gets missed by at least 70% of the people when I’m out and about. It’s really quite disturbing how oblivious the average person is.
My apartment complex has a clause in the lease outlawing “possession or display of weapons in the common areas.”
I have a neighbor who walks out every day with a Glock on his hip. I’ve seen him walk right past the leasing agents (and the Hillary bumper sticker owners) several times. Nobody has ever seen a thing, including my wife. Sigh. I have no idea how she’s survived some of the shit she has, always being in condition white.
I suppose that it’s technically a violation for me to carry concealed to my car in the parking lot – but concealed means concealed, and FTITCTAJ.
Would you like some straw for that giant man you’re building?
If that is aimed at me then you don’t know what a strawman argument is. Who does the policing when there are no police? You and me, that’s who.
Show me in his argument where he said anything about not having police; nor did he say “either or”. You misrepresented and exaggerated his argument to attack his position which is the textbook definition of a strawman logical fallacy.
An armed person does not need the police to protect them when, for example, someone breaks into their home. They may still want the police, but they do not need the police to be present for protection.
but HOW’D IT GET BURNED??
“Who does the policing when there are no police?”
At that very same time, there would be no speeding laws, there went half the policing in the country, and there would be no drug laws, there went another 40%, bringing us down to actual criminals, take care of yourself would work fine except for liberals, who would become extinct. Works for me. Only question would be “who pays to remove and dispose of the bodies of the looters and rioters?”
Oh God, NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES!
Without the police there wouldnt be any threats, they would be 6 feet under ground, dead.
Its your police, your courts, your politicians enabling the threats allowing them to continue their rampage.
You made drugs illegal, hows that working out?
Are you suggesting that there were no threats before police? That peace, tranquility and unicorn rainbow farts covered the countryside until the advent of politicians and their police? Somehow, I don’t think so. I think that without structure, without police, we end up with Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Anarchy is everything but peaceful.
Ever been to an Amish community? No cops there. No Mel Gibson, either.
Structure does not demand police.
@Kevin, guess what else does not exist in Amish country……you opened the door…..
Although I am not sure the original statement was meant as an either-or (so perhaps tdiinva flew off the handle), I do agree with him that some police are necessary.
Consider, if you get into a shootout with a bad guy, one of you will win. It might not be you. This whole notion of “who needs the police, WE will just shoot the bad guys” is incomplete because it assumes the lone good guy carrying his handgun will win the standoff at 2AM at the stop-and-rob. The police are there to help ensure the guilty party gets punished IF they survived the fight (and if YOU are dead, your close friends and family will probably appreciate that). I would NOT want a bad guy to go unpunished because he was a better (or luckier) shot than me.
Now it’s true that in this day and age the police can be used as an agent of injustice (arresting the defender for simply defending himself, in some jurisdictions) but that’s not the fault of the concept, that’s a fault of the people implementing it.
Why do people believe this ridiculous nonsense? That the police are the only thing between us (civilized society) and the barbarians (Chaos)? There is no proof of this anywhere outside of a Hollywood apocalypse movie.
Self-defense isn’t theoretical, or at least the attempt isn’t. But guns go a long way towards leveling the playing field.
As to why, well, there are others who have speculated with far more insight, but I tend to go with the attempt to have the population dependent on the government for as many things as possible, as long as possible. The problem with that approach, other than the misery and pain for said population, is of course it can’t work in the long run, at least they way some pols in the US seem to be approaching it. If everyone lives on government handouts, who is making what the government is handing out?
Check the history of the Soviet Union.
In government dominated societies the people do not live on government handouts, they BARELY survive on government handouts. The political elite live high off the hog.
My ex-wife grew up in the Soviet Union post-Stalin. She told me the story of a time when she was the manager of a movie theater in Leningrad (showing propaganda films, of course). During the matinée, randomly, the theater lights would come up, the movie stop, and agents of the State Police would enter the theater and check everyone’s work documents to ensure they were not watching movies when they were expected (required) to be at work. Many people were arrested on the spot. Best case you were chased back to your job, worst case you were on a train to a Gulag.
In order to support their lavish lifestyles and their Utopian societies these governments will always devolve into slave states forcing their populations to labor for mere subsistence. Well, at least everyone (who is not politically connected) is equal.
The whole Hunger Games series is a metaphore for this sort of society.
What makes it work is the minions of little people infringing on liberties, just to eek out a miserable existence.
Without guns. Without brains.
“since gun laws will stop no motivated criminal, why do they really want us defenseless?”
It’s not about power…politics and law making are used to keep the business of government permanently employed. Removing the right of lawful self defense insures its success.
The writer of the original article is a teacher in the NYC public schools and a resident of CT. After the publication of her article and its re-publication in blogs like this one traitorous as it is to all parts of the Democratic party platform, she will not be a teacher in any public school much longer, and might have her home raided by the CT state police on a search for unregistered assault weapons. No sarcasm intended or implied.
Well I got big knives and axes too. The left-scum limits pretty much EVERYTHING that could protect yourself (TTAK).
Every liberal boot licker need only look at North Korea. There is a gun free paradise. Is this what you want? Don’the think it can happen here? The government now controls Healthcare, education, they are choosing which industries are allowed to operate ( no coal or fracking unless the EPA say so), etc., etc. They violate the constitution at will on immigration and gun control. If we are disarmed, you will truly see how much the government cares about your rights and your safety.
Gouverment is not your friend it s more your hardest enemy in the game of life.
We need more women and more teachers who think like her. I’m generalizing but my bet is that 90% of the women who teach in public schools are scared to death of guns and hate anyone who owns them. Thank the indoctrination centers we call “college.” Articles like this should always be highlighted. Clear thinking in our society today is going the way of the dodo bird. Read the article fellas.
The Left wants people to be victims so they will be utterly reliant on the government. period. For all their blather about individual rights, etc., they are the ultimate totalitarians.
Sektörünüz ne olursa olsun aldığınız kopya adetlerine uygun kiralık
fotokopi makinesi ve kiralık yazıcı kuruyoruz. Her bütçeye uygun
kiralama fiyatları, gün içerisinde servis imkanı ve dilediğiniz zaman
sözleşme fesih hakkı, hepsi ve daha fazlası için fotokopi kiralayın.
I’m not sure anyone here needs Turkish photocopying services.
Erdoğan could maybe stand to have a copy of the Turkish constitution photocopied for his own benefit.
But yeah, that doesn’t apply to anyone here.
I just read your article. I’m completely amazed by the content you’re providing and I shared it to my social media accounts goooooodddd web site thanks