Previous Post
Next Post

If most of the US media went into full meltdown yesterday in the wake of their pet project meeting an ignominious end, you can just imagine the view from afar. Afar in this case being the U.K. The Economist, venerable though it may be, is in full freak out mode at the stupidity of it all. Despite the Churchillian title, they’re shrieking like little schoolgirls a these icky, gullible, gun-obsessed Yank yobs who never fail to demonstrate that they’re too stupid or cowardly to do what’s best for themselves. Then, right there, smack-dab in the middle of their incredulous cri de coeur, they managed to single out one of our friends for special blame attention: The Military Arms Channel‘s Col. Tim Harmsen . . .

Better grab a hanky:

The government decided to do nothing because of the political heft of Wayne LaPierre’s NRA, because of the disproportionate one-man-thirty-votes congressional representation of rural districts, because of the electoral vulnerability of red-state Democratic senators, because of the decision by Republican senators to filibuster this and every Democratic bill, and because of the monomaniacal dedication of guys like this, who on his YouTube channel goes by the name “Sturmgewehre”. In a video that got over 500,000 views, he describes the threat he sees from Ms Feinstein’s legislation:

“That’s where this gets really scary. Rifles, shotguns, and handguns that accept a detachable magazine [with more than 10 rounds] will be banned or classified as assault weapons. That means your Glock, your H&K USP, your Smith & Wesson M&P, your Ruger SR9, your Sig Sauer P226.”

You have to see the wistful, tragic expression that comes into his voice when he contemplates the fate of all these poor, beautiful little guns. It’s touching. One wonders whether there might be a more appropriate recipient of his sympathy.

As for Col. Harmsen, he says he’s “honored for being credited in having a hand in the defeat of (DiFi’s) draconian legislation. I shall wear it as a badge of honor.” And well he should. If not for the “monomaniacal dedication” of Tim and plenty more like him, things could very well have gone differently yesterday. And may still, if the pro-2A side goes back to sleep.

If you believe, John Kennedy was the brain behind the aphorism that victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan. And that’s probably true. But the Military Arms Channel and Tim Harmsen certainly deserve at least a fair portion of the credit for helping to rally the troops and kill off the assault weapons ban, mag capacity limits and Manchin-Toomey. Hell, he deserves a passel of props if for no other reason than causing the editors of The Economist a fair amount of anguish and maybe even a sleepless night or two.

Previous Post
Next Post


      • Yeah, great empire. That’s why we had to rebel against them, fought another war on them and bailed them out of 2 world wars.

        • You didnt bail Britain out of two world wars, you didnt save us. Like Canada and the Empire, you helped us and we are very grateful, but this ‘we saved you’ nonsense is bad history and disrespectful to the British and to the British men, women children who died in WW2.

          Ignore this article. The Economist is a minor magazine read by those in ‘the city’ and nowhere else.

      • Part of me wonders whether the UK’s decline, self-destruction, and willful subservience to its own chains is some sort of heightened “self-loathing” due to the fact that they were (are) one of the most oppressive entities the earth has ever seen. All this jabber at us is either bitter envy or self-projection.

      • ?

        we took the torch after the sun set on the british empire in 1945.

        America is only a extension of the Anglo empire.

        • Except that the rest of the world is (has been) FAR worse. When the Brits came to power, the rest of the planet was quite ruthless. The US is like a hippy commune compared to past empires and countries. Remember, Britian and the US helped end most of the slave trade (which, sadly, goes on to this day in certain ways).

      • It’s not true to say that the British Empire was an abomination with no merit.

        They may yammer about how “awful” the Empire was now that the current British are so weak and feckless, but strangely enough you don’t see India dumping British Common Law as their legal foundation, dissolving their Parliament to go back to Mogul rule, celebrating the religious freedom of Thugee ritual strangulations, nor re-instituting the British-banned tradition of Suttee wife-burning.

        You can find nearly identical situations in all of those former provinces. Exposure to Britain (vice rule by, say, France or Belgium) introduced traditions of government, civil society, and education that were not only adopted, but are now cherished by the former colonies and have stood them in better and more prosperous stead than other European colonies. Indeed, our own Revolution was generated because we were *not* being accorded “the rights of Englishmen”.

        Sadly, the reason the Empire fell apart was the central nation stopped being worthy of the awe that held it together. I personally lost my final shred of respect for Britain as a whole this very week with their collective jeering of Margaret Thatcher.

        • Yes, I’m sure that all their colonies were delighted to trade their national treasure and freedom for all of England’s “gifts.”

        • Again I must disagree with you in the details, Ralph. While these days it has become something of a “cause”, 150 years ago I don’t think the average Indian gave a damn whether the Koh-I-Noor diamond was in the hands of one distant potentate or another – even when the final potentate to end up with it was Queen Victoria. As to their freedom, how much of it did they have when dominated by constantly-warring feudal princelings who thought roasting a peasant over an iron grate was good dinner-entertainment?

          It’s one of the ironies of the fall of the British Empire that it was Britain itself which introduced the idea to their subjects that a citizenry should be free.

          As a final note, I would point out that with the exception of some Soviet-sponsored insurrections, the colonies were let go without resort to arms – they said “we want out” and were let out as they chose.

          Not to be repeated? Yes. A paragon of villainy? No.

        • HB-
          Here here. Although I have a major emotional bias (Catholic relatives in Derry who would very much like to see the UK out the same way they are out elsewhere around the world), I lived in England and I know that it is very like it is here, with a miniscule band of elitist, urban pricks dominating the media and scoffing at all the average, decent people. All the better to scoff at the average, decent Americans – they aren’t countrymen and, well, they booted us out.

      • If they’d sent us Jeremy Clarkson, their opinion might matter more.

        Alas, we got the douche nugget Jeremy Clarkson punched.

      • +1

        Most Brits I’ve met aboard have been stand-up folks. My brain still burns with an interesting conversation I had about 10 years ago with a Welshman and a Scot in a pub in JAPAN over booze about money and social class in the modern UK versus America. We came to an agreement that the filthy rich aristocracy pretty get away with murder whether they live in Washington DC or London.

        Whatever the mistakes have been made in the past by Britain as a country, I’d still venture to say your average Brit has a bit more of an international POV than your average American. Every American ought to spend at least a year abroad outside of the US in order to truly appreciate the things ‘Merica has to offer.

        Besides, who else can an expat American hang out with in a pub in order to gang up and make fun of the French? =)

    • Yup. Many kudos to staff. Impressive quantity and quality of the writing.

      I’d reference it in comparison to the State Run Media, NYT, WAPO, CNN, MSNBC, but then that would be defaming TTAG by association.

  1. what do we care what the Economists thinks? Those lazy ass blokes are one defective gene removed from being French….

  2. I could almost smell the disdain when they said “rural”… why wont we just allow ourselves to be herded into their agenda 21 mega cities already?!

  3. I was not yet born when the colonies told ‘Mother’ England to piss off.

    I am here now-Hey U.K. you have NO control over us any more,
    and frankly we could care less about your wishes
    ergo-F*ck Off……….

  4. Thank you for the compliments, Economist. Just like Obama’s childish tantrum, we know we’re doing the right thing when scum like you are angry at us.

    Keep telling us how wrong we are. That’s how we know we’re right.

  5. I can understand why the Economist freaks out about gun issues in America. It was, after all, because of the American colonialists access to guns that were able to stand up to and eventually defeat the Royal British Army and create a government that answered to the people. Give the whiny Economist staff a break; they have never been free citizens as they are still subjects of an inbred royal family.

    • Its a myth the British are subjects, they have been citizens since the Nationality Acts of 1948 and 1983.

  6. I thought it was the Gunnies fault for calling attension to those mamby pamby lowlife dirtbag gun grabbing weasels, Randy

  7. Big fan of MAC!

    As for The Economist… well, reminds me of mandatory readings I had to as an undergrad in polisci classes. It’s a valid source if you want a POV of the US from outside of the US, but coming from the UK doesn’t it make any more or less authoritative.

    But we already know that many folks in the UK, The Economist included, just doesn’t understand guns / 2nd Amendment anyway…

      • As my favorite polisci professor told a class of 200 freshmen the first day during his PoliSci 101 lecture:

        “You folks are here to study politics. What is politics? Well, let’s break down the word… “poli” means “many”… and “tics” is the plural of “tick”, a blood-sucking pest. Therefore politics is the study of many blood-sucking pests! Yes, this probably includes ones that were voted into office.”

        Best. Professor. Ever.

    • Maybe they’re still pissed about a few guys in buckskin beating their butts a long time ago. Long time to carry the grudge. Maybe they need to remember how many Americans died to keep them from having to speak German.

      • Maybe you need to remember how many British and Irish died to keep the world free. Maybe you need to remember how many Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis, Poles, S Africans, black Africans, Indians, Caribbeans, French, Free Europeans, Greeks, Chinese, Malays, Hong Kong Chinese died to keep the world free. Oh and all them dead Russians.

        Of course, you are one of the many Americans who think America won two world wars and won it while the Limeys and the rest of the world sat back in awe, and drank tea. Because they all needed saved by the US, apparently.

  8. Maybe they were scared and wet themselves after watching all of his Tavor videos too? It looks kind of evil! (I’ll take one in FDE please)

    I love watching his reviews. He shows some neat stuff. I am glad his video had so many views as it means the message is getting out. He deserves a war on the moronic media medal.

  9. The Guardian (impeccably liberal in US terms) is absolutely frothing at the mouth that those brainwashed, bought-out, benighted Americans dared to differ from the progressive consensus. – not recommended for the easily provoked, but it’s a good cure for low blood pressure.

    The Telegraph (more old-school conservative) is pointing out that President Obama can’t get a gun-control bill passed despite supposedly having 90% of the country supporting it.

    Outside the media’s ivory towers, where All Them Guns Be Eeevil, the UK reaction is mostly utter indifference (it’s your business, and we’ve got problems of our own) with pockets of “useless knee-jerk legislation voted down, good thing too, but it’s still your business”.

    Don’t mistake a few shrill shriekers with a platform for a general opinion, or else I’ll assume that the gorgeous, pouting Dianne Feinstein is actually speaking for mainstream America…

  10. Part of Harry Reid’s rationale for supporting the AWB:

    (Y)ou do not need an assault weapon to defend yourself or your property. Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only: to kill a large number of people really quick. This goes well beyond the purpose of self-defense.

    If that’s true, why did the AWB and every other AWB ever have a law enforcement exemption? Is it now standard operating procedure for the police “to kill a large number of people really quick”? I guess it is for the LAPD, as demonstrated in the Dorner manhunt, but I guess they’re taking it national.

  11. Tim and Hickock would motivate me whenever my motivation flagged, they’d put out another video with another link to contact the representatives, and I’d think, “man, if they can put this much time and effort into this, over and over again, maybe we do have a chance and I can certainly spare enough time to write a few more letters!” Great Job!

  12. So, the Economist’s premise is that a guy with a YouTube channel couldn’t be outargued by someone with a staff of script writers and press secretaries?

    To say nothing of Piers Morgan et al?

    All credit to MAC, but damn if that isn’t actually a pretty hard slam against the Anointed one, not that they realize it.

  13. Kudos to Tim. His channel rocks and his beard is epic. Why cant i grow a beard like it? Dang polish/hollander genes!

  14. Admittedly confused and seeking enlightenment…
    Mr. Reid identifies the exact type of semi-automatic firearms that have been available to the public since the early 1960’s, now owned by Millions of law-abiding American Citizens and utilized by thousands of people within various agencies of government as ‘assault weapons’.
    He states that “assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only: to kill a large number of people really quick.”
    Meanwhile, the DHS has an outstanding ‘statement of work order’ for a total of 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearms for use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required — designated within the order as Personal Defense Weapons. ( PDW )

  15. The Economist can suck it. If they don’t like our form of government that’s just fine we me. STFU

    Oh, and the missing chromosome that keeps them from being French is called “retreat”. I kid.

    I also have a degree, but I am fortunate to have grown up in the “sticks”. Everybody had guns and there was very little crime. Funny how that works.

  16. Don’t forget to give DeGette the credit she deserves for her help stopping the GunGrab. Her idiocy and ignorance, proudly displayed, helped show a lot of on the fence people the “caliber” of the those trying to destroy their rights. When the 2012 elections roll around her video should play a prominent role in endorsements for a lot of transnational progressive politicians.

  17. Looks like The Economist suffers from the same problem that plagues the American media, incompetence. Tim Harmsen did proudly serve in the United States Marine Corps, but he wasn’t a colonel! I do understand why The Economist fails at basic research, if they actually looked for facts and the truth they would eventually learn that gun control is a failed idea that just forces good, honest citizens to be a victim. But that’s the plan of the kook fringe left, make people even more dependent on government and thus more dependent on them!

  18. I’m not from the US and in my country there are strict gun laws. Citizens are not allowed to carry / own firearms at all unless there is a special circumstance eg for business purposes. However I have heard of the pending legal changes that the Obama admin is trying to get done. I will not give an opinion as I do not live in the States or understand their way of life. However what i have always found most weird and peculiar is the crossing of state lines with legal firearms. The United States of America is one country . How and why do they have different laws for different states is beyond me. One President presides over the entire country with its congress and Senate but laws for different states apply to themselves.. I can protect myself and my family in one place in the US but I am not authorized to do so in another state in the same country. Simply just have some mechanism for informing the ATF or whatever governing body of where the firearm and user are on those occassions


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here