“Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority. Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation. Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions will be punished with imprisonment and a fine.” – Nazi Law (Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons), 1938
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Steve Hogan says:
I’m sure it’s a mere coincidence that those calling for gun bans are those with their own security details. For those that don’t? Calling 9-1-1 as a means of protection sounds like a great way to become a crime statistic.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
19th January 2013 at 8:33 pm
Kathy K says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
40
19th January 2013 at 8:33 pm
AKAnon says:
Flash-nice post. We don’t agree on everything, but muy sympatico re citizen firearms ownership.
Kathy K-Are you sarcastic, or retarded? Inquiring minds want to know.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
2
19th January 2013 at 8:41 pm
Steve Hogan says:
Kathy K, please define for us the term “assault weapon.”
If I were a criminal, any means of thwarting my crime would be considered an assault weapon: gun, knife, fist.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
19th January 2013 at 8:44 pm
Chronic Agitator says:
@Kathy K
Oh Girl, you stepped into something really smelly. Please go wipe your shoe off.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
2
19th January 2013 at 8:44 pm
DaveL says:
Kathy K says:” No one needs military style guns to protect themselves.”
Unless they’re trying to protect themselves from police, government agents, or the military.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
2
19th January 2013 at 9:00 pm
Kathy K says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
38
19th January 2013 at 9:01 pm
youcanthavemyglock says:
Kathy is a government paid troll, thumbs her down and ignore
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
2
19th January 2013 at 9:03 pm
Cynical30 says:
Kathy K:
How many bullets do you think would be necessary for a 3 man home invasion team kicking in your door in the middle of the day when your kids are home? 10? 7? 30? Pretty relevant question if you live in a city like Atlanta.
All weapons fire multiple rounds and since none of them have a 3 round or full auto switch in the civilian world, none of them are “military style”. Unless of course you mean they look scary or like something you saw watching that POS Zero Dark 30.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
2
19th January 2013 at 9:38 pm
AWD says:
Nice stuff Flash. Glad I don’t live in the U.K., their teeth. Concealed carry reduces crime, imagine that. Obama and the liberals don’t give a shit about facts, all they care about it power, the power to disarm the populous.
I went in the “outdoor” store today, it was packed. They had many more guns than I would have thought. I got another 12 gauge pump, for “personal protection”. Kathy can go fuck herself with a Ruger,
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
19th January 2013 at 9:43 pm
flash says:
Kathy K you’re either an agent provocateur or else you read but do not comprehend …either way go fuck yourself with a rusty spoon …And I certainly hope no self-respecting true American male ever decides to dip his wick in your festering sex-pool of stupidity and if one did then my condolences to the poor wickless bastard.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Now This Is A Real #TIGER MOM…
Good evening, folks…last year, a woman known as ‘Suz’ posted this letter to inform a liberated, post-feminist woman about the way she and other femmes have made it so impossible for her son to date and marry. (NOTE: This was one of the top posts that I’ve chosen for the manosphere of the past year. It was so damn good, I decided to re-post it on my own blog!)
For those of you who don’t know who Suz is, please visit [and bookmark] her blog, Shining Pearls Of Something–she, like Girl.Writes.What and Typhon.Blue at A Voice For Men, has proven herself to be an MRA supporter, and most important–a caring mom. Read and enjoy–FOR A HOUSEBOY:
An anonymous letter from a mom
A letter to a future daughter-in-law, possibly my own:
A few years from now you’re probably going to want to marry my son. Perhaps you already do; he’s kind of hot (if I’m allowed to notice) and his potential is quite obvious, if I do say so myself. He’s only twenty, handsome and well built, and when he lets is hair grow long it’s thick and wavy. He has his father’s beautiful eyes, and my dimples look much better on him than they ever looked on me. Also, he’s in the military; he has finished his deployment and doesn’t expect to go overseas again, so he’s now preparing to start earning college credits. I don’t hover so I’m not certain, but he’s probably going to major in engineering. Or possibly actuarial science. He surfs, rides a motorcycle and a mountain bike, and he maintains a classic car. He’s essentially a decent guy; pretty much everyone likes him or loves him, and respects him. Girls hit on him regularly.
I’ll be surprised if he ever marries though. You see, his plan is to wait until he’s at least thirty, and therefore he will spend the next decade meeting, dating, working with, and probably sleeping with, the product of sixty years of American feminism. I’m pretty sure he won’t find many women worth considering for marriage.
How about we look at it from his perspective, m’kay? Here’s what he sees:
Half of you have been raised without your fathers, yet only a few of your fathers deserved to be kicked out of your lives. You were raised by the women who kicked your fathers out, and perhaps by a string of step-dads and “uncles.” Those women, your mothers, taught you their values by example. Not an auspicious start. Most of the rest of you were raised by fathers who knew damn well that if they displeased your mothers, they too could be kicked out of your lives according to your mothers’ whims. They knew full well who had the real power in the family; they quietly accepted that “mother knows best.”
You were raised in a culture that permits, even encourages, women and girls to always push for more; not necessarily to do more or earn more, but to demand more and to expect more. You were punished far less severely for your transgressions than were your male peers. Indeed your female peers egged you on to be even naughtier, and to be defiant about it. It’s Grrrl Power, after all! The boys of your acquaintance were expected to give in to your shenanigans and your shit tests, and those who didn’t were labelled “problem children” and medicated. Usually, a boy’s best bet was to shut up and grovel, and maybe win your approval. They weren’t allowed to go around offending the Special Snowflakes, were they?
You were raised in a Disney Princess Culture, where every girl is entitled to her Prince Charming. And if she can’t find one, she has the Grrrl Power to kiss any old frog and transform him into a Prince. You were raised to be a slut, at least through your twenties. Go to college. Establish a career. Don’t get married until your late twenties or early thirties, but DO NOT under any circumstances, repress your sexuality. Your foremothers fought hard for your right to be promiscuous with no consequences; don’t you dare let their efforts go to waste.
And since you’re not looking for a husband, there’s no need to sleep with only “good” men, is there? Cuz badboyz r hawt! And nice guys are boring. And hell, you have plenty of time to ride the best cocks you can find – thanks to modern medicine, you can get pregnant after menopause if you want, so there’s no hurry. You are expected to waste your youth and your beauty on hot guys who treat you like shit, then give your leftovers to the guy you’ll promise to love, honor and cherish for the rest of your life. Wow! How lucky is he!
My son looks around and he sees bitchy, arrogant, malicious women. He sees spoiled greedy women. He sees financially irresponsible women. He sees lazy, undisciplined women. (Yes, even in the military; they had to lower the standards so more women could “serve.”) He sees overweight women wearing unflattering clothes that display muffin tops and rolls of fat, who drool over his biceps while telling him that “looks shouldn’t matter.”
He sees slutty women who dress to attract men, sleep with the hot ones, and denigrate the less attractive ones by calling them “creepy.” He sees “competitive” professional women whose primary tools for getting ahead are affirmative action and the unspoken threat of sexual harassment lawsuits. He sees demanding women who expect men to bow and scrape for the privilege of a smile. He sees utterly irrational women whose “self esteem” is obscenely disproportionate to their proven worth. He sees entitled women who expect romantic dates and expensive gifts, yet have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to a relationship. He sees women who flirt with their hopeful, geeky JustFriends, juuuust barely enough to keep them on a string while simultaneously panting after Alpha Hotteies, then run crying back to those JustFriends after being pumped and dumped by said Hotties. “Oh, why can’t more men be nice like you?” (Answer: if they were, no woman would fuck them.)
Look around you, ladies. You see the very same women, don’t you? Many of you are these women. You think this is normal and acceptable because “everybody does it.” It’s not.
There’s something you should know about my son and his peers. They’re not gay, they’re not lazy, they’re not stupid, they’re not unambitious, and they’re not weak. They’ve merely figured you out. They know that you don’t give a rat’s ass about them, and that you see them as nothing but providers and fantasy sex objects. They are wise to the game and they’re done playing by your rules.
They have the same job titles as you and they take home the same pay, but they work longer hours and they do harder work; they know that their productivity is why employers can afford to hire you to sit a desk and shuffle papers. They know that if two drunk people have sex and both regret it the next morning, only one of them is a rapist. They know that “My Body/My Choice” actually means “My/Body/My Choice/Your Wallet.” They know that the minute they sign a marriage license, everything they own is yours, but nothing you own is theirs (except your debts) and you can walk away with cash and prizes, at any time, for any reason. Or for no reason at all.
They’re calling Bullshit.
A few years from now, you’ll begin asking yourself, “Where have all the good men gone?” You’ll look down your noses at all those guys playing video games and living like frat boys in cheap apartments, and you’ll just know that they could be “doing so much better for themselves,” if only they would “Man Up.” You’ll shake your heads in wonder at their “immaturity,” or their “wasted potential.” Here’s a little secret. Yes, a few men are immature or weak; they’ve had the masculinity abused or medicated out of them, mostly by their single mothers and grandmothers. But most of them?
They no longer give a rat’s ass about you.
That’s right. They don’t need to work hard and earn a good living. They have no intention of fathering and supporting any children, and no desire whatsoever to earn your approval. You go buy your own four-bedroom colonial in just the right subdivision. That’s what your Grrrl Power is for, isn’t it? So you don’t need a man? Many of these men will even go so far as to quit their jobs as soon as they begin to “earn a good living.” They don’t want to make enough money to pay taxes. They don’t want to pay the salaries of millions of useless (and mostly female) government employees, and they don’t want to finance the personal choices of “Empowered Women.”
Those Empowered Women can buy their own damn birth control. These men refuse to feed your Beast. And you, and your government, and your church, can’t cajole them or shame them into giving a shit. Men are dropping out, ladies. Chivalry has died of blunt force trauma, in a beatdown administered by Grrrl Power. Your mothers, your grandmothers, your schools, your family courts, your sociology professors, have spent the last two generations telling men that the are unnecessary and unwelcome. And now they’re leaving. (Although they’ll be glad to fuck you while you’re young and hot, since you’re offering. Aaaaand then they’ll move on to younger and hotter sluts. Why the hell not? It’s free.)
This is the gift that feminism has given to you: Independence. Scary, lonely, bitter, potentially impoverished Independence. For yourselves and any children you may have. Most of you won’t blame feminism though; you’ll blame Male Privilege (which doesn’t exist.) You’ll blame The Patriarchy (which always gave women a better deal than it gave men.) You will stamp your feet, flip your hair, and blame anything except the single cultural force that has devoted itself to suppressing and controlling masculinity. And you’ll go home alone every night to your cats, your Facebook Friends, and your vibrators. I sure hope that’s what you want.
Sincerely,
A Mom.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
1
19th January 2013 at 9:44 pm
Chronic Agitator says:
Kathy K says:
“By “assault weapon” I mean guns/rifles that fire multiple rounds of ammunition and go beyond what is necessary for protection. And how many guns do you need to protect yourself? Why so many?
Kathy if one gun will do the trick, and if you do not have a problem with that, why are you concerned about someone having many others. It is like saying that a 9/16 open end wrench will get the bolt loosened and there is no justifiable reason to have a backup wrench.
All firearms will fire multiple rounds–even muzzle-loaders.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
19th January 2013 at 9:47 pm
Administrator says:
Kathy K
Do you have this sign on your front lawn?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
0
19th January 2013 at 9:52 pm
Administrator says:
Picture of Kathy K
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
13 
2
19th January 2013 at 10:03 pm
AWD says:
I can smell the patchouli oil and B.O. on that neo-hippie earth muffin from here.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
19th January 2013 at 10:07 pm
Steve Hogan says:
It’s difficult to overstate Kathy’s breathtaking ignorance. Obviously she hasn’t been threatened by criminals yet.
She’ll have second thoughts when she’s at the mercy of some thug and has no way of protecting herself. The donut-munchers she’s depending on to keep her safe will be there to draw the chalk line around her corpse.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
1
19th January 2013 at 10:09 pm
Administrator says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
14 
0
19th January 2013 at 10:14 pm
AWD says:
Kathy doesn’t need a weapon to protect herself, amazingly nobody messes with her
She hasn’t been laid since junior high
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
3
19th January 2013 at 10:18 pm
Kathy K says:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
23
19th January 2013 at 10:30 pm
T4C says:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/422999/january-17-2013/the-word—united-we-standoff
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
19th January 2013 at 10:32 pm
Hollow man says:
Kathy K, when the bad comes and does his deed. The police will show up collect the evidence. They may actualy catch the bad man. Then a judge will give him a 50th chance to be a good man. Then the victim will be scared for life. I would rather scare the bad man to the point of death if needed. Then next time, if not dead, he can come to your home. You can talk him out of it I am sure.. Or maybe nag him until he shoots himself.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
1
19th January 2013 at 10:46 pm
T4C says:
Guns And Risks: By The Numbers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPN3tI0N83o&feature=player_embedded
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
19th January 2013 at 10:47 pm
KaD says:
Kathy K: ask someone who was in LA during the riots if they feel they didn’t need an ‘assault rifle’ to keep their home, family, or business safe while the police waited it out.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
19th January 2013 at 11:21 pm
John A says:
Texas Official Invites NY Gun Owners to Lone Star State
(Breitbart) – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is rolling out the welcome mat for New Yorkers who would like to keep their guns—and their money.
Abbott used his campaign money to produce and place ads on media websites in New York City and Albany encouraging residents to move to Texas. Why? To avoid the severe gun restrictions put into place by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, as well as the high income taxes of the Empire State.
http://www.teaparty.org/texas-official-invites-ny-gun-owners-to-lone-star-state-18844/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
19th January 2013 at 12:22 am
John A says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
1
19th January 2013 at 12:45 am
John A says:
Sandy Hook: Obama’s Latest Crisis To Exploit by David Limbaugh
“Obama demonstrated this in his news conference when he trotted out his 23 executive orders designed to address mass shootings. By using the parents of shooting victims and children as props he intended to imply that unless you support his measures, you oppose protecting children. He did more than imply that in his remarks when he expressed incredulity that anyone who cares about these shootings could possibly oppose his policies.
WITH THESE THINGS IN MIND, here are a few questions to gun control proponents designed to stimulate a discussion of the actual subject rather than triggering reason-inhibiting emotional responses.
–How is your model city of Chicago working out for you?
–Why do you attempt to mislead the public with the term “assault weapon” and falsely imply that semiautomatic weapons can fire repeatedly and quickly when you hold down the trigger?
–Why do you pretend that semiautomatics are more powerful than other guns when power is a function of their caliber or gauge and not their capacity to reload automatically?
–How do you explain that as assault weapons and large magazines have become more prevalent violent crime has been cut in half?
–Since we have recent empirical evidence that “assault” weapons bans do not work, what unstated reasons could be behind Obama’s banning efforts? Why shouldn’t Second Amendment advocates be suspicious?”
http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2013/01/18/sandy-hook-obamas-latest-crisis-to-exploit-n1491937?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
8 
0
19th January 2013 at 1:14 am
flash says:
Kathy K-AWD and Flash…sorry you need to resort to vulgar name calling. And I’m the ignorant one?
Yes , you are the ignorant one and worse , you’re armed with a vote that effectively cancels mine.
And thanks to public education, entitlements, slutdom and fatherless households, the statist bred ignorance of your kind has denied the liberty seeking vote of my kind a voice in our government, a increasingly dire problem than has only one solution.
Permanent separation.
Now if you want piss and blather your unprincipled drivel all about a comment section whilst having anyone in disagreements opinion moderated and censored then you need to go back over and play in the Daily Kos candy ass land , because this is the big boy sandbox and sand does get thrown.
Or pull up your big girl panties and stick around….you might learn something useful that just may save you miserable life in the coming shitstorm that the likes of you have been brewing for decades.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
19th January 2013 at 8:02 am
flash says:
from KD..
2013 01 19 Genocide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPN3tI0N83o&feature=youtu.be
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
19th January 2013 at 8:14 am
AWD says:
Rallies assail Obama’s proposed gun curbs
(Reuters) – Pro-gun activists who say the right to own firearms is under attack from President Barack Obama’s proposals to reduce gun violence held “high noon” rallies across the United States on Saturday in support of gun ownership rights.
The U.S. debate over gun control flared in mid-December when a man armed with an assault rifle killed 20 first-graders and six adults at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – the deadliest of a string of U.S. shooting sprees last year.
“We are law-abiding citizens, business owners, military, and we are not going to be responsible for other people’s criminal actions,” former Marine Damon Locke said to applause at a Florida rally he had helped organize.
Some in the crowd of about 1,000 in Brooksville, about an hour north of Tampa, hoisted signs that said “Stop the Gun Grabbers” and “Gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control.”
Obama and gun control advocates have begun a push to reinstitute a ban on assault weapons in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre. A number of other states have taken up gun legislation, and New York, which has among the strictest gun control laws in the country, broadened its assault weapons ban on Tuesday.
Obama also called for a ban on high-capacity magazines and more stringent background checks for gun purchasers.
“Until we enforce gun laws on the books against the bad guys, I think it’s hypocritical to discuss more laws against law-abiding citizens,” Gary Schraut, a Brooksville real estate agent, told Reuters.
Across the country at a rally in Denver, the mood was defiant as about 500 people, including families with children, gathered in unseasonably warm weather outside the state capitol.
“I have earned the right to have my guns,” said Don Dobyns, an Air Force veteran and former police officer from Colorado Springs, who was among the rally organizers.
Sporting a shirt that read, “Girls with guns,” 31-year-old Jennifer Burk said: “My parents didn’t raise a victim and the government shouldn’t try and make me one.”
Gun control advocates say U.S. civilians have no justifiable need for assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, and they say more background checks will help keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
The reaction has been fierce from gun supporters such as the National Rifle Association, who point to a right to bear arms that is enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and which they do not want to see watered down.
Saturday’s rallies were organized by Guns Across America, a group launched by Texas airline pilot Eric Reed, who has said that after he heard Obama talk about gun control on the day of the Connecticut massacre he thought gun owners should send a strong message to lawmakers in Washington.
As of Saturday afternoon, the Facebook page for Guns Across America listed more than 20,000 people saying they intended to attend events planned mostly in state capitals. Local media reported hundreds of people gathered at rallies nationwide, from Kentucky to Oregon to Michigan and Pennsylvania.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
12 
0
19th January 2013 at 8:35 am
Anonymous says:
Kathy K,
Stick around and learn something, Cubby!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
19th January 2013 at 9:32 am
KaD says:
I guess KathyK didn’t read the previous post about the woman in Georgia who shot a thug who broke into her home. She emptied the entire clip into him and he still got up and drove away. Or the previous one I posted on the two guys who shot up a car robber, who then still got up and tried to run. In an emergency people don’t typically make a critical first shot. People don’t usually die the second they’re hit with a bullet.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
19th January 2013 at 12:17 pm
KaD says:
Here’s another link you can use to get in contact with your representatives: http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
19th January 2013 at 12:17 pm
todd says:
awesome video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hR3t7j2tUec
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
19th January 2013 at 12:46 pm
KaD says:
Todd: Right on! This guy sums it ALL up. Everyone, pro Second Amendment and pro gun control, needs to hear this.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
19th January 2013 at 2:14 pm
todd says:
i thought so some of his other videos were pretty spot on also…like his duh no shit I want to have the meanest weapon possible video where he sums up the best defense is a good offense strategy.
“why would i want to protect myself with something less effective than my aggressor?”
WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
19th January 2013 at 3:09 pm
Novista says:
Poor Kathy, comes to a katana fight with a hairpin of opinion and ignorance.
Kathy, if you’re still reading (which I doubt) this site is NOT Politically Correct. I’m sure it was a shock. And no, “AWD and Flash…sorry you need to resort to vulgar name calling. And I’m the ignorant one?” it is not ignorance by any means. As long as you operate on the tropism level, you don’t deserve rational education from your betters. Although some here are nicer than others …
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
19th January 2013 at 6:39 pm
Novista says:
flash
damn, I almost forgot, most excellent post and comments, thanks, you’re on a roll!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
19th January 2013 at 6:47 pm
Ron says:
I enjoyed fox news the other day when they had a good looking women showing what different caliber weapons did to a sheet of steel. My favorite the 12 Gauge shotgun blew giant holes with a slug or buckshot being used.
Funny how many people dont read history books and learn from the past.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
19th January 2013 at 8:51 pm
howard in nyc says:
We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
___________
damn, that is chilling.
because, the love of freedom in this country has been falling substantially over the past several years. particularly since 9/11. the gun issue nonsense is but the latest symptom.
and lack of awareness of ‘the real situation’? lot of that happening too.
great quote. excellent post, flash. nicely done.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
19th January 2013 at 2:18 am
Bruce says:
Kathy K.
It does not matter what you think about this issue, it does not matter what I think about this issue. It does not matter what a minority or majority think about this issue. It does not have anything to do with a personal need, want, desire or belief. That is because we live in a nation with clear and defined rights that may not be violated by anyone or any institution. Or at least it supposed to be that way.
As far as the ownership of arms goes the Constitution is very clear about that. “….., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Rifles for hunting and recreational use of are not specifically mentioned though would certainly be covered by these very clear words. Arms and what that word means are important.
The term “Arms” is used in the Constitution a general sense and that would include military design, and caliber fire arms. The term “arms” in those days would cover anything available such as knifes, swords, lances, pistols, muskets (military large caliber smooth bore), rifled weapons of large and small caliber, artillery or even sailing ships with cannon. Basically all weapons available. All these weapon types were owned privately to one degree or another. A state or person could arm himself in his own defense and that of his country and it’s constitution as he saw fit and to the extend that he could afford with no restrictions what so ever given in the constitution.
Since we can not own Assault rifles (Assault rifles are capable of full automatic and select fire) we can not own artillery or even have some of the light weapons issued to many regular infantrymen apparently our right to bear arms under the true meaning and spirit of the constitution has already been heavily infringed. I can’t have a fully armed F-16 to patrol the sky over my house. Considering all the types available arms are very regulated. It certainly could be well argued that its for the better that they are. Yet that is still at odds with the constitution, its words, its clear and indisputable meaning, intent and spirit.
Citizens being free to arm themselves was recognized as a powerful deterrent to the government devolving into oppressive tyranny and as vital check to maintain liberty, freedom and justice to the greatest degree possible. This clearly applied then, it clearly applies now. Just as then some understand this, some misunderstand this and some don’t have a clue. Few have any historical insight as to the natural and common course of events that happens to a nation of people who are disarmed or disarmed to the point of insignificance.
If the words of the constitution are not clear enough or if further interpretation is wanted all one must do is read the founding fathers and framers statements and thoughts in regards to arms and other rights. It will be clear that their interpretation and the spirit of the document of law they gave us is without a shadow of doubt the same as outlined above. It was a radical form of thinking then and apparently is seen as a radical form of thinking by many today.
The constitution is the law of the land. We only democratically vote for our preferred reprobates and morons to misrepresent us. Fortunately we are a republic and not a democracy. We do not vote on or have the right to override, change, ignore or wish away the constitution even by an overwhelming majority vote or by any means other than a constitutional amendment by a legally constitutional process.
I am not a fan of any type of Central Government or a Federal system but while we live under a Federal government and the constitution of a Republic an individual, state or jurisdiction doe’s not have the right to violate the constitution for any reason real or imagined, good or bad even if they do.
Now for some thoughts or opinion that may not matter but do acknowledge truth and reality.
Any successful attempt to ban certain weapons or accessories will be met with resistance, defiance, non compliance, contempt, anger and outrage by probably more than 1/3 of the nations people.
Telling a man today to give up his modern rifle would be akin to telling a man 100 years ago to give up his Winchester repeating rifle for a muzzle loading percussion rifle or man of 150 years ago to give up his percussion rifled weapon for a smooth bore flintlock. They would not have been happy about that and would probably been much less civil about such a notion than gun owners today are.
More gun controls will spell disaster for the democrat party. Regardless of what happens or the extent of new regulations it will be seen as the fault Obama’s and the democrats to many tens of millions across both parties. It could very well place the nation into the clutches of a republican president and a republican congress that potentially could and probably would make the depredations of Bush and Obama seem like child’s play.
If you look at nation that has completely banned guns such as England you will see legislation similar to that proposed right now and then a progression of laws that limit personal fire arms more and more until the public was disarmed for all practical purposes. I’m not saying that would happen here for sure but every time a crime committed with a gun draws national attention it will bring new legislation for more restrictions. You can mark my words on that.
What we most probably would see that can be demonstrated by the crime stats from a nation like England that has banned guns incrementally over the years is that while gun related deaths do get a good bit lower, violent crime, home invasions and theft go up significantly, and the criminals some how still have their guns.
Mexico is a country in which it is illegal to own firearms. In many places the people live in terror of gangs, outlaws and drug dealers who are all armed to the teeth. The police can do little except help clean up the aftermath. I don’t know where you live but we have people roaming around that would go Mexico on us in a heart beat if we were disarmed or greatly reduced in fire power.
Kathy K you may have the best interest for us all at heart but be careful of what you advocate for. A ban on firearms of any type will not bring greater peace, greater civility of prevent the violently insane from killing. It would however do great damage in further dividing the nation and create even more outrage and instability socially than we have right now.
In spite of the firearms we have, high capacity magazines and greater numbers of firearms we own homicide and violent crime rates have been moving lower for the nation in general (except in certain city’s that have gun bans). But I’m not sure anything can really slow the degradation in society.
The government of democrats and republicans have divided us into two major groups that have very different notions as to what type of government they want to live under and neither is a constitutionally American system. And those two major groups are fractured into numerous incompatible subgroups. Then there is every thing from communists to anarchists and people like me who if truthful would only be politically satisfied with a local or regional feudal system where they are the king. We are divided regionally, racially, financially, socially, and ideologically, to such point that we may be irreconcilable.
All this while we slip towards tremendous and mathematically insurmountable economic issues while having become dependent on an unsustainable system. I’d say we have some real problems and that getting into gun ban debates is dangerous distraction to the great scope of things that we should be attempting to deal with.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
19th January 2013 at 6:07 am
flash says:
Truism
Any government that outlaws gun ownership is an outlaw government!
http://www.eoffshore.com/real-reason-for-gun-ownership
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
19th January 2013 at 7:56 am
John A says:
What’s this? A voice of reason and political wisdom from a Democrat and former President? Glory be.
Bill Clinton: Democrats Must Respect Gun Rights, Culture
Former President Bill Clinton has a warning for top Democratic donors: Don’t underestimate weapons rights supporters.
Clinton, speaking to a group of Democrats at the Obama National Finance Committee Saturday, said gun control gets a special emotional response from people in rural states, and dismissing pro-gun arguments can backfire.
“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said, Politico reported.
“A lot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things,” Clinton said. “I know because I come from this world.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-gun-rights-culture/2013/01/20/id/472217?s=al&promo_code=121D3-1
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
19th January 2013 at 9:48 am
Thinker says:
Just look at how the media is trotting out every domestic violence story and skewing opinion against “military-style rifles” — whether or not they’ve been used in the crime:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/21/teenage-gunman-kills-5-in-new-mexico-home-officials-say/
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
19th January 2013 at 11:55 am
Administrator says:
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
Mein Kampf, p. 403
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
19th January 2013 at 11:57 am
KaD says:
Thinker: And notice how we’re still not having the national debate we need-the one about mind altering psychiatric medications.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
19th January 2013 at 11:12 pm