Tag Archives: Second Amendment

Voice of Reason?

Gilbert Randolph, writing in the UKMC University News, has delusions of being the voice of sweet reason is yet another gun control debate. Sadly, he’s just another idiot.

“I hope to reframe our current political discourse and put it into the historical, even global context of human violence.”

How well does Mr. Randolph manage that? From the beginning, he displays an unfortunate lack of knowledge of firearms- their design, intent, and use.

“Guns are designed to kill. That isn’t inherently evil. Bows were designed to kill. The teeth of wolves are designed to kill. It’s the usage of that ability that has moral and social implications.”

No. Guns are mechanical/chemical devices designed to direct a projectile at a target. The vast majority of targets outside of a war zone are paper.

“Guns are inherently dangerous. Does it then follow that danger is inherently evil or at the very least, needing to be tightly controlled?”

No. TATP, FOOF, and old nitroglycerin are inherently dangerous. They are so unstable as to spontaneously explode.

A firearm requires some external force in order to activate. Typically, that is a person pulling the trigger, although there are rare cases where indirect human stupidity does the job, or a critter. But the firearm is still an inanimate device; of its own, it does nothing, and never chooses its target. Never once, in decades of firearms experience, has one of my firearms spontaneously discharged.

Randolph’s ignorance extends to the Second Amendment he pretends to understand so much better than “the far right.”

“When neighborhoods are controlled by violent gangs, such as the cartels in Mexico and other nations, the power is merely transferred. The danger of someone else is also not without problems. What happens when that person abuses their power? Then there is a demand that we become dangerous to the institutions we set up to protect us.

This paradox seems to me to be the heart of the Second Amendment. I suggest that whatever route we choose, regulation or deregulation, we always remember these tensions.”

That is the very heart of the Second Amendment: That the power be distributed amongst all the People, not concentrated in one power group.

As for “discourse” on the regulation of firearms…

We’ve had that discussion. In 1776 — two hundred and forty years ago — George Mason drafted the “Declaration of Rights” for Virginia, which included the people’s individual right to keep and bear arms. It was debated and adopted by the state. Eleven years later, Mason drafted the original Bill of Rights based on Virginia’s Declaration. It was debated, refined, and approved by the Constitutional Convention. From there, it –completed with the Second Amendment — was sent to the states for further discussion. The nation agreed to it and formally adopted it. In the time since, every state admitted to the union has specifically agreed to and adopted the US Constitution complete with the Second Amendment.

If that weren’t sufficient for Randolph, we have the the US Supreme Court’s Miller decision that the people have a right to bear arms of common military type. We have the Heller decision that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. If that still isn’t clear enough (and for Chicago it wasn’t), the McDonald decision expressly stated that the right to keep and bear arms applies to all the individual people of all the states. And it extends to US Territories, too.

End of discourse. Unless you plan to amend the Constitution again, to rid us of that troubling human/civil right. Be careful what you wish for.

But good luck with that. The late Major R. Owens [Dimwit-NY] made an annual attempt at the discourse of repeal. Upon discussion in the House, it was likewise annually rejected. (I do give him partial credit for recognizing that there is a Constitution, even if he hated it.)

End. Of. Discourse.


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: The Next 2A Supreme Court Case

AK-74There have been several Supreme Court events pertaining to the Second Amendment during the past year.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning firearms.

The Court also refused to hear a challenge to the Connecticut “assault” weapons ban that outlaws many popular semi-automatic rifles, in effect allowing the ban to stand.

This year the Court also overturned a Massachusetts decision that determined that stun guns were not covered by the Second Amendment, siding instead with a woman who said she carried one as protection against an abusive former boyfriend.

In recent years, we’ve also seen Supreme Court victories such as Heller and MacDonald, so the Court’s Second Amendment record has been somewhat mixed.

Given what we know, which Second Amendment case would you like to see the Supreme Court take on next? Do you trust it to impartially rule on any gun-related issue?

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Upcoming Class: Guerrilla Resistance Support Operations

by Kit Perez

A mixed unit that included 7 Jewish partisans.
Photo taken in November, 1943 in Drahichyn, Belarus.
The photo includes members of the Shish branch of
the Molotov Brigade (Otriad Regiment).
(source)
While advocating for gun rights (and hopefully training with your firearms) it’s easy to get caught up in the ‘run and gun’ mentality. We stock up on ammo and spare parts, we dry fire practice, and we spend all kinds of money on gun-related things. While doing all of those (awesome) things, we often miss one of the most critical parts of being a partisan–cultivating the skills and the support infrastructure necessary to be successful.

When you think of the word “patriot group” you probably think of the myriad bands of folks typing away on social media. The word “militia” may conjure up images that aren’t all positive, or at least pretty niche. What they all have in common is guns. The problem is that there is far more to a successful guerrilla movement than guns–or even the skills and will to use them. Understanding how to set up and maintain those networks and infrastructure is the difference between a stagnant movement and a liberty resistance.

World War II resistance cells did a great deal more than ‘run and gun.’ They wrote propaganda pieces in secret and distributed them to millions of people. They engaged in acts of sabotage all over Europe, wreaking havoc on German efforts. They had one of the best-developed intelligence networks imaginable. They forged papers, smuggled supplies and people across borders, and saved countless people destined for the gas chambers. They housed spies and other resistance members, ferried information to the Allies, patched up injuries in makeshift places with no real supplies, and provided a host of other badly needed services.

Not all of them carried a gun. In fact, some of them never did–yet they were every bit as important as those who did. Being a support member was not always glamorous, and yet it was amazingly dangerous. Resistance members paid with their lives over and over. Sophie Scholl, her brother Hans, and their friends gave their lives for simply publishing a secret newsletter that spoke of liberty and the evils of the Third Reich. All of them, regardless of their location or function, had two things in common: They believed in the cause, and they were willing to do whatever they knew how to do, whatever their skillset was, to help.

Being a resistance member is not just carrying a gun. It’s not getting together with your buddies every so often in the woods to practice combat techniques. It’s taking your skillset and finding a way to use it for the cause—or learning new ones.

Thankfully, there are those in the community who can teach us how to do just that.

John Mosby, former Special Operations soldier, author of several must-read books on partisan operations, and well-known expert on a host of guerrilla topics, is teaching a class in Western WA May 3-4. It is a weeknight class spread out over two days, during which you will learn how to set up and maintain the networks and infrastructure needed to successfully operate as a resistance member. This is effective whether you have an established group or are simply an individual trying to create the networks you need.

All participants in this class will be vetted and appropriate security procedures will be followed for obvious reasons. Once you have passed vetting you will be given information for payment, location, etc.

If you want to be more than a Facebook typist—or even a run and gunner—then you need this class. Don’t just be part of a movement. Be part of the resistance.

Email audax0@protonmail.com for more information—don’t miss out!

Don’t be this guy.
 


Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Poll: GOP a danger to your gun rights?

republican_debate002_16x9Hey, all! It’s time for another fun Zelman Partisans poll. Today we are asking you which remaining GOP candidate would be the most dangerous for your gun rights.

We previously asked you who in the GOP clown car would best protect your right to keep and bear arms. Now, that the field has narrowed, we want to know who would be the worst.

What I tried to do in parentheses is give you guys a taste of each candidate’s Second Amendment views. It’s not a complete report card, and I’ve tried to include Gun Owners of America ratings where appropriate.

Now, go vote!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

As If We Didn’t Know Already

Karl Rove is a jackass.

I know this is not news to most of us who have even the slightest knowledge of American politics. After all, Rove was one of the “geniuses” behind the eight years of Bush we were subjected to between 2001 and 2009. And now he’s dedicated himself to spearheading efforts to elect… um… “electable” candidates – and by “electable,” I mean having no morals, ethics, or strong views due to a passionate desire only to get elected, vice actually serve the populace.

Well, as if you needed more proof that Rove is a tool, he’s decided to up his cred as one of the most dangerous and pathetic humans in the political sphere. When Chris Wallace asked Rove in a Fox News interview about the Emmanuel African Methodist Church in Charleston, SC  how we can, “stop the violence,” dimwit sniveled that the only way to guarantee they will stop is to “remove guns from society.”

Now maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean basically the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough “oomph” to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.

Well, of course that’s not going to happen! Because people like us stand up to people like Rove and his beloved compromisers! After all it’s Rove and crew that helped give us gun control-loving Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate in 2012.

But what Rove said is more dangerous and stupid than you might think. For one, it gives gun grabbers ammunition to claim, “Look! Here’s a conservative admitting that repealing the Second Amendment would dramatically reduce gun violence! BIPARTISANSHIP!

But it’s even more stupid, because it presents a false premise. Not only is it logistically and practically impossible to remove guns from society, but it allows the gun grabbers to set the rules of the playing field. GUN violence is not the problem. Violence writ large is.  And additionally, as the British experiment has proven after the UK all but banned firearms after the Dunblane massacre, removing guns from society does absolutely nothing to mitigate the problem.

Removing guns from society will not reduce violence. The Cumbria shooting still happened in the UK – even after the government instituted stringent gun control – resulting in 12 fatalities and 11 injuries. Terrorists still bombed the public transport system in London in 2005. Japan has virtually eliminated all shooting deaths by banning most firearms, but that doesn’t mean violence has gone away.

And yet, Rove stupidly allowed the gun grabbers to frame the narrative and put the right to keep and bear arms in the crosshairs, so to speak.

Perhaps if the gun grabbers stopped pushing for the disarmament of this nation’s most vulnerable potential victims and started promoting responsible gun ownership, personal responsibility, and self defense, we could drastically reduce violent rampages like the one that claimed the lives of churchgoers in South Carolina.

And as for Karl Rove… STOP TRYING TO HELP!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Mike vs. Hoplophobe

What happens when a famous science fiction author, gun rights advocate and gun enthusiast takes on an angry, frothing, hysterical hoplophobe?

It’s a TKO. I know of no one who can dismantle an anti-gun zealot better than Michael Z. Williamson, so it’s worth your time to read the entire article. But here’s just a snippet below:

Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.

I have functional guns from 1872 in my collection.  In the UK, criminals convert dummy and airsoft guns to fire bullets.  Once again, the gun freak (you), opens his ignorant yap about a subject without doing the faintest modicum of research. That’s probably why you’re in “reporting,” the Special Olympics of writing. Real writers have to do research.

Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting.

BWUAHAHAHAAHA!  You went full retard.  Never go full retard.   Your typical deer rifle has 3 times the muzzle energy of an “assault weapon” (please define what that is for me.  Go ahead) and about 10 times that of a handgun. But they’re “ineffective.”  Because nothing that can kill a bull elk could be useful for killing people.

Mike’s language and sarcasm can be strong, so be warned. That said, there’s nothing more fun than watching a professional author take down a sniveling, barely educated coward.

I give it a decided thumbs up.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail