I remember reading a few years ago reading something along the lines of “We believe they are using suppression of the First Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.
Considering when I tried to find who said this, for sure, most of what I ran across was debates and petitions to repeal the Second Amendment. I had a discussion with some friends a few days ago about how President Trump became President Trump. The media was against him, the deep state was against him, heck, even parts of his own party were/are against him. And yet, he bypassed all of them and went straight to the American people via social media. Many of those “tweets” which were so reviled by the “press” or “news media” HAHAHAHA, yeah I crack myself up, resonated with many ordinary, Americans. No, he didn’t say everything perfectly polished, but he did seem to speak from the heart. Something we haven’t seen in a long time.
Social media is a very effective way to get the word out when the normal channels have a massive beaver dam in the middle. Do you hear much in the msm about the massive number of defensive gun uses? Oh yes, sometimes the local media in that area will cover it, but that’s about it. Oh the history of how ordinary citizens used a gun to stop school shootings? We expect this sort of behavior from the likes of cnn and msnbc #FakeNews but even Fox’s tide pod chomping Julie Bandaras shines in ignorance. #Sad So the problem is two fold, they lie like rugs and they suppress the positive.
Has anyone in the media even pointed out little boss hogg is pushing and lobbying to take aways rights he isn’t even old enough to use or appreciate? I would point out he will never be old enough to appreciate them.
Which is why social media has become so important. And now they can’t let that stand can they?
And that’s why you see articles like the following.
Of course when you read that last one, keep in mind that now we know Twitter lied about this.
And then you have things like who and what Twitter decides is a threat or objectionable.
Let’s take the case of IsraellyCool for example. Israelly Cool is a great web site, I learn very important things from Aussie Dave, who is now Ozraeli Dave.
Important things like:
Handy guide to who is responsible for your missing items:
The above is related to this little incident. But he is a very good pundit, he has serious columns as well.
So, why do I bring up IsraellyCool? He got suspended from Twitter. Why? He re-tweeted a virulently anti-semitic tweet and commented on it. And it wasn’t in agreement either. He did this four years ago. So he appealed. He thought perhaps it was some kind of AI that had flagged one of his 41,000 tweets/retweets. So he appealed. And got back a response
In other words, someone read over my appeal – in which I explained what I was doing with tweets like the above – and yet still decided to reject it. Furthermore, I stand to have my account suspended for good – I cannot, after all, find all such old tweets and start furiously deleting (I have tweeted over 41,000 times).
So four years ago he re-tweeted a anti-semitic threat, and he’s done this more than once and four years ago…..crickets. Now he gets turned in for it. Presumably the anti-semite who tweeted it is still doing fine. IsraellyCool is not the only one fighting anti-semitism that Twitter has suspended. They also suspended Canary Mission with 20,000 followers at the time. Their sole purpose is to out anti-Semites who proudly post death threats against Jews on social media so the whole world can see. One of them was a dental assistant. I really hope she doesn’t get hired. Yesh.
Twitter apparently has trouble with telling good from evil.
Shall we discuss Facebook facial recognition programs?
So, have you hit techie overload? Don’t get me wrong. I love my technology. I’m playing with putting Linux on a hybrid laptop, again. Still. Whatever. But I want technology to work for me, not against me.
So what to do, what to do. They are the big guys, they do get to run their show their way. We however, are Partisans. Do we give up? Oh HECK NO! If there appears to be a big beaver dam standing in our way, we can go the back roads around it or, blow the dam.
So, we have added to our social media choices. If you feel that you are not seeing as many stories from The Zelman Partisans, you might want to get an account at Gab.ai or Mewe.com Actually, you might want to anyway.
Gab’s mission is to put people and free speech first. We believe that the only valid form of censorship is an individual’s own choice to opt-out. Gab empowers users to filter and remove unwanted followers, words, phrases, and topics they do not want to see in their feeds.
MeWe is a social networking site that remains to need lots of improvements and updates. However, despite of glitches, it is still a very promising platform that values user privacy and offers a wide variety of privacy options for everyone.
In conclusion, MeWe is a safe social networking site that you should check out and try especially if you are interested in sharing and communicating with your friends and loved ones without compromising your personal privacy.
You can find us on MeWe by searching for The Zelman Partisans. This time there are spaces between the words.
Both platforms are free to join and privacy and free speech seems to be what they want to be known for. Yeah, I’m good with that! #WayCool.
We agree that there’s a need for gun violence research but we also think about the root cause. By definition, there would be no gun violence if there were no guns.
For us, as nurses, we notice that when we are discussing gun violence it is critical to note that gun ownership is a constitutional right — specifically enumerated and clear as clear can be.
To protect our patients, we as nurses are rising to an important recognition that the time has come to follow a constitutional approach to address gun violence. The reality is that the Constitution needs to be amended to protect the lives of our patients. And we, as nurses, believe that the time to act is now.
We need to recognize that the Constitution needs to be at the center of our conversations surrounding gun violence.
Guns are the root cause of gun violence? That’s a complete failure to differentiate between cause, effect, and method. As a more rational nurse said, “In a nurse, that’s f*****g serious.”
I hope none of those idiots are ever my nurse. Hearts are the root cause of heart disease. By definition, there would be no heart disease if there were no hearts.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
Cultured, lots of things are. Yogurt, viruses, pearls, and other gems, and, people. When we were younger and growing up we wanted to be cultured because it meant we had manners, that we had education and knew how to handle ourselves in a variety of situations, depending of course on what the situation called for. Or, as my Aunt would jokingly say “Act like we had some druggin up”. I suspect most parents have hopes for how their children will turn out, they have certain standards that they teach us and hope we will adhere to, such as if we see an older person on a walker we would assist them in crossing the street as opposed to whacking them over the head and robbing them. That’s the culture I grew up in, you be kind helpful and nice if the situation calls for it. Serve proper sweet tea, appreciate fried okra, take care of your horse before you take care of yourself and don’t lie, stand up for those weaker or being picked on, and other than younger siblings (I am SURE this was in the handbook somewhere) don’t be doing the picking. These are parental and cultural expectations. Perhaps yours are similar, perhaps not. I’m guessing within most of the United States, the majority of these would be somewhat recognized.
Is this something to be appreciated and prized?
Those on the left, globalist, multiculturalists and the media, but I repeat myself, would disagree. From them we are told the joy and beauty of “multiculturalism”. How it enriches the county that is invaded enlightened. So, the government is currently shut down because the Demoncratic party is refusing to budge unless they are allowed to grant amnesty and citizenship to the DACA “children”. So let’s look at that a bit. First, the Demoncrats are perfectly willing to allow the armed forces to go without pay to bring more criminals into the United States. Ok, so they were children when the came, and while that tugs on everyone’s heartstrings let’s look at some reality. For me seeing some “dreamers” burning a United States flag or flipping it off does not inspire confidence in me that they love this country. So let’s look at the cost.
First, how many of these children, up to age 31, are we talking about? Well, that depends on which act we are talking about. Whether it’s obama’s illegal DACA or the piece of crap put out by Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. Just How Large of an Amnesty Are We Talking About?
“According to the most reliable research, recent immigrants have sponsored an average of 3.45 additional relatives,” said Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
“I estimate that if 700,000 DACA beneficiaries receive lawful permanent residency status under an amnesty, then they can be expected to sponsor at least an additional 1.4 million relatives over time,” she told Congress this week.
Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she added, “In this scenario, the award of LPR status would result in a second, de facto amnesty for the parents of DACA beneficiaries — the very individuals who brought their children to settle here illegally, creating this policy dilemma. Ultimately, an amnesty for DACA beneficiaries likely would produce more than two million new LPRs over 20 years.”
Yep, the very parents that illegally came and brought the kids will likely get amnesty as well.
This just has the makings of a future “Falestinian refugee” crisis doesn’t it?
And if you enjoy myth busting on the same, here you go. Some very juicy ones in here. Myths & Facts
The numbers are striking. The DREAM Act of 2017, the most likely vehicle for extending DACA protections and making them permanent, would raise federal outlays by $115 billion dollars, according to a Breitbart News analysis. Nearly all of that would be paid for by additional deficit spending……
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a single person living in San Jose, California with an income of $32,000 would be eligible to receive a premium tax credit of $1,048 in 2017. The numbers vary by geography because health insurance costs vary widely by geography. A single person in Brooklyn with $32,000 of income would be eligible for an annual tax credit of around $2,666. But San Jose is likely more representative due to the high concentration of DACA aliens in California. Using the San Jose figure, current DACA aliens alone would likely be immediately eligible for around $838.4 million in Obamacare subsidies this year…….
The Dream Act of 2017, however, extends legal residency to far more aliens than the current DACA program. If we include 79 percent of the 1.8 million immediately eligible, the cost would rise to $91.5 billion over a decade. Including that share of the larger 3.3 million figure would push the 10 year cost of Obamacare subsidies to the DREAM households to around $167 billion.
You really should read the whole thing, but this gives you an idea of the monetary angle.
Then we have Truth on DACA: We’ve Already Granted Amnesty to These Illegals . Mr. Duke points out yes, they’ve been caught as criminals but no one is prosecuting them. They aren’t going to jail, nor are we forcing them or their parents to reimburse the country, county or city for the education or medical services or any other services from which they have benefited. He points out it is like coming home finding someone in your house chowing down on your dinner because his dad broke in and told him it was ok. You don’t call the cops, you feel bad for him, you just tell him to leave. Where upon your next door neighbor Rachel Madcow calls up the local #MSM #MediaBias TV station and rails you are a racist because you won’t continue feeding him and paying for his toothpaste. Ok, I paraphrased that last bit.
Contrary to this assertion, however, DACA recipients have considerably lower educational attainment than do American citizens. Almost a quarter are functionally illiterate, 73 percent live in low-income housing, and only four percent complete college, according to certain studies. Allowing DACA individuals — who range from high-school age to middle age — to stay, “is really the importation of an additional underclass,” as American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson puts it. (It’s also the importation of future Democrat voters.)
I wonder in how many languages classes have to be taught in California, and how does that affect the regular American students in the class?
If we can return to my example for a moment at the top about the dreamers who burn the flag and flip off things they don’t like, turns out, that isn’t so very bad a yardstick. While it is no doubt politically incorrect to point out that not all the dreamers/schemers are angels it is worth knowing the threshold they must cross to be considered a “criminal”. DACA: Granting Amnesty to Dreamers Committing Crimes While Abandoning Their Victims
Thus, the DACA guidelines give illegal aliens committing multiple felonies and significant misdemeanors a total pass as long as they have not been convicted of their criminal activity. This means that Dreamer gang-bangers, Dreamer identity thieves, Dreamer sexual predators, Dreamers who haven’t paid income taxes, and Dreamers committing a wide range of other crimes all qualify for DACA status as long as they haven’t been convicted of their crimes.
Some European countries, namely Italy, Germany, France and the UK, are facing the so-called “substitution of nations,” where the national ethnical majority is disappearing physically and biologically, and is being substituted by migrants, according to a recent report. Sputnik Italy discussed the issue with Daniele Scalea, the author of the report.
The number of indigenous citizens in Italy is declining at an astonishing rate. According to a Eurostat forecast, within the next 60 years, or sooner, 50% of Italy’s population will either be of African or Asian descent. This figure is due to the diminishing number of migrants from other European countries and a prolonged economic crisis in Italy. Italian and European authorities are attempting to execute a re-population program in order to solve this issue.
I hear it now. But Sheila, don’t be such a xenophobe, they will just become “Italians” “English” “French” “Swedish” “Canadian” “American” that came from __________. Really? Not necessarily. Remember I started by talking about wanting to live with honor, to be cultured? What got me started on this was a show I saw not long ago. Now I don’t watch a lot of television at all. But this one just floored me. This was on a series of deaths in Canada. The Shafia family lost three of their beautiful daughters and their nanny. The Shafias were from Afghanistan. You can read up on it, it really was quite horrific.
Right, the girls were killed by their parents and their brother. They had brought shame and disgrace to the family by dating and wanting to be Canadian. They wanted to integrate into the society in which they lived. And the nanny? She was the father’s first wife (not ex-wife, first wife, still wife) who couldn’t have children. So they treated her horribly but kept her around. And I guess she really was good with the children by second wife and murderer. So she was a bonus kill. Remorse?
“My conscience, my God, my religion, my creed aren’t shameful,”Shafia told the others, back inside the van. “Even if they hoist me up onto the gallows, nothing is more dear to me than my honour. Let’s leave our destiny to God and may God never make me, you or your mother honourless.”
“There is,” he said later, “no value of life without honour.”
Guess that is a “no”. Compare that with how Susan Smith behaved when she drowned her children. Her society did not support that and call it honor, she knew she had done something wrong. Now, the Shafias knew they had done something illegal, they just didn’t think it was wrong.
It’s honor of a whole perverted notion according to American, or pretty much Canadian standards. Although it probably fits right it with the idea of honor in France, the U.K. and Sweden now. Their “Acid Attacks” are due to “mental instability”, not religion, of course.
It’s THEIR culture. To them THAT was honorable. In the last few weeks on Twitter there have been a lot of pictures of women taking off their hijabs and waving them in defiance. Yep, while Linda Sarsour is over here convincing liberals it is “liberating” to wear them and the obliging liberals don them and smile at the camera in their enlightened embrace of “multiculturalism” women who have been forced to wear them since Jimmy Peanuts did his thing are taking them off and waving them.
And then they go missing. I don’t blame her for it though, I think she is amazing. I never did get an answer as to when Linda Sarsour was heading over there to support her oppressed sisters.
These hashtags have been running on Twitter. #ForcedHijab #Where_Is_She #IranProtests #Iranprotests #FreeAllProtesters
Some lady responded to some of these that the hijab protects them. It protects them from men behaving lasciviously towards them like western men do towards women. I actually answered her that not all western men act that way towards women and that it may be partly due to some western women being armed, willing and able to defend themselves from such. Of course I may be blocked from Twitter now.
And that is a big part of the draw of DACA for Demoncrats, new reliable Demoncratic votes. To heck with the American citizens that pay their salary, they will use the money and power granted to them by American citizens to betray them and favor the illegal immigrants.
“After years of over taxation, regulation, and mono party politics the State of California and many of its 58 Counties have become ungovernable,” the movement declares on its website.
Preston and Reed say the citizens of the state live “under a tyrannical form of government that does not follow” constitutional requirements.
Do you think the people coming from these countries are going to cherish our Second Amendment? Do you think they will see the value and the freedom it brings? They are coming from mostly corrupt or oppressive countries. I said mostly. But enough of them to tip the voting scales? Who know, add in vote fraud, and who knows. Do you think they will cherish our life and proper sweet tea? Who knows. It’s not working out so good in Italy, the UK , France or Sweden. No, they don’t all want to kill us, but if I show you a picture can you tell me the ones that don’t? Probably not. Even if none of them want to kill us, will it change the culture? How much? Can’t you just hear barry sotero saying “If you like your culture, you can keep your culture”?
So if we in America are going to look for a change in the culture, let it be something like this
May I just point out Hanukkah was only a little over a month ago, and that the point of Hanukkah was to prevent the eradication of Jewish culture by the Hellenist Demoncrats of their time? Culture really does matter.
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 McDonalddecision 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!
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?
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).
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.
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!
Hey, 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.
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.
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.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.