I had the privilege of meeting Professor Joyce Malcolm many years ago. Her research had already made powerful contributions to the gun owners’ civil rights movement, and she has since compiled even more.  Her work figures prominently in the following piece:

Or watch video here.

Less than ten minutes long, it passes the “TLDR” test for anyone remotely interested in the truth of the matter. Feel free to share this link with as many people – and especially as many voters – as you can.

17 COMMENTS

  1. The key term in the phrase “gun control” is “control.” The State is determined to control every aspect of our lives. This includes methods of travel, the education system, methods of food production, reproduction, the monetary system, the supply of energy,
    religion, our children, and the mind-set and focus of the military. The United States is unique in that the common citizen still has the means to resist the power of the State. This is why governments at all levels are so hell-bent on disarming us through any and all methods.

    • Makes you wonder, just what is they intend to do that they’re so afraid we might shoot them for it if we aren’t disarmed!

  2. “Fisking” isn’t in my dictionary. ?????????????????????

    In re England: retired police inspector Colin Greenwood did a book decades ago about UK gun control. “Firearms Control” noted that the original UK control efforts were an attempt to solve “the Irish Problem”. (Oddly, the NY laws were intended to do the same in the US.) The Irish problem got solved when the people got fed up with the thugs on both side of the sectarian violence and turned on them. Wonder if we’ll ever get bright enough to do that here?

    BTW, Greenwood did stats that showed that the UK was safer when “even lunatics” could buy firearms freely.

    • I met Colin Greenwood in England at Bisley Camp. Wonderful man. Helluva good shot, too. Forgive me for stealing from the current generation’s terminology: “fisking” is taking apart the other guy’s argument.

    • @WR Moore: If I may expand on Mas’ reply, my understanding is that ‘fisking’ takes the original piece point by point and responds / refutes each point, rather than writing an essay and, say, posting it at the end.

      • Exactly right. It is a sentence by sentence take down, frequently without bothering to be polite to the blithering idiot who authored that which is being taken down.

    • Fisking derives from the line by line takedowns of the stunningly self-hating and Western culture-hating anti-capitalist ‘reporter’ Robert Fisk. His ‘facts’ were often ludicrously wrong and his conclusions worse. In one famous piece filed from Quetta, Pakistan after the invasion of Afghanistan, he described being set upon, beaten, and robbed, and concluded that “If I had been them, I would have attacked me”, because he was a westerner.

      Interestingly, altho his bio in wikipedia mentions the incident, nowhere does it mention fisking, which may be his most lasting contribution to language.

    • The NY laws were intended to solve the Italian problem. As for Greenwood, I assume he was talking about the 1968 gun laws but British gun control is much older than that dating back to Elizabeth I. Modern era began in 1920 when they were worried about Bolsheviks.

    • [“Fisking” isn’t in my dictionary.]
      IMHO fisking isn’t in the dictionary because it’s not popular with the woke side of current arguments, who hate to see their opinions taken apart line-by-line. [/sarc]

  4. I was rather amused by the graphic where a box of rifle cartridges was positioned over a table with shotguns. Great presentation however.

  5. Thanks, Mas. Great points – well reasoned and spoken. The ‘other side’ always has to cherry pick of outright lie to try to make their points.

    but the part of the video where the young man was giving ‘hands-on’ instruction to the young lady was a bit too creepy for me – although I have seen similar entwined instructional poses at our range as well. Just don’t!

    Larry Correia’s new book, In Defense of the Second Amendment, is also going to be a good one and is available for order

  6. NYTimes article 2/1/2023 talking about the Memphis/Nichols case as it relates to “focused crime units” abuses….

    “Police departments establish these squads with a good intention: addressing a genuine crime problem. But they fall short in the implementation — tainted by poor leadership, the wrong benchmarks or a culture of impunity.”
    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#trash/FMfcgzGrcPMwChHXfNCTDgMQCKWQBxvb

    Reading that makes me think of those Gun Control Zealots with “good intentions” (doubtfully) as it compares in method to the “tainted by poor leadership, the wrong benchmarks (particularly true) or a culture of impunity (aka elitism).”

    And how 2A advocates are considered “paranoid” for thinking this happens.

  8. Gun control is NOT about mass shootings, dead children, suicides, domestic abuse, or murders.

    Those issues are excuses, pushed by the left, to justify their attempts to disarm the populace.

    The excuses don’t have to be particularly rational, or backed up by facts. They merely have to exist, to allow Marxists, socialists, and such to hide while they push their real goals.

    Although they are getting more and more bold and transparent, they can’t quite pull off the whole disarm thing, so they cloak their efforts in good works, so that if anyone opposes them, the left can label them as racist, homophobic, sexist, or belonging to white supremacy.

    Take the time to read – Saul Alinski, Cloward and Piven, the history surrounding the communist revolutions in Russia, China, Cambodia, and Venezuela. Read about Hitler’s rise to power. What you read will look eerily similar to what’s happening in this country with crime, the police, attacks on the bill of rights, destruction of the economy.

    It’s not about crime.

Comments are closed.