Apparently the pre-Thanksgiving warnings of terror attack in the US weren’t false, just off by a few days. Kudos to the well-trained cops from multiple agencies who “rode to the sound of the guns” and extinguished two mass-murdering “radicalized” Muslims. Condolences to the 21 wounded victims, and the survivors of the fourteen killed in the massacre. The government building where it happened, presumably, was yet another gun free zone hunting preserve for mass murderers.
The chief of police in Detroit makes an excellent point on the matter.
I’m told that in Paris these past few days, our President repeated his line about mass shootings not taking place in other civilized countries save our own, surrounded all the while by the ghosts of three figures worth of victims of terrorist mass murderers in that very city only a matter of days before. Naturally, he called for more restrictions on law-abiding American gun owners. Let us not forget, France’s strict “gun controls” are well known, as are those of California.
Those inside the Democrat halls of power have known for more than twenty years that their focus on firearms prohibition is meaningless. Kudos to longtime Second Amendment activist David Hardy, who found proof of this in – irony of ironies – the Bill Clinton Library, here.
Innocent people are dying. There’s no time anymore for mendacity or cluelessness. There IS time for America to listen to the Chief in Detroit. The best chance for saving lives is for good people right there at ground zero of the attack to defeat these things when they first flare up, before they turn into full-blown conflagration. To those who say one good person with a pistol and a skilled hand has no hope of defeating multiple long-gun-wielding jihadi, I answer with two words: Remember Garland!
Damn right Mas! Garland, where an old gheezer with a stock Glock shot the Jihadi scumbag to doll rags. I won’t ever forget that one.
Don’t worry guys, not all the young people in the country are too busy staring at the twitter feed to know what is going on. I’ll keep carrying, (and training) everyday.
Mean while our worthless president at a press conference
“Obama flanked by his national security team: “It is possible that this is terrorist related, but we don’t know”
It is not just the Detroit chief….upstate NY sheriff posted great notice….
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/12/03/ulster-county-sheriff-carry-guns/
Damn interesting.. that from Clinton’s archives. For sure don’t need Hillery around. I see nothing but blockage from the whitehouse.
Lock and load, we’re on our own.
Prayers to those affected in Cali.
Mas – I’m right there with you, Sir! I am sick and tired of those who insist “we” wouldn’t make any difference. Although the odds of defeating multiple long-gun-wielding jihadi might be steep, with NO opposition, there are NO odds! At the very least, a person with “only” a handgun can at least make the bgs change THEIR plans and lose some sense of control – a very good thing. Each time one of these happens, I wonder if THIS will be the one that makes the majority of America
Apparently, my bandaged fingers sabotaged my efforts. To finish…come to their senses and finally “get it.” The naysayers, who insist they have all the answers, simply must understand we are all in this together – and it is ONLY by fighting this together that America will triumph.
Regarding the most likely terrorist attack in San Bernadino, I wonder if the murderers’ AR-15 type rifle was properly equipped with the California mandated bullet button magazine lock and 10 round magazines? I hope no bullets containing lead were used as they can poison that state’s condor population. According to the SBPD’s chief, the murderers were also armed with a S&W and Llama pistols. What self respecting terrorist would use a Llama pistol? I suppose they had to save money somewhere to buy explosive materials, ballistic vests, and military style equipment.
We must spent more money to combat global warming so tragedies like this one involving peaceful moslems will not occur so often. In the meantime, I’m taking the wise advice of liberal neighbors and getting myself a loud whistle for self defense. I had considered pepper spray but decided against it as a gun wielding attacker could take that away and blast me with it.
Don, I concur. “No plan survives first contact with the enemy” or as Mike Tyson put it, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”. In a mass shooting incident, the sooner return fire is initiated, the better. Having to wait moments for police to respond would just plain suck.
I don’t necessarily give officials credit for calling this event in advance. I can’t recall a single holiday, in years, that the FBI or DHS hasn’t automatically raised the terror alert. Unfortunately, they were bound to be right eventually.
The Garland incident appears to me an anomaly, it seemed to be a semi-hardened or hardened target. Didn’t go well for the attackers, though they did wound one unarmed security officer.
That being said, I continue to advocate for the carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens more so because there are over one million non-terrorism related violent crimes committed in the United States every year.
Appreciate your “on the spot” articles on current situations…I remember 20 some years ago at Fairchild Air Force Base hospital..a former Airman with mental issues started killing folks out at the base hospital with an AK type weapon..A young Air Force MP…armed with his issued Beretta 9mm..took this guy out of action at a considerable distance…I was also told that this young hero was eventually transferred to a base in Hawaii…the story goes that some @$$hole psychologist made this young man feel guilty for his actions..He left the Air Force some time after this…The God in me salutes the God in you…Semper Fi
Still praying…
Every time I leave the house armed I pray that I do not have to use said firearm, yet I pray that if I am to be the line of defense against armed insanity that my heart not falter, that my hands be steady, and that if I must needs pull the trigger that my aim be true.
I made up my mind a long time ago that in such a situation where some piece of human debris sets the life-or-death ROE, I would follow his rules and do unto him before he could do what he planned to do to others, and at the very least me and mine would exit that scenario alive.
Maybe that’s just tough talk from a guy who has never had to face such a situation, but I prefer to think of it as facing reality: The bad guy has declared his intention, and therefore must be treated as a rabid dog would be.
To Tom606: Don’t make me slap you, man 😉 (But thanks for adding some humor to this!)
You’ve named the wrong Dave. That article was written by Dave Hardy, of Arms and the Law, not Dave Kopel. But Kopel has been on a tear the past several weeks over at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Jihadists attack an art contest in Texas. Armed good guys stop them. No one is killed except the terrorists. The media treat the incident as a tragic disaster, and blame the intended victims for provoking the attack.
A weirdo goes on a rampage at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Before the smoke even clears, the media are chanting the mantra of, “White male, anti-abortion, right-wing, Christian, Tea Party, Fox News watcher, talk radio listener.”
Muslims murder unarmed victims, in a designated gun-free zone, in a state with strict gun laws. Politicians call for more gun laws and more gun-free zones. They also want to admit more unvetted Muslim immigrants into the US. And the media insist that we cannot jump to conclusions, and that the motives are “unclear.” At the same time, they claim that the Inland Regional Center is “only a few blocks away” from a Planned Parenthood clinic. (Actually, the nearest PP clinic was 1.5 miles away.)
I agree with Tamara Keel. She blogged that the media are trying to cut off the feet of jihad to make it fit the Procrustean bed of the leftist anti-gun agenda.
…. And what the bloody hell is “assault clothing” ??
Mas,
The by-line for the linked report, regarding the documents found in the Bill Clinton Library, shows Dave Hardy rather than David Kopel.
Otherwise the points that you made are excellent!
After each mass shooting event, the anti-gunners spew gun control (oops! Gun Safety Measures!) as predictably as Old Faithful spews steam and hot air.
Thanks for the catch on the names, guys.
Was discussing it with significant other, a nurse by training, this morning during the fix. “Dammit,” I said, “I KNEW that and still brain-farted and transposed the last names. Think it might be a sign of early Alzheimer’s?”
“No, dear,” she replied patiently. “In your case, it’s too late for it to be early.”
Sigh…
Watch for NY, Mass.,Con., OR Mar. or one of the other anti gun states for the next terroist attach.
How about we demand a new ‘law’ that Radicalized Islamic Extremists (i.e.terrorists) be prohibited from owning, possessing, or purchasing firearms in the US.
Of course they’ll obey – right ?
Problem solved !
I predicted that most law enforcement departments, and especially the rank and file in those departments, here in the US were behind the curve on the Black Lives Matter and that additional punitive measures or restrictions would be placed upon them involuntarily because they were only willing to stonewall the issues. In light of the increased number of officer prosecutions and disciplinary actions we’ve recently seen, I think that prediction may be being proved correct.
So let me make another prediction:
Polls have shown that about 40% of the population is satisfied with the gun laws as they are. Of the 60% who are dissatisfied, for every person who is dissatisfied because they’re too strict there are 2 who are dissatisfied because they are too lax. See:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167135/americans-dissatisfaction-gun-laws-highest-2001.aspx?g_source=gun&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
Moreover, the percentage of the population which identifies itself as liberal on social issues (that is social vs economic) is steadily growing, while the percentage which identifies itself as conservative on social issues is steadily shrinking. See:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/social-ideology-left-catches-right.aspx
I’ve previously said here that I think the anti-choice abortion movement has shown the way to the pro-gun-control movement how to indirectly regulate gun ownership and use almost out of existence without directly restricting guns. I’ve also noted that the US Supreme Court seems ready to limit the Second Amendment right to own guns to only be applicable within the home (and perhaps with substantial limits on type of firearms which can be owned). Finally, even without the growing liberal percentage, politics is cyclical and there will come a time when the liberals are completely in control; perhaps not within our lifetimes, but eventually.
So here’s my prediction: The outrage of the American public over gun deaths, and especially mass killings, is going to continue to grow. (In my today’s newspaper — a major metropolitan city in Texas with a fairly conservative editorial bent — where there’s usually at least one pro-gun letter to the editor for every anti-gun letter if not two for every one, there was not one single pro-gun letter relating to San Bernadino but five or six anti-gun ones.) The time will come when enough of the American people say no more and the stonewalling, “that’s stupid’s,” and “won’t work’s” from the NRA and the pro-gun side will be swept under. (And, frankly, the argument that the nation will be made safer by more people being armed rather than fewer will never, ever be accepted or even given serious consideration by those saying “no more.”) I know the pro-gun side fears the slippery slope if they give in an iota to the gun control side, but in addition to the slippery slope metaphor there’s also the metaphor of the willow tree, which survives, versus the oak which is broken when the storm comes.
“No, dear,” she replied patiently. “In your case, it’s too late for it to be early.”
Sigh…
And that, Mas, is why we love Gail so much!
Dave, please tell us in what direction you feel our particular willow should bend.
@ Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle one) Says:
At the moment, all the Lame Stream Media are saying “It could be Terrorist Related”, however I suspect they are actually being “PC”, and/or “Under orders”, and being “Good little German Soldiers”, like those at the Nurinberg War Crimes Trials saying “We were only following Orders”, before being convicted, and Executed!!!
Apparently California has the strictest gun laws in the country and yet its major metropolitan areas continually suffer terrible firearms violence like that recently in San Bernadino. Though this latest incident was obviously an Islamist terrorist attack, the state’s draconian anti-gun laws just about make it impossible for its citizens’ to have concealed carry permits. While this is conjecture on my part, perhaps if even a few legally armed citizens had been at this “active shooter” venue they could have put a stop to the massacre at some point, and saved lives and prevented injuries. The same logic applies to just about all the other mass shooter situations, too. Let’s face it, unless the police are right there at the beginning of a shooting rampage, the best they can do is respond minutes later and deal with the aftermath. Citizens must be able to protect themselves in the meantime.
I don’t think it is the job of the President to comment on individual crimes around the country.
Liberal Dave, the Left and Right share less and less in common. We are headed for a split of some type. It may be as simple as states nullifying federal laws, which exceed the 17 enumerated powers the federal government is allowed to possess. The Tenth Amendment applies here. There doesn’t have to be another Civil War. Mark Levin is calling for a convention of the states to rein in the power of the feds.
My theory is that liberals/communists are using radical Muslims to weaken society, so that we all call out for big government to save us. How do they think they can control radical Islam? The liberals/communists are playing with fire. If the radical Jihadis win, the liberals will be living under Sharia Law. I’d love to make a movie about that. Imagine American women in burkas, not driving cars, not working outside the home, and going to the hospital for clitorodectomies. The last scene of the movie would be Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton remembering how “oppressed” American women were in the 1950s.
How can radical Muslims claim that Islam is the “religion of peace.” Here’s how; They want to kill everyone on earth, except the ones who agree with them. That would turn the earth into a cemetery, and what is more peaceful than a cemetery?
Dave (the liberal, non-uncle one):
I read your post with interest but I must say that I believe that you are engaging in what I call “left-wing wishful thinking”. It occurs because a great many of those on the left are (a) so absolute sure of their leftist world-view that they deceive themselves into believing that everyone else MUST EVENTUALLY come around to the (in their minds) correct way of thinking and (b) their view is so absolutely valid that a higher force (God, fate, humanity, demographics, whatever) must eventually cause it to bear fruit.
In fact, neither left-wing nor right-wing views are so blessed by God that they are inevitable. A study of history shows that (a) sometimes the left wins, (b) sometimes the right wins, but most often (c) it swings back and forth between the two poles of political thought.
Generally (if an issue IS finally resolved), the side that is MOST DEDICATED wins. The link that Mas gave (above) to the report on the Clinton papers is telling here. Jody Powell pointed out that gun control was largely a losing argument for the democrats because to those that support “gun safety measures” (as it is now called), it is only one issue among many. It does not drive their votes.
However, to gun rights supporters, it is a critical issue and it DOES DRIVE their votes. Open your eyes and lay left-wing dogma aside for a moment. The gun control side has steadily lost ground since the 1990’s. Gun sales are booming (sorry for that pun again!). Concealed carry and “shall issue” have expanded across the land. While the SCOTUS has been lax about defining the scope of the 2nd Amendment, they have at least (in Heller) established it as an individual right and (in McDonald) expanded this right to the States.
If you see an anti-gun victory in all this, then you are surely looking through the rose-colored glass of left-wing bias.
The left is going to lose the gun control fight in America. The only question is whether they will concede in grace or whether they will ignite a left-wing / right-wing civil war before they acknowledge their defeat.
Hey Jaji:
Don’t you believe in global warming, and the terrible harm it does to our planet and it’s inhabitants? Or maybe you don’t like condors or my shiny new whistle. Bring it on, Man! I’ll sic Al Gore on you 🙂
“The outrage of the American public over gun deaths, and especially mass killings, is going to continue to grow.”
“And, frankly, the argument that the nation will be made safer by more people being armed rather than fewer will never, ever be accepted or even given serious consideration by those saying ‘no more.'”
Really going out on a limb there, huh, Lawyer Dave? Well, I predict the sun will rise tomorrow!
Anyway, even if what you say happens, my guns won’t be registered or sit quietly in a hole somewhere gathering rust. They’ll be practiced with, carried proudly and depended on to ensure my safety as well as my family’s safety then as now, perhaps in spite of whatever laws restricting their presence may exist in the future. Truth to tell, my situation won’t be much different from most other commenters here, either, I’m willing to wager. There are millions of us who will not be victims by choice now or ever!
TXCOMT
Update on Airman Andy Brown from Fairchild AFB : http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/spincontrol/2010/jun/20/andy-brown-helping-other-survivors-mellberg-rampage/ and http://fairchildhospitalshooting.com/page2.php All of us should send him a note of respect for his service and his work. Thank you Andy Brown !! Great read Massad Ayoob ! Thanks for the decades of great writing and training you have made my life better.
Abraham Lincoln had it right when he said that you can’t fool all of the people, all of the time. Sincerity is one thing, but honesty is another. The mainstream media are currently collaborating with King Pinocchio to sustain the rule of BIG LIE politics. The money and bribes propping up a socialist regime eventually dry up, though, and truth makes a comeback. Let us keep the faith in our great constitutional republic, and count on honesty to prevail. Go sheep dogs!
While the left-wing mainstream media is infamous (among gun owners anyway) for being totally clueless when it comes to firearms and how they operate, I am especially struck by their super-frequent use of the term “arsenal” to describe the weapons used by the California terrorists.
As near as I can figure, the terrorists were armed with one rifle and one handgun apiece. The FBI also seems to have found a third rifle (.22 LR caliber) at their apartment along with a quantity of ammunition.
In total, (counting the .22 LR rifle and ammo), they owned at total of five (5) firearms and about 5,000 rounds of ammo for a family with two (2) active adults (not counting grandma and the kid).
So, I guess any individual who owns 2 to 3 firearms and has more that 2.500 rounds of ammo is “guilty” of owning an “arsenal” in the eyes of the left-wing media.
By that standard, I am an arsenal owner too!
The dictionary definition of this term is:
ARSENAL:
1. a place of storage or a magazine containing arms and military equipment for land or naval service.
2. a government establishment where military equipment or munitions are manufactured.
3. a collection or supply of weapons or munitions.
4. a collection or supply of anything; store:
No. 3 above might justify the use of the word “Arsenal” in this case but it is still a stretch. Given the oppressive gun laws of the State of California, maybe it does qualify as an arsenal there?
I was wondering if there are any non-arsenal contributors to this blog? I’ll go out on a limb here and bet that Mas and the EP are arsenal owners too?
Liberal Dave seems not to realize criminals don’t obey laws. Disarming law abiding citizens won’t stop ideologically indoctrinated, violence prone individuals (ie, Islamic terrorists, a phrase you will never hear our Dear Leader express) who are bent on murder and mayhem. Put another way, if laws prevented crime, our prisons would be empty.
California already has Obozo’s dream list of gun control measures and France is even more restrictive. Given those facts, how did those two events take place Dave? How about instead of trying so hard to control the tools they use to commit their atrocities, we restrict terrorists and potential terrorists, hmmm?
Or would restricting the flood of potential terrorists impinge on the agenda of the Dear Leader to create more future Democrat voters? It’s well past time we drop the PC crap and start calling things what they are. In my part of the country we call that Straight Talk. A lot of people these days can’t deal with that.
Of course we all know (or should know) that control of guns isn’t the real agenda. Control of the Sheeple is.
I’ve been saying for some time now that these people need to be killed in great numbers. Not negotiated with or appeased, killed.
Suddenly and violently.
During WWII we bombed German cities and killed the civilian population, men, women and children. The women were working in the armaments factories and the kids would grow up to be Nazis if their society were allowed to survive. The Japanese were indoctrinated to believe every man, woman and child should fight to the death. Little Boy and Fat Man brought them to their senses (and probably saved my father’s life by ending the war).
The same thing must happen with the radicals such as ISIS and all their supporters and related groups. It’s only when the few survivors look around themselves and realize that their Allah has been no help and if they don’t give up their ideological insanity there will be none of their kind left.
Or, that there actually IS no one left.
But those things will never happen with liberals in charge or in a position of enough influence to prevent actions being taken that need to be taken. Or when we have a running dog, closet Muslim president who protects the terrorists (and make no mistake about it, we haven’t seen the worst of this incredible jug eared fool yet).
Until we lose a city to a terrorist group that gets lucky, once.
That’s the only way our “Progressive” friends learn anything.
…Seems like Mr. Ayoob is well aware that having an intelligent, quick witted wife is a blade that has two edges.
My congratulations/sympathies.
P.S. My daughter is going to receive a copy of your book, “Deadly Force” for Christmas. After she satisfies me she has read it and we have discussed all aspects of personal protection and the responsibilities of carrying a defense pistol, she will receive a Sig Sauer .380 purse gun.
@Mas: “Should” is tough for me, because I’m internally conflicted about it. I think that the kind of restrictions which might actually work are very unlikely, partly because those on the gun control side have demonstrated very little of the practical knowledge about what guns are and how they work necessary to create those kinds of regulations and partly because, as demonstrated by some of the comments, above, they would be likely to be — unlawfully (depending on how the Second Amendment questions work out) — simply disregarded by a substantial portion of the gun-owning public. A third factor, partially driven by the second and also illustrated by some of the comments above, is that even in a wholly-liberal-controlled environment the pro-gun forces are likely to get any such effort watered down during the legislative process and when that happens you often come out at the end with something which will pass, but which has been butchered to the point that it no longer makes much sense and is merely a sop for both sides to say, “Look I did something.” That’s on the overall regulation front, but going back to what bending might be useful — not “should” but might be the kind of things which might stave off regulations which are even more draconian — requiring background checks for all firearm transfers, including private transfers, and universal registration would probably go a long way to having that effect. I’m not saying that those things would necessarily be all that effective in controlling gun violence (especially unless they were made particularly intrusive, e.g. requiring background checks not only of the owner but everyone who resides at the same residence, including people who move there after the firearm is initially transferred, and including inter-family transfers by gift and inheritance as transfers requiring checks). I don’t say that even that much would be particularly palatable to the pro-gun community, but it might be the kind of thing which might prevent something far worse. Could it also be a slippery slope? Of course it could, but which risk is worse?
@TN_MAN: You miss my point, but then confirm it in your second paragraph. I don’t think my prediction will, or can, come true in the present political environment. But as you point out ideology and politics are cyclical and though this might not be promoted by the liberal side of the aisle as a campaign plank now, it could easily serve as a background-dissatisfaction issue to help bring the liberals into power and could _then_ easily be a government initiative.
@TXCOMT: Those two quotes were part of the _evidence_ not the prediction.
“To those who say one good person with a pistol and a skilled hand has no hope of defeating multiple long-gun-wielding jihadi, I answer with two words: Remember Garland!”
I’ll add two more words: Jeanne Assam
Armed with her Beretta 92, she went up against Mathew Murray, armed with an AR15, at New Life Church.
Thank god that Fox News explains to a couple of million viewers the firearms laws and technology used in the attack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BY_jtGXG5dI
Ok, snark off…. where the hell is OUR SIDE to educate the public with truth?
Thanks Mas for a prescient write up.
As a resident of San Bernardino County this literally struck close to home. We live 6 miles from the black SUV shootout, and frequent a cafe about 4 blocks from the Redlands apartment that housed these jihadi. Our pastor had a great line this Sabbath: “God never invites us to hate, but encourages us to love.”
I believe God also wants us to be well armed to defend our families from evil. My wife was happy to see me strap a Kimber into cross draw position as supplement to my G19. With extra mags in back pocket, all told I had 28 hollow points at my disposal. Choppers whizzed overhead and the ambulance sirens droned through our neighborhood, it seemed eerily like the Chris Dorner case of a few years ago. Merry Christmas and stay safe!
Our side has been there to explain the truth the whole time, Long Island Mike…but the broadcasters don’t want to hear it.
To Dave (the liberal, non-uncle one),
I have explained some of this before but maybe it would be helpful to summarize my views on the gun control issue. It is all about human psychology.
The human brain is hardwired for problem solving and pattern recognition. It seeks to find order in chaos. To develop a political world-view, it is necessary for a human to develop some kind of model to account for chaotic human behavior. Most human beings internally develop this model as they mature and it is usually developed at a subconscious level by making simplifying assumptions regarding humanity and human nature.
There are three (3) possible assumptions that can be made. These can be characterized as positive, neutral or negative. The positive assumption (all humans are innately good) and the neutral assumption (all humans are born innocent) lead to the political world-view that we commonly call “left-wing” today. This worldview cannot assign any blame for the world’s evil directly to human beings because that would violate their underlying simplifying assumption. Therefore, the left is forced to consider that all of the world’s evil springs from social or environmental sources that are external to mankind himself.
The negative assumption (all humans have a dark side) leads to the world-view that we call “right-wing” today. This world-view dismisses external sources of evil in favor of the belief that all the evils of the world spring directly from humanity itself (from the human heart).
Therefore, the left-wing / right-wing political divide is actually just a variant of the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate that once raged among social scientists. The right is arguing that it is human nature to be evil. The left argues that humans are innately good and it is society (how humans are nurtured) that causes evil. By the way, most current social scientists have come to realize that “Nature vs. Nurture” is a false choice. Both interact in complex ways to influence human behavior. So it is actually “and” instead of “vs.” in the above phrase.
Unfortunately, political scientists are far behind the social scientists on this point. They are still in “vs.” mode and the warfare between left-wing and right-wing world-views rages on.
The left continually re-brands itself on the issue of firearms (gun control legislation becomes gun safety legislation, etc.) as they seem to think that if they spin the right words, they will be more effective. The correct term for the left-wing viewpoint, on firearms, is “The Movement for the Prohibition of Firearms”. I say this because this movement is the logical inheritor of its predecessor “The Movement for the Prohibition of Alcohol”.
The left is self-programmed (as noted above) to look for external causes for the world’s evils. Violence (crime, terrorism, warfare, etc.) represents a serious challenge to the left-wing world-view. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that the left have a “social force” to take the blame.
One century ago, alcohol (the demon rum) was the whipping boy of the left in the U.S. Since the Prohibition of Alcohol was tried and failed disastrously, the left has been forced to cast about for a substitute whipping boy. They have settled on firearms. Indeed, it is even the same kinds of people! Is there any doubt that, if Barbara Boxer or Hillary Clinton had lived a century ago, they would have been leading members of the Women’s Temperance Union? I mean, just look at them!
Furthermore, one could take the recent front page editorial calling for Firearm Prohibition, from the NY Times, and with a little re-write (substitute “Demon Rum” for “Assault Weapon”, etc.) it would make a fine editorial to run in a temperance newspaper in 1915.
The Prohibition of Firearms will fail for the same reasons that the Prohibition of Alcohol failed. The 18th Amendment (which established the Prohibition of Alcohol) differs from all other constitutional amendments in two (2) ways. First, it is the only amendment that deliberately set out to reduce the freedom of the American People. Second, it is the only amendment that was repealed.
The Movement for the Prohibition of Firearms is an oppressive movement just like its predecessor. It seeks to curtail the freedom of the American People (for their own good, of course, just like with alcohol). That is why it will ultimately fail with the American People.
Mas,
Could you please substitute Dianne Feinstein for Barbara Boxer in my most recent post? I really had Dianne in mind but I (as you say) brain-farted and grabbed the name of the wrong Senator from California.
Send George in! Zimmerman is just the right kind of crazy to take care of the savages.
TN_MAN, Thank you for your eloquent post. You summed up what many, including myself, know and believe.
When I went through the academy, o’ so many years ago, we were told by one of the instructors that 80% of the people would never give us a problem, the other 20% were the reason we had police forces. Of those 20%, about half would break the law when they believed they could get away with it and and the other half would do evil as a way of life. How society deals with that evil 10% determines what kind of society we have.
I have no reference to compare, but it appears the Obama administration is setting records for implementing “regulations” arbitrarily (not going through a representative congress). Each regulation further restricts our freedoms. Liberals speak of freedoms as their goal, but their actions are seeking to enslave. Sorry Liberal Dave, but lofty rhetoric cannot overcome actual results. What it can accomplish is to convince the frog to stay in the pot while the water comes to boil.
In reference to the terrorist attack in California, it is noteworthy that America is currently under assault by not one but by two oppressive political movements.
Left-wing and right-wing fanatics occasionally create these oppressive political movements in a vain effort to establish their flavor of utopia on earth. Examples of historical right-wing oppressive movements would be fascism (Nazism), apartheid, etc.
Examples of historical left-wing oppressive movements would be communism and the Prohibition of Alcohol (in the U.S.).
These fanatics sometimes carry their ideology to genocidal levels. Historical examples would be the Holocaust for Nazism and Stalin’s purges / killing field of Cambodia for communism.
As I noted above, America is currently under assault by two (2) of these oppressive movements. One movement is left-wing and internal. The other is right-wing and external.
The oppressive left-wing movement is the Prohibition of Firearms (aka the gun control or “gun safety” movement). This is an internal oppressive political movement that is almost identical to the earlier Prohibition of Alcohol Movement. This movement seeks to suppress the freedoms of the American People (here at home) in the U.S. It has the potential to cause such a serious right-wing / left-wing political split as to cause (in the worst case) a second American Civil War.
The oppressive right-wing movement is Radical Islam which Is very similar (ideologically) to Nazism except (of course) with Islamic Religious overtones. The concept of the “Thousand Year Reich” is replaced with “The New Caliphate”, for example. This movement is well on its way to sparking another World War with the primary location being the Middle-East.
May God grant us the wisdom and resources to defeat these extreme left-wing and right-wing movements before millions more innocent people are slaughtered.
While watching the events unfold in San Bernadino, ad-nauseam. I was struck by the 2 APCs with turrets that were used to bring down the 2 terrorists. Well, actually I think the shooting was over before they arrived. Obviously, they were brought in just to be on the safe side, in case of explosives. Last night there was a news account of a shooting in Neenah, WI and sure enough there was another APC. (population of 25,600 in 2011)
Tonight (12/6) Potus is to give a speech at 8 p.m. eastern time. He keeps talking about Executive Orders being used to control the availability of firearms if the Legislature won’t do it.
Question; with the militarization of police depts. Is the purpose of the military hardware available to scoop up the criminal element or to scoop up the law abiding gun owners?
TN_MAN
No need to substitute Diane Feinstein for Barbara Boxer as they’re both uglier than sin. I don’t agreed with you that women who want to prohibit alcohol are homely, although many are. I can however, easily picture Hillary, Diane, and Barbara with scowls on their mugs and clutching hatchets in their clawlike hands. If guys can’t get their hands on liquor, lots of repulsive women will never get any action from them. Maybelline helps improve a woman’s appearance, but Budweiser does a better job making women look prettier.
@Dennis: How’s your health? Last time you reported you’d been through a rough patch and were doing better. I hope you’ve continued to improve.
@TN_MAN: While I can’t say that I agree with your sociology, it may surprise you that I wholly agree with the idea that there’s no chance that guns can be wholly prohibited in the US. That’s partly because of the Second Amendment, but even if we didn’t have it I don’t think that it would be possible.
Liberal Dave,
Recovery is slow, but that was expected. After 6 way bypass on my heart, about 2 months later they cleaned out my one of my carotid arteries. Now my orthopedic surgeon wants to replace my left hip (when it rains it pours). I told him that would only happen when a wheel chair was the only other option. I feel pretty good, just limited in my physical activity. Thanks for asking.
Dave (the Liberal, non-uncle one),
Actually I am not surprised since you are clearly a very intelligent person.
The concept of banning all guns in America or even of banning certain classes of firearms (handguns or so-called assault weapons) is so ridiculous that nobody using their brain (rather than their emotions) would consider it.
There are close to 300 million firearms in the U.S. What do the gun banners plan to do? Confiscate them at gun-point? Do they imagine that the American People will gladly turn them all in just because they ask? Keep in mind that firearms are durable goods. They can last for decades or centuries. I own a handgun myself that was manufactured in April 1912 (the same month the Titanic sunk). It still shoots fine.
Even if they are confiscated (using draconian Police-State methods that somehow do not start a second Civil War), America has never been able to control its borders so weapons can be easily smuggled back into the U.S. A black market for firearms would spring up over-night just like it did when alcohol was prohibited. We have banned hard drugs for decades. How has that worked out?
The whole concept is so crazy that I still have a hard time understanding why the idea is so beloved by the left and by the NY Times editors. Of course, I do understand that the left needs its whipping boy to explain violence. I just fail to understand why they picked such a non-starter as firearms for their target. I guess because, like containers of alcohol, firearms are material objects for which a narrative can be build that makes them immoral.
Dennis – boy, am I falling behind here! It is so good to see your name here and to know that you’re coming around. If it’s any consolation when it comes to orthopedic surgeries, I can relate. Hang in there, my friend – it does get better. I know from very personal experience.
Comments are closed.