Over at the stalwart website The Zelman Partisans, gun owners’ civil rights advocate Carl Bussjaeger calls out an anti-gunner’s screed.
It pains me to link to something as stupid as that which Bussjaeger righteously fisks, but I think you need to see the whole thing. It’s here.
The would-be gun-banner who wrote it, Paul Shriver, is living proof that alphabet soup degrees do not guarantee either rational thinking or fully informed research.
Tell ya what, let’s have fun with Shriver’s arguments for repealing the Second Amendment, and with it, the right to effective self-defense. YOU take it apart.
I eagerly await your comments, and I thank Carl Bussjaeger for bringing it to our attention.
I had a hard time getting through the first paragraph. I would pay good money to watch POTUS attempt to read it. One thing that caught my attention was 3d copiers. Someone please tell me they are available for purchase.
3D scanning apps are available. Some cell phones come with LIDAR making scans even better. Scan parts, print. Probably won’t have the precision needed for position simplicity, but all the hardware & software is nearly there.
Analysis per Ayoob’s public request:
> Column: Firearms have no place in civilized society. We should repeal the 2nd Amendment
Criminal violence has no place in civilized society, yet there it is, and can only be mitigated by threat & use of efficient violence.
The 2ndA recognizes a natural right, it does not grant that right.
> “Constitutional Carry”: What a euphemistic, “newspeak” concept!
Ad-hominem. Advocates of eliminating permitted carry, corresponding with “…shall not be infringed” in the Constitution, created an accurate and catchy term to refer to the concept about firearms carry in accordance with the Constitution: “Constitutional Carry”. Go figure.
> Passed to the governor for signature a day ahead of the announced schedule, depending largely on his political ambitions, not merit or lack, for passage. Next probable and equally “logical” step: Unregulated firearm ownership for every man, woman and child in America.
Ad-hominem. Merit is thoroughly discussed. Attack the merit, don’t just dismiss merit as subservient to political ambition. Yes, political ambition matters nonetheless: if this governor wants another term, he needs to appeal to constituents who think the bill has serious merit.
> Already, neighborhood and school shootings are “commonplace;” “ghost” gun kits and plastic, 3-D copier “homemades” are becoming ubiquitous; and “doorbuster” big box rushes follow every histrionic media saturation of mass firearm attacks and the Indiana Legislature wants gun ownership to be unregulated.
Shootings are not “commonplace”. Bare assertions do not beat actual facts.
“Ghost guns”: What a euphemistic, “newspeak” concept! Building guns at home from kits or scratch has been a legal activity since guns existed. The particular issue at hand (nearly-finished kits bordering the BATFE’s “80%” rule) is the direct result of BATFE instituting an “80%” rule, drawing attention to a category which hobbyists will dabble in. 3D printers are a thing now, just as photocopiers/printers changed publishing. 3D printed guns are still much work, on par with the long-existing process of milling/stamping metal into shape. “Push button, get gun” isn’t a thing yet, however tantalizing the concept.
> Biden and anti-gun lobbyists “pussyfoot” around the only real issue — the “right” itself —while insanities are amok and lunatics run the asylum. We seem precariously balanced on a fragile tipping point. The time seems right and essential for a total reboot as the only sensible solution to the gun violence problem. (Gun violence being a redundancy).
Sheer raging hysteria. See a clinical psychologist. (“But doctor, I AM a clinical psychologist!”)
> Gun violence on the rise:Bloomington shootings latest example of increased gun violence; police chief concerned
Increased violence correlates to reduced police funding and revolving-door prosecutions. Stop fixating on the tool and start addressing the actors.
> Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society. Nothing ever invented is easier to obtain or more lethal with less effort than a firearm. No reasonable person could possibly imagine that expressing one’s feelings or opinions with a bullet could be equivalent to “free speech” or even exist as a “right” on the same piece of paper.
“Expressing one’s feelings or opinions with a bullet” is deranged thinking. Author is projecting.
This is the core issue with the hardcore anti-gun crowd: projecting their own sociopathic tendencies on people who would never consider such actions.
Civilization is predicated on violence: we will be polite to each other, according to agreed-on laws, else violence will be unleashed. Criminals bring violence to the innocent; in some cases, the innocent have little choice but to respond with overwhelming violence, or die. Give them the option of not dying.
> The only real solution must begin with the repeal of the 2nd Amendment in its entirety and without delay. It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means. This would include specifics as to legal and reasonable legitimacy of uses, manufacture, sales, types, and related products.
Civilization is predicated on violence: deny citizens that fallback, and they will will respond with it. Our country is, overall, far more peaceful than most precisely because violent oppression is utterly unthinkable vs an armed populace.
> In the interim, of course, all guns in current ownership, manufacture, storage, etc., would need to be recalled, and if not “re-legalized,” eliminated. Some current types and uses, would be restored, regulated and licensed as appropriate with little real inconvenience. Thus, this idea is not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme.
Confiscation fantasies NEVER involve the fantasizer going to an armed citizen’s door, demanding disarmament, and being told “no”. It’s always someone else doing the collecting, and a meekly compliant owner. Revisit the Branch Davidian raid to see how it would go – certainly not for all gun owners, but enough to make the collectors stop.
> Personally, I would not recommend self-defense either by pre-emptive or counter attack as an appropriate use, as there are many effective and less lethal options. Of course, under the new laws, it would still be true that if (some) guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns, but non-compliance would make (possibly) you, (former law-abiding citizen) one of them, now wouldn’t it? (And good luck with that.)
Admits that confiscation largely fail to affect criminals, and would force otherwise law-abiding citizens to decide their own subjugation. Now you’ve made good & armed people enemies of the state – bad move.
“Many effective and less lethal options” fails to address the many cases where ineffective (ex.: pepper spray is a CONDIMENT).
> In closing, I remind the reader of the playwright Chekov’s quote: “If, in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired.” Also: “He who lives by the (sword) … etc.” Meanwhile, I and my personal gun: Locked, no bullets, single action, and not very accurate (and therefore little threat) remain very truly yours for peace, good will, and universal disarmament in our times.
More projection, appealing to norms of writing fiction. Vanishingly few guns are ever fired in anger/earnest.
Bragging about “not very accurate” belies incompetence.
> Paul Shriver, EdD, is a forensic and clinical psychologist. He lives in Monroe County.
Physician, heal thyself.
Chekhov’s Gun is a maxim regarding fictional stories and stage plays, not real life, and is just a warning against extraneous elements that serve no purpose. It could make the point equally well as Chekhov’s Couch: “If in the first act you have a couch, then in the following one it should be sat on or tripped over.” IOW, storytellers and set designers should eliminate what’s not necessary.
RE: “not very accurate (and therefore little threat)”: I would counter that makes his gun little threat against an armed attacker … but a very great threat to anyone else who happens to be downrange. If it’s that inaccurate, it should be locked with no bullets, lest he attempt to use it on an attacker and harm someone else.
Or maybe he is projecting his own inadequacy in marksmanship on an innocent firearm. It’s hard to tell.
So Shriver wants to jump into his time machine, go back in time, and un-invent the firearm? That’s the only thing that will ensure that even the bad guys don’t have access to them. Short of that, those inclined to violate laws and use a firearm while committing a crime will continue to do so.
“Gun control” as a philosophy and practice is an abject failure. Major cities and progressive states with the most stringent restrictions in place are havens of violence that includes the use firearms. How can that be you might ask. It is because the deciding factor is not the inanimate object often blamed for the acts committed by the thinking portion of the equation… it is the human in control of the inanimate object. It is the heart, soul, thought process and driving force behind the heinous acts. The result of a desensitized, corrupt, morally bankrupt segment of society that assigns no value to human life… that refuses to hold individuals accountable for their choices and behaviors, yet looks for every reason possible to excuse said choices and behaviors no matter how false and contrived they may be.
Our right to protect ourselves and others is a natural right in nature. Our right, guaranteed and protected by Amendment II, is an inherent right… it exists because we exist. Repealing Amendment II in no way negates our right to keep and bear arms as that right is not given by government, but by our creator. Amendment II is but a recognition of that right that prohibits government trespass upon our right.
Our rights do not depend upon the prevailing opinions of elitists or activists. I have the right to defend my life equally from a tyrannical government or an individual intent on causing great bodily harm or death to me or mine. A firearm is the best tool available to accomplish that objective. Individuals like Shriver will not be allowed to infringe upon that. I will not be subjected to the whims of an educated I D I O T wishing to violate my inherent constitutionally protected and guaranteed rights.
Xsnipe,
Well said. A dictator is a large tyrant. A criminal is a small tyrant. In my opinion, Virginia has the best state flag ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_and_seal_of_Virginia#/media/File:Flag_of_Virginia.svg
Sic Semper Tyrannis = Death to Tyrants
This is the kind of person who might need to survive an attack by a street thug or experience a home invasion to fully appreciate the 2nd Amendment and the tools to protect oneself.
This is all-too common among deep thinkers on the hoplophobic left: outright bigotry/prejudice/absolutism, lack of empathy for the people they claim as enemies based on nothing but perceived disagreement, confusing fantasy with reality, and half-thoughts written in prose that would have failed in my 4th grade writing class. I guess the EdD signature is supposed to lend credibility even if the contents would make his editor shake her head as she tops off the ink in her red markup pen.
For sure.
While I wouldn’t wish violence on anyone, I suspect Tod is right that a personal encounter will be the only thing that would help “Dr.” Shriver see the error of his philosophies.
The man has a Doctorate in Education yet as evidenced in his first paragraph, can’t compose a sentence in his native language. To me, his first paragraph is the written form of “What you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you are saying.” In summary, the man is clearly a moron.
No insult intended to actual morons, I’m guessing?
Rick, RN
Doctorate of Education? You can stop right there, nuff’ said.
This is so poorly written that it almost covers up how poorly reasoned it is. The author appears to have very limited data processing capacity.
Mas I must say I disagree, at least with a title of your piece today. I don’t believe the far left is ignorant stupid or incompetent even if they present spokespeople with all of those traits. The more people they accumulate to rally behind them tells me that they are very well educated, informed to manipulate for their cause. As with any defensive use of force let’s not underestimate our opponents here regardless of how diametrically opposed they are to our constitution.
CaShields,
You are correct. Leftists are evil, not stupid.
Notice how the Left gains ground. They propose something crazy. The Right fashions excellent arguments against it. The media trumpet the new ideas, and call anyone who opposes them intolerant. The ideas begin to catch on in society, because some of them align with human nature, and also because some Americans simply make bad decisions. Those who oppose the ideas simply keep quiet. After all, we all want freedom, so we have to grant others freedom.
The Leftists are a minority, and yet they are cultural leaders. Pat Buchanan once wrote that, while America may not be politically or economically Marxist, it is culturally Marxist.
Will it take a civil war to defeat America’s domestic enemies, or is there another way? Our main problem is that too many people are making bad choices.
I think Ben Franklin wrote that Republics last until the people realize they can vote themselves money out of the public treasury (tax money).
Yes, too many people making bad choices without adequate consequences for their actions. I believe there are those with political power who fully understand this that covertly and overtly promote it to their advantage without regard to the toll it takes on the decent citizens and our constitution. …but those making the bad choices keep reelecting the problems.
Sometimes the more letters after someone’s name tells us how incapable they are of unbiased rational thinking. Apparently Mr Shriver has never legally purchased a firearm, if he thinks “Nothing ever invented is easier to obtain” than a firearm. Every time I have, a BACKGROUND check was done, as well as a state sanctioned card that identifies me as being ok to purchase. My deceased father in law was in education, and strongly anti gun. Yet he left 2 pistols behind. I wonder how many Shriver owns?The problem is not the tool. It’s the person wielding it who is the problem. Having 2 fire extinguishers doesn’t make me an arsonist. Just prepared
He states that he has 1 handgun.
@ David Rodgers – “Sometimes the more letters after someone’s name tells us how incapable they are of unbiased rational thinking.”
I like the way that George Orwell framed this same idea (as quoted below):
“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
I certainly hope his “Locked, no bullets, single action, and not very accurate” gun is available when someone breaks into the house at 0 dark 30.
Considering his OBVIOUS lack of knowledge or sense about the subject, his neighbors probably hope it’s still locked up when the ambulance (or heare) arrives to cart him away. He’s certainly more likely to shoot an innocent by stander than the perp!
So much material here….
“Constitutional Carry”: What a euphemistic, “newspeak” concept!
Eh, not so much. “Newspeak” implies some kind of “doublethink” meaning, which is usually the opposite of a word’s literal meaning. “Constitutional Carry” has a very specific, literal meaning.
“Gun safety”, on the other hand….
Next probable and equally “logical” step: Unregulated firearm ownership for every man, woman and child in America.
“Logical” in quotes because it’s not, nor is it probable. In fact, outside of a VERY few die-hards, literally nobody is proposing repealing ALL gun laws.
Already, neighborhood and school shootings are “commonplace;” …
Again, the quotes because they are not. Neighborhood and school shootings are still extremely rare. Gang shootings are arguably more common, but the vast majority happen in Leftist-controlled cities where firearm ownership is heavily restricted.
… “ghost” gun kits and plastic, 3-D copier “homemades” are becoming ubiquitous; …
As Wikipedia says, “[citation needed]”. I’m pretty active in the local community of firearm enthusiasts, and I’ve yet to see a “homemade” or home-assembled “ghost gun”. I question whether it’s anywhere near as common or “ubiquitous” as the gun-banners fear.
… and “doorbuster” big box rushes follow every histrionic media saturation of mass firearm attacks …
If history is any guide, gun law proposals follow on the heels of mass attacks, and the odds are high the proposed law: a. would not have stopped the attack in question; b. will restrict and harass law-abiding gun owners; and c. will make it harder (or legally impossible) to acquire the guns, accessories, and ammunition gun owners want. Thus the completely understandable rush to “get it while you can.”
Maybe instead of ridiculing gun owners, you should be blaming the media for histrionic wall-to-wall coverage that encourages both the useless legislation and panic buying.
… and the Indiana Legislature wants gun ownership to be unregulated.
Like I said above, other than a tiny minority of die-hards, literally nobody is pushing for completely-unregulated gun ownership. Even given “shall not be infringed”, repealing all gun laws is not politically tenable. “Constitutional Carry” is not completely unregulated, either. A person still has to be 21 (18 in a few states) and legally able to own and/or possess a firearm, which means — among other things — having a clean criminal record and no history of violent mental illness.
———
This is becoming pretty long, and I’m only three paragraphs in. Fisking this properly would take more time and words than I have at the moment. Rest assured, the column doesn’t get any better from here.
Wow, that’s a lot to unpack. It’s funny when the author & his ilk bemoan the violence they think we are bathed in in modern America. Our current level of violence is but a fraction of historical norms, when anyone was subject to being enslaved, raped, or murdered by a feudal lord, knight, samurai, etc… with no recourse.
It is also ironic that while he believes that firearms & lethal violence have no place in modern society, he would gladly unleash the agents of government to murder his fellow citizens by the thousands for failure to surrender their lawfully acquired property.
We should all be happy that he keeps his bullet-free, inaccurate single-action locked up. Like most Leftists he likely has severe anger issues & little impulse control.
I laughed out loud at one part of that terrible column, a real LOL. I think a lot of people when they type LOL don’t really laugh out loud. But I did.
His plans for the abolishment (or renewed or I don’t know what) 2nd Amendment:
“It might then be re-written in clear language as a privilege to be strictly regulated — the details to be worked out later by usual democratic means.”
Ah, yes. Clear language, not counting all the details to be worked out later. But I promise you it will be clear at first. Not counting later, when it will become even more clear. If you thought it was clear the first time around, just wait until the usual democratic means makes laser eye surgery clear. The usual democratic means will be the same benevolence that took away your God given right to defend yourself. But trust the experts. They know how to control you the best.
Absolute rubbish, but entertaining ?
I feel that Arizona’s conversion to Constitutional Carry has resulted in far less open carry than obtained in the days when a concealed carry license was required. The reason seems to me at least partly due to an increase in awareness by carriers that to Some People someone carrying a firearm openly has ironically become more of an aggressive act than when carry was more restricted. I say, more guns, less crime (see John Lott). Also, by extension, less guns, more crime. Furthermore, Sheepdog education and certification with credentials, encouraging cooperative “armed” defense in the absence of an immediate, uniformed police presence, should be available. Big Brother video seems to be recording crime, but not preventing it very much?
“Nothing ever invented is easier to obtain or more lethal with less effort than a firearm.”
What about automobiles? A sword? A gallon of gasoline or ANY flammable liquid?
ALL easily as deadly, EASIER to obtain and generally require less effort. Typical of ANY leftist, knows little to nothing about a subject, but intends to regulate all of society involving it.
Ed,
You may be right. He may not know he is lying. OR, he is lying, because he knows there are enough stupid Americans out there who will believe his lies. He wants to persuade the sheep to stampede the sheepdogs.
His object is not education, but power. He needs to convince more Americans to follow his ideas than will follow the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or the NRA, or we Patriots. His lies are clubs he uses to beat us down.
Our side wins arguments. His side wins elections, and cultural battles, and influence. We win the debate on open borders, but this country has open borders. We win the debate on defunding the police, but police are defunded, standing down, and criminals are winning in our cities. His side is winning the culture war and the political war.
Typical rantings and ravings of an anti-freedom imbecile. One has to wonder, is this dude really that stupid or just pretending to be an idiot?
Virtue signaling is the rubric for todays society. If they cant educate themselves, I guess they can “come and take it”. Ill wait.
Can they be that blissfully unaware of how this nation was born? Having no regard for the implications of said disarmament, the proof will be in the pudding
Well, this guy, Shriver, is more honest than most leftists. Most will start their attack on the 2nd Amendment with a bald-face lie that begins with the words: “Now, I support the 2nd Amendment, but….”
Shriver comes right out and declares that he wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment. All leftists want to do that but few have the honesty to outright say so like this guy.
To analyze this opinion piece, let’s start with definitions. Have you ever noticed that you cannot get a straight definition on the political spectrum? For example, if you look up the definition of Left-Wing, you will get something like this: Left-Wing – The liberal or radical faction of a group. If one then looks up Liberal, one gets: Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Notice the circular nature of these definitions. It is rather like what the Justice said about pornography and I quote: “I can’t define it but I know it when I see it”.
This has been a big part of our problem. We have no good definitions of Left-wing or Right-wing. So, let me give my definition of left-wing:
Left-Wing Individual – A human being who has a subconscious setting (or personality trait) that causes them to believe in the innate goodness of humanity. This trait generates an inability, in the affected individual, to recognize criminal tendencies in other humans or to assign blame, for social problems, to human behavior. It is characterized by a tendency to shift blame, for criminal conduct, from individual humans and place it upon theorized external social forces. As a result, these affected individuals tend to pursue political programs that redress theoretical social forces that are used as scapegoats for human failings. Various social scapegoats have been proposed by left-wing political activists including poverty, child-abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, availability of weapons, capitalist economic systems, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. over the years. Their inability to perceive human evil tends to make their proposed ideological programs naive and incomplete. As a result, whenever left-wing ideologies become dominate, and are broadly implemented, they inevitable prove to be disastrous and to have powerful negative side affects. Unfortunately, because the trait is deeply seated at the subconscious level, affected individuals are unable to learn from the long history of left-wing failures and, instead, persist at trying to make variations of the ideology work leading to reoccurring cycles of violence, death, and human misery.
Somewhat long-winded, I admit, but at least we now have a definition that is not circular in nature. Like most personality traits, the left-wing (or its right-wing opposite) are probably set by a combination of genetic and childhood environmental factors.
Now that we have a definition, we can analyze the referenced article.
1. “Gun violence being a redundancy.” The author is saying that guns = violence. In other words, that an external social factor is the root of all human violence. Immediately, we understand, from our definition, that this is a left-wing viewpoint. The author does not think in terms of violent people. Rather, he links violence to an inanimate object (guns). We see her the classic left-wing failing of “blame shifting” evil HUMAN behavior onto a theoretical external source. He is making guns a “scapegoat” for human violent tendencies.
2. “Firearm use is by definition a violent act (homicide when a human is the recipient) and has no place in civilized society.” This statement has a couple of problems. First, firearm use is not always a “violent act”. Far more guns are fired for practice or for sport then are ever fired in anger or self-defense. We see from this that the author has no use for firearms himself and discounts their sporting value as a result. We again see his left-wing mindset in his concluding phrase. He assumes that society is always civilized (another way of saying that humans are innately good which, from our definition, is the nature of the left-wing trait). Of course, this is wrong too. The criminal who beats, robs, assaults, or rapes you is not engaging in civilized behavior and to, thus, ignore such human evil is another failing of the left-wing mindset.
3. “In the interim, of course, all guns in current ownership, manufacture, storage, etc., would need to be recalled, and if not ‘re-legalized,’ eliminated.” The age-old dream of the leftist. To create a world of peaceful harmony by simply eliminating all those evil, nasty firearms! This statement loses all touch with reality and is pure fantasy. Who would pay for recalling all the hundreds of millions of firearms? Or, having ripped the 2nd Amendment out of the constitution, would he also rip out the section about taking private property without compensation? Does he imagine we are all sheep and will just hand them over on command? That we will all gladly disarm and place ourselves into seldom to the all-powerful State? The loss of touch with reality here is becoming psychotic.
4. “Personally, I would not recommend self-defense either by pre-emptive or counter attack as an appropriate use, as there are many effective and less lethal options.” Clearly, this man has never faced a criminal attack. Less lethal options can be used in some circumstances but, when faced by a deadly force attack, they can never replace a firearm in the hands of a trained user. Total loss of touch with reality again. This person is, clearly, deep in the left-wing fantasy world. His loss of touch with reality may make his clinically insane since loosing touch with reality is one characteristic of insanity.
5. “…it would still be true that if (some) guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns, but non-compliance would make (possibly) you, (former law-abiding citizen) one of them, now wouldn’t it? (And good luck with that.)” Like most leftists, he worships big government and imagines that it is all powerful. The rights of the individual must, in his mind, always be subservient to the power and rights of the State.
6. “…remain very truly yours for peace, good will, and universal disarmament in our times.” A repeat of his left-wing worldview. He links disarmament with “peace and good will”. A pipe-dream. Violence will always exist in the world. The world was even more violent prior to the invention of firearms than it is today. It is another step into the left-wing fantasy world to deny this truth and to imagine that weapons could be eliminated or that this would generate peace.
In conclusion, the author of this opinion piece is a total leftists. He has lost touch with reality and lives in a fantasy world of his own making. I would diagnose him as being clinically insane. I would recommend that he seek counseling and try to re-establish touch with the real world. Turning off CNN and MSNBC would be a good start.
A few typo corrections, that slipped by the spell checker, for my comment above.
In the definition of left-wing individual:
Use dominant rather than dominate.
Use inevitably rather than inevitable.
Section 1) – Use here rather than her
Section 3) – Use serfdom rather than seldom
Section 4) – Use ‘him clinically’ rather than ‘his clinically’.
Sorry for the mistakes. It is hard to post a long comment without making a few. At least for me! 🙂
TN_MAN,
I am sure Paul Shriver’s favorite song is “Imagine,” by John Lennon.
@ Eoger Willco – Very likely, you are correct. That song is a piece of fiction in which the fantasy dream-world of the left is imagined. Actually, “Fantasy” would be a more appropriate name for that song rather than “Imagine”. Unfortunately, Mariah Carey used “Fantasy” for one of her songs. However, John Lennon could have used “Fantasy” since Mariah did not use that title until 1995. John Lennon was already dead and buried by then.
That is another characteristic of the left-wing personality trait. By rejecting reality, Leftists tend to enter a dream-world state. They view the world through a lens of their ideology thereby creating a fantasy world in which they try to live. Are they so insecure in the real world that they must create and live in a fantasy world to cope?
Those who are addicted to narcotics often use them to escape the pain of living in the real world. Is that what leftists do as well? Escape the pain of the real world by, mentally, creating a fantasy world in which they feel more comfortable?
When I diagnosed the author of the linked article, Paul Shriver, as being “clinically insane”, I was not engaging in hyperbole. Nor was I launching an ad hominem attack on him personally. Rather, I was being literal.
When someone rejects the real world, like he did in his article, and becomes totally invested in the left-wing fantasy world, then one does become clinically insane in my view.
Unfortunately, Paul Shriver is not the only one. Millions of people, around the world, have been indoctrinated and propagandized, to such an extent, that mass insanity is resulting. As a result, we are living in dangerous times. Past world history shows that genocides happen during the peaks of such mass insanity events.
Wonder if this Paul Shriver is a member of the ultra liberal and wealthy Kennedy clan and a relative of Maria, the former spouse of ex-California governator Arnold?
The guy has a doctorate, yet his writing skills are sophomoric. Is this really the quality of student that our colleges and universities are turning out? I’m not even discussing the quality of his argument. I’m talking about the craft of writing. It’s pathetically bad.
We spend how much on education in this country to produce this as a result?
The 2nd Amendment says “the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE”, not the right of the state, or militia, or federal government, nor cities, but the PEOPLE, as in ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ to keep and bear arms (can it be any more plain???) “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Not even the 1st Amendment says that so strongly.
And what was written back when the Constitution was signed???
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…
— Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code
(guess we should also include women now, right?)
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.
— Richard Henry Lee
(yep, include women now, right?)
No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
— Richard Henry
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
— George Mason (Yea, he got that right!)
Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defense, the militia, is put in the hands of Congress? Of what service would militia be to you when, most probably, you will not have a single musket in the state? For, as arms are to be provided by Congress, they may or may not provide them.
— Patrick Henry (in short, Congress would screw it up..)
The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out.
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #28
The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph 1833
The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…
— James Madison
Deaf Smith,
Excellent post! If I am not mistaken, the Founding Fathers looked to Switzerland when they imagined a militia. Oh, I am sure the British have a militia history (Magna Carta?), but the Swiss militia is and was famous. Look how well their militia system has worked for them. Although I think it is under the Swiss government, and ideally, a militia should not be a part of ANY government, nevertheless, the Swiss militia has defended Switzerland for a long time, even through two world wars. The Swiss have been able to remain neutral, preserve their land AND the lives of their sons.
Sun Tzu would approve, because the Swiss know how to win battles without fighting. That is the ideal way to win a battle. Accomplish your goals without fighting.
I’ve written before about my profound shock at the deeply flawed “studies” that get published in allegedly peer reviewed journals. Though they wouldn’t phrase it in this manner, the standard appears to be “Judge not, lest ye be judged”.
Might be interesting to hunt down the gents dissertation and subject it to critical review. Quite a few unwittingly put their chicanery in view in the Methodology section.
It was quite a few years (OK, decades) back when I got a real understanding of the advantages of trained and practiced folks with contact weapons over the rest of us. Every once in awhile I get a refresher. I’m not willing to go back to the dark ages.
I think Mas needs to update his obsolete classes. I sat in on Mag 40 last year, and Mas said nothing about “full semi-automatic mode”. I mean, an Army general knows about “full semi automatic mode”. Why don’t we?
I got ripped off!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYjjWPvL9j0
As we watch “society” become less and less “civilized” . . .
Well, maybe that is just too syllogistic.
I would hope that a psychologist would have more sense, but obviously not, as he tries to cram his own version of “newspeak” down our throats by claiming, ala Obi Wan Kenobi, that this is neither anti-gun nor extreme and is merely a minor inconvenience.
At this time of renewed controversy whether abortion is a form of murder, having eliminated more people than the AR-15 and all other firearms in this country combined ever have, and ever would, I am reminded of the child slaughtering practices of Biblical King Ahab’s worldly 850 prophets of Ba’al, and how the true prophet of God Elijah turned the tables on evil homicide with an awesome demonstration of the powerful immanence of God. Elijah bravely ridiculed the King’s false prophets and called down fire from heaven, restoring God’s holy altar. Not only that, a severe drought was quickly broken, showing that God really controlled the weather. A lot of people need rain and other good things very badly. Let us respect the firearm as an appropriate, God-given tool for self-preservation, and humbly focus on praying for reverence, gratitude, forgiveness, overall mental health, good weather, and all other good things.
People, like this guy, Shriver, really should make an effort to learn something about a topic before they fly off and post such an uninformed “Opinion Piece”. When one just spouts off about one’s left-wing ideology without any facts to back it up, what good is it, really?
All he needs to do, to have a better understanding, is to do some proper research. A good place to start would be by reading the 2021 National Firearms Survey as given here:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145
Let me quote just a couple of excerpts from this paper:
“Given that 31.1% of firearm owners have used a firearm in self-defense, this implies that approximately 25.3 million adult Americans have defended themselves with a firearm. Answers to the frequency question suggest that these gun owners have ever been involved in approximately 50 million defensive incidents. Assuming that defensive uses of firearms are distributed equally across years, this suggest that at least 1.67 million defensive uses of firearms per year in which firearm owners have defended themselves or their property through the discharge, display or mention of a firearm…”
“… in the vast majority of defensive gun uses (81.9%), the gun was not fired. Rather, displaying a firearm or threatening to use a firearm (through, for example, a verbal threat) was sufficient. This suggests that firearms have a powerful deterrent effect on crime, which, in most cases, does not depend on a gun actually being fired or an aggressor being injured.”
How do these facts fit into his rant against the 2nd Amendment?
What drives leftists, like the above Paul Shriver, to do what they do?
Ideology is one answer. Their subconscious desire to believe in the left’s utopian fantasy-land. To feed their own fragile egos by telling themselves that they are important. That they are building a new and better world. A “New World Order” built by the tear-down and then “Build Back Better” method.
Yeah. Hitler called his Nazi ideology a “New World Order” too!
However, there is more to it than simple, starry-eyed. blue-sky, utopian dreams!
There is also the opportunity to harvest tons of money and revel in political power. It may be the ultimate hypocrisy of the Left. They preach Marxist-Leninist doctrines and make the usual claims that they are doing it all “for the People”. All the while, they practice crony-capitalism and line their own pockets with money stolen or extorted “from the People”.
If anyone thinks the above is too harsh, then I invite them to read this:
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/robert-spencer/2022/05/05/how-did-stacey-abrams-become-a-millionaire-n1595401
I thank Carl Bussjaeger for bringing it to our attention.
On the contrary; thank you for linking to it. And I apologize for taking so long to realize you had.
Is this one of those joke threads where the author encourages you to click on some link and you discover you’ve just wasted several minutes of your life and will never be able to get those minutes back? If so here’s another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8zwIphm5r4 it’s a short nature documentary.
Epstein didn’t kill himself and there were more than one shooter in the Las Vegas hotel/country concert shooting.
I read somewhere that concerning the Las Vegas massacre, there a was a second concealed shooter firing from the grassy knoll near the hotel.
@ Tom606 – “…there a was a second concealed shooter firing from the grassy knoll near the hotel.”
The American Left is constantly accusing conservatives of peddling “conspiracy theories”. According to the Left:
1. Claims of significant voter fraud during the 2020 Presidential Election (even with documentation), are nothing but a conspiracy theory. They love to produce custom “Fact Checks” for such claims. Here is a case-in-point.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-05-03/fact-focus-gaping-holes-in-the-claim-of-2k-ballot-mules
2. Claims that their attempts to smear and take down President Trump with a fabricated “Steele dossier” are just conspiracy theories. In their view, Trump is guilty as hell!
3. Claims that there was no insurrection on January 6th, and that the arrests and persecution of the people there represent an attempt to deny people their 1st Amendment Rights to petition for a redress of grievances, is all just a conspiracy theory. There are no Political Prisoners in D.C. jails according to the Left.
4) Claims that Covid-19 was cooked up in a Chinese lab, with Leftists and U.S. funding, and then loosed upon the World, right at the start of the 2020 Presidential Election Year, are all just conspiracy theories, again according to the Left.
5) Claims that climate change fear-mongering has been used for political purposes is just another conspiracy theory promulgated by “climate-change deniers” (again) according to the left.
6) Globalist plans to control world-wide populations and media while using a tear-down and “Build Back Better” method to build a “New World Order” are all just conspiracy theories.
7) Claims that global media companies are in-bed with large Government and are suppressing free speech worldwide is just another conspiracy theory.
8) Claims that world-wide intelligence agencies, including the FBI and CIA, are in-bed with “deep State” government groups to control and spy upon citizens of their own country are also just conspiracy theories.
I could go on but I think the point is made. The Left is flogging the “Conspiracy Theory” horse to death. IMHO, they don’t need any help with that, Tom.
After his rant about recalling, re-legalizing, etc., he states that there would be”…little real inconvenience. Thus, this idea is not anti-gun per se, nor in any sense extreme.” I love how when it pertains to gun ownership, no controls are “inconvenient”, or “extreme”. They’re just “sensible”. Funny how all of that is so simple, yet getting an ID to vote is too much of a hardship.
If think this bad should what take place oh Canda.
His ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Failed, So Now Canada PM Justin Trudeau Wants to Ban All Handguns, Too
By Larry Keane -May 16, 202212
Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau
Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali, Pool)
◀Previous PostNext Post Coming Soon…▶
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s gun control agenda isn’t going as planned, yet he is already doubling down. His latest gun grab move is a ban on another entire class of firearms.
Calling it a “last resort,” Prime Minister Trudeau wants to ban all handguns in his country.
That’s right – handguns. “There is a robust debate about taking action [on handguns] from coast-to-coast,” a Canadian government insider said.
Just like in the United States, new gun control on law-abiding citizens won’t solve Canada’s crime crisis. Prime Minister Trudeau, however, is taking civilian disarmament to the next level.
Handguns
This won’t be the first gun grab Prime Minister Trudeau has tried but would be the most extreme. During the announcement of his taxpayer-funded modern sporting rifle (MSR) confiscation, he forecasted this was coming.
“We know there is more to do on strengthening gun control in this country which is why we’re going to measures around safe storage,” Prime Minister Trudeau said. “Measures around handguns to permit municipalities to ban handguns within their city limits.”
Canada prime minister justin trudeau
(AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)
Legislation introduced in the Canadian Parliament’s last session would have allowed Canadian municipalities the option of enacting their own local laws to ban handguns, as well as implement a myriad of other antigun measures. That included creating a “red flag” law enforcement patrol to remove firearms from people deemed to pose a danger to the public – without any due process protections like in the United States. Fortunately, that bill died without serious consideration.
Now, the restriction has been resuscitated and the handgun ban bill is likely to come back and give big city provincial governments the ability to impose them. Similar to major U.S. cities where strict gun control is common and crime is rampant, major Canadian provinces like Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto approve of the handgun bans while rural provinces like Ontario and Quebec shun them.
Ontario’s Liberal leader Stephen Del Duca campaigned on the handgun ban, stating he’ll introduce a handgun ban as well as strict requirements for firearm storage and transportation. Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford scoffed at the idea. He complained about soft-on-crime prosecutors and said he’s focused on funding police and law enforcement efforts to combat criminals, saying 80 percent of the firearms used in crimes there are obtained illegally and half of deaths attributed to firearms are gang-related.
Canadians recognize the ruse as well. Banning handguns and allowing different municipalities the ability institute a patchwork of different laws is problematic. Matt DeMille of Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, told the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, “Adopting measures across the province in a patchwork is going to be very difficult for people to understand.” Public safety critic Shannon Stubbs added, “This part of the bill doesn’t address the major problem, which is the illicit use of illegal guns in crime.”
Billion Dollar Bungle
Canadians have known for a while that Prime Minister Trudeau was coming for their handguns. The prime minister announced two years ago that Canada would institute a mandatory taxpayer-funded gun “buyback” that would include, “over 1,500 models and variants” of so called “assault-style” firearms. Prime Minister Trudeau’s unilateral action – not a law passed by the Canadian Parliament – called for a two-year amnesty period, during which law-abiding gun owners would be compensated for forfeiting their privately-purchased firearms. That would include approximately 200,000 firearms.
Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau
Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau (AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali, Pool)
At that time, Prime Minister Trudeau attempted to sell his order as a $250 million national “buyback,” paying Canadians with taxpayer funds for the firearms they already legally purchased with their own money. Previous similar Canadian government gun grab attempts, however, put the price tag closer to $600 million, and doubters admitted the real cost could be closer to $2.7 billion. The deadlines have been punted and delayed, with only a fraction of a percent of Canadians obliging. In fact, The Reload reported on the program’s bloated cost and ineffective rollout.
“Gun owners have been hesitant to turn in their newly prohibited firearms, and Canadian gun rights groups have mobilized against the confiscation plan,” Stephen Gutowski reported. “The announcement is another setback in the Canadian government’s confiscation effort. Its plan to collect the affected weapons has been rife with problems since it was announced.”
Canadian Canary
Prime Minister Trudeau’s handgun ban ambitions are a Canadian canary in a coal mine. Here at home, President Joe Biden has tiptoed around the idea, alluding to a handgun ban in his wider, broader gun control agenda remarks.
President Biden said a handgun – illegally stolen and used by a criminal to commit murder – was a “weapon of war” when he spoke at a gun control press conference with Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. “But I don’t see any rationale to why there should be such a weapon able to be purchased,” President Biden said. “It doesn’t violate anybody’s Second Amendment rights to deny that.”
Except it does.
It may be Prime Minister Trudeau pushing a ban on handguns now, but with the gun control agenda publicly repeated again and again by President Biden, Americans should take him at his word when he says he is coming for their guns.
Comments are closed.