Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
XD45

We're Coming for Your Guns. And Someday, We'll Take Them.

Recommended Posts

I decided to copy the whole thing here in case they decide to pull it down.  You will notice that he had the balls to include his phone and email.  I'm betting he wishes he hadn't.

 

This guy is just a columnist and he's not coming for anybody's guns, despite his bold declaration.  But he speaks for too damn many politicians and police chiefs who may not have the balls to say it but they will do it given a hint of a chance.

 

Just one thing:  If you decide to send him a message, don't threaten him.  Don't give all gun owners a bad name by acting like a Furguson scumbag.  The phone number and email will probably be disconnected anyway.

 

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/columnists/ensley/2014/11/22/stop-insanity-ban-guns/19426029/

 

 

It's the guns, stupid.

 

The shootings Thursday at the Florida State University library. The shootings Saturday in a northwest Tallahassee neighborhood. The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The shooting of Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The shootings at Virginia Tech. The 10,000 senseless shooting deaths that happen every year in this country.

 

Take away guns and they don't happen.

 

How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns?

 

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks.

 

I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are permitted to a "well-regulated militia." That means trained citizen soldiers called into action for emergencies — because in colonial times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the militia. It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver's license is entitled to own a gun.

 

That's what former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said in 1990, when he called claims of Second Amendment protection of individual gun ownership, "a fraud on the American public." Earlier this year, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called the Second Amendment one of the six great flaws with the U.S. Constitution. He called for it to be amended to say gun possession was only for state militias, not individuals.

 

Every legal opinion for 200 years denied individual gun ownership was a right — until the steady lobbying of the National Rifle Association created a climate that allowed a conservative U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 to strike down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, and fuel the sense of entitlement of gun owners.

 

Gun supporters say, "It's not guns that cause gun violence, it's mentally ill people with guns; fix the mentally ill." Even if those same people did not oppose government spending on the mentally ill — which they have for decades — there is no predicting when mental illness will express itself in violence.

 

All of those who knew FSU library shooter Myron May called him the "last person" from whom they would have expected violence. They all knew he was mentally troubled. But they said he didn't even like guns.

 

You can't prevent mental illness. You can prevent humans from having easy access to tools they can use to harm other people.

Talk about mental illness: The United States is insane about guns. We lead the world in gun ownership, with almost one per capita. That's twice the percentage of the next closest country.

 

The United States doesn't lead the world in gun violence. Just the civilized world.

 

According to a United Nations survey, the United States annually averages 3 firearm homicides per 100,000 population. Fourteen countries topped that figure — but they were almost exclusively Third World countries.

 

Among the 24 most affluent nations of the world, the U.S. is the far and away leader in gun homicides. None of the other 23 affluent nations has a rate above 1 firearm death per 100,000 population.

 

Gun freaks insist we need to arm more people. They glibly say shooting sprees happen in "gun free zones," like schools and universities, where gunmen could be stopped if everyone had a gun. That theory is absurd.

 

Police and military train for years to use a gun competently in stressful situations – and even they don't always respond correctly. Think Ferguson, Mo. Think Charlotte, N.C. Think New York City in 2012 where two cops shot nine bystanders as they wildly tried to shoot a man who had gunned down a co-worker.

 

The idea of 500 students in a college library or a dozen teachers in an elementary school pulling out guns to shoot a gunman is ludicrous. They would wind up shooting each other.

 

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

 

The same gun freaks believe in banning drugs. They believe in banning abortions. They recognize society bans certain things for the good of society. We should ban guns for the good of society.

 

People have romanticized guns. The Founding Fathers. The Old West. Self-defense — and never mind the average American has only a one in 250 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. It's all a delusion. Guns kill. They kill people from a distance. They kill strangers and children who have no relationship with the gunman.

 

Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting. But we need to ban handguns and assault rifles for all but police and military.

 

This is an uphill battle. Despite daily front-page stories of shooting sprees and killings, Americans don't want to give up their guns. Over the past 10 years, the percentage of Americans who support stricter guns laws has dropped from 60 percent to 47 percent. In a recent survey, 73 percent of Americans oppose banning handguns.

 

But those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns.

 

One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is "He's coming for our guns." Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

 

We're coming for your guns. And someday, we'll take them.

 

Contact Gerald Ensley at 599-2310 or gensley@tallahassee.com.

 

 

Here is the email I sent him.  I doubt is will get through.

 

Congratulations!

 

I bet you didn't realize you'd be famous!  Or maybe you did.

 

Either way, I'm betting you wish you didn't include your email and phone number in your rant.  You poke several million people in the eye with a stick and you will get a few of them acting all unfriendly.

 

As to your screed, I have a hard time believing you are coming for my guns.  I know what you really meant is that a heavily armed swat team will be coming for them, while you hide behind your keyboard.  It really is easy to talk tough to a computer monitor.

 

I did caution my brothers in arms not to threaten you.  That would only reinforce the stereotype of gun owners as thugs, and the vast majority of us are perfectly sane and stable. 

 

But we know our rights and despite your foot stomping protests to the contrary, the Second Amendment says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".  It does not say the right of the state, or the right of the militia.  The Constitution uses the word "people" several times and each time it actually means people.  It also uses the word "state" when it means state.  You see, the framers weren't quite as stupid as you would have us believe.

 

Good day sir.

An American Patriot

Edited by Darth Saigus
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mexico has a complete ban on citizen gun ownership, and we all know there is 0 gun violence there right? The cartels must be real pissed that because of the ban they cant get their hands on any guns.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It says guns are permitted to a "well-regulated militia."

 

BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA...*pant, pant*... BWAHAAHAAAHAAAA

 

And that's where I stopped reading. What an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronin38, on 28 Nov 2014 - 11:18 PM, said:

 

QuoteIt says guns are permitted to a "well-regulated militia."

 

BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA...*pant, pant*... BWAHAAHAAAHAAAA

 

And that's where I stopped reading. What an idiot.

 

You got further than I did    haha.gif haha.gifhaha.gif  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't count.  They were a "well regulated militia" so they were allowed to own guns.  Clearly now we have the national guard so we don't need a militia and private citizens who are not in a "well regulated militia" have no right to own guns, and in fact must be prevented from doing so because every gun is a potential Sandy Hook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't count.  They were a "well regulated militia" so they were allowed to own guns.  Clearly now we have the national guard so we don't need a militia and private citizens who are not in a "well regulated militia" have no right to own guns, and in fact must be prevented from doing so because every gun is a potential Sandy Hook.

Thats where they always misunderstand our founding fathers intentions.  In the beginning of the revolution, our militias looked alot like the unwashed rabble, because they were.  Free men of all occupations, but few were professional fighters.  Had these men been restricted from owning arms, our revolution would have been crushed where it started, and the unites states would have never formed.

 

These bleeding heart commies always want to take one persons security, and substitute it with someone elses (mostly, giving scumbags security and leaving honest people defenseless).  They feel that placing all power in the hands of authority is always the best choice, but refuse to comprehend when its the worst choice, as individual govts have killed millions of purposefully disarmed people just in the twentieth century, and we know it can never happen to us.

 

Mr Ensley's articulate nonsense is the enemy of free men and a call for tyranny to be used against them.  Freedom is not free and it is not safe, intelligent people have already come to terms with that, but it cant be freedom any other way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad he put that on paper.  We know that's what some people are thinking, now it's out there for all to see.  So when people say "no one wants to take your guns, we just want better regulation," an argument that we've know is flawed, we now have the smoking gun (pardon the pun) to call BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can add college profs, newspaper editors and staff and Ceos. those ppl are doing more damage to the Constitution and ROL than this half wit. need to send same non threatening letter to their home address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gerald Ensley is to be considered hostile to all gun owners. If he enters your property, you are in fear for your life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The 10,000 senseless shooting deaths that happen every year in this country."

If we followed this line of thinking we should ban automobiles, 33.561 deaths in 2012. Hospitals need to go as well. Much more difficult to get accurate numbers. Because doctors and staff literally bury their mistakes. But roughly 98,000 to 440.000 needlessly killed every year. Firearms ownership is far less deadly than driving or allowing a physician control of your health. So....... as we already know, it is not gun control. Just people control.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all morons, he refuses to accept the statistics. Violent crime has been on the decline year after year, and gun sales are getting higher.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had several libs stand there slack jawed when I explain to them that the Second Amendment doesn't grant any rights at all.

 

They come at me with the "It says militia...." thing. And I tell them, "Right... it says that forming a militia is a damn good reason why

the right of the people "Shall not be infringed". Nowhere does it say that forming a militia "grants the people a right.""

 

The "right to keep and bear arms" pre-exists 2A and the entire Constitution. 2A simply says, "Because militia, no infringement".

 

The whole point of the Second Amendment is to restrict the government and guarantee "hands off" on the arms.

 

I even offer to show them a copy of 2A so they can see for themselves, they really hate that.    haha.gif

 

Edit: I also point out that it says, "Shall not be infringed" and doesn't say, "except for pistols, assault weapons, SBS, etc"

Edited by Spartacus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This goof is the type that would be in support of this absurdity.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/is-this-a-joke-british-police-push-for-ban-on-pointy-knives_112014

Morons, plain and simple.

 

If they do get around to confiscating arms.......I would assume it would be one of those "dead end" type jobs

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see those among us even falling prey to their argument about militia. That's a separate subject. The important part of the second amendment is "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". That part right there says who can own weapons. Militia is stating that the government cannot prohibit men from forming one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This goof is the type that would be in support of this absurdity.

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/is-this-a-joke-british-police-push-for-ban-on-pointy-knives_112014

Morons, plain and simple.

 

If they do get around to confiscating arms.......I would assume it would be one of those "dead end" type jobs

 

There is only one reason they haven't started confiscation already.  Because they know that enough of us would "object" that it couldn't be done.

 

When the day comes that they feel the percentages work in their favor they will do it.  Tyrants do not tolerate power in the hands of the people, and every politician has a tyrant in them just weighing the odds.

 

Whatever you may think about the Bundy ranch situation, I think the government learned that the people are more willing to stand up to the brown shirts than they realized. 

 

Liberals love to ask "Do you really expect to fight the government?"  The answer is of course, "No."  But the truth behind the answer is what the liberals refuse to accept.  That the ability and the willingness to fight the government means we don't have to.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see those among us even falling prey to their argument about militia. That's a separate subject. The important part of the second amendment is "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". That part right there says who can own weapons. Militia is stating that the government cannot prohibit men from forming one.

 

The heart of the matter is that they can't wrap their heads around "God given rights".

 

When I ask the libs "What grants the people the right to arms?", they respond "The Second Amendment." every time.

Then when I point out the argument above, the Second Amendment grants nothing, I ask them again, "What or who grants the right?".

 

Then they are at a total loss.... "It must be in there someplace."

 

If you keep pushing them, the panic sets in and they go to, "So everybody should have bazookas, tanks, and nuclear weapons in their garage?"

 

haha.gifwhat.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see those among us even falling prey to their argument about militia. That's a separate subject. The important part of the second amendment is "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". That part right there says who can own weapons. Militia is stating that the government cannot prohibit men from forming one.

The heart of the matter is that they can't wrap their heads around "God given rights".

 

When I ask the libs "What grants the people the right to arms?", they respond "The Second Amendment." every time.

Then when I point out the argument above, the Second Amendment grants nothing, I ask them again, "What or who grants the right?".

 

Then they are at a total loss.... "It must be in there someplace."

 

If you keep pushing them, the panic sets in and they go to, "So everybody should have bazookas, tanks, and nuclear weapons in their garage?"

 

haha.gifwhat.gif

I always tell them we won't need nukes. Or jets..your not going to carpet bomb a territory your trying to occupy especially when it's your own back yard.

Look at the difficulty the poorly trained,funded goat farmers have given us..imagine how difficult fighting people who casually spend $13 on a bacon printed calender will be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see those among us even falling prey to their argument about militia. That's a separate subject. The important part of the second amendment is "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE". That part right there says who can own weapons. Militia is stating that the government cannot prohibit men from forming one.

 

The heart of the matter is that they can't wrap their heads around "God given rights".

 

When I ask the libs "What grants the people the right to arms?", they respond "The Second Amendment." every time.

Then when I point out the argument above, the Second Amendment grants nothing, I ask them again, "What or who grants the right?".

 

Then they are at a total loss.... "It must be in there someplace."

 

If you keep pushing them, the panic sets in and they go to, "So everybody should have bazookas, tanks, and nuclear weapons in their garage?"

 

:haha2::what:

You really want to confuse these assholes?

Tell them there nothing in the Constitution or BOR that says anything about separation of church and state. It is purely a made up doctrine some scumbag lawyer misconstruing the intent of some minister whose concern was he would not be allowed to worship as he pleased but like everything related, these mentally disturbed assholes revise the intent of the documents to fit their agenda because they don't like what it really says and means.

Edited by JAG
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAG- Why is it every time I go to vote my polling place is in a CHURCH?!  ;)

 

Yeah- these morons need to study history, and come to the realization that the Constitution and BOR are basically a "summary" of all the documents and discussions that came beforehand. They need to be educated about "Who" and "What" the "Militia" are that our Founding Fathers were referring to.

 

In short... ALL OF US ARE THE "MILITIA!"  I won't even go into the other point of reference about "current-issue military arms..."   :up:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this has floated around before, it seems an appropriate response to the kind of stupidity in that guys mindless rant.

It's a good read.

 

 

 

A World Without Guns

 

Be forewarned: It’s not a pretty picture

 

By Dave Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen of the Independence Institute

 

National Review Online, December 5, 2001 9:40 a.m. En français. Español. Português. Italiano. More by Kopel on gun prohibition.

 

Imagine the world without guns" was a bumper sticker that began making the rounds after the murder of ex-Beatle John Lennon on December 18, 1980. Last year, Lennon's widow, Yoko Ono, followed up on that sentiment by announcing she would become a spokeswoman for Handgun Control, Inc. (which later changed its name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and which was previously named the National Council to Control Handguns).

 

So let's try hard to imagine what a world without guns would look like. It isn't hard to do. But be forewarned: It's not a pretty picture.

 

The way to get to a gun-free world, the gun-prohibition groups tell us, is to pass laws banning them. We can begin by imagining the enactment of laws which ban all non-government possession of firearms.

 

It's not likely that local bans will do the job. Take, for example, New York's 1911 Sullivan Law, which imposed an exceedingly restrictive handgun-licensing scheme on New York City. In recent decades, administrative abuses have turned the licensing statute into what amounts to prohibition, except for tenacious people who navigate a deliberately obstructive licensing system.

 

Laws affect mainly those willing to obey them. And where there's an unfulfilled need — and money to be made — there's usually a way around the law. Enter the black market, which flourishes all the more vigorously with ever-increasing restrictions and prohibitions. In TV commercials that aired last August, New York City Republican (sort of) mayoral candidate Mike Bloomberg informed voters that "in 1993, there were as many as 2 million illegal guns on the street." The insinuation was that all those guns were in the hands of criminals, and the implication was that confiscating the guns would make the city a safer place. What Bloomberg never explained was how he planned to shut down the black market.

 

So let's imagine, instead, a nationwide gun ban, or maybe even a worldwide ban.

 

Then again, heroin and cocaine have been illegal in the United States, and most of the world, for nearly a century. Huge resources have been devoted to suppressing their production, sale, and use, and many innocent people have been sacrificed in the crossfire of the "drug war." Yet heroin and cocaine are readily available on the streets of almost all large American cities, and at prices that today are lower than in previous decades.

 

Perhaps a global prohibition law isn't good enough. Maybe imposing the harshest penalty possible for violation of such a law will give it real teeth: mandatory life in prison for possession of a gun, or even for possession of a single bullet. (We won't imagine the death penalty, since the Yoko crowd doesn't like the death penalty.)

 

On second thought, Jamaica's Gun Court Act of 1974 contained just such a penalty, and even that wasn't sufficient. On August 18, 2001, Jamaican Melville Cooke observed that today, "the only people who do not have an illegal firearm [in this country], are those who do not want one." Violent crime in Jamaica is worse than ever, as gangsters and trigger-happy police commit homicides with impunity, and only the law-abiding are disarmed.

 

Yet the Jamaican government wants to globalize its failed policy. In July 2001, Burchell Whiteman, Jamaica's Minister of Education, Youth and Culture spoke at the U.N. Disarmament Conference to demand the "implementation of measures that would limit the production of weapons to levels that meet the needs for defence and national security."

 

And as long as governments are allowed to have guns, there will be gun factories to steal from. Some of these factories might have adequate security measures to prevent theft, including theft by employees. But in a world with about 200 nations, most of them governed by kleptocracies, it's preposterous to imagine that some of those "government-only" factories won't become suppliers for the black market. Alternatively, corrupt military and police could supply firearms to the black market.

 

We'd better revise our strategy. Rather than wishing for laws (which cannot, even imaginably, create a gun-free world), let's be more ambitious, and imagine that all guns vanish. Even guns possessed by government agents. And let's close all the gun factories, too. That ought to put the black market out of business.

 

Voilà! Instant peace!

 

Back to the Drawing Board

 

Then again.....it's not very difficult to make a workable firearm. As J. David Truby points out in his book Zips, Pipes, and Pens: Arsenal of Improvised Weapons, "Today, all of the improvised/modified designs [of firearms] remain well within the accomplishment of the mechanically unskilled citizen who does not have access to firearms through other means."

 

In the article "Gun-Making as a Cottage Industry," Charles Chandler observed that Americans "have a reputation as ardent hobbyists and do-it-yourselfers, building everything from ship models to home improvements." The one area they have not been very active in is that of firearm construction. And that, Chandler explained, is only because "well-designed and well-made firearms are generally available as items of commerce."

 

A complete gun ban, or highly restrictive licensing amounting to near-ban, would create a real incentive for gun making to become a "cottage industry".

 

It's already happening in Great Britain, a consequence of the complete ban on civilian possession of handguns imposed by the Firearms Act of 1997. Not only are the Brits swamped today with illegally imported firearms, but local, makeshift gun factories have sprung up to compete.

 

British police already know about some of them. Officers from Scotland Yard's Metropolitan Police Serious Crime Group South recently recovered 12 handgun replicas which were converted to working models. An auto repair shop in London served as the front for the novel illegal gun factory. Police even found some enterprising gun-makers turning screwdrivers into workable firearms, and producing firearms disguised as ordinary key rings.

 

In short, closing the Winchester Repeating Arms factory — and all the others — will not spell the end of the firearm business.

 

Just take the case of Bougainville, the largest island in the South Pacific's Solomon Islands chain. Bougainville was the site of a bloody, decade-long secessionist uprising against domination by the government of Papua New Guinea, aided and abetted by the Australian government. The conflict there was the longest-running confrontation in the Pacific since the end of World War II, and caused the deaths of 15,000 to 20,000 islanders.

 

During the hostilities, which included a military blockade of the island, one of the goals was to deprive the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) of its supply of arms. The tactic failed: the BRA simply learned how to make its own guns using materiel and ammunition left over from the War.

 

In fact, at the United Nations Asia Pacific Regional Disarmament Conference held in Spring 2001, it was quietly admitted that the BRA, within ten years of its formation, had managed to manufacture a production copy of the M16 automatic rifle and other machine guns. (That makes one question the real intent behind the U.N. Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects, which followed several months later: the U.N. leadership can't be so daft as to fail to recognize the implications for world disarmament after learning of the success of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army.)

 

If this single island of Bougainville can produce its own weapons, the Philippine Islands have long had a thriving cottage industry to manufacture firearms — despite very restrictive gun laws imposed by the Marcos dictatorship and some other regimes.

 

It looks like we'll need to revisit our fantasy, yet again.

 

Okay. By proclamation of Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen, not only do all firearms — every last one of them — vanish instantly, but there shall be no further remanufacturing.

 

That last part's a bit tricky. Auto repair shops, hobbyists, revolutionaries — everyone with decent machine shop skills — can make a gun from something. This takes us down the same road as drug prohibition: With primary anti-drug laws having proven themselves unenforceable, secondary laws have been added to prohibit possession of items which could be used to manufacture drugs. Even making suspicious purchases at a gardening store can earn one a "dynamic entry" visit from the local SWAT team.

 

But laws proscribing the possession of gun-manufacturing items would have to be even broader than laws against possession of drug-manufacturing items, because there are so many tools which can be used to make guns, or be made into guns. What we'd really have to do is carefully control every possible step in the gun-making process. That means the registration of all machine tools, and the federal licensing of plumbers (similar to current federal licensure of pharmacies), auto mechanics, and all those handymen with their screwdrivers. And we'd need to stamp a serial number on pipes (potential gun barrels) in every bathroom and automobile — and everywhere else one finds pipes — and place all the serial numbers in a federal registry.

 

Today, the antigun lobbies who claim they don't want to ban all guns still insist that registration of every single gun and licensing of every gun owner is essential to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. If so, it's hard to argue that licensing and registration of gun manufacturing items would not be essential to prevent illicit production of guns.

 

Thus, we would have to control every part of the manufacturing process. That would add up to a very expensive, complicated proposition. Even a 1% noncompliance rate with the "Firearms Precursors Control Act" would leave an immense supply of materials available for black-market gun making.

 

In order to ensure total conformity with the act, it's difficult to imagine leaving most existing constitutional protections in place. The mind boggles at the kinds of search and seizure laws required to make certain that people do not possess unregistered metal pipes or screwdrivers!

 

For example, just to enforce a ban on actual guns (not gun precursors), the Jamaican government needed to wipe out many common law controls on police searches, and many common law guarantees of fair trials. We'd have to trash the Constitution in order to completely prevent a black market in gun precursors from taking hold. Still, as the gun-prohibition lobby always says, if it saves just one life, it would be worth it.

 

But, what if, despite these extreme measures, the black market still functioned — as it almost always does, when there is sufficient demand?

 

It's time to seriously revisit our strategy for a gun-free world. Maybe there's a shortcut around all of this.

 

Okay. We're going to make a truly radical, no-holds-barred proposal this time, take a quantum leap in science, and go where no man has gone before. There may be those who scoff at our proposal, but it can succeed where all other strategies have failed.

 

We, Kopel, Gallant, and Eisen, hereby imagine that, from this day forth, the laws of chemical combustion are revoked. We hereby imagine that gunpowder — and all similar compounds — no longer have the capacity to burn and release the gases necessary to propel a bullet.

 

Peace for Our Time

 

Finally, for the first time, a gun-free world is truly within our grasp — and it's time to see what man hath wrought. And for that, all we have to do is take a look back at the kind of world our ancestors lived in.

 

To say that life in the pre-gunpowder world was violent would be an understatement. Land travel, especially over long distances, was fraught with danger from murderers, robbers, and other criminals. Most women couldn't protect themselves from rape, except by granting unlimited sexual access to one male in exchange for protection from other males.

 

Back then, weapons depended on muscle power. Advances in weaponry primarily magnified the effect of muscle power. The stronger one is, the better one's prospects for fighting up close with an edged weapon like a sword or a knife, or at a distance with a bow or a javelin (both of which require strong arms). The superb ability of such "old-fashioned" edged weapons to inflict carnage on innocents was graphically demonstrated by the stabbing deaths of eight second graders on June 8, 2001, by former school clerk Mamoru Takuma in gun-free Osaka, Japan.

 

When it comes to muscle power, young men usually win over women, children, and the elderly. It was warriors who dominated society in gun-free feudal Europe, and a weak man usually had to resign himself to settle on a life of toil and obedience in exchange for a place within the castle walls when evil was afoot.

 

And what of the women? According to the custom of jus primae noctis, a lord had the right to sleep with the bride of a newly married serf on the first night — a necessary price for the serf to pay — in exchange for the promise of safety and security (does that ring a bell?). Not uncommonly, this arrangement didn't end with the wedding night, since one's lord had the practical power to take any woman, any time. Regardless of whether jus primae noctis was formally observed in a region, rich, strong men had little besides their conscience to stop them from having their way with women who weren't protected by another wealthy strongman.

 

But there's yet another problem with imagining gunpowder out of existence: We get rid of firearms, but we don't get rid of guns. With the advent of the blow gun some 40,000 years ago, man discovered the efficacy of a tube for concentrating air power and aiming a missile, making the eventual appearance of airguns inevitable. So gunpowder or no gunpowder, all we've been doing, thus far, amounts to quibbling over the means for propelling something out of a tube.

 

Airguns date back to somewhere around the beginning of the 17th century. And we don't mean airguns like the puny Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun with a compass in the stock, longed for by Ralphie in Jean Shepard's 1984 classic A Christmas Story("No, Ralphie, you can't have a BB gun — you'll shoot your eye out!").

 

No, we're talking serious lethality here. The kind of powder-free gun that can hurl a 7.4 oz. projectile with a muzzle energy of 1,082 foot-pounds. Compare that to the 500 foot-pounds of muzzle energy from a typical .357 Magnum round! Even greater projectile energies are achievable using gases like nitrogen or helium, which create higher pressures than air does.

 

Before the advent of self-contained powder cartridge guns, airguns were considered serious weapons. In fact, three hundred years ago, air-powered guns were among the most powerful and accurate large-bore rifles around. While their biggest disadvantages were cost and intricacy of manufacture, they were more dependable and could be fired more rapidly than firearms of the same period. A butt-reservoir .31 airgun was carried by Lewis and Clark on their historic expedition, and used successfully for taking game. [see Robert D. Beeman, "Proceeding On to the Lewis & Clark Airgun," Airgun Revue6 (2000): 13-33.] Airguns even saw duty in military engagements more than 200 years ago.

 

Today, fully automatic M-16-style airguns are a reality. It was only because of greater cost relative to powder guns, and the greater convenience afforded by powder arms, that airgun technology was never pushed to its lethal limits.

 

Other non-powder weapon systems have competed for man's attention, as well. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. And while firearms were used for killing (for example, with machine guns arranged to create interlocking fields of fire in the trench warfare of World War I), they were hardly essential. By far, the greatest number of deliberate killings occurred during the genocides and democides perpetrated by governments against disarmed populations. The instruments of death ranged from Zyklon B gas to machetes to starvation.

 

Imagine No Claws

 

To imagine a world with no guns is to imagine a world in which the strong rule the weak, in which women are dominated by men, and in which minorities are easily abused or mass-murdered by majorities. Practically speaking, a firearm is the only weapon that allows a weaker person to defend himself from a larger, stronger group of attackers, and to do so at a distance. As George Orwell observed, a weapon like a rifle "gives claws to the weak."

 

The failure of imagination among people who yearn for a gun-free world is their naive assumption that getting rid of claws will get rid of the desire to dominate and kill. They fail to acknowledge the undeniable fact that when the weak are deprived of claws (or firearms), the strong will have access to other weapons, including sheer muscle power. A gun-free world would be much more dangerous for women, and much safer for brutes and tyrants.

 

The one society in history that successfully gave up firearms was Japan in the 17th century, as detailed in Noel Perrin's superb book Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword 1543-1879. An isolated island with a totalitarian dictatorship, Japan was able to get rid of the guns. Historian Stephen Turnbull summarizes the result:

 

[The dictator] Hidéyoshi's resources were such that the edict was carried out to the letter. The growing social mobility of peasants was thus flung suddenly into reverse. The ikki, the warrior-monks, became figures of the past . . . Hidéyoshi had deprived the peasants of their weapons. Iéyasu [the next ruler] now began to deprive them of their self respect. If a peasant offended a samurai he might be cut down on the spot by the samurai's sword. [The Samurai: A Military History (New York: Macmillan, 1977).]

 

The inferior status of the peasantry having been affirmed by civil disarmament, the Samurai enjoyed kiri-sute gomen, permission to kill and depart. Any disrespectful member of the lower class could be executed by a Samurai's sword.

 

The Japanese disarmament laws helped mold the culture of submission to authority which facilitated Japan's domination by an imperialist military dictatorship in the 1930s, which led the nation into a disastrous world war.

 

In short, the one country that created a truly gun-free society created a society of harsh class oppression, in which the strongmen of the upper class could kill the lower classes with impunity. When a racist, militarist, imperialist government took power, there was no effective means of resistance. The gun-free world of Japan turned into just the opposite of the gentle, egalitarian utopia of John Lennon's song "Imagine."

 

Instead of imagining a world without a particular technology, what about imagining a world in which the human heart grows gentler, and people treat each other decently? This is part of the vision of many of the world's great religions. Although we have a long way to go, there is no denying that hundreds of millions of lives have changed for the better because people came to believe what these religions teach.

 

If a truly peaceful world is attainable — or, even if unattainable, worth striving for — there is nothing to be gained from the futile attempt to eliminate all guns. A more worthwhile result can flow from the changing of human hearts, one soul at a time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAG- Why is it every time I go to vote my polling place is in a CHURCH?!  wink.png

 

Yeah- these morons need to study history, and come to the realization that the Constitution and BOR are basically a "summary" of all the documents and discussions that came beforehand. They need to be educated about "Who" and "What" the "Militia" are that our Founding Fathers were referring to.

 

In short... ALL OF US ARE THE "MILITIA!"  I won't even go into the other point of reference about "current-issue military arms..."   032.gif

Their intent is to revise history to suit their narrative and with the numbskull majority here today ( the sheep) they have largely succeeded. Case in point is your reference to "current-issue military arms" not to mention the total lack of proper vetting of a presidential candidate who is in all reality probably legally unqualified to be in that position rendering ANYTHING he has done null and void.

Our country should be able to handle such a massive Constitutional shaking crisis referenced in my last sentence resulting in the majority of Congress and the SCOTUS being sent to jail but those same individuals will under no circumstances allow this to occur. They control the agenda, does not matter the name democrat nor republican.

Bringing us back to square one and the role of the Militia and our ability to armed. 

The wisdom of the Founding fathers knew at some point another a second revolution could be at hand so they placed these stopgaps hence, the attempt at revisionism and a "living constitution" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.............................

 

In short... ALL OF US ARE THE "MILITIA!"  I won't even go into the other point of reference about "current-issue military arms..."   032.gif

 

True... we are the militia.

 

But even beyond that, militia is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms.

Militia is only given as a reason not to infringe the pre-existing right.

 

 

"The Second Amendment, as one federal appeals court has held, “protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons…regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of the militia.” Patrick Henry, the fiery patriot of the American Revolution, said: “The great object is that every man be armed….  Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Richard Henry Lee, a fellow Virginian and member of the first Senate, wrote: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” And George Mason, also a Virginian, declared: “To disarm the people [is] the best and most effective way to enslave them."

 

https://www.rutherford.org/constitutional_corner/amendment_ii_to_keep_and_bear_arms/

 

 

I think the militia wording was given as a tangible reason to recognize and protect the right, instead of saying "just because"

and assuming the reader looks back to our God given rights as the underlying reason.

 

That and also as PMI said above..... 2A reminds .gov and enforces the right of the people to form militias, not just bear arms.

 

If I could fault the Founding Fathers on anything it would be for assuming it would always be literate, rational, adults capable

of critical thinking who would be interpreting the law of the land. The criminals in control constantly re-interpret and twist the

original words to suit themselves and their agenda. Too many of the low information voters just eat up whatever is told to them.

 

I wish the original words had been spelled out a bit more.

Then again.... I know what they would say.... "It says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What more did you want?"

 

BTW, I realize I'm preaching to the choir on these finer points.... most of us know this stuff. It still seems like a healthy thing to

talk about these things with the like-minded patriot crowd we have here. There are probably a number of newbies and lurkers

who pick up on things for the first time as we re-hash this stuff.

 

I know it always feels good to know there are still a huge number of patriots out there.

Lots of good points in this thread and I bet the Founding Fathers would agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they give 2-shits about history, I truly believe that it is all a larger conspiracy to overthrow our republic and install a communist regime. I truly believe it is just that simple, how they accomplish that is a longer story. The founders of our republic knew it would be nearly impossible for us to hold on to it, well if things keep on the track they are it won't be much longer  sad.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they give 2-shits about history, I truly believe that it is all a larger conspiracy to overthrow our republic and install a communist regime. I truly believe it is just that simple, how they accomplish that is a longer story. The founders of our republic knew it would be nearly impossible for us to hold on to it, well if things keep on the track they are it won't be much longer  sad.png

 

Communists, globalists, the UN.... they would all love to run the Constitution through a big paper shredder.

That's the bad news.

 

The good news is that there are still a great many of us who know what they are up to and will resist them.

 

Cheer up AA, no matter how bad it is, it can always get worse.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are in a constant state of panic about losing your guns or not having enough ammo…….seek therapy.

and this is coming from a gun lover.

 

In a SHTF scenario, guns will only be a short term answer. Just like gas for your car, no matter how much you got

you will eventually run out. And if the Govt decides to come for your guns…….all the guns and ammo in the world is not gonna stop them.

I quit sweating over this topic long ago. All it will do is make you lose sleep at night and drain a hole in your pocket to boot.

Guns are not a sustainable or practical means of survival in any way.

You can take away all my guns and ammo and I will survive just fine. In fact, I will thrive without them.

JMO-

Edited by SHOTGUN MESSIAH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

Tromix - Lead Delivery Systems
Dinzag Arms
CHAOS, Inc
Mississippi Auto Arms, Inc
Cobra's Custom
Carolina Shooters Supply
R & R Targets
LONE STAR ARMS
SGM Tactical
Mach 1 Arsenal
K-VAR
C&S Metall-Werkes
American Specialty Ammo
Csspecs Magazines
Phoenix Technology
Evlutionz LLC


  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...