Tags
AR-15, Beto O'Rourke, Castlerock v. Gonzalez, D/S/Cs, disarming the law-abiding, Gropin' Joe Biden, gun and ammo sales skyrocketing, gun control, public safety, releasing criminals
Note who retweeted this anti-liberty tweet
“They that would surrender essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Benjamin Franklin
March, 2020, the Coronavirus19 pandemic. Once again, Americans find D/S/C politicians, including the D/S/C presidential heir apparent calling for the disarming of honest, law-abiding Americans. Simultaneously, police agencies across the nation, and not just in blue cities and states, are cutting back on arrests, apparently trying to minimize officer contacts with criminals and citizens alike.
Some police agencies are even asking criminals, pretty please, to quit committing crimes until everyone is feeling better. Apparently thereafter, it’s OK to go back to business as usual.
Infamous Baltimore City Attorney Marilyn Mosby is not going to prosecute a wide range of crimes, including drug possession and dealing, and Baltimore’s clownish mayor Jack Young is begging crooks not to shoot so many people, so as to free up hospital beds for Coronavirus victims. I’m sure the nation’s criminals, being altruistic, unselfish sorts, will take these pleas to heart—or not. And Colorado legislators are doing their best to pass a gun lock up bill that would essentially disarm citizens in their own homes. Criminals are being released from jails across the nation in the name of public health, but that’s just an excuse for what D/S/Cs have wanted to do anyway. The mayors of several cities have given themselves, via executive order, dictatorial powers, including the power to disarm the law abiding.
Gun and ammunition sales, as they always do in times of crisis and when citizens get an inkling politicians want to disarm them, are skyrocketing. This is so in response to reality. It’s interesting that many first time gun owners are liberals, just as it was during the Obama years, and when it seemed Hillary Clinton, who promised to utterly destroy the Second Amendment, was a shoo-in for President. I addressed liberal gun ownership back in 2014 for The Truth About Guns.
In times of crisis, the first thought of many politicians is to disarm the law-abiding, to make them instant criminals. Actually, that’s pretty much their first thought all the time. Celebrity Bill Maher—and a variety of others—have made fun of anyone wanting to arm themselves, observing one can’t shoot the virus. That honest Americans may have to shoot criminals taking advantage of the virus is irrelevant to such people, though I’m sure(?) they understand the distinction. It is not a coincidence that these politicians and celebrities are almost universally D/S/Cs. Nor is it coincidental they live in gated, secured communities and enjoy armed protection. Nor is it a coincidence they claim the police can protect everyone, knowing they cannot, and have no such legal duty.
credit: patch.com
The police are not, for the most part, expert with guns. Most are just not gun guys and girls, and many own no weapons other than their issued handgun. Many don’t even carry concealed off duty. It’s an issue I explored in detail back in October of 2017. You might like to take the link prior to continuing.
Back? Good. Let’s continue. Let’s consider the reality of policing. Most people would be actually–not faux–shocked to learn how few officers are patrolling the streets of their city at any time of the day or night. To put three officers on the street over 24 hours, a police agency must hire at least four, so they can all have a day off occasionally, to say nothing of training, court appearances, sick time, etc. Agencies are always understaffed, and staff most when the call volume is highest, which is usually weekend nights, beginning with Friday. The fewest officers work during the day.
Let’s say your wife is home alone—you’re on a business trip—and at 0200 one night, she’s awakened to the unmistakable sound of someone breaking into your home. Believing the police can and will protect you, you’re unarmed, and so is your wife. The sequence of events will go something like this:
0156: That’s when the bad guys actually start breaking in.
0200: That’s when they get frustrated and don’t care about making noise, which wakes your wife.
0202: It takes her this long to wake, orient herself, and convince herself it’s really happening.
0204: She has hidden in a bathroom and locked the door. Fortunately, she remembered to bring her cell phone, and it is charged.
0205: She manages to dial 911, and actually gets a dispatcher.
0207: It takes this long for the dispatcher to calm her down and get a coherent story.
0208: The dispatcher sends several units to your home, keeping your wife on the line.
0213: The first officer arrives down the block from your home. He will wait two minutes for his backup to arrive.
0215: The backup officer arrives, confers with the first officer, and they carefully approach your home, guns drawn.
0218: They find the smashed back door and carefully enter…
Are you getting the point, gentle readers? The police love to catch bad guys in the act, but that’s rare. For the most part, the police arrive after the damage has been done and conduct an investigation, and maybe, depending on the kind of crime, might make an arrest sometime in the future.
What happened to your wife? Did the bad guys hear the police coming and run away? Or did they get to her within minutes, preventing her from making a call? Did the police catch them in the house, but with your wife as a hostage/bullet magnet between them?
Keep in mind, always, the police have no actual legally enforceable duty to protect anyone. Not only that, they can’t be held liable if they fail to protect anyone. The relevant case is Castlerock v. Gonzalez, and I wrote about it years ago for PJ Media.
Briefly, Jessica Gonzalez had a restraining order against her estranged husband. He took her three young daughters out of her yard and fled with them. She, over many hours, begged the Castlerock, CO police to find her daughters and enforce the restraining order, but they continually blew her off. Finally, he attacked the police station, firing on it with a handgun. The police finally did their duty and helped him commit suicide by cop. Nearby, they found his pickup, and in it, the bodies of his daughters. He murdered them hours earlier.
Jessica sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. They ruled the police have a duty only to the public at large, not to any individual. They have a duty to enforce the law, to deter crime by their presence and investigate it after the fact, nothing more. They can’t be held liable for failing to protect any individual.
Sound outrageous? It’s absolutely rational and necessary. There are few police officers, many more criminals, and far, far more of us. They can’t be everywhere at once, and the old axiom that when seconds count, the police are minutes away, is undeniably accurate. What of rural areas, where the single deputy sheriff on duty will commonly be an hour or more away from a call for help? In major cities, particularly those ruled by Democrats, police response time is best measured with a sundial. Detroit has had an emergency call response time—when they answer 911 calls and respond at all—of nearly an hour. Besides, who would become a police officer knowing they would be sued every day of the week?
The truth is the police cannot protect anyone, and have no general duty to do so. Government has no conscience, and will never allow itself to be sued. Government has only priorities and powers, and neither are focused on the individual. D/S/C government is scornful of individual rights because those rights are limitations on its powers. Thus do they wish to disarm the law-abiding, and care little for disarming criminals, who help keep normal Americans from complaining about them. It’s a sort of Cloward-Piven strategy. Keep the normals in chaos and they’ll be more likely to accept government handouts at the expense of their liberty.
Politicians know this. They know no one can hold them responsible for their indifference to the welfare and lives of others. All normal Americans can do is turn them out of office at the next election—if D/S/C election fraud allows it. They know they’re not going to hold criminals responsible for their crimes, unless they’re so stupid as to victimize them. They know exactly what will happen if they disarm the law-abiding, and they salivate at the prospect.
We’re on our own. We are all responsible for defending our lives and the lives of those we love. Refusing to recognize that reality and refusing to take the steps necessary to save lives does not change reality, because evil exists and it may confront anyone at any time and any place.
But what about AR-15s, or AR-14s, as Gropin’ Joe Biden terms them? He is sworn to take them away from the law-abiding, and is planning to use Beto O’Rourke to do it.
An AR-15, or similar rifle, might well be necessary to save lives, and it will surely be necessary if fake Hispanic Beto O’Rourke, or anyone like him, takes power. Criminals will be emboldened, and more likely to commit hot “ burglaries—burglaries done where the criminals know people are at home. Having the ability to engage multiple hostile targets can make the difference between life and death while the police are doing their best, given the variables of time, distance and traffic, to get to you, and that’s if the dispatcher didn’t get the address wrong, if the call didn’t get mislabeled or misplaced, and if you had time to call in the first place.
Ruger AR-556, a common AR-15 variant
D/S/Cs want to ban AR-15’s because they can trick people into thinking they’re scary and uniquely dangerous, actual machineguns. They know if they can establish the precedent of banning any class of firearm, that’s the beginning of the end for citizen ownership of guns. The fact that AR-15 or similar classes of weapons are very seldom used in any kind of crime is beside the point. The point is always political power vs. individual liberty. That’s why the founders wrote the Second Amendment, to ensure the proper balance.
Interesting, isn’t it, that whenever a crisis occurs, D/S/C’s eternal, knee-jerk response is to try to increase governmental power and decrease individual liberty. Your guns—your lives—are in their way. They care about public safety only in the abstract. Your continued existence is a mere abstraction, a political talking point. Government has no conscience, and will never allow you to sue them for failing to protect what is to them, an abstraction: your life and the lives of those you love.
That puts rather a different blush on their pretense to care about public safety, doesn’t it? We’re on our own; we always have been. The only thing different is now you know about it and are better prepared to deal with a crisis, even if it’s a manufactured crisis.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
And here’s the best part.. when gun owners become desperate (food and water become not-so-easy to get) they can easily shift from being the defender of house and home over to offense… and use their weapons to take from others. At that point your constant “law abiding gun owner” goes right out the window.
There days ago I went over to the local Harbor Freight to get a battery charger for the car… and the fellow in front of me in the check out line (dressed in camo, which I immediately stereotyped) and he was buying two items.. a machete and a hatchet. We have no jungles in this area of California that might requiring hacking through, and there’s not a lot of trees in the desert one would even bother to use a hatchet on that a saw wouldn’t be more efficient. After he departed the store I commented to the checkout guy… “That guy is looking to kill other humans.” The checkout guy replied… “That, or zombies.”
“Home defense” is just a kinder term than, “I need my guns and ammo to kill other humans.. if I have to. (And then down the line “…if I need to.”)
This isn’t all nice-nice, Mike.
By the time a law abiding gun owner “goes rogue” society will have already devolved to a Hobbesian nightmare where life is nasty, brutish and short; the law of the jungle reigning supreme. There’s nothing “nice-nice” about it and that’s the point. We do not live in a utopia. We never will. History shows civilization is a facade mankind as a whole wears to feel better about itself in the good times, and discards in favor of survival at the first sign of trouble.
Not necessarily, OP. People react differently to stress. We are already hearing reports of people picking on Asians, some social antagonism, and fear motivated personality changes in some folks. It’s the nature of man to prefer social order and finding order in the world around him. Hence government and science. We are social creatures but our survival kicks in on an individual level.
My reply to Mike was meant to cast aspersions at his (and others) consistent banging away that the gun is good because the Founding Fathers said it was.. and long live the 2nd…. and gun control of any kind is sucking the air out of democracy… and you just get the feeling obsessive gun owners are loving this impending breakdown of society as an excuse to pull the trigger and kill humans… and likely going to give them an excuse to kill Liberals. No one is laughing at survivalists these days. “Yay.. no cops! Grab yer guns, boys!”
As if that solves anything.
Dear Doug:
Sometimes we need a fire extinguisher, right now, and nothing else will do. Sometimes we need a firearm, right now, and nothing else will do. Both, used in the right ways and under the right circumstances, do solve something.
Dear optimisticallyperssimistic:
Indeed. We’re nowhere near that point, but that such a thing could occur is certainly imaginable and possible. The kind of peace and prosperity America has produced is rare in human history, and it’s a precious thing. As the Founders knew, we must be eternally vigilant, and willing to fight to preserve it.
So, to continue your argument, let’s ban long knives and axes because crazy people, self-identifying in camo, will use them to harm others. Great idea. The analogy with guns is perfect. Mike makes no sense.. .
Actually.. little to do with that. Essentially what I am saying is Mike, et al, are saying, “See!? This is why we needed the Second Amendment! For situations just like this!” kinda mentality.
I’m just saying the end does not justify the means. I own guns, I appreciate the Second for the way it’s been interpreted because that’s the law and I respect the Constitution. The modern day moral implication is just lost in the interpretation of the past. The gun is not out friend and in the end it’s just another way for a single person to pass a life or death judgement on another… whether it’s “justified” for defense or not. Far too much “Whoppee, I got a gun.”
Dear Doug:
Let’s be clear: no one is saying, no one is urging anyone to shoot liberals or anyone else. Of course, you know that. I’m sure you also know we cannot rely on the police. If you’ve any doubt of that, just speak to any police officer willing to tell you the truth. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I’ve also provided more than sufficient links for anyone to satisfy themselves that we cannot sue the police for failing to protect us.
One last thing: morally and legally, we all have an absolute right to self-defense. It does indeed matter if it’s justified, in terms of our immortal souls and in terms of the law. In fact, our law is based on the distinction between justified and unjustified use of force.
Rather, people are thinking: “Thank goodness I have the means to protect myself and those I love. Now I hope it never becomes necessary.”
You might spend some time with my yearly series on gun ownership which I’m posting every Tuesday. It explains in detail all of the issues, moral, philosophical, theological and legal of gun ownership and use.
Been reading those. :)
Dear Doug:
Indeed. Evil exists, which is why good men and women must be prepared to confront it when necessary. If they don’t, evil wins.
My point was.. depending on the desperation, “good” can easily turn to evil.. and the one’s left standing get to determine which in the end.
Dear Doug:
Which is why we have the rule of law, and when that fails, the unalienable, natural right of self-defense. In such a state, firearms allow those not by nature big, strong and vicious, to determine their fate.
You constantly espouse this “inalienable right to self-defense” as if this is some indelible birthright that extends the Constitution past the fall of government. Push come to shove… there’s nothing “inalienable” about it. It’s the nature of man to defend himself or not, or to the point he can’t anymore, then he’s defeated and to the victor go the spoils. Yes.. I know you are simply pontificating about less cops these days means dust off the family AK-47. I just find the constant gun-joy a bit much. And.. yeah.. I can ignore it I suppose… or move on. Just seems to be far more important things in the world than always talking lock & load. Your blog of course.
Exactly Doug! Only fake/false conservatives would seriously believe that “inalienable rights” are somehow not attached to a Constitution! What nonsense! If a government falls, then there are no inalienable rights at all cause they are only given by the Constitution. Easy enuf.
To be accurate, I am NOT a Trumpian Conservative, nor do I pretend to be one on TV. I’m a Reagan Republican.. which is not popular these days. Not sure I’m a “fake” anything offhand… but if it helps to apply the label somewhere, well, the First Amendment still comes before the Second, which I am sure bugs you to no end. Maybe your guy in the White House can change that after he postpones the election permanently and declares himself king.
Doug, as a Reagan republican, you must love Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation efforts, and military build up. They are based on Reagan’s actions after all.
Trump’s reckless deficit spending.. ie., the tax cuts, et al, are certainly not traditional Republican. Of course, the deficit doesn’t matter these days.
Ohh.. to add… Trump is just slam-dunking according to his own bias… without thought. Like the pointy eared fellow once said.. I dislike intellect without discipline and power without constructive purpose.
Doug, the deficit rose dramatically under Reagan, just like Trump. Same-same.
Actually the federal deficit under Reagan peaked at 6% of GDP in 1983, falling to 3.2% of GDP in 1987 and to 3.1% of GDP in his final budget. The inflation-adjusted rate of growth in federal spending fell from 4% under Jimmy Carter to 2.5% under Ronald Reagan.
As I said.. Trump’s reductions of regulations were just personal bias.. and mostly getting rid of anything attributed to Obama… with Obama’s name on it. Trump has some real behavioral issues.
Doug, you can’t honestly measure Reagan’s deficits by reflecting them as a percentage of GDP because the economy rose so much under his policies that it masks the scale of the spending. Trump was on his way to a similar result but that’s been sidetracked with the virus panic. We’ll see how this comes together.
Reagan and Trump were both divorced, both celebrities outside of politics, neither served in war (Reagan was in the pre-war calvary reserve but had extremely poor eyesight so he served WW2 in front of a camera), are the two oldest presidents, had their Supreme Court picks savaged by democrats, had both been democrats themselves, were very happy warriors, both had to deal with a very hostile congress and special prosecutors, were friends of Israel, Reagan bombed Libya and Trump bombed Syria, etc. One difference is that Reagan illegally sold arms to Iran, while Trump has almost completely destroyed them. So I have to ask, if you’re a Reagan republican, in what ways are you not a Trump republican?
Economics is at best theory and even the interpretation of the results can shift over history. I realize your likely comfort level in visiting blogs that only hold to your perceptions, but until recently, after three years of having an anti-Trump blog, basically I have been impugning the man himself for his arbitrary behavior, lack of mental discipline, his absolutely no concept of the office he holds other than “I’m in charge.”, and a psyche aberration toward narcissism and a myriad other issues. He lies prolifically to the point where he doesn’t even know it anymore. He’s the most gawd-awful occupier of the Oval Office to lead the country through any sort of a crisis.
Now.. I realize most Trump supporters will defend all this with the usual “Ok, but look at all the good he’s done.”
Sorry.. that nonsense doesn’t work on me. IF.. and I mean, IF.. he’s done any good any where… it’s not been worth the constant turmoil, fomenting national divisiveness, and has had zero intention of rallying anyone to unite other than those bench pounding supporters who affirm his every word in his rally “highs” he needs from time to time. Of particular concern is the international embarrassment in completely alienating our traditional allies and making State Department an impotent agency.
I told you.. if he’s had a “good” policy… even a broke clock is right twice a day. He’s no Republican. He’s a Conservative that leans farther right than most… and has convinced his 40-45% block of supporters that being a jerk and flipping off anyone he see fits.. and hugging the flag to get cheers… (appalling as that image is to me given I served to protect it.. and I’d simply prefer his sleazy little hands off of it… but that was his whole point in doing it.. shock value, and to the cheers of the devoted.)
No… Reagan was not any hero of mine.. he just followed more traditional lines of Republicanism that I follow(ed). I have warned on my blog for the last three years that things under Trump will get far worse… and it has.. continuously. Now we are in the greatest health and financial crisis and we have without a doubt the worst president in history to carry us through it. Nobody believes or trusts the clown… and all he wants to do is fight someone and cast blame for all his problems in life. I don’t need to share all this in here to reply to your attempt to “convince” me a fiction that Reagan is like Trump. After all.. Trump supporters are science-denying, conspiracy-mongering.. Liberal-blaming, Trump worshipers.. and this entire coronavirus “thing” is simply just Liberal media panic. Actually.. I was hoping we could dump all this coronavirus blame onto Hillary and her 30,000 emails.
Doug, that’s a lot of words spent just to admit that you like a fictional Reagan, and hate Trump. Got it. Not much of a surprise there.
No one is saying that the virus is a non-issue, simply that if we quarantine everyone who is exposed to it then by next week there’ll be no more doctors, nurses, or police officers left on the job. It’s a virus that heavily impacts those with compromised immune systems, and they should self quarantine, but a lockdown of everyone won’t work because it’ll simply re-emerge when everyone comes out of hiding. When the swine flu hit in 2009-2010 and killed 12000-18000 Americans we did…nothing.
As for science denying, the claim that a naturally occurring chemical, CO2, that makes up only 400 ppm in the atmosphere can somehow kill us all if we increase it to 410 ppm is absurd. 300 million years ago it was at 1200 ppm, the whole earth was a jungle, and life thrived. No.
And somehow the leftist answer for every crisis is: give all of your freedoms to the government. It’s the same every time, with this virus, global warming, the population time bomb in the 1960s, global cooling in the 1970s, terrorism, the hole in the ozone, the housing bubble, etc.
Dear The Other Phil:
What you said.
I read an item a couple of months ago about cops and guns. It referenced something about the 90-7-3 Rule.
90% of cops have one firearm, their duty weapon, which they have only because it is required. They qualify (barely) with it once a year, and only take it in and out of the holster to secure it. They do not have any privately owned firearms, don’t hunt, and do not go plinking.
7% of cops have privately owned firearms and probably hunt or shoot recreationally. They are more familiar and comfortable with owning them.
3% are truly proficient and are expert marksman. They own their own firearms and hunt or shoot regularly. They may even take extra training courses outside of their department.
Dear Captain Witold Pilecki:
Exactly. This is precisely what I found in all of my years of police service, and in all my years teaching others how and under which circumstances to shoot.
Doug,
The condition of being in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm from the actions of evil might be merely a term of art to lawyers, but when it happens to a person in real life, their brains go to places they probably were not even aware of before. Things get primal really fast. You either freeze up entirely or do something -anything – to get out alive. If you do not have a weapon, you would wish you did.
In my opinion, it is pointless to play games about this, because I am pretty sure you would react the same as anyone else.
The only remaining question is whether a person is prepared or not.
Oh I fully agree with you there, Mr. Rum. As I explained to Mike.. all the gun talk seems a bit too.. “happy”. He explained, I deferred to his explanation because it’s his blog, I was likely getting too hung up on morality.
Doug, i believe that Mike has been quite clear the if you believe that we are each one of God’s creations them we have a moral obligation to protect our life and the lives of others.
In the natural order of things, Phil, there is no morality in nature… hence our current battle with this virus. Morality is simply man trying to find away to live with each other… and we are totally consumed with that. Not that we shouldn’t be given we are, generally speaking, our own worst enemy… when the rest of microscopic nature isn’t feeding off us. But even the current virus feeding off us doesn’t feed off it’s own species like we do. Your gun has three purposes… a tool for hunting for food, a weapon to kill your fellow man whenever YOU deem it necessary, and a suicide weapon when the capacity to survive is gone. In the end morality is a judgement call on however you personally wish to define it.
I have a feeling when this is all over we will come to realize that we should have let the disease runs its course given the mortality rate is anywhere in “just” the 2-5% range.. rather than blow up entire economies and send us all back into the stone age. To save 5% we are destroying the lives of 95%. That’s the morality we collectively have chosen… and it will not come cheap. All this “inalienable right” to personal defense is just political posturing to give you some “permission”.. or more like “authorization”, to do what you may with a gun. Just call it what it is.. my gun is going to protect me and my family, feed me and my family, and if needed, end any unavoidable or inevitable suffering of me and my family, It’s not all about “I gonna kill only the bad guys.”
Dear Doug:
We shall know, and rather soon, whether we’ve struck the right balance in this situation. I suspect we have not, and will do considerable damage to the economy–to normal Americans–mostly driven by this being an election year. Absent America descending to a complete state of nature, however, the rule of law will hold, and merely having the firearms and ammunition necessary to protect lives will not be license “to do what you may with a gun.” Doing away with the rule of law is, in fact, what Normal Americans seek to prevent.
Dear The other Phil:
Yes. And it is the same morality that prevents normal Americans from abusing their fellow man, for any reason.
“All this “inalienable right” to personal defense is just political posturing to give you some “permission”.. or more like “authorization”, to do what you may with a gun.”
Doug,
you strip yourself bare here, revealing your pitilessly rationality in its glory. The truth hurts, for those strong enough to face it. I’ve long suspected that the American experiment was only political posturing, as you have clearly stated. I admire your most subtle thread, Reagan the actor and Trump the poseur–how appropriate do these each–the true conservative and the false conservative–maintain the pretense and obscure the bloody tooth and fang covered by the toga of the declaration of independence and the bill of rights. Yes, in the state of nature the rabbit has no right not to be eaten by the wolf. It’s just food. Somehow, people decided that the strong fellow did not have the inalienable right to put a collar around the neck of a peaceable fellow and decided–pretended actually, a willing suspension of reason–that he did not have that right but rather that the peaceable fellow had an “inalienable right” to not have a collar bolted around his neck. The times just ebb and flow. Go with it. Thanks, Doug, for making all this clear.
.”…you strip yourself bare here, revealing your pitilessly rationality in its glory.”
Well, that very well could be true… but apparently it was worth another display of sarcasm from you, which just tends to hide some insecurity, btw. Unless of course this is just your “blog side”.
“…maintain the pretense and obscure the bloody tooth and fang covered by the toga of the declaration of independence and the bill of rights.”
I actually enjoyed reading that… as prose goes. But it’s apparent you are into yourself pretty well, unless, as I said, this is just a blog facade.
Truly, in nature, the only “right” you have is to survive the best that you can with the abilities you have… as provided by nature. In the business world it’s called the Peter Principle.. one rises to the level of their own incompetence. In nature you survive until you can’t anymore. Before firearms the victor was the fellow with the greater skills to not only wield a club or a sword but have the persona to use those things to kill. Firearms allow even the incompetent to survive… at least for a while. It requires little or no real training to use, little discipline as to physical exertion, and far less moral dilemma because no physical contact is required. No thought process in between blows or thrusts. Just point and pull the trigger. It’s a cleaner way to inflict harm to another given the distance… and it allows the user to attack by surprise, rather than engage face to face. Bashing someone over the head with a club.. and expecting to walk away from the encounter… takes a mental determination that filters the intended action.,, do I do it, is it worth the effort, and can it be done to me? Firearms make killing easy…. and make hunting for food easier.
In my opinion, the Fathers who expressed the inalienable right to self-defense were just stating the obvious for the survival of all living things; that one defending themselves to survive cannot be separated from living existence. What these guys were establishing is a legal precept for fighting back collectively against authority should authority go against the will of the people… but to do so meant individuals could own guns. Then one day we woke up and gun ownership now means defense of the individual… because quite honestly, if government went berserk there would be no organized resistance anyway.. just a haphazard collection of gun owners defending themselves from other gun owners.
Dear Doug:
Oh, indeed there would be an organized resistance. A very organized and effective resistance, which is only one reason why D/S/Cs are so continually desperate to disarm the capable law-abiding.
I’m sure you really believe that.. but no. There will be no “Red Dawn” nonsense. There is no such thing as a D/S/C conspiracy to rid the country of guns. Everyone will be too busy protecting house and home from other people. Every person with a gun will want to be the boss.. call the shots, literally.
But, hey… you might be able to look forward to some violence erupting periodically regarding Trump mucking up the covid-19 response. There’s gonna be some folks.. with guns.. rather ticked off when their loved ones start dying in the weeks and months ahead, who might go berserk in some form. You never know. In fact.. how many loved ones would it take for you, me, anyone, feeling the need to strike back at something or someone? Interesting mind game. (or is it all just in the mind?)
Dear Doug:
There are, throughout the population, hundreds of thousands of veterans, people who understand the necessity of a chain of command and concerted action, and who have the necessary skills. The same applies to police officers, EMTs, and normal Americans in all walks of life. Should the worst ever occur, people will band together, particularly in the red states, to try to preserve some semblance of our representative republic. It will not be every many for himself.
As to a D/S/C conspiracy to rid the law-abiding of arms, there need be no conspiracy. They don’t sit down every day in a Dr. Evil bunker and plot strategy. Just like the media, they all think alike, and they all have the same goals. What is undeniable is D/S/Cs, at every opportunity, do all then can to deprive the honest of arms.
Good Lord Almighty…. you even have an apocalypse scenario where people from “red states” will inherit the earth?
Dear Doug:
Once again, you push far beyond not only what I wrote, but what I intend. My point is that in times of disaster, like minded, capable people will band together for mutual support, and to try to preserve what remains of the Constitution. Americans are different than the peoples of most other nations. This is what horrifies politicians that want to destroy the Constitution.
We have politicians who want to destroy the Constitution?? Who? Where?
Doug, you means the states that produce most of the food and fuel? And owns most of the guns? And where most of the actually trigger-pullers in the military come from? And the states without a huge homeless population that’s going to exacerbate the virus in places like NYC, LA, Seattle, etc.?
Doug says,
“Then one day we woke up and gun ownership now means defense of the individual… because quite honestly, if government went berserk there would be no organized resistance anyway.. just a haphazard collection of gun owners defending themselves from other gun owners”
Now that’s how to write an apocalyptic scenario, Mike. Take a lesson from the master.
You show’em, Doug.
Well.. isn’t that why you are a law-abiding gun owner… to use against other gun owners that aren’t law-abiding? Seems to me that “law abiding” is a transient state subject to the degree of desperation and personal justification..
Pingback: Guns And Liberty: Part 9, 2020 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Doug, perhaps a few will, but most sane people will understand that life is fragile, that Mother Nature, while sometimes beautiful, is constantly trying to kill us all, and that government bureaucrats will likely not be there to help you when you really need them.
Dear The Other Phil:
As Ronald Reagan said: “The most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.'”
Pingback: New Gun Owners: Being Prepared | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2021, Part 9 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Bailing Out | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2022: Part 9 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, 2023: Part 9 | Stately McDaniel Manor