Sunday, December 15, 2013

Resisting Obamacare

Jan Markell on her Saturday radio program, The Progressive Dream that is America's Nightmare interviews Twila Brase of Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, who says we do have legal options to Obamacare and we don't have to enroll in it. Her website is full of information about this.

Sunday, December 1, 2013

The Nice Cardinal Dolan So Nicely Advocates Killing America

UPDATE:

Anybody remember Jesuit "Professor of Constitutional Law" Louis Michael Seidman who advocated scrapping the Constitution a little over a year ago? Anybody care? Isn't there a pattern here?

So far I haven't seen him identified as a Jesuit but he teaches at Georgetown University which IS Jesuit, and here's an article at their website about Seidman's views on the Constitution.

There's plenty more stuff on him through Google. 

The amendment to the Constitution I would suggest is incorporating the laws of the Colonies against allowing Catholics any political power in the United States.  I'd also prohibit them from founding and teaching in universities.  Too late of course, the wolf is in the sheepfold, has been for a LONG time, idiots that we are.

Good thing nobody reads my blogs or I'd soon be dead. 


earlier post======================================

Happened to check out Fox News online earlier, and happened to see this headline, Catholics 'Outmarketed' on Gay Marriage, wondered what on earth THAT means so I read the article.  And I still don't know for sure what it means.
NEW YORK – New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan says the Roman Catholic Church has been "outmarketed" on the issue of gay marriage and has been "caricatured as being anti-gay."
I have to suppose he means that the RCC's position on traditional marriage is not getting good PR these days but the way he's phrased it I can't be sure of that at all.  If that's what he's saying, at the same time he doesn't want it to mean that the RCC is "anti-gay" although of course it has to mean that they treat homosexual acts as sin.  Again I can't really be sure.   It sounds like Jesuitical gobbledygook to me, which gets even more confusing as I read on.

Asked if he thinks gay marriage will eventually be legalized or opposed by a backlash, he said:
"I think I'd be a Pollyanna to say that there doesn't seem to be kind of a stampede to do this," Dolan said. "I regret that."
Excuse me?  There ISN'T a stampede to do WHAT?  To oppose gay marriage by a backlash?  And it makes him a Pollyanna to say that?  That part I can't make sense of at all.  But I have to suppose he means something along these lines although I must say the way it actually reads says something different:  it actually sounds like he regrets that there isn't a stampede to legalize gay marriage.  I have to assume he can't mean that but that's how it reads to me. 

Is it possible that he WANTS to be confusing, even misunderstood, so that he can't be blamed for saying something outright that the RCC officially opposes while at the same time perhaps aligning himself with this current Pope who recently said "Who am I to judge" about homosexuality.  Is he taking lessons from the Jesuits on how to say something so that he can't be pinned down, so that you could think MAYBE he even supports gay marriage although if you said so in so many words he could tell you you're wrong?  Or am I just letting my anti-Catholicism carry me away?

But really, I don't know how the interviewer could have continued in the face of such gobbledygook.   This interview is going to be aired on Sunday on "Meet the Press" by the way.  I don't have television but maybe I can catch it online.

I'm sure the RCC wouldn't want to be "caricatured as anti-gay" since after all this is the "Church," you understand, that has had scandal after scandal over homosexual priests molesting young boys, and covered it up, even moving their priests to other parishes where they can continue to molest boys because nobody knows who they are. 

Yet the RCC still receives respect and admiration from the press.

But then the conversation switches to Obama's health care mess.
On another divisive issue, Dolan said the Catholic Church has long championed comprehensive health care, but he said U.S. Catholic bishops cannot support the Affordable Care Act as long as it includes coverage for abortion.

He said the bishops started "bristling" at the legislation pushed by President Barack Obama because "it's excluding the undocumented immigrant and it's excluding the unborn baby."
Aw, doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart, that the RCC cares about unborn babies so much -- and indeed they have a reputation for being against abortion, so well have they crafted their image in that respect, despite some very dark history that many Catholics know nothing about, let alone the rest of us:  that sexual license between nuns and priests in the convents over many centuries produced many babies that were summarily murdered by soft-hearted mother superiors as soon as they were born.  There are references to these things in many OLD books, some of which I've listed at the Catholicism blog, (Washington in the Lap of Rome comes to mind and you can find others at Chris Pinto's sites) although history books over the last century or so have been scrubbed clean of such facts.   You can even find the testimony given in the 1950s of Sister Charlotte, a nun who escaped from a closed convent to tell of priests sexually exploiting nuns among other enormities --  Can it be that Cardinal Dolan doesn't know about these things?  It's remotely possible I suppose.

But beyond that his concern for "undocumented immigrants," that is ILLEGAL aliens, he thinks should be covered by this health care plan, ought to get your hackles up if you care at all about the laws of the United States.  Leftists and Catholics WANT a bazillion illegals in this country as part of the plan to destroy the American economy.  Keep in mind that the "undocumented immigrants" he's talking about are coming in from traditionally CATHOLIC countries.  Golly gee, it couldn't be that there's a CONSPIRACY afoot here, could it?  This is the most OVERT way the nice Cardinal comes out and says he wants America destroyed.  PROTESTANT America of course.  Turning it into a Catholic style third world country would be fine with him.

The original colonies had the right idea:  Catholics were not allowed to have any sort of political influence in this originally Protestant nation.  Well they finagled it into the Constitution and everybody thinks it's SO nice that we are SO tolerant of wolves that want only to destroy the nation.

But isn't this Cardinal Dolan such a NICE guy, such a charming guy.  Most Americans don't care about the history of these things anyway, so when the Inquisition comes and gets all us Protestants first it won't bother them a lot anyway.  

Bye bye America.  That's what this blog is about after all, although when I started it I didn't know just how many enemies trying to bring us down we actually have.

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Pope Aligns Himself With the Anti-Capitalists and Rush Limbaugh Objects

Yesterday I heard that Rush Limbaugh was on the Pope's case for denouncing Capitalism.  Apparently he said he admires the Catholic Church and some past Popes and even this Pope until he came off like any Marxist making Capitalism the cause of all the poverty in the world.

Rush has a large audience but nothing like the Pope's audience.  This Pope has been playing to atheists and homosexuals and now he's playing to Marxists and anti-Americans and really, when you get behind the curtain, he's playing to anti-Christians.  This is the first Pope to be so openly anti-Christ it ought to be apparent at least to Christians, though unfortunately we can't really count on that either.

Anyway it's no surprise that Rush doesn't have that much discernment, but at least he was willing to object when the Pope so openly aligned himself against Capitalism.  Apparently the Pope condemned "unfettered capitalism" as this great evil, although there is really no such thing as "unfettered" capitalism, and as Rush pointed out, the phrase itself can only be meant to target America, the greatest national testimony to capitalist methods in the world.

So Rush said what needed to be said about the virtues of Capitalism, how in fact not only does it not promote poverty but historically it has done more for the poor than any other economic system in the world.  The Pope had specifically objected to the idea of "trickle-down economics" and Rush defended it as how Capitalism works and how it benefits the poor. 

One thing Rush doesn't know and most of us haven't known either  --  I've only been learning it over the last year or so --  is that official Catholic economic doctrine is socialist.  There are Catholics of course who fervently support Capitalism, but I'm talking about official Vatican doctrine here.  They have two reasons to hate Capitalism -- 1)  it opposes their own official economic doctrine, and 2) it's a product of the Protestant Reformation.   It's those former Popes Rush admires for their support of Capitalism who are out of step with the Vatican, while this Jesuit Pope is quite in tune with it.

It would be good to put up some links for all these assertions and I hope I'll have the time to do that eventually, but meanwhile I'd refer you to the book Ecclesiastical Megalomania by John Robbins, which I have listed in the margin at my Catholicism blog.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Another Stinkin' Bloom or Bloomin' Stinker or whatever

Hey, the Corpse Flower has bloomed in WASHINGTON D.C.   How appropriate.  I don't know if there's any significance to the date of its bloom though, all ideas welcome.
 
 
There's more than one stinky thing about this article, for instance the evolutionist fairy tale about why it "evolved" its peculiar smell:  to attract flies and carrion beetles to be its pollinators.   Of course it was DESIGNED to do this, it didn't evolve the method, but we have to put up with the usual totally made-up Likely Story that they palm off as Fact, required to "respect" it on pain of enduring some of the stinkiest epithets against our good character you'll ever encounter in this world.   
 
It rather suggests Beelzebub to me of course, Lord of the Flies.  This has got to be his favorite flower.
 
What a cynic I can be.

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Larry Correia's post on gun control

This post is for the purpose of copying a post on gun control by another blogger I found in December who got so many comments on it my computer couldn't load it.  He'd had a million hits on this post after only a month and almost 2500 comments.  It's now only available on a separate page at his blog (Dec 2012 posts). I decided to bring the whole thing over here because it seems to me to be a very thorough discussion of all the issues involved in this gun control flap. 

The following is all Larry Correia's post:

An opinion on gun control

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I’ve worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I’d make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I’ve got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I’ve won matches, and I’ve been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.

I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I’ve argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.
Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

Armed Teachers
So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!
No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.
However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.
So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?
T
he average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.
The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.
But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.
Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.
I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.

After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless?  None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.
Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.

Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, I’m sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states who’d be willing to teach them for free.

For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.

Gun Free Zones
Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utah’s gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping center’s front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was NO GUNS ALLOWED.

The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED.

There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.
  1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.
  2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.
  3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.
  4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.
And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

The Media
Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that we’ve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. We’ve seen it succeed here before.
Y
et when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead… If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they don’t say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, I’m a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious). If I become angry because they are promoting policies which are tactically flawed and which will do the exact opposite of the stated goals, then I am a horrible person for being angry. Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to own guns at all.

But that’s not why I want to talk about the media. I want to talk about the media’s effect on the shooters.
Put yourself in the shoes of one of these killers. One nice thing about playing the villain and being a punching bag for cops, soldiers, and permit holders is that you need to learn about how the bad guys think and operate. And most of the mass shooters fit a similar profile.

The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group.

These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they aren’t losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. They’ll show us. The solution is easy. It’s right there in front of your nose.

If you can kill enough people at one time, you’ll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and he’ll even shed a single manly tear.

You are a star.

Strangely enough, this is one of the only topics I actually agree with Roger Ebert on. He didn’t think that the news should cover the shooters or mention their names on the front page of the paper. So whenever the press isn’t talking about guns, or violent movies, or violent video games, or any other thing that hundreds of millions of people participated in yesterday without murdering anybody, they’ll keep showing the killer’s picture in the background while telling the world all about him and his struggles.
And then the cycle repeats, as the next disaffected angry loner takes notes.

They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.

Mental Health Issues
And right here I’m going to show why I’m different than the people I’ve been arguing with the last few days. I am not an expert on mental health issues or psychiatry or psychology. My knowledge of criminal psychology is limited to understanding the methods of killers enough to know how to fight them better.

So since I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then I’m not going to comment… Oh please, if only some of the people I’ve been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.

Gun Control Laws
As soon as there is a tragedy there comes the calls for “We have to do something!” Sure, the something may not actually accomplish anything as far as solving whatever the tragedy was or preventing the next one, but that’s the narrative. Something evil happened, so we have to do something, and preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard.

The left side of the political spectrum loves it some gun control. Gun control is historically extremely unpopular in red state and purple state America, and thus very hard to pass bit stuff, but there’s a century’s accumulation of lots and lots of small ones. There have been a handful of major federal laws passed in the United States relating to guns, but the majority of really strict gun control has primarily been enacted in liberal dominated urban areas. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. I’ve found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology, so I’m going to go through many of the things I’ve seen argued about over the last few days and elaborate on them one by one.

I will leave out the particularly crazy things I was confronted with, including the guy who was in favor of mandating “automatic robot gun turrets” in schools. Yes. Heaven forbid we let a teacher CCW, so let’s put killer robots (which haven’t actually been invented yet) in schools. Man, I wish I was making this up, but that’s Facebook for you.

We need to ban automatic weapons.

Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.

Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collector’s items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop.

Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply don’t care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are.

When you say “automatic” you mean full auto, as in a machinegun. What I think most of these people mean is semi-auto.

Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons!

Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger the action cycles and loads another round. This is the single most common type of gun, not just in America, but in the whole world. Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of weapons used for self-defense are semi-automatic, as are almost all the weapons used by police officers.  It is the most common because it is normally the most effective.

Semi-automatic is usually best choice for defensive use. It is easier to use because you can do so one handed if necessary, and you are forced to manipulate your weapon less. If you believe that using a gun for self-defense is necessary, then you pretty much have to say that semi-auto is okay.

Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns. I’ll get to the functional problems with that later.

We should ban handguns!

Handguns are tools for self-defense, and the only reason we use them over the more capable, and easier to hit with rifles or shotguns is because handguns are portable. Rifles are just plain better, but the only reason I don’t carry an AR-15 around is because it would be hard to hide under my shirt.
Concealed Carry works. As much as it offends liberals and we keep hearing horror stories about blood in the streets, the fact is over my lifetime most of the United States has enacted some form of concealed carry law, and the blood in the streets wild west shootouts over parking spaces they’ve predicted simply hasn’t happened. At this point in time there are only a few hold out states, all of them are blue states and all of them have inner cities which suffer from terrible crime, where once again, the criminals simply don’t care.

For information about how more guns actually equals less crime, look up the work of Dr. John Lott. And since liberals hate his guts, look up the less famous work of Dr. Gary Kleck, or basically look up the work of any criminologist or economist who isn’t writing for Slate or Mother Jones.
As for why CCW is good, see my whole first section about arming teachers for a tiny part of the whole picture.

Basically bad people are going to be bad and do bad things. They are going to hurt you and take your stuff, because that’s what they do. That’s their career, and they are as good at it as you are at your job. They will do this anywhere they think they can get away with it.  We fixate on the mass shooters because they grab the headlines, but in actuality your odds of running in to one of them is tiny. Your odds of having a violent encounter with a run of the mill criminal is orders of magnitudes higher.

I do find one thing highly amusing. In my personal experience, some of the most vehement anti-gun people I’ve ever associated with will usually eventually admit after getting to know me, that if something bad happened, then they really hope I’m around, because I’m one of the good ones. Usually they never realize just how hypocritical and naïve that is.

We should ban Assault Rifles!

Define “assault rifle”…

Uh…

Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.
I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.
One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but I’ll get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. I’ll talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.

For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!

It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.”  Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.

Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/

I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible… Uh huh… Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances.

When I said “stop an attacker quickly” somebody on Twitter thought that he’d gotten me and said “Stop. That’s just a euphemism for kill!” Nope. I am perfectly happy if the attacker surrenders or passes out from blood loss too. Tactically and legally, all I care about is making them stop doing whatever it is that they are doing which caused me to shoot them to begin with.

The guns that many of you think of as assault rifle are common and popular because they are excellent for fighting, and I’ll talk about what my side really thinks about the 2nd Amendment below.

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!
I’ve seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we’ve got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he’ll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I’ll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn’t really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.
The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.”

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let’s say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he’s a complete idiot, he’s not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He’s picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don’t for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They’re just broken and evil.

In the cases that I’m aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That’s a bad assumption, and here’s yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm’s forums.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/45671-My-Gunfight-quot-Thinking-Outside-Your-Box-quot 

So that’s awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.
Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can’t. We’ve been stocking up ever since. If the last ban did literally nothing at all over a decade, and since then we’ve purchased another hundred million magazines since then, another ban will do even less. (except just make the law abiding that much angrier, and I’ll get to that below).

I bought $600 worth of magazines for my competition pistol this morning. I’ve already got a shelf full for my rifles. Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but I’ll talk about confiscation later.
One last thing to share about the magazine ban from the AWB, and this is something all gun people know, but most anti-gunners do not. When you put an artificial cap on a weapon, and tell us that we can only have a limited number of rounds in that weapon, we’re going to make sure they are the most potent rounds possible. Before the ban, everybody bought 9mms which held an average of 15 rounds. After the ban, if I can only have ten rounds, they’re going to be bigger, so we all started buying 10 shot .45s instead.

You don’t need an assault weapon for hunting!

Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.
Spare me the whole, “You won’t be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons” reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller.

Well we should just ban ALL guns then! You only need them to murder people!

It doesn’t really make sense to ban guns, because in reality what that means is that you are actually banning effective self-defense. Despite the constant hammering by a news media with an agenda, guns are used in America far more to stop crime than to cause crime.

I’ve seen several different sets of numbers about how many times guns are used in self-defense every year. The problem with keeping track of this stat is that the vast majority of the time when a gun is produced in a legal self-defense situation no shots are fired. The mere presence of the gun is enough to cause the criminal to stop.

Clint Smith once said if you look like food, you will be eaten. Criminals are looking for prey. They are looking for easy victims. If they wanted to work hard for a living they’d get a job. So when you pull a gun, you are no longer prey, you are work, so they are going to go find somebody else to pick on.

So many defensive gun uses never get tracked as such. From personal experience, I have pulled a gun exactly one time in my entire life. I was legally justified and the bad guy stopped, put his gun away, and left. (15 years later the same son of a bitch would end up murdering a local sheriff’s deputy). My defensive gun use was never recorded anywhere as far as I know. My wife has pulled a gun twice in her life. Once on somebody who was acting very rapey who suddenly found a better place to be when she stuck a Ruger in his face, and again many years later on a German Shepherd which was attacking my one year old son. (amazingly enough a dog can recognize a 9mm coming out of a fanny pack and run for its life, go figure) No police report at all on the second one, and I don’t believe the first one ever turned up as any sort of defensive use statistic, all because no shots were fired.

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America?
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.
So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Doesn’t matter. I don’t like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country.

Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means let’s ban guns.
Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.

And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?

And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.

Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America.

Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap.

That mass killer used a gun and homemade explosives. Make guns harder to get, and explosives become the weapon of choice. Please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the Afghani equivalent to Radio Shack.

The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan), fire (like Happyland Nightclub) or airliners. There is no law you can pass, nothing you can say or do, which will make some not be evil.

And all of this is irrelevant, because banning and confiscating all the scary guns in America will be national suicide.

You crazy gun nuts and your 2nd Amendment. We should just confiscate all the guns.

Many of you may truly believe that. You may think that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, outdated, and totally pointless. However, approximately half of the country disagrees with you, and of them, a pretty large portion is fully willing to shoot somebody in defense of it.

We’ve already seen that your partial bans are stupid and don’t do anything, so unless you are merely a hypocrite more interested in style rather than results, the only way to achieve your goal is to come and take the guns away. So let’s talk about confiscation.

They say that there are 80 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns, will become suspicious and simply lie. Those of us who don’t want to end like England or Australia will say that we lost all of our guns in a freak canoe accident.

Guns do not really wear out. I have perfectly functioning guns from WWI, and I’ve got friends who have still useable firearms from the 1800s. Plus we’ve been building more of them this entire time. There are more guns than there are people in America, and some of us have enough to arm our entire neighborhood.

But for the sake of math, let’s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let’s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don’t really believe in the 2nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let’s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let’s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened.

 That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.
Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

However, I do honestly believe that it would be much bigger than 10%. Once the confiscations turned violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge. I saw somebody on Twitter post about how the 2nd Amendment is stupid because my stupid assault rifles are useless against drones… That person has obviously never worked with the people who build the drones, fly the drones, and service the drones. I have. Where to you think the majority of the US military falls on the political spectrum exactly? There’s a reason Mitt Romney won the military vote by over 40 points, and it wasn’t because of his hair.

And as for those 700,000 cops, how many of them would side with the gun owners? All the gun nuts, that’s for sure. As much as some people like to complain about the gun culture, many of the people you hire to protect you, and darn near all of them who can shoot well, belong to that gun culture. And as I hear people complain about the gun industry, like it is some nebulous, faceless, all powerful corporate thing which hungers for war and anarchy, I just have to laugh, because the gun industry probably has the highest percentage of former cops and former military of any industry in the country. My being a civilian was odd in the circles I worked in.  The men and women you pay to protect you have honor and integrity, and they will fight for what they believe in.

So the real question the anti-gun, ban and confiscate, crowd should be asking themselves is this, how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to have killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future?

Boo Evil Gun Culture!

Really? Because I hate to break it to you, but when nearly six hundred people get murdered a year in beautiful Gun Free Chicago, that’s not my people doing the shooting.
The gun culture is all around you, well obviously except for those of you reading this in elite liberal urban city centers where you’ve extinguished your gun culture. They are your friends, relatives, and coworkers. The biggest reason gun control has become increasingly difficult to pass over the last decade is because more and more people have turned to CCW, and as that has become more common, it has removed much of the stigma. Now everybody outside of elite urban liberal city centers knows somebody that carries a gun. The gun culture is simply regular America, and is made up of people who think their lives and their families lives are more important than the life of anyone who tries to victimize them.

The gun culture is who protects our country. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers and cops who are issued a gun and who use it as part of their job who could care less. However, the people who build the guns, really understand the guns, actually enjoy using the guns, and usually end up being picked to teach everybody else how to use the guns are the gun culture.

The media and the left would absolutely love to end the gun culture in America, because then they could finally pass all the laws they wanted.

Let’s take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, simple terrorist attack. They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict gun laws, but once again, criminals didn’t care.

That’s not my point this time however, I want to look at the response. These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely fell apart.

In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because they’d never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to actually master the tool. When you kill your gun culture, you kill off your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary to do the job.

Don’t think that we are so far off here. I recently got to sit down with some fans who are members of one of the larger metro police departments in America. These guys were all SWAT cops or narcotics, all of them were gun nuts who practiced on their own dime, and all of them were intimately familiar with real violence. These are the guys that you want responding when the real bad stuff goes down.

What they told me made me sick. Their leadership was all uniformly liberal and extremely anti-gun, just like most big cities in America. They walked me through what their responses were supposed to be in case of a Mumbai style event, and how their “scary assault weapons” were kept locked up where they would be unavailable, and how dismal their training was, and how since the state had run off or shut down most of the gun ranges, most of the cops couldn’t even practice or qualify anymore.

So now they were less safe, the people they were protecting were less safe, the bad guys were safer, but most importantly their leadership could pat themselves on the back, because they’d done something.

Well, okay. You make some good points. But I’d be more comfortable if you gun people were force to have more mandatory training!

And I did actually have this one said to me, which is an amazing victory by internet arguing standards.

Mandatory training is a placebo at best. Here is my take on why.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/

In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kid’s school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.

Friday, February 8, 2013

James Madison on the Likelihood of a Federal Government takeover

The gun control people are still hammering away at their insane "solution" to the problem of crazy mass murderers of taking away the guns of ordinary citizens in defiance of the Second Amendment.

Chris Pinto's radio show today is about something James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, number 46 I believe, that relates to this issue.  Madison seems to be trying to imagine the worst possible scenario of how the federal government could usurp enough power to threaten the rights of the states, and argues that it's extremely unlikely given the checks and balances built into the design of the new government. 

The scenario he envisions would require a series of Presidents to be voted in who shared the same traitorous objective, while the states and citizens just passively allow it to happen.  The quote is a bit hard to follow, but Pinto's presentation seems to bring out its main intention.  That is, Madison doesn't think such a series of Presidents with such a corrupt aim could occur, but Pinto points out that we've been seeing a trend for some time now, at least back to George Bush Sr and probably quite a bit further back than that, of world-government-mindedness that can certainly be considered to be traitorous, and could be regarded as setting up the conditions for federal power he didn't think could happen. 

He also said that if such a plan were perceived by the states they would respond with the same alarm and intent as the revolutionary war fighters did, to defend the country from such an act of tyranny.

This is just to get the gist of the message posted that Pinto presented, but of course it would help if I can get to the Federalist article itself eventually. 

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

YAHOO! SANE SANDY HOOK FATHER COMES FORWARD FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Another small indication of the Lord's mercy in the midst of judgment on this nation.  

A father of a Sandy Hook pupil gives a strong challenge on the basis of the Second Amendment.  Hooray for Bill Stevens of Newtown, Connecticut!

Finally, someone close to the horror has the guts to face down the idiotic manipulations and shameless exploitation of the Sandy Hook children in the service of stricter gun control.

Thank You Lord!






And, of course, I heard about this from Chris Pinto's radio show today.

Added Later: The testimony of a father whose child was killed at Sandy Hook is also available at You Tube and by googling his testimony I found out that the media had shamelessly edited his testimony to make it appear that second amendment advocates had rudely interrupted what was apparently a very sad grief-stricken speech. Here, read this report on it

Friday, February 1, 2013

Charlotte Iserbyt: The deliberate design to destroy America through Education

Sometimes I don't think I can stand to learn any more about the conspiracies that have led to the nation's current sad condition, but they keep coming. I don't follow the heavy duty conspiracy people but Chris Pinto's information is enough all by itself to do me in these days.

He's talked about the Reese Committee of the 1950s and I watched the video with Norman Dodd, about the plot by the big foundations that dedicate their endowment funds to making America Communist.   I thought I posted a video about that but I can't find it so I'll link or embed it at the bottom of this post.

Today he's talking about a woman who worked in the Reagan administration who came across that same information, and I'll embed a couple videos of interviews with her below.

Recently Pinto has discussed Richard Wurmbrand's study, Marx and Satan, which I have and have to suppose I read at one time, but maybe I didn't know enough to take it to heart then; now hearing it quoted by Pinto, every word that came straight from the mouth of Satan through Marx was like a punch in the stomach. What a horrible recognition, an encounter with the evil in reality that you'd really rather not know about. It makes sense when you find out that Hitler was involved in occultism and satanism, because you know what he DID, but that a mere written theory could exert such a powerful satanic punch, even be the spirit behind ALL the murderous regimes based on it -- the idea becomes overwhelming. (No wonder they all so POINTEDLY target Christianity, take away Bibles. See my post on Faith's Corner today about how that went down in China under Mao in the 60s).

I have to say I've recently acquired a new "appreciation" if that's the word, for the nature and devices of the Prince of Darkness as I've been learning about the success of plots to change the cultural climate of America and the world. Who would ever have thought all that was INTENTIONAL? This is like going back in time to see the seeds of Obama's "Hope and Change" being planted and tended, all growing up in the dark over decades nourished by this agent of Satan and that one, and now about to bear its evil fruit in some way we can hardly imagine.  And Obama is only one branch. He himself said a couple decades ago that he was going to be President of the US one day. He said that to a mailman who reported it not long ago. Gives you a sense of how evil plots its course over time.

Obama seems to many to have come out of nowhere, and he did, he came up "by intrigue" so fast it makes you dizzy, but the whole thing has been plotted for decades, in a certain sense even centuries. And what ELSE is waiting in the wings to emerge? The vast majority in America, or the West or the world for that matter, are certainly not prepared for what's coming and I can hardly stomach what I'm finding out to this point. The verse from the Bible that says something about how people's hearts will fail them as they begin to see what's coming on the earth keeps coming to mind. 

Luk 21:26  Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth:

Information about all this is coming out now when it's probably too late to do anything about it.

Prayer. Satan is defeated by the sword of the Spirit.

Still, to see how far he's already gone with his destructive plans takes the breath away.

Some of us have noticed the way the schools have been turning out uneducated politically correct idiots for decades now, but did it ever occur to us that this was INTENTIONALLY engineered?  Only in the sense that it seemed this poisonous mindset had some kind of ability to propagate itself by popularity or the charisma of teachers or something like that perhaps, not as something consciously thought up for the very purpose of destroying the nation.

So now it's coming out that there has been a well orchestrated program of BRAINWASHING of the last few generations through the school system of America, AGAINST the basic traditional values of Western Civilization. 

Have you ever tried arguing with any of these brainwashed people?  They have the most amazing ability to reject everything you say, twist it into something you didn't mean, to set you up as this evil enemy of whatever value they are promoting at the moment, and answer you with amazing conviction and the ring of authority, although the answer is nothing but sophistry, pure intellectual garbage.  Boy have they been well indoctrinated.  THAT tells you something about the power of Satan.

"CHANGE." 

Change from good to evil, evil to good.  What else?

The face of evil has taken on a reality it never had before for me, hard as stone, utterly implacable, merciless. 

The more I learn about what's behind so many of the disturbing realities that have bothered me for so long the more heartbreaking it all is.  

So today I listened to this short interview with Charlotte Iserbyt (pronounced Izzerbee) who wrote a book titled The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America:

And now I'm listening to this more recent and longer interview with Mrs. Iserbyt.

Here's Part 2 of the interview which focuses on the role of the Skull and Bones Society in contributing to the Marxification of America and the world.

Here's another interview with her which covers all the same material but she may have said some of it better in this one.

American Deception is a website run by Charlotte Iserbyt's son. The entire 3000-page Reese Committee Report is at this site according to her.

Here's The interview with Norman Dodd about the Congressional investigations in the 50s  into the Tax Exempt Foundations which found out that they were engaged in promoting Communism in America through such plots as rewriting history books for the schools.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Dear Jonathan Cahn: Praying for the nation with nonChristians is a sure way to keep us on the road to judgment


I recently heard that Jonathan Cahn, author of The Harbinger, has been invited to speak at a prayer breakfast at the White House on the 21st, the day of President Obama's inauguration.  This event involves some well-known evangelicals but it also sounds ecumenical in spirit: 
While not an official event of the 2013 inaugural ceremonies, the Presidential Inaugural Prayer Breakfast brings together faith and conservative leaders  in America to pray for the president and the nation.
Sounds awfully ecumenical to me.  "Faith and conservative leaders?"  What exactly does that mean?  Doesn't sound like they insist on having only saved Christians who believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

What good can it possibly do the nation to bring together people who don't all believe the true gospel of Jesus Christ?
"God called us in 1993 to begin to host an event to bring together people of faith to pray for the nation in the office of the presidency," [Merrie] Turner explained in an interview on Friday with Robertson on his CBN program "The 700 Club."
Can this be true?  Would God call together such a vague group of "people of faith" to pray for the nation if this includes believers in religions other than His true gospel?

A few names I found mentioned in various articles about this event appear to be true Christians but the general descriptions given above suggest that they don't feel obliged to limit themselves to these.  Since it's very common these days for evangelicals to treat Roman Catholics as Christians I'd expect at least their inclusion and this would already defeat the whole purpose of such a meeting.

This organization has been in effect since 1993 and it seems to me the nation has only gone from bad to worse since then.  What good has their praying done?  Perhaps in reality it has contributed to the degeneration of the country since God will not honor idolatries and profane prayer.

Jonathan Cahn wrote about signs given to him by the Lord that show that the attack of 9/11 was God's warning judgment on the nation and that worse is to be expected if the nation does not repent.   After 9/11 then-President George Bush called for prayer in the National Cathedral, including a Roman Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi and a Muslim Imam, a perfect example of how to defeat your purpose if ever there was one.  You can't pray for the nation alongside members of false religions.  But that's what they did. 

Did things get better?  Well, Cahn's book details how things have not been getting better since 9/11 but the nation seems to be spiraling further downward to a much more destructive judgment from God.  Why isn't God hearing these prayers from the heart of our government?  Seems to me it's because clearly they are done in the very same spirit Cahn's book showcases that brought us 9/11 and will continue to bring further judgment.

That being the case, it can only be futility in the extreme to get together with a group that includes nonbelievers to pray for the fulfillment of the book's hope for national repentance and revival.  And worse than futility, it can only contribute to the curse on the nation.  What did God tell us?  "I will have no other gods before Me."  We are making the false gods of Catholicism and Islam and other religions equal to the true God by praying with them.  We are INVITING God's judgment in the very act of supposedly praying for repentance and revival.

My prayer can only be that Jonathan Cahn will refuse the invitation for such reasons.  I believe the message of his book WAS given by God but he can defeat it by participating in such an event.  He certainly cannot expect God to bless such an event.  He and the true Christians who participate in such things need to repent of THAT for starters if there could possibly be the slightest hope of national repentance and revival.

What is our call?  To separate from the world, to keep ourselves pure from the influences of the world, the flesh and the devil.  If it really matters it will cost us.  If we are serious about wanting GOD to move and not just indulging our own fleshly ideas about how He should move, it MUST cost.  It's only when the seed falls to the ground and DIES that life is the result.  Revival means resuscitation, a return to Life.  If we want it the first thing we have to do is DIE to ourselves, our own ideas about how to do God's work and everything that God abhors.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Very articulate Ben Shapiro argues with Piers Morgan on Gun Control

You Tube video of Piers Morgan interviewing Ben Shapiro on Gun Control. Shapiro is quick witted and gets his points in.

What I get out of this more than anything else is that Morgan expresses incredulity to the often repeated reason for guns given by my side, that their main purpose is for self defense against GOVERNMENT tyranny.

The usual response is that handguns and rifles couldn't do much if the government really did attack the people, as if removing even those means of self defense would improve that situation.

At least Morgan shows what I think the real attitude is, that we're foolish to think our government would ever do such a thing [giant eye-roll here], which of course strikes at the very heart of the reason for the Second Amendment.

Frankly, I think Brits should have more respect than to comment on our American situation at all. I find it really offensive myself.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Post election sermon by John MacArthur

Eleven-minute sermon right after the election.
 
The message in a nutshell:  
  • We are not citizens of this world but of the Kingdom of God. 
  • This nation is under God's judgment. 
  • Persecution is coming.