So now Iâ€™m angry. Now Iâ€™m finished trying to reason with you. So now I, a guy who was ambivalent about guns just a few years ago, want to take your guns away. All of them. I want to take them all and melt them down and shape them into a giant sphere and then push it at you so you have to run away from it like Indiana Jones for the rest of your lives. I want Ted Nugent to roam the halls of his gunless house, sighing wearily until he dies. I want to end this thing once and for all, so that all of you who have prioritized the sale of guns over the lives of children have to sit quietly and think about what youâ€™ve done. God help me, I want to take all of your guns out of your hands, by myself, right now.
Well, what are you waiting for skippy?
41 thoughts on “I Prefer a Straight Fight to All This Sneaking Around”
Please come to my house first. I have a surprise just for you!
I say to Mr Holmes and people like him, fine, lets do a little experiment. We’ll ban all the guns and take them from all the innocent people but only if you will take full responsibility for EVERY act of violence and evil done afterward … for every murder, robbery, rape or assault one of you on the anti-gun side has to go to jail (or the gallows).
Within a year, who ever is left on their side will be demanding the full reinstatement of the Second Amendment (and probably demand the issuance of guns to the people by the state).
What I’d like to see is a law that says that whatever the gun laws are in the places with the least amount of murder, should be applied to the places with the most.
For example, Washington DC likes to complain that Virginia has lax gun laws, so gangs can import their guns from Virginia…however, Virginia also has a lower murder rate, so *obviously* their gun laws *must* be more effective at preventing murder than Washington DC’s!
Granted, it’s possible that Washington DC is filled with scumbags, and Virginia filled with angels, but hey, those scumbags are going to be scumbags, regardless of what the laws say.
Starting to see more and more people that need to take a helicopter ride on Pinochet Airlines….
Why do they always assume that they will come for us and not the inverse? Have they not studied any history as to guerilla warfare?
Its funny how they never consider that. As if we will just sit around and wait.
Actually history has proven that if they go slow enough or use the bullying power of the state + employers + financial system, people just bend over and grab their ankles. England, Australia, New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut – – it’s always stop or we’ll say stop again. Not a damn thing actually ever gets really stopped. They’re too afraid of losing their job, home, money, kids, friends, etc. They don’t even vote out the people that do the banning. People suck sometimes, too many compliant sheep even in our own ranks. They just complain about the liberals being too powerful, the media, blah blah blah., oh it can’t happen here, NYC, Bloomberg, Philly and Pittsburgh, blah blah blah. I wish General Patton could come back to life and slap the sissies in the face and then bulldoze the anti gun movement in a week.
Have you seen the compliance rates in CA etc? They are typically <15%. Most people are keeping their heads down and waiting, hoping for things to get better. The authorities know better than to push the issue too hard with things like aggressive enforcement at gun ranges, PR campaigns to encourage people to report unregistered assault weapons etc.
I think this is due to a combination of two factors, first the fact that most cops know that people who refused to register their peaceably owned ARs and 30rnd mags aren't a real a real problem and they have real criminals to deal with, second, gun ownership isn't sufficiently socially unacceptable that they can go after otherwise law-abiding respectable people in suburbia just for owning guns, yet. So they stand to lose politically in local elections if they push the issue too hard.
That's assuming a best case scenario where they don't get shot at. Worst case, it raises the chances that the current cold civil war will heat up.
I have lived there and I can tell you that the reason you see that is because they know they don’t have to. Gun ownership not sufficiently socially unacceptable in CA? Uhm…nonsense. If that were the case then gun owners there wouldn’t be treated as if they were in the tiny minority. They would be visible, vocal, and politically dominant. No. They fear most employers knowing they’re gun owners for fear of losing their job. Neighbors they fear calling the cops on them for fear of being found in violation of all of those thousands of minute details that are all felonies–i.e. cops hear “OMG he has one of those scary automatic evil rifles!” and entire collection gets raided. On university campuses–let’s just say it’d be easier to declare oneself to be infested with lice, scabies, and the plague.
Police sympathetic? Yes I know there are some, but do they do anything about the ones that aren’t? Nope. Blue wall of silence, little people are expendable. Santa Clara, LA, SF, Alameda, Santa Cruz–all the major population counties declare lawful gun owners to be vermin, literally worse in their eyes than gangs. They DO go after law abiding gun owners in suburbia. That’s why they have the million technical gotchas. LAPD has a full time unit that does nothing but that.
If we had meaningful LE support all those PD’s and SO’s either wouldn’t be able to keep a single employee or they themselves would be rounded up and arrested by the good guys and mayors would be told GFYS. But no, you’re cool but you’re not that cool, not cool enough for them to actually stand up for you when it counts against the actual enemy. Watch how every time they sell us out in front of the TV cameras. A fair weather friend at best is not much of a friend at all.
I agree… as the Declaration said
Everybody has their line. Part of it is the fear of losing the comfort, part of it is the fear of losing it by themselves. But if a few people start fighting back, more will join- once that line has crossed.
I don’t know what that line is. The assault weapons ban of 1994 wasn’t it- but would it be now? I think a national ban on semi auto rifles would probably be it.
But for state level events- there are other states to move too. And that has been happening. Red states are getting redder, blue states are getting bluer (and purple states are getting bluer because some bluers flee but keep voting for the things that caused them to flee).
I hope long term, the US splits up into a couple different countries. I’d like to see us get back to a federalist system and respect the Constitution, but that is just not likely any more. Its going to take a full split. Maybe that’ll be bloody, maybe it won’t.
There are a lot of people who think that the USA can’t undergo a “Map-Change”, where the Country splits up, but alas, they are mistaken.
That whole “CalExit Movement” that started in California in 2017 will be the seed that winds up resulting in the USA, splitting up into 2 or 3 different Countries by 2030.
Also, the European Union is going to collapse and cease to exist by 2025. Western Countries are do for Geopolitical Map-Changes.
They can’t have California. We need those ports.
To import all the cheap Chinese crap?
As for naval, we would still have Pearl Harbor and I am quite sure that Vietnam would welcome us back to Cam Rahn Bay.
We import a fair amount.
While the US is one of the few countries that could pull off autarky (with a MASSIVELY reduced standard of living and a terrible squeeze on certain minerals), we would need CA to do it.
And if we aren’t, wee need the CA ports.
We can do without CA if we have OR and WA. Of course it’s uncertain as to whether they’d side with us or CA.
CA, WA, and OR need cheap transport to East Coast for goods. Can you imagine shipping iceberg lettuce by air (and without crossing Flyover Country)? CA needs Colorado River water and power.
Not worth feeding this troll.
His wikipedia page just screams “I am desperate for attention” and “not someone who anyone would ever take seriously about anything.”
Pretty sure that article is going to get more hits from your link than it would ever receive on its own.
And like the coward he is and they are they wonâ€™t lift a finger hoping someone else does the raiding. Oh he wants your guns taken away, no doubt about it. But the thing he wonâ€™t bring up is the raids and inevitable loss of life. But someone like him probably despises law enforcement and military so to him us killing each other is a win-win. Of course I suspect that if you bring it up he will ignore and/or project or simply say yes he wants us to be killed by the government if you push it hard enough.
Iâ€™d like to ask him directly how many United States citizens does he deem appropriate to be murdered by the government in a nationwide confiscation effort. Because youâ€™re looking at a Minimum of 3 million who have already decided on how they will react. So is he willing to support a government that would kill 3 million people to confiscate guns by force. And he probably does, but wont say it out loud yet. And EVERY court and almost EVERY judge thinks that way too. Never underestimate the depths of there seething hatred for us. They want us dead. The means and number does not matter.
Funny, at the bottom of that Esquire article there’s a bunch of links to more pieces on the gun issue.
Here’s one where the author tells us “No one’s coming to take your guns”
From that article:
I can’t help but wonder, what does this guy want gun owners to do, to “swing us back to sanity”? I suspect that the answer is “Help us ban guns”….
He’s probably silent on proposals, because he knows that the moment he opens his mouth, he’ll betray himself for what he really wants….
I bet he supports abortion. Idiot
“It’s good to want.”
I don’t think he’s thought this through. But that’s what happens when you base decisions on emotion instead of logic.
I give up!
He can have mine!
All he has to do is come get them. He can take the Ammo first.
I loved this bit:
Son, you never started trying to reason with us. All you ever had was a lot of high-test cultural bigotry cloaked in lies and overwrought appeals to emotion. “Reason” was never on offer.
I assume that he believes that either he can conceal where he and his loved ones live forever, or that there are a sufficient number of men with evil guns who will risk giving up their lives to protect him and his loved ones forever.
The Federal government has already proved that they have no problem with killing innocent women and children at will. Any future conflict will be 4th Generation warfare.
These open calls for gun-confiscation are signs of increasing political division within our nation. Aside from demagogic bluster like from the clown in question, add to that actual low level *political* violence like “Antifa” street thuggery, topped with an honest to god attempt of *political* mass assassination like the James Hodgkinson attack.
Two high level government/political officials have openly declared “the NRA is a terrorist organization”, and the reaction from the Left is a shrug at best, and more often thumbs up. That is a very bad sign.
All of this suggests we take a higher level of concern and preparation than ordinary. These are not ordinary times. We very well might be entering a phase like “Bleeding Kansas”.
Because the enemy is now advocating civil war, whether they understand that or not.
The problem is that they have continued thus far incurring no cost for doing so.
Yes because the last time this started getting serious they were the ones being the militants and the bombers against the Establishment. Now that they stylize themselves as such they think the other side can’t or won’t act in rebellion to them because they see themselves as the victors!
They’re in for a rude shock when the people they want disarmed start shooting them in retaliation. I wonder if these former members of the Weather Underground and their sympathizers will recognize the irony?
How close did we come to a national mass disaster last June? Closer than our politicians or media want to acknowledge. We were lucky, very very lucky. And the national instinct since then has been to forget.
And here is a terrifying what if? What if Hodkinson had *not* been alone, what if he had a partner? What if the attack numbered as few as three or four men instead of one?
I fear we are just one bad incident away from all hell breaking loose. Bad incident, as in a successful mass assassination or an assassination of Trump.
We have leftwing pundits all over the Mainstream Media advocating for the assasination of Trump.
Things aren’t going to go down the way they think they will, as SF writer John Ringo points out on Fecesbook: https://www.facebook.com/john.ringo.90857/posts/10155438285395887
James Wesley Rawles worked the math on this possible scenario here https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/
Good read and possible answer for these times.
I hate to paraphrase the Joker from the Batman movie, but….
This Country Needs An Enema!
IF we could get a SCOTUS decision protecting AR15s (and broadly semi-auto rifles, magazines too) then I’m not sure what the anti-gunners really have left that they can do.
They can push UBIs, but if they want it at the Federal level (which I presume they do above state efforts) then they’re going to have to compromise on it – I can see pushing to make NICS open access and available as a free app (as well as hard coding in family/friend/range exemptions) would help us overcome the attempted cultural limitations, although the Registration fear would still be an issue.
They might balk at those requirements, but they may also be desperate for a “win”.
GVROs seem to be all the rage, but they’re a harder sell in their more extreme forms, and if we can put in good due process protections, it’s not likely to get them much.
I think they *really* need a new, more broad AWB to advance, and court protection would for such rifles would, I think, leave them with little place to go, and little enthusiasm to go there.
The courts haven’t struck down an AWB yet, have they?
And they won’t, short of the GOP performing a massive amount of appointments. In the end, it’s really the SCOTUS appointments that count.
Once the fissures start, where do they end? The divisions look so neat, when broken down by state, but the divisions exist within the states, too; and even further in. It’s almost fractal.
And few states can survive independently. None of the regional amalgamation proposals I’ve see really manage to have a “clean and natural” political alignment inside them.
We need to wind down the power of the federal government, but breaking the nation won’t help.
They end when an overwhelming majority of people are happy in an area. Sure the initial breakup may lead to a few more, because of those divisions with in states as you mentioned, but as people acclimate and more to their favored area, it will stop.
Nothing is perfect or “clean and natural”, but its better for the country and the people. Its a nice concept to “wind down the power of the federal government” but that will never be accomplished without a breakup. That’s the only way it will help. There are two competing ideologies in this country and they are diametrically opposed. Its time we stopped clinging to this idea that a side needs to “win” and force their beliefs on the other side. The peaceful way is to let each side have its way in an area, and whoever agrees with it can move to the area the like.
Of course a bunch of areas can survive independently, because that doesn’t mean they’ll be walled off from other areas or the world.
Comments are closed.