GUNS: Seems necessary use of force to protect the resident

Alleged Intruder Enters Home Through Window, Gets Shot Dead
AWR Hawkins3 Jan 202396

*** begin quote ***

An alleged intruder entered a Lake County, Florida, home through a window Monday and was shot dead by a person inside the house.

*** end quote ***

Baring further evidence, it seems that this is a sad but necessary outcome.

Hard to imagine this is his first attempted break in.

While I’m pro-life, I think this is the best possible outcome  — only the bad guy pays.


GUNS: Where there is a will, there is a way.

Thai man arrested for modifying BB guns to fire live ammo
By Tom Knighton | 8:30 PM on December 28, 2022

*** begin quote ***

Like I said, creative.

Yossakorn would allegedly buy BB guns for about as much as 8,000 baht, or around $230, and sell them for 15,000 baht, or about $430.

Not too shabby of a profit, really.

Understand, Thailand has all that gun control. If gun control works as advertised, how could anyone turn a BB gun into a fully-functional firearm?

And I’m trying to figure out what video he watched on YouTube, especially since the site is known to be hell on anyone showing American audiences how to build guns, even though that’s perfectly legal here. So I’m curious just what he was watching and when did he watch it.

*** end quote ***

Put this in the “Criminals Are Not Law Abiding” and people have God-given inalienable right of self-defense.

Feel sorry for this poor guy trying to make a few bucks empowering others.

I too am interested in what YouTube video he watched.


GUNS: Gun-free zones are just magical thinking

5 Freedom-Based Solutions to Mass Shootings
By D. Parker

*** begin quote ***

1. Get rid of gun-free zones.

Gun control and gun-free zones are based on the absurd idea from the left that if no one has a gun, no one needs a gun.  Except that when these inevitably fail because criminals don’t obey the law, the excuse is offered that this happened because guns came in from the surrounding areas.

Innocent people are thus being deprived of their commonsense civil rights under a false pretense: that you will be safe and won’t need a gun because no one else will have one.  

The problem is that the gun-grabbing ghouls contradict themselves with this “logic” because there will always be a surrounding area that can be a source for firearms.  (They can’t seem to explain this with island nations like Australia, New Zealand, or the U.K. — are dolphins smuggling AR-15s?)  Thus, the only solution is to simply stop depriving people of their rights and let them deter crime themselves.

*** end quote ***

Any politicians and bureaucrats proposing such stupidity are guilty of “magical thinking”!

“We, The Sheeple” need to hold them accountable.


GUNS: It seems when you go out into the “wild” that you can no longer assume that you are the predator; you might be the prey

Science, Biology
A Coyote Unexpectedly Killed a Human in 2009. Scientists Now Know Why

  • It’s likely due to an unexpected dietary adaptation.

Monisha Ravisetti
Dec. 12, 2022 3:27 p.m. PT

*** begin quote ***

In 2009, 19-year-old folk singer Taylor Mitchell was attacked by a pack of coyotes while on a hike at the Cape Breton Highlands National Park in Canada. She was just about to start the popular Skyline Trail when climbers in the area saw the animals close-in, unprovoked. 

*** and ***

“These coyotes are doing what coyotes do, which is, when their first or second choice of prey isn’t available, they’re going to explore and experiment and change their search range,” Gehrt said. “They’re adaptable, and that is the key to their success.” 

From those movement devices, the team tested to see whether coyotes in the park were just familiar with people. However, patterns showed that the animals largely avoided areas of the park frequented by people. Instead, they preferred walking around at night.

“The lines of evidence suggest that this was a resource-poor area with really extreme environments that forced these very adaptable animals to expand their behavior,” Gehrt said. Or as the paper puts it, “our results suggest extreme unprovoked predatory attacks by coyotes on people are likely to be quite rare and associated with unique ecological characteristics.”

*** end quote ***

Hard to imagine that a pack of coyotes could take down a human, IF (BIG IF) that human was armed.

While I’d be most afraid of running into a bear, I’d like to be prepared.  I’d be most comfortable with my COLT 1911 45.  I think that would discourage most predators — permanently.  

With nine in a magazine, and at close range — say 10 feet — I’m pretty (overconfident) that I could his the target.  Especially if it was moving towards me.  I’d also assume that the predator would not like the loud noise, flash, and smoke.

I figure that I could deal with any “no hunting” objections as long as I was still alive to dispute them.

Seriously, why would you be so naïve as to think you don’t need protection.  Back in the 70’s, in Nevada, away form the cities, I saw most folks packing some sort of firearm,  At a gas station, I ask one attendant why he was pack in at the gas pump.  I expected “crime” as the answer; “rattlesnakes” was the reply.  “They ain’t afraid of humans; horses yes, humans no”.  I filed that away in my memory banks and correctly answered the question in USAF survival school: “What animal is most dangerous to a human alone in a survival situation?”  Not bad for a city boy and I shot expert too; guess I had watched too many westerns.

YMMV but preparation beats regrets.


GUNS: In Civil War 2.0, it appears that insurgents always win; war 5.0 will change the paradigm of war AGAIN

Aditya Sharma
Moderator at the Munitions Annex2y

*** begin quote ***

If every US gun-owning civilians started rebelling against the government for some reason, how hard would it be for the US military to stop them?

With all due respect, good sir, I do suspect that you’ve framed this question incorrectly. Instead of saying:

“If every US gun-owning civilians started rebelling against the government for some reason, how hard would it be for the US military to stop them?

You should have asked this:

If every US gun-owning civilians started rebelling against the government for some reason, how long would the government last?

Why would I say this? After all, doesn’t just about every defense study from the post-war era rank the U.S. Military as one of the most powerful armed forces in the world? The answer to this question, you see, is really simple.

There are 100 million gun owners and at most 3 million members of the military and police[1][2][3].

Even if we round up the numbers of police and military to 5 million, it would still be quite a stretch to see them fighting a well-armed group that is nearly 20 times as large as they are. This is despite ignoring several facts that don’t look good for the military:

Supply chains largely dependent on civilians

If the reason for civil war is gun confiscation, it’s highly unlikely that the military, being mainly conservative, will support war against it’s own citizens[4]
Continous failures throughout history to successfully defeat insurgencies. Let’s look at three examples to prove my point:

  • Vietnam: The US entered a poor, devastated, war-torn nation. Should have been an easy fight, right? Wrong. After all those years, they had to pack up and leave – and we all know the result
  • Iraq 2.0: They should have taken this one easily – flat terrain, overwhelming firepower, willing politicians, and poorly-trained and led opponents. Yet after 20 years, there has been no result.
  • Afghanistan: Same as the last two. A nation of illiterate goat-herders pushed back the world’s strongest fighting force. This was, of course, only a short while after they kicked out the Soviets.

None of these three examples looks good for the US. However, it gets worse. American gun owners are better equipped, educated, and funded than any of Afghanistan, Vietnam, or Iraq ever were. Not only are American gun owners well equipped, but they are well led too, with 18.2 million veterans – many of whom are likely experienced with asymmetric warfare from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam[5]. They understand the doctrines and policies set in place to combat an insurgency – and how to work around said doctrines.

Ignoring all these drawbacks that the military faces, and negating any pragmatic and moral argument and simplifying this motion down to a question of numbers, the military still does not win. Under any circumstances. Sorry.

*** end quote ***

All politicians and bureaucrats need to run out in front of the parade and pretend to be leading.  If the parade turns on them, then they are toast.

‘If a battle can’t be won, don’t fight it,’ cautioned Sun Tzu, the revered Chinese warrior from 544-496 BC ”The Art of War’

“Let us hope our weapons are never needed – but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.” – Edward Abbey

“…if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
— Churchill, The Second World War, vol. 1, The Gathering Storm (London: Cassell, 1948, 272, on the British guarantee to Poland in Spring 1939.)


GUNS: Taking all the gun away from the people in the USA — not very likely

FROM QUORA, by a troll, obviously looking for clicks

*** begin quote ***

Why can’t we create an agency to specifically collect guns from gun owners in America? It will consist of 1000 members and will make an announcement for every house. It will ask the owners to come out with their hands up if there’s any hesitation.

*** end quote ***

Just out of curiosity, where do the families of these 1000 Gun Confiscation agents live? Do you think they will survive. Read that novel “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross (if you can find and afford a copy). A cadre can start taking out family members and see how long any agency lasts.

I think the reason that the powers that be want this book scarce is that it gives a “how to manual” for how to defeat the US big Gooferment. Killing by random unconnected patriots in a decentralized fashion would make Viet Nam or Afghanistan look like a cake walk. Never mind all the gun owners; how about all the other patriots. Talk about real ugly real fast. Once people have nothing to live for, it can get real dangerous for the ruling class real fast.

“There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.” — character Sergeant Charles Zim in Starship Troopers, a book Robert A. Heinlein, author

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn


GUNS: Could the US Gooferment ever sieze all the guns?


Kelly Jones
Knows a bit about firearms, and about physics

*** begin quote ***

If firearm confiscation were to become law, and gun owners fought against it, how many fatalities of either police or civilians would gun control activists be willing to accept before abandoning the effort?

Why would there be ANY fatalities?

Let’s think about the sides here:

On one side, you have gun owners, who aren’t willing to surrender their rights. They have guns.

On that same side, you have police, who (for the most part) are in favor of ‘civilian’ ownership of guns, and who (for the most part) have taken an oath to defend the constitution. They, also, have guns.

The only ones on the other side are the misguided citizens and politicians who illegally voted for gun confiscation. They, for the most part, have no guns. How, exactly, are they going to pose a lethal threat to the other side? This just seems like a non-starter, and possibly the shortest conflict ever.

The only question is, how will the victors handle those who sought to deprive them of their rights?

*** end quote ***

Sorry, but it is an interesting “thought experiment”.

I’d think it would be interesting to consider what would happen in the “inner city” first.  I’ve often written that the drug gangs would be a fine example of a guerrilla militia since Viet Nam.  Farmed by day; warrior by night.  The police can’t currently control the guns in the streets today under today’s rules.  What will happen if the elite Gooferment officials (i.e., ivory tower politicians and bureaucrats) declare it “open season”.  I doubt that police would enforce those orders.

Now let’s consider what happens in the rural areas where the average hunter may have better and more practiced with arms.  That’s not going to be pretty.

Now let’s consider all the arm chair keyboard warriors.  I’d bet that half give up their guns, but the other half would give a good account of “from my cold dead hands”.  That will be be a blood bath. 

In short, it would be short, bloody, and a reaffirmation of the RKBA.

Consider that in the USA there are probably a lot more guns than people.  And, those trains will not be loading willing participants.

Most patriots will remember the Holocaust, the Japanese American interment, the Trail of Tears, and Gooferment’s violent history of suppression here and abroad.

Yes, how will the trials after work out for the gun grabbers.

Hope it never comes to that.



GUNS: Armed citizen stops attack on pregnant woman

Armed citizen stops attack on pregnant woman outside Florida grocery store
By Cam Edwards | 11:30 AM on October 26, 2022

*** begin quote ***

A bystander drew his gun on a man accused of beating and stomping on his pregnant girlfriend outside a Publix super market, ending the “brutal” attack, Florida deputies say. The incident occurred around 5:15 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 22, in the parking lot of the Largo grocery store, according to an arrest affidavit. The woman told Pinellas County deputies that her boyfriend, Cole Danisment, 27, got angry and punched her in the face repeatedly. She fell to the ground, and Danisment is then accused of stomping on her head and upper body.

The woman told deputies that Danisment knew she was 14 weeks pregnant with his unborn child. A man who witnessed the attack said he feared for the woman’s life, prompting him to intervene. Danisment didn’t stop brutalizing the woman until the witness pulled a gun on him, according to the affidavit.

According to police, Danisment had a no-contact order issued just last week after another domestic violence arrest that prohibited him from being anywhere near the woman he allegedly assaulted. That court order didn’t stop him from allegedly carrying out the brutal assault of his girlfriend, obviously. It took a stranger who was lawfully carrying concealed to bring the attack to a close without it escalating any further.

*** end quote ***

Court orders don’t protect victims.  A gun gives them a fighting chance.

The court order should come with a loaner gun and quick training session from the local sheriff or deputy.

And, if the domestic violence suspect comes close enough to be shot, then that is a de facto “good shooting”.

“God made men and women; Sam Colt made them equal.” — Unknown


GUNS: Responsible gun owner stop s robbery with no shots fired

I will take ‘concealed carry’ anytime over the knife, see what this piece of garbage faced when he pulled the knife on the supermarket cashier; gun owner was responsible, others might have opened up
Dr. Paul Alexander

# – # – # – # – #

Every time I get engaged about concealed carry it seems to be after a disaster (i.e., young girl killed by a shot at a fleeing criminal).  I’m forced to defend the principle in a specific bad example.

Here’s a good example of the principle in action.  No shots fired; no one hurt; and robber stopped cold.

Concealed carry does NOT equal “Wild West” shootouts.  (Which by the way were very rare. “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” — Robert A. Heinlein)


GUNS: Man’s hand continued to twitch after it was chopped in Huddersfield | Metro News

​Good thing there are no armed citizens in the UK.​

Not like you wouldn’t notice a guy with a machete!


GUNS: “Gun rights are women’s rights, but they are also human rights.”

Gun Rights Make for Good Manners and Safe Nations
By J.B. Shurk

*** begin quote ***

No woman on the frontier protecting the family’s homestead was complete without her rifle, and no woman living in today’s increasingly lawless society is complete without the means and capacity to put down quickly any potential attacker, no matter the aggressor’s size.

Gun rights are women’s rights, but they are also human rights. No person — regardless of sex, size, color, nationality, or any other phenotypic reality — should ever be forced into a position where self-defense is not an option. Any person walking down the street should be in near total control over whether that walk will be his last. Police forces, no matter how vigilant or dedicated, do not supplant a civilian’s sacred duty to fight back when pressed.

*** end quote ***

When my sainted paternal grandmother was asked by a social worker if the rifle over her fireplace was loaded, her typically terse response was “weren’t be no good if it wasn’t.”

When the author wrote “No woman on the frontier protecting the family’s homestead was complete without her rifle”, I immediately thought of her as twelve year old new married woman with her thirteen year old husband leaving Germany dirt poor and eventually traveling the Oregon trail in a Conestoga wagon to meet and settle down with relatives in Portland Oregon.  I never got the chance to ask her his she had to use that rifle.  But I have no doubt that she would. 

“God made men and women; Sam colt made them equal.” — Unknown

“I particularly like unlimited concealed carry. If the criminal regards the general public as sheep to be shorn, then let’s sprinkle in a few “sheepdogs” with big teeth in the flock.

Guess which gay to bash? Buzz, wrong, you picked a Pink Pistol and you’re dead!

Guess which woman to bash? Buzz, wrong, you picked a Paxton Quigly and you’re dead!

Guess which brown person to bash? Buzz, wrong, you picked a Massad Ayoob and you’re dead!”
GUNS: Let’s sprinkle in a few “sheepdogs” with big teeth in the flock
Thursday, November 2nd, 2006 at 20:26
Ferdinand John Reinke

It’s hard to imagine that the USA disarms women in the hope that it makes them “safe”.  It makes them “victims”.


Stupid, stupid, stupid.


GUNS: How many women are now considering carrying some sort of self-defense? Not enough!|2

I’m a woman who runs alone. I’m furious about Eliza Fletcher’s killing.
Opinion by Amanda Lee Myers, USA TODAY – Yesterday 4:34 PM

*** begin quote ***

Robinson said she’s now considering carrying some sort of self-defense on her runs. But she resents even having to think about it.

“I am not a violent person, I don’t own weapons, I don’t have a gun in the house,” she said. “So for me to even make a comment saying, ‘I feel like I need to carry something,’ it’s intimidating. Like, we shouldn’t have that feeling.”

Like Robinson, running has made me feel invincible at times. Strong, healthy, fearless. But one leer, one sexual comment, a threatening lunge, can take that away in a split second.

No one should have to feel like this. No one should be attacked on a run. No one should forget Eliza Fletcher and the run she couldn’t finish.

*** end quote ***

Sorry but it is a cruel hard dangerous world out there. In the wild, there are predators and prey.  Large and small.  And, for as much as the “civilized world” would like to ignore that simple fact of life, it’s inevitable.  

Everyone has the RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE!  No matter what politicians and bureaucrats say, legislate, or enforce, EVERYONE must be prepared to defend themselves from the crazies, the lunatics, and the feral humans.  Not to forget the animal kingdom’s less threats — bear, cats, and dogs. 

At the very least, every recreational runner should have a shark knife, pepper spray, and a suitable handgun.  Think of it as added “training weights”!

Then, the situation awareness to identify threats and, as necessary, eliminate them.

Remember “God made men and women; Sam colt made them equal.” — Unknown


GUNS: 70-year-old Asian woman beaten by young thugs needs justice

Police confirm gang made up of an 11-YEAR-OLD boy as well as teens aged 13, 14, and 18 brutally beat and robbed Asian woman, 70, in San Francisco

  • Horrifying video shows a 70-year-old Asian woman being beaten and kicked in the head at her apartment complex in broad daylight by group of teen thugs
  • It has been revealed an 11-year-old was involved in the assault together with a group of teenagers aged 13, 14 and 18-years-old 
  • Surveillance footage shows the San Francisco woman being attacked by four juveniles at her apartment complex earlier this month 
  • Mrs. Ren was approached by the teenagers and asked what time it was when she was attacked
  • The juveniles began to punch and stomp on the elderly woman when she attempted to flee and refused to give up her iPhone

By Vanessa Serna and James Gordon For
Published: 20:52 EDT, 21 August 2022 | Updated: 23:56 EDT, 21 August 2022

*** begin quote ***

Police have confirmed an 11-year-old was involved in the brutal beating and robbery of a 70-year-old woman in San Francisco earlier this month.

Horrific video footage shows a 70-year-old Asian woman being attacked by a group of juveniles in broad daylight.

It has now been revealed how together with the 11-year-old, a group of teenagers aged 13, 14 and 18-years-old also participated in the attack.

*** end quote ***

“God made men and women; Sam colt made them equal.” — Unknown

If this woman was armed and trained, then she should have been able to resist the muggers.

Despite most of their ages, she should have ended the attack by giving them “their shots” that they so richly deserve.

They may be young, but they are “feral animals” that should be put down.

Sad to say, but they deserve no mercy.


GUNS: A shotgun may well have saved this man’s life

‘He shot my arm off!’ Robber armed with AR-15 flees California liquor store after 80-year-old owner blasts him with SHOTGUN

  • An 80-year-old business owner Craig Cope defended his store with a shotgun
  • Cope had a heart attack because of the shock, but saw off his attackers 
  • The would-be robbers approached Norco Market & Liquor in Norco, California, planning to rob the store while wearing a facial covering

By Tom Brown For Mailonline

Published: 07:15 EDT, 2 August 2022 | Updated: 12:43 EDT, 2 August 2022

*** begin quote ***

This is the incredible moment a robber armed with an AR-15 fled screaming from a California liquor store after the 80-year-old owner blasted him with his shotgun.

Craig Cope opened fire after the 23-year-old armed intruder entered his shop in Norco in the early hours of Sunday.

Four suspects armed with guns were waiting outside, planning to rob the store while wearing facial coverings, according to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.

But security camera footage shows Cope reaching for his shotgun and firing at the first robber as he burst in.

The man screamed out after being hit in the shoulder and ran from the store.

‘He shot my arm off! He shot my arm off!’ the man can be heard shouting as he runs back to a black BMW SUV.

*** end quote ***

Well, I can’t say I have any sympathy for the robbers.  The guy was lucky he wasn’t killed.


GUNS: Let’s sprinkle some “sheep dogs” (i.e., armed citizens) and make the “game” “interesting”

Man sucker-punches woman, 89, in face on Manhattan street
1010 Wins Newsroom – Yesterday 8:46 AM

*** begin quote ***

An 89-year-old woman was sucker-punched in the face by a man as she walked on an Upper Manhattan street this week, police said. The NYPD released images Friday of the suspect in Monday’s assault in Washington Heights. Police said the victim was walking with her family on W. 161st Street, near Broadway, around 4:30 p.m. when the man came up and slugged her in the face. The victim suffered an injury to her right eye and cheek. She refused medical attention, according to police. The assailant was last seen fleeing eastbound on W. 161st Street. Police believe he’s between 20…

*** end quote ***

I’d really like to see old folks be able to return fire.  

I don’t know what her family consisted of but I bet there was another woman in it.  I’d like to see her “even the sides”.

As a little L libertarian, I want peace.  But everyone should have the right and ability to defend themselves.

“God made men and women; Sam colt made them equal.” — Unknown
GUNS: Let’s sprinkle in a few “sheepdogs” with big teeth in the flock
Thursday, November 2nd, 2006 at 20:26

*** begin quote ***

“I particularly like unlimited concealed carry. If the criminal regards the general public as sheep to be shorn, then let’s sprinkle in a few “sheepdogs” with big teeth in the flock.

Guess which gay to bash? Buzz, wrong, you picked a Pink Pistol and you’re dead!

Guess which woman to bash? Buzz, wrong, you picked a Paxton Quigly and you’re dead!

Guess which brown person to bash? Buzz, wrong, you picked a Massad Ayoob and you’re dead!”

*** end quote ***

We’ve tried “gun control” laws and they don’t seem to work.  Let’s try something else.


GUNS: Interesting facts about Israeli AR15 carry — Seems reasonable



Israeli Girl

*** begin quote ***

In Israel soldiers are required to keep their issue weapons on them at all time, so there you’ll see young ~20 y/o women walking around with slung full auto rifles, sometimes in civilian clothes. They’re not doing this to make some kind of political point, and they’re usually friendly, so please don’t shoot them!

-Israeli carry rules prohibit magazine in gun when not in use, so her magazine is held in place with a special carrier that fits in the magazine well, keeps the mag accessible for quick use and also keeps dirt/junk out of the otherwise empty magwell.

*** end quote ***

Seems like an idea we should borrow.


GUNS: The Left likes “school shootings” to advance their gun control agenda

June 6, 2022
The Most Terrifying Reality about School Shootings
By Charles Turot

*** begin quote ***

Here is the terrifying truth: the radical left wants mass murders in schools. They are useful for gaining power. I can no longer blame friends who imagine that the killers are some sort of Manchurian candidates, released to further a narrative and serve the purposes of the left. I don’t believe that, but the idea follows logically from the same conclusion I’ve drawn about school shootings: the left likes them. The left is powerful. There will be more. We could prevent them. We won’t.

*** end quote ***

One has to believe based on the evidence — like California STOPPING reporting violent threats — that the author is onto something.

Of course, we have to harden the “soft targets”, end “gun free zones” aka target rich environments, and allow people to defend themselves.


So simple,



GUNS: Compare the Buffalo police to the Texas response

Buffalo police (TOPS grocery mass shooting) show you what brave top class police are, calmed their fears, even allowed shooter their rights, but he is evil & craven & must pay; Texas (Uvalde) schoolshowed us what NOT brave police are, they did not overcome their fears, 19 stood in the hallway, should have disregarded command in this situation, hearing shots inside, 2 different sets of policing

*** begin quote ***

The Buffalo cops must be praised and distinguished for they showed us in spades what a top notch police is and can do, how they can handle a catastrophic situation

*** end quote ***

If it was in my power and I was President, I’d invite the Buffalo police to the White House and give them a medal.

But what do I know.


GUNS: Eliminate “gun free zones” as a small step towards safety?

Private Gun Carriers’ Self-Defense Against Public Shooters
The Charleston (West Virginia) incident from a few days ago, the FBI 2021 statistics, and more.
Eugene Volokh | 5.28.2022 5:32 PM

*** begin quote ***

Finally, always keep in mind that active shooter situations should not be the main focus in the gun debate, whether for gun control or gun decontrol: They on average account for less than 1% of the U.S. homicide rate and are unusually hard to stop through gun control laws (since the killer is bent on committing a publicly visible murder and is thus unlikely to be much deterred by gun control law, or by the prospect of encountering an armed bystander). But people talk about them a lot, so I thought I’d offer a perspective on them for those who are interested.

*** end quote ***

I read this very calm and seemed to be neutral After Action review of the particular Charleston West Virginia incident.

The only quibble I have is, and I agree, with to paraphrase “criminals are undeterred by laws and probably an armed bystander”.  What about “gun free zones” being an attractive nuisnece.  We know from Columbine that the criminal in that case traveled further to a movie house that was “gun free”.  This assuring that even the slight risk of a “good guy (or gal) with gun” might interfere.  

So perhaps eliminating all “gun free zones” and allowing unlimited concealed carry by non-felons, we might make their rage a little more “inconvenient”.



GUNS: Good police work reacting to a potential copy cat

Teen arrested for ‘threatening’ mass shooting at NY high school a day after Uvalde massacre
By Larry Celona and
Mark Lungariello
May 27, 2022 7:18pm Updated
Bellport High School in Long Island.

*** begin quote ***

A 16-year-old was charged with aggravated harassment after threatening a shooting at Bellport High School on Instagram. 

A 16-year-old boy threatened a mass shooting at a Long Island high school on social media — just one day after the Uvalde, Texas school massacre, prosecutors said.

The teen was arrested for making a terroristic threat after he made a Wednesday Instagram post on his “Bellport Scholars” page that warned there could be a shooting at Bellport High School the next day, according to the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office.

Cops didn’t find any guns in the home of the boy, whose identity was withheld by prosecutors because of his age.

*** end quote ***

As a gun owning pro-life pro-choice little L libertarian I see nothing wrong with this quick reaction.  If anything, maybe a night in jail would provide an object lesson.

Now the question is follow up and follow thru. 

  • Follow up with a complete medical and psych eval.  (I’d include a colonoscopy just so it gets the point across!)
  • Follow thru with a thorough examination of the individual’s environment — what he has access too.

I’d like to see the concept of a “extreme protective order” that puts the target under a microscope and their — should say his — environment.

That’s without taking everyone else’s guns away.

Thinking back to Hill Street Blues’ roll call I’d add “be alert if something is reported as kinky” and then “Be Safe Out There”.


GUNS: Our guns prevent your genocide

Overkill: The Deadly Illogical of Gun Rights
By Greg Guma
Global Research, May 26, 2022
Region: USA
Theme: Law and Justice

*** begin quote ***

When a disturbed teenager or adult commits mass murder it has nothing to do with liberty. Yet, since the weapon is usually a gun, many people in the US essentially respond that the freedom to be armed is more important that the right to be safe. In fact, millions claim that being armed is the only way to be safe. Like most arguments against gun control, it’s cruel and illogical.

For decades now, leaders of gun rights groups have made the same case. They claim, for example, that the only thing separating Americans from people living in dictatorships is their unrestricted access to weapons. If the government has all the guns, they say, attacks against defenseless citizens will become as common in the US as they are in oppressed countries. This is one of the reasons why gun owners oppose the banning of so-called assault rifles.

Does this sound familiar? It certainly should. The same argument is still being made today by those who say nothing can be done to stop mass shootings like the recent ones in Texas and upstate New York. They also warn that only way to prevent a police state here, which many people claim is on the verge of happening, is to allow the wide and unregulated distribution of all sorts of weapons.

This idea, which assumes that any regulation is the first step toward confiscation, represents a paranoid and individualist mentality that for decades has dominated debate about gun violence in the US. We are free, the argument goes, only as long as we can defend ourselves with guns, not only against criminals but also against the law and the State.

*** and ***

The arguments against regulation tend to fall into three categories: 1) the right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, 2) gun control won’t reduce violence in society, and 3) gun laws are a serious threat to freedom. But do these assertions hold up to scrutiny?

The roots of traditional US ideas about the relationship between weapons and society actually go back centuries to the Florentine political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli, who noted that military service should be the responsibility of every citizen, but soldiering the professional of none. Basing his ideas on the Roman suspicion of professional soldiers, he concluded that military force should only be used to assure the common good.

This idea of citizens bearing arms in defense of the State, to avoid the potential tyranny of a standing army, was translated by the authors of the Bill of Rights into the Second Amendments and helps to explain its unusual wording:

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Many libertarians have interpreted this sentence to mean that individuals are guaranteed the right to possess firearms for their personal defense or for any other use they choose. What this fails to acknowledge is the meaning of citizenship as it was understood two and a half centuries ago. In the 18th century, citizenship directly involved militia service for men, which was part of the commitment to the greater public good. An armed citizenry did not mean an armed population. In fact, even then it was clearly understood that access to weapons was a communal rather than an individual right.

*** and ***

The bottom line is this: Effective regulation, combined with a comprehensive national database and a serious training program for gun users, would establish over time that less access to guns leads to less violent crime. This has been the case in Europe and some US states. Success would also help shatter the myth that government is the problem, and that people are better off armed to the teeth and on their own.

The debate over guns is not about restricting rights. That’s the cover story, an assumption promoted by the gun lobby to shape public perceptions. It’s not even about “control.” The goal is security, freedom from the fear and anxiety sweeping across this over-armed society.

A well-regulated militia is a altruistic idea, certainly preferable to the military-industrial complex. But almost 400 million guns in private hands is — pardon the expression — overkill.

*** end quote ***

In a long eloquent screed, the author makes an argument for “effective regulation” and that the Dead Old White Guys didn’t meant everyone.  

I almost spit out my coffee at “effective regulation”.  Would the author please point out ANY example of such “effective regulation” ANYWHERE in the world.  He cite cars as an example.  Has he dealt with the DMV lately?  And, even this week before the tragic shooting in Texas the ATF is accused of creating a permanent online gun registry in direct violation of Federal law.  So much for that argument.

Funny how if they meant militia, they didn’t say it.  It’s generally conceded that “well regulated” in their generation meant “hit what you aim at” not a bunch of bureaucrats making diktats.  If the Federal Gooferment would return control of the Army to the State governors, disband all the TLAs (three letter agencies), and disarm all the bureaucrats like at the Department of Agriculture, then maybe we can get back to the Dead Old White Guys’ intents. Then maybe we don’t need about ⅓ of “We, The Sheeple” armed like citizen soldiers.

I notice that the author doesn’t point out how Israel dealt with classroom shootings.

Further I notice that the author doesn’t address how mass shootings seem to take place in “gun free zones” or as I like to call then “target rich environments” AKA shooting galleries.

Stiff further I notice that the author doesn’t address violent crime in all major cities where “gun control” id the diktat.

Finally I notice that the author doesn’t address how genocides seem to happen when the citizenry is disarmed.  (And yes it does happen here — Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Native Americans, the Bonus Brigade, etc etc)

As a gun owning pro-life pro-choice little L libertarian, there are better scholars on these issues than me (i.e., John Lott; Tom Woods; Scott Horton; and litany of libertarian writers like Heinlein) who can do a better job of responding.

And with “gun control” fixated Democrats in charge of all branches of the Federal Gooferment why haven’t they advanced the agenda?  Because they know it’s a loser.  Nothing will will bring 100 million voters to the polls quicker than that infringement of the Second Amendment.

P.S., Don’t even bring up the concept of “social contract” because it’s a meaningless phrase.  See Lysander Spooner.

In summation, we live in the Fascist State controlled by an oligarchy of the rich who regard us with contempt.  Only the knowledge of an armed citizenry prevents them from loading the trains with “deplorable” and sending us to camps.

If that be paranoid, then I’l misquote a 60’s meme “Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me!”

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .” — Alexander Solzhenitsyn

So, whomever is sent to collect the guns, should be aware that unlike Germany in the 1920’s, gun owners in the USA will not go quietly.


BTW your link to comment is broken.  I assume it’s an accident; not deliberate.

# – # – # – # – #






GUNS: “Disarm the population” is NEVER a good idea for the poor slob who is sent to it!

AL GOP Senate Hopeful Mike Durant in 2011: Disarming the Population ‘Would Be a Pretty Good Step Toward Law and Order’ in U.S. Cities
2 Apr 2022

*** begin quote ***

U.S. Army veteran Mike Durant, the current frontrunner in Alabama’s U.S. Senate Republican primary race, once suggested applying military philosophy to restore “law and order” in some U.S. cities by disarming the population.

In 2011, Durant discussed the violence initiated by United Nations forces going door to door to seize firearms in a speech before the U.S. Army War College.

As an aside, he speculated about how doing that in “some of our U.S. cities” could be a means to achieving “law and order.”

“[F]rom a military perspective, the first thing that needs to be done is disarm the population,” he said. “Let’s face it, if we could do that in some of our U.S. cities, that would be a pretty good step toward law and order. But you ever ask yourself, why don’t we do it here? Because it’s hard. It can result in rioting and widespread rebellion and you know, making the situation worse than it already is. But for some reason, we sort of hand-wave all that kind of stuff and go head and hand all those missions down to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. And that’s what happens here.”

*** end quote ***

I don’t this it’s fair to paint him as having recommending this.  He said: “ask yourself why”.

For all the gun grabbers, who want to disarm “We, The People”, I invite them to go into the big cities and have at it. 

No, they want others to their dirty work for them.  And a lot of good people will get killed in another “fool’s errand”.

Let’s bring all the girls, boys, women, and men home now! We have so many politicians and bureaucrats to send in their place if it’s really needed!


GUNS: A “community caretaking function” is no reason for a search

The Supreme Court today gave us a fantastic decision in a case where Gun Owners of America and its foundation (GOF) were involved! 

*** begin quote ***

In Caniglia v. Strom, the Supreme Court today struck down an attempt by Rhode Island police to conduct warrantless searches for guns in a home using the so-called “community caretaking function.”

This made-up doctrine, which is a purported exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, permits police to engage in warrantless searches and seizures when they are carrying out any of their duties other than criminal law enforcement. For example, police may enter homes to help persons in need of emergency assistance, or may search a vehicle to recover the gun of an off-duty officer they had just arrested.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), stated:  

“The Supreme Court today smacked down the hopes of gun grabbers across the nation. The Michael Bloombergs of the world would have loved to see the Supreme Court grant police the authority to confiscate firearms without a warrant. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment protections in the Bill of Rights protect gun owners from such invasions into their homes.”
According to GOA’s brief, after a husband and wife had an argument, the police entered their home without a warrant to search and seize the husband’s firearms based on the supposed “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment. The Rhode Island district court and the First Circuit plucked two words from a court-created doctrine in an effort to empower police to grab guns in homes whenever it seems to be a good idea.

Writing for a unanimous Court in a short opinion, Justice Thomas denied the application of the doctrine to justify the search, distinguishing between a rule that applied to an impounded car and “the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”

Gun Owners of America and its foundation are continually bringing lawsuits across the country to defend firearm rights. GOA is unwavering in its defense of gun rights and remains the only “no compromise” gun lobby.

So GOA wishes to express its thanks to those members who assisted in this case

*** end quote ***

GUNS: An interesting analysis of Baldwin’s accident

Nolte: Six Thoughts About Alec Baldwin’s Claim He Didn’t Pull the Trigger
JOHN NOLTE 4 Dec 2021 

*** begin quote ***

Before Alec Baldwin’s Thursday night interview with George Stephanopoulos (D-ABC), I expressed my skepticism at the actor’s claim he did not pull the trigger on the gun that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza.

Now that I’ve seen the full interview, I have even more questions.

*** end quote ***

An interesting analysis of the accident.

I’m not sure we are ever going to know for sure what happened.

So sad.


GUNS: The final defense against tyranny

Promoting Marksmanship
December 15, 2021  by John Richardson

*** begin quote ***

The 1941 Swedish propaganda poster below is promoting marksmanship. The wording translates as “shooting skills increase the defense force.” Both the civilian and the soldier are firing what appears to be a Model 96 Swedish Mauser.

Shooting skills

*** end quote ***

Perhaps one reason for “our” “success” in WW1 and WW2 was the marksmanship of the average civilian.

Today, there would be no such advantage.

Today’s gang bangers are lucky they don’t shoot themselves.  Everything they know about guns comes from TV and movies.

One can only hope that “We, The Sheeple” are teaching their children “traditional values”.

“Let us hope our weapons are never needed – but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.” – Edward Abbey