SJWs drool over the possibility of disarming the American citizenry. It is their most important goal, for even they realize that their path to total domination of American culture, government, and life will require them to do this, at some point. But I am, on occasion, reminded that the SJW Left doesn’t really understand us. To them, the idea that we would actually fight back is ludicrous. After all, were they in our position, they would not fight. Fighting is not their way.
Amazing, isn’t it? Zinnia Jones doesn’t understand how this would actually go down in practice. For one, people would need to be found who were willing to confiscate the guns. Does Zinnia propose to use the military for this purpose? They will not execute this order. At least, not enough of them would. It is possible some police forces, or federal agents might be found to do it, however. Then again, perhaps not. Even those who are inclined to agree with Zinnia’s ideology are likely to understand that the action is extremely risky.
Now, supposing a force could be found to execute the order, would it be as Zinnia claims? Would Americans just surrender, door-to-door, without fighting back? The answer has a few parts. One, some might do so, out of fear for their families and such. But once it hits the airwaves that the government is doing this, the rest would bury their guns and/or decide to fight back. It would only take a couple incidents going bad for resistance to be inspired. Once again, the military is not likely to intercede on Zinnia’s behalf.
What Zinnia proposes would result in either Civil War, secession, or some form of insurrection. But, being an SJW, disconnected from reality, he doesn’t understand this. He only sees people submitting to implied threats (we will kill you and your family if you do not give up your guns). The very thought that some would choose to fight, and that others would choose to hide, is anathema to him. After all, he possesses no such courage or ability.
But, as we can see, SJWs don’t have a good understanding of weapons, either:
After all, does anybody have a mythical hybrid of an AR-15 and an AK-47 called an AK-15? It’s also funny when they refer to a handgun as an automatic, not understanding the distinction between semi-automatic and automatic. Their knowledge of weapons is very poor, so it would be foolish to assume that their knowledge of the people who own them is much better.
But to all of these idiots, only one thing needs to be said: Molon Labe. After all, if Zinnia Jones is so stunning, brave, and courageous for being a transsexual, certainly he should be able to muster the courage necessary to confiscate the guns himself. He should be the first one to knock on the first door. And, since he is against guns, he should be unarmed when he attempts this confiscation.
Reading the usual suspects this morning, I came across a good piece by Francis: the Fear Weapon. It resonated with me on many levels, and at least partly because of a recent incident in my own life.
A couple weeks ago or so, I was working late in my home office downstairs. I do a lot of consulting work, and I kind of overburdened myself on contracts this last month. It’s required a lot of long nights to catch up. It was close to midnight. Suddenly the doorbell rang multiple times, and I heard screaming and crashing sounds outside, as persons unknown threw stuff around on my porch.
Not knowing what was going on, I hit the gun safe, which has a quick release, and grabbed my trusty Mossberg, then headed to the front door to see what was going on. I saw three people in the shadows, causing a ruckus, then suddenly running down the street when I flipped the lights on.
Since they were running away I set the shotgun down next to the door and opened it slightly. A bunch of my neighbors were outside chasing the three down the street. They had been walking their dog late at night and saw them causing the ruckus. I never got a good look at the perps, but from what I could tell, they were three black teenagers. I chatted with the neighbors who had chased them off a bit, then closed the door and considered what I was going to do next.
My wife preempted me by posting on our neighborhood’s watch page on Facebook, which is monitored by the local Sheriff’s office. She posted that the teens had caused a ruckus on my front porch, and that this was inadvisable, because I was armed. Certainly, if it was a prank, she said, it was a very stupid one.
Immediately, some folks in the neighborhood got pissed at me. They were offended that I would arm myself, and that I would consider using said arms on some kids who were “just playing some pranks.” One threatened to call the cops on me because, he claimed, brandishing a weapon is a crime. I advised him to go ahead and do so, and in any event, the whole thread had already been read by the local Sheriff’s office anyway, and they certainly didn’t think I had done anything wrong. Our local deputies are very good folks.
Some other folks explained how Castle Doctrine works in Florida, and that it was perfectly legal for me to carry a weapon in my own home in those circumstances. Either way, the man quickly backed off from his statements. But a few other folks messaged me asking if it was really reasonable to arm myself when it was probably just stupid kids doing stupid things.
My answer was: how the hell should I know that’s all it was? All I knew was somebody was screwing around on my front porch in the middle of the night for reasons unknown. Sure, it could be a harmless prank. It could also be something much worse. I had no way to know what it was, or who was doing it, and I’m not taking chances with my family’s life on the line. And I also suggested that if those teenagers were from the neighborhood, maybe my wife’s post put the fear of God in ’em. Maybe it would stop this stupidity before someone got hurt.
Other neighbors explained that this particular prank was actually pretty common. These teenagers would apparently do this every night to somebody in our area. After my wife’s post this completely stopped in its tracks. There hasn’t been a single report on the Neighborhood Watch page of any such activity since then. It was enough to make me wonder if the guy threatening me on the watch page was actually a parent of one of these kids, and that’s why he was so pissed off.
Either way, a healthy dose of fear put a stop to it.
Some people don’t get the message until you put some fear in them. They don’t think you’re serious, or that there’s really anything wrong with what they’re doing, because nobody is there to give them a reality check. Fear is that gut check.
It’s nothing like the craziness Francis talks about in his post, but it’s also a bit of anecdotal evidence in favor of the idea that employing fear can be good and healthy, and in any event, may be the only way to put a stop to certain behavior.
Yeah, the title is long. The post will be mercifully short.
So here’s a sampling of Progressive stupidity in no particular order. First, in Canada, a female MP from Alberta takes issue with the loss of jobs in her province, and delivers a speech that contains the word “fart” in it. Another MP, with the sort of pompous, perpetually-offended scowl reminiscent of every Gender Studies professor you’ve ever seen then declares how offended she is. The SJW cannot even bring herself to say the word “fart” and must, instead, spell it out to protect her delicate sensibilities. Take a look for yourself:
All I can say is, thank God I am not a Canadian MP. My language would trigger Miss Cat Lady into conniption fits.
For our second display of Progressive idiocy on this Monday, November 28th, I present the following: Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, a blog that, many moons ago, once made a lot more sense than it does today. Ole CJ used to be something of a center-right kind of guy, until he had an epic meltdown that resulted in the banning of something like 75% of his readership (including yours truly).
Today, he takes offense with people saying mean things about Castro. I, naturally, had feelings about this which resulted in my immediate blocking:
Feel free to go to his Twitter to see the originals – blocked from my feed. He was taking offense that Trump said “assholish” things about Castro. He was also hurt that Hillary lost.
But today’s winner in the contest of who can be the biggest Progressive idiot goes to whoever was responsible for this headline:
The problem? Machete-wielding guy had no gun. He tried to run people over, and resorted to the machete after crashing his Honda 4-banger. The gun graboids were practically drooling… and were resoundingly disappointed by the result. Also, said terrorist turned out to be a Muslim Somali immigrant, instead of the militant Amish gun owner the media was praying for.
Dystopic: KodeTen is back, folks. And his piece below is very important – the Second Amendment is the cornerstone of this country.
It’s not often I weigh in on the gun debate. Trying to engage in thoughtful conversation with someone vomiting “common sense gun control” is an exercise in… well;
But after California, and now a strike too close to home for Dystopic in Orlando, I’ve been able to put my entire gun control argument into four simple words:
“I will die trying.”
There’s a mentality we developed in Afghanistan, fighting the Al Quaeda and the Taliban. You see, we watched the news, we combed through YouTube, and LiveLeak, we watched al-Jazeera. We had our Intelligence officers brief us on what was going on. We planned for the worst.
We knew beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if we ever found ourselves overran, cut off, and alone, we had two options. Allow ourselves to be captured, where we’d be put in front of a camera and butchered, or die trying.
We made up our minds, each of us individually, that if we were met with that situation, we would do everything in our power to take out as many of those bastards as possible. We would force them to kill us in battle, because if we didn’t, the alternative was torture and our families potentially subjected to the horror of watching our murder broadcast around the world.
And so, we come to the simple conclusion of my gun control argument.
I will never stop battling against it. No worthless semantics like an “assault weapons” ban. No “hi-cap” magazine restrictions, absolutely no ban on concealed carry. Nothing. The laws we have in place are effective enough. I have a gun. If that makes you uncomfortable, fuck off!
Maybe I will be killed. Maybe, God forbid that moment comes and I’m face to face with a psychopath, maybe he’ll get the upper hand and slay me.
Maybe that will happen. I have to be realistic, I have a gun, not invincibility, but if that should happen, I will not die in a ball on the floor, begging for my life.
I will die trying.
Weep for those we lost in San Bernadino, in Orlando, in Paris. Weep for the children we lost in Sandy Hook. But do not presume to use their deaths as leverage to deny me the ability to try and put a stop to violence like this if I am ever met with it. You cannot legislate crazy, and I will not allow you to legislate my ability to level the playing field against crazy.
Because in the end, it’s not about having a military grade weapon as a civilian. It’s about having the chance to stand up and raise my weapons against evil, and actually have a fighting chance.
We have more important things to be focusing on than laws that ban ownership of inanimate objects, if only we threw so much effort at tackling the out-of-control medical costs in this country, maybe we’d start getting to the root of this problem, rather than slapping a band-aid over it.
You want to die curled up in a corner and begging for the police to show up, that’s fine, but do not presume to tell me I have to do the same. I’d rather stand up and die trying.
Perusing Twitter last night, I came across an interesting observation made by Mr. X, a gentleman whom I have followed for some time:
The fascinating part about this argument is that it is true, and the founders themselves would be absolutely horrified by the level of restriction we have placed on arms. A common Progressive argument is that the right to bear arms only applied to an “organized militia.” This is made without the understanding that every able-bodied man of military age was considered, de facto, a part of the militia. Another common argument is that the right only applied to “muskets” or other period firearms. Semi-automatics, revolvers, repeaters, etc… were not envisioned, they say.
Except that repeating firearms were well known during the period. Multiple barrels were the solution of choice in that time period, although there were other techniques. One particularly interesting idea used compressed air with lead pellets, fired at high velocity. Another was to revolve the entire barrel, a predecessor to the revolvers of the 1800s. Point is, the concept was well known to the founders, and they saw no reason to write them out of the Second Amendment.
One solution to the problem.
But what about, as Mr. X’s opponent postulates, surface-to-air missiles? Tanks? Naval vessels? Note that the Second Amendment doesn’t restrict their use either. And, as Mr. X points out, merchant vessels of the day were often loaded with cannons that could have easily been used in a shore bombardment capacity. In those days, piracy was still a major problem, and an unarmed, unescorted merchant ship was a tempting target.
Some “merchant ships” were barely-disguised frigates or fourth-rate line ships. East Indiamen were often commandeered for military use during time of war, and participated in many smaller naval battles. This was a type of vessel within the means of many wealthy merchant houses.
See those open doors? Gunports.
The tea trading industry being somewhat well known to the founders (the understatement of the day), you know they were well aware of armed merchant freighters, carrying cannons often as large and powerful as those found on naval frigates. Yet, again, they did not write anything about them in the Second Amendment either.
In simple terms, you could own any weapon you wanted to. A musket, a proto-revolver, a cannon, and even a frigate loaded with cannons. It would be the modern equivalent of owning, say, a somewhat cut down version of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Given the recent rise in Somali piracy, it might not be bad idea to begin rearming merchant ships accordingly.
But, the point is, the founders didn’t seem worried that some lunatic with an American East Indiaman vessel loaded for bear was going to randomly, and for no particular reason, bombard the crap out of New York, even though they were theoretically capable of this action. For one, the government was not helpless against them. Early American frigates were noted as some of the most powerful vessels of their class, and secondly, important harbors were usually fortified.
Perhaps most importantly, the kind of man who would spend the modern equivalent of millions, perhaps billions, on a vessel capable of such an attack would hardly risk it in some half-baked domestic terror attack. This is borne out by the fact that in American history, this never happened. Not even once.
So let’s circle back. If you can own something like an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, at least according to the original intent of the Second Amendment, why not a surface-to-air missile? Or a tank? Like the frigates of old, these are expensive toys. Allowing their purchase will not result in a sudden flood down to Wal Mart to buy them. Few could afford them. Those who could afford them may have a need for them, as geopolitical tensions rise. Installing a missile launcher on your supertanker could wind up saving the crew and cargo from pirates.
But even if they don’t have a need, the Second Amendment is not qualified by any specific limitations. If you really want to buy a missile launcher, and you have the cash for it, the Constitution isn’t standing in your way. The Federal Government is, of course, but as we know, it is hardly Constitutional.
Now, here’s where a typical Progressive will say “well you want anybody to just be able to buy nuclear bombs or something!” Well, no. Most weapons we have today are developments of much older technologies. Repeating firearms were known, for instance. So were cannons, grenades, even armored vehicles. Airplanes are relatively new as a delivery vehicle but what they deliver would be well understood by most 18th century military men. When reading the book Victoria, I was reminded of the fact that aircraft are, essentially, the ultimate long-range artillery. Napoleon would have loved them.
To the point, though, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and biological weapons are different. Now, the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about them, but perhaps it should. This is what Constitutional Amendments are for, incidentally. Own whatever you like so long as it isn’t a weapon of mass destruction, which has a very specific definition. That sounds like a reasonable amendment to me.
Progressives are afraid of weapons, which is really quite stupid, because the weapon itself is an inanimate object. It is the wielder that you have to worry about. Since Progressive logic is precisely backwards, they desire to restrict the inanimate object, but allow in people who are demonstrably a threat. The fighter will find himself a weapon, or fashion one himself, which is something that Leftists can’t wrap their minds around.
Either way, however, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from regulating any of this. If we take the original amendment, as understood by the people writing it, it would mean that any adult male capable of fighting has a right to own any weapon they want, and can afford.
Indeed, it was expected that they would do so. It was, after all, the duty of the people to keep a close eye on their government. Today, the reverse is far more common, with the government keeping a close eye on the people.
Mass shootings have become something of a regular occurrence in America. A few times every year, some lunatic goes crazy, comes in guns blazing, and slaughters as many people as possible before going down or getting captured.
Other outlets have already covered the incident better than I can, making note of the shooter’s particular animus toward Christians. This, incidentally, is similar to the Charleston church shooting in that respect. There has been a tendency of late for Christians to feel as if the establishment is targeting them. The UCC Shooting seems to be circumstantial evidence that they may be correct, a hatred of Christianity may be turning deadly in America. Certainly it already has in the Middle East.
But again, I digress. My point here is to discuss a phenomenon which has bothered me since 9/11: Americans seem to be losing their martial spirit, their tendency to run toward the danger, guns in hand, rather than submit, bow their heads, and wait for the inevitable to consume them.
We know that the passengers of Flight 93 fought back and overwhelmed their attackers. They died in the process, but saved countless lives by preventing their craft from being used as a weapon like the others. These people were heroes who went down fighting. I can only hope that if I am caught in such a situation, I can honor them by doing half as much. Yet, it must be said: why didn’t the passengers of the other planes do the same?
Naturally, they probably thought that they would be ransomed. Or, perhaps, it was fear that held them back. But when you have nothing to lose, why not fight back?
Fast forward to our present circumstances. One man refused to be a passive victim. Veteran Chris Mintz charged the shooter and was shot seven times in the process. Yet he was the only one.
The esteemed Brad Torgersen, author of Chaplain’s War, explains it for us:
“Once again it strikes me how we have become a society of trained helplessness. We duck and cover and hope the evil will not notice us. And of course evil roams freely, shooting people in the head.”
Only the Army veteran could summon the courage to fight the shooter. The rest passively allowed themselves to be shot. This is anathema to me. I could not imagine surrendering in such circumstances. I intend to live, and if life is no longer possible, I would at least make the cost of my death as high as possible, so as to even the scales. It fascinates me just how helpless people are today.
We are a species that once fought grizzly bears and sabertooth tigers in the wilderness. We hunted buffalo with spears, arrows, and rocks. And yet, today, people cannot summon the courage to fight for their own life even when they have nothing to lose by doing so!
This sort of stupidity and cowardice is ingrained in our children from an early age, through this super-self-esteem-building, anti-bullying claptrap espoused by modern psychologists and educators. Take a look at this little gem:
Roleplay with your child how he can stand up to a bully. Point out to your child that the bully wants to provoke a response that makes him feel powerful, so showing emotion and fighting back are exactly what the bully feeds off. Explain that while he can’t control the bully, he can always control his own response. So in every interaction, how he responds will either inflame the situation or defuse it. Your child needs to avoid getting “hooked” no matter how mad the bully makes him.
The best strategy is always to maintain one’s own dignity, and to let the “bully” maintain his dignity, in other words, not to attack or demean the other person. To do this, simply say something calm like:
“You know, I’m just going to ignore that comment.”
“I think I have something else to do right now.”
“No thank you.”
Wrong. Dead wrong, in this case. When a bully attacks you, you fight back. Even if the bully wins, the cost of his victory will weigh heavily in his mind. If you do enough damage on your way out, he’ll probably ignore you in the future. He’ll also reconsider attacking others, because if people keep standing up to him, he’ll learn quickly that bullying won’t make him feel powerful. Rather, it will result in black eyes, bloody noses, and taunts from his compatriots.
Can you imagine attempting to reason with a mass shooter this way? “Oh, please, Mr. Shooter, I recognize that you are having self esteem problems, and I’m just going to ignore this bullet to the brain so that you can maintain your dignity.”
People are trained to avoid conflict because the Progressive Left has propagated the idea that all violence is evil. Fighting back is, in their estimation, as great a sin as the aggressive offender’s own acts. Even greater, in fact, because they will excuse the aggressor’s actions by saying that he was the victim of the Patriarchy, or microaggressions, police profiling, or mental illness. By standing up to the bully you are, in effect, oppressing him. That’s how ass-backwards Leftist “logic” is.
We encourage mass shootings today through propagating the culture of helplessness. Gun rights activists are fond of explaining that gun control is unlikely to stop mass shootings. But the problem goes a lot deeper than that. Certainly, more good people with firearms (and less gun free zones) would have an effect. But, it’s not simply whether or not people are armed that is the issue. A shooter in a college or a mall, a man armed with a box cutter on an airplane… these people are far outnumbered even by the unarmed citizenry. A simple mob attack could easily stop the shooter regardless of how many of them were packing heat.
In Britain a couple years ago, a Muslim beheaded a British veteran in broad daylight, in front of a crowd of people. The only person to come to the aid of the victim was a woman who the Muslim did not perceive as a threat. Even then, all she could do was stay with the body and call the authorities. Yet a crowd surrounded this man and did nothing.
Where were the British people who conquered one quarter of the entire Earth? They could not even summon the courage to defend one of their own, in broad daylight, against a knife-wielding Muslim, when they outnumbered the attacker 20 to 1.
Now, let’s see how the Progressive Left views the shooting:
The #FullMcIntosh explains that masculinity is responsible for the deaths. I would argue that masculinity might have saved people.
So, our friendly Progressive informs us that men are responsible and masculinity is to blame. Yet, the only one who tried to save the victims was Chris Mintz, a veteran and a man willing to do violence on behalf of the innocent. Mass shootings do not comprise a problem of too much masculinity. They are the result of an insufficient amount of masculinity and an abundance of cowardice, enabled and supported by a culture of helplessness.
But, as the TV salesmen are fond of saying, wait, there’s more!
The shooter is half black. Mixed race. Don’t let that stop you, though, Leftists.
So, whiteness is to blame, I suppose. Like the mixed-race shooter that killed the reporter and cameraman during a live broadcast, the Progressives have been tripped up by the fact that the shooter doesn’t fit their preferred demographic narrative. Was it his white half, I wonder, that forced him into violence? Indeed, the shooter’s anti-Christian rhetoric, and apparent targeting of Christian victims, seems to be anecdotal evidence that that wasn’t some kind of Right wing radical. But, just like the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing, the Left rushed to judgment, hoping against hope that the perp was a white guy.
I would argue that the real issue isn’t the race of the perp, or his sex. Rather, it is a culture of helplessness that, like the schoolyard bully, enables the shooter. Someone considering whether or not to engage in such violence has to ask himself the question: am I likely to succeed, to kill a lot of victims. Mass shooters want as much attention as possible, they want the greatest number of victims possible. They want to go out in a proverbial blaze of infamy.
Getting off one or two shots before the mob of angry Americans tears you limb-from-limb doesn’t work in that model. Even the psychopathic lunatic would have to weigh that risk before engaging in his violent attack. The terrorist hijackers would have to account for the possibility that, not only would they die (often a given), but they would fail in their mission.
Leftist feel-good, non-violent pacifism has created the mass shooting epidemic, not a lack of gun control. This isn’t caused by some kind of White supremacist Right-wing conspiracy, nor is it caused by “toxic masculinity” as McIntosh would have you believe.
It’s caused by pansies refusing to do as Chris Mintz did: charge the enemy, even when all hope is lost. It is caused by a culture of helplessness, which enables the cowardly and punishes the strong. It starts in elementary school, where the bully gets off, and the victim is punished for fighting back.
To Hell with all of that. If a shooter comes for me, I will fight until I can fight no more. You should do the same, dear readers.