Police Abuse

If You Like the War on Drugs, You'll Love the War on Guns!

The police got militarized to fight drugs. If you thought the drug war was racist, how do you think the gun war will look?

|

West Midlands PD (UK)

A new argument has taken hold among gun control advocates, that gun control could reduce police violence. It's a shameless attachment of a sectarian agenda to an issue that's been in the mainstream for about two years now. The argument goes all the way up to President Obama. "Part of what's creating tensions between the communities and the police is the fact that police have a difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere," the president said over the weekend.

Obama's argument, and that of other gun control advocates, callously dismisses the racialized aspect of police violence that the Black Lives Matter movement has pushed the forefront. People have been killed by cops for all kinds of things mistaken for guns, from boxer shorts to wallets and other objects.. Sometimes objects aren't even necessary; "furtive movements" suffice. Many of the communities to which Obama makes reference, like Chicago and New York City, already have strict gun control laws.

No law will rid such communities of guns in one step. Disarming such communities, as with disarming any population, would require a significant amount of police force—the very issue that animated police reform advocates in the first place. Gun buybacks are popular but ineffective. (Australia's buyback program and gun crackdown created a violent black market in guns—but anti-gun advocates who point to the "Australian model," as Obama and Hillary Clinton have, won't mention that.) Lowering the number of firearms in circulation would require confiscation. It would mean no-knock raids, flashbang grenades, and other techniques popularized by the drug war, and more. You can't use drugs to shoot back.

There is an argument that gun prohibition would work better than drug prohibition because guns are more difficult to manufacture and harder to conceal. 3-D printing is closing the manufacturing gap, and while guns may be harder to conceal than drugs they are also harder to confiscate. Police already use a significant amount of force in the war on drugs, based on the argument that an attempt to confiscate drugs could face violent resistance. A primary function of firearms is to offer resistance. Police in the United States became militarized largely on the strength of the drug war (and not widespread gun ownership as some anti-gun revisionists argue).

Confiscation is the logical conclusion from the premise offered by Obama and other gun control advocates in the wake of the re-emergence of police violence as a national issue that fewer guns in circulation would reduce police brutality. More than half the people shot by cops this year so far were reported to be armed with a gun. By and large, these are already illegal weapons. Further gun control measures will have even more diminished returns. In general, only the most law-abiding of citizens are likely to abide by gun control laws. There is a substantive difference between legal access to weapons and availability of weapons, as places like Chicago and Newark show. Reducing the number of weapons in circulation in the United States—estimated at 350 million—would require substantive police action, placing yet more police officers and civilians, disproportionately the poor and minorities, in danger.

In addition confiscation, a reduction in the availability of weapons would also have to deal with the illegal import of weapons. Some of the weapons found on inner city streets, as Ras Baraka, now the mayor of Newark, mentioned a few years ago, come illegally from out of the country. As with the war on drugs, any effective measure to constrict the availability of supply will only incentivize black market operators to refill the gap. Plenty of drugs cross the U.S.-Mexico border, fueling rhetoric like Trump's about building a giant wall. An attempt at effective gun control that reduced the number of weapons in circulation in the U.S. would inevitably involve securing the border. Gun control advocates are offering one more reason for restrictionists to demand closed borders. While gun control advocates point to gun homicide rates in Europe as to what is achievable, they ought to consider gun homicide rates in the Americas, which tend to be higher than in the U.S., as what they are working against. While the U.S. government is the largest arms dealer in the world, the guns the Americas are awash with are hardly all U.S.-made.

Gun control advocates argue in favor of "doing something," but rarely offer solutions beyond those, like background checks, that have already been largely ineffective. Yet even repeal of the Second Amendment and a total ban on firearms is hardly a guarantee of success. It does, however, guarantee a lot more police violence and violence against police in order to satiate the "democratic" desires of the electorate. Ignorance of the effects of a preferred policy is not an excuse for pushing policies that are dangerous to people, especially those already in marginalized communities.

Twenty years ago, the 1994 crime bill passed with bipartisan support. The bill contributed to the problem of hyper-incarceration and aggressive policing, as noted by activists over the last year. As his wife sought to secure the Democratic presidential nomination, former president Bill Clinton even apologized for supporting the bill. Many black politicians excused their support for the bill by insisting they had to "do something" about drug use and high crime rates in the inner city. These politicians claim they understand the role of racism in American society yet then support laws that would be hard to enforce equitably even in the absence of racism. The same thing is happening with gun control. Advocates argue they need to "do something," and rarely engage substantive criticism of specific gun control proposals, insofar as such proposals exist. They wish to unleash even more police violence onto the American people, and disproportionately onto marginalized communities. Ignorance is not an excuse for violent or racist outcomes.

(h/t to Thaddeus Russell for the headline)

NEXT: What's the Matter with Police Using Robots to Kill?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “police have a difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere”

    Like Switzerland and Wyoming?

    Come on, Mr. President, spit it out, channel your inner Chief Justice Taney, which “communities” are you referring to?

      1. Good point.

        “For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”

      2. I’m making over $15k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Go to website and click toTech tab for more work details…Now this Website… http://www.Trends88.com

        1. Yeah, you’re spreading your legs for a living.

    1. Don’t talk about Obama’s Sons like that, you jerk.

    2. “police have a difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere”

      As you point out, that’s not true, but the communities in which police do have “a hard time” are the ones where there are lots of *illegal* guns. Passing laws won’t do anything to stop that.

    3. Or Germany for that matter. Germany may have restrictive gun laws, but it also has very high gun ownership rates.

    4. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $15200 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site.. This is what I do..
      Go here to this… http://www.trends88.com

  2. communities where guns are everywhere…. you mean in your own city of Chiacgo you ignorant fuck?

    There’s no way these people are that stupid, that I could be okay with. No, you are delibrately lying to push your crap agenda. You have no principles at all

  3. The War on Guns would look a lot more like a war.

    1. There aren’t many things that I think would spark widespread, violent unrest. A war on guns in one of them.

      1. It really looks like they are so stupid they are willing to start a 2nd Civil War on the off chance it gets them a few extra votes.

        1. The Democrats are nothing if not consistent in that regard; they kicked off the last civil war because they were delusional about their chances of success against people they considered their social inferiors, and because they wanted to keep the Darkies down on the plantation.

          They also don’t learn from their mistakes.

        2. it gets them a few extra votes

          Do any non-voting Dems ever turn out to the polls because of hype for gun control? The opposite happens plenty as gun owners become infuriated each time the socialists begin chattering about bans and confiscation, but the popular enthusiasm for gun control isn’t nearly equal to that of RKBA. There’s either a play here that I’m not seeing or the ideologues are overwhelming the savvier players within the party.

          Every time the Dems get serious about gun control, the silent majority freaks out in all but the bluest of blue states and crushes them in the next election. I don’t know what the game is here other than distracting people from the spectacle that is Candidate Hillary, but it seems particularly stupid given the need to take purple states that have plenty of motivated gun owners who are already at least partially worried about the prospect of Prez HRC.

          1. As far as I can tell, gun control just isn’t an electoral winner for Democrats, and as you say, it is a big loser for them. Just seems idiotic for them to make it a central part of the campaign.

            1. It’s how they separate the wheat from the chaff…
              The “Blue-dog” Democrat is an endangered species.

    2. They could just do it during the 4th of July, and nobody would notice.

    3. They should also try to wage a war on tobacco,at the same time, as a second front in that war. It would really be a two-fer. /sarc

    4. You mean that KBR will provide the catering? I miss Fridays, surf and turf.

  4. Made this argument to prog friends screaming about the Australian model, they didn’t listen, I gave up.

    1. it’s a cult, their religion. They will go to the grave beliving that guns and capitalism are evil, no matter how much evidence is ever presented to them

      1. Hopefully if they make a big push against the first and second amendments, it leads to them going there sooner rather than later.

  5. If you think 5 is a high number then you better quit while you’re ahead.

  6. Pls. don’t use the term “gun buyback”.

    A buyback would mean the gun was bought from the government, or was somehow the government’s all along. Its a terrible, misleading term that reinforces all kinds of bad ideas.

    Don’t use it.

    1. Excellent point.

      This should be called an illegal gun purchase.

      1. I call it a chance to dump crappy guns for more than they are worth so I can buy better ones.

        1. Market forces!!! For the win.

        2. I was reading that at one of these state gun purchase events, dealers and collectors were working the lines and offering people better prices for some of their guns.

          It made me less unproud to be an American, if you know what I mean.

          1. Hear stories of old ladies showing up with ridiculous stuff – like Stg44s brought home from WWII.

            1. It’s a good thing they got rid of those guns before they were inadvertently turned into homicidal psychopaths.

      2. Purchase implies consent, it’s compensated confiscation.

    2. Noted. I don’t write a lot about gun issues but will keep this in mind.

      1. Listen, you little . . .

        Oh, you were responding civilly. Not used to that. Carry on.

      2. Don’t start now, then.

    3. If it is used, it should be in quotes (real quotes, not scare quotes). Because it’s not what it really is, it’s just what they call it.

  7. A new argument has taken hold among gun control advocates, that gun control could reduce police violence.

    Limitless stupidity.

    1. A new argument has taken hold among husbands, that telling their wives to calm down could reduce female overreaction.

  8. Gun control advocates argue in favor of “doing something,” but rarely offer solutions beyond those, like background checks, that have already been largely ineffective.

    It’s a first step. They need to make us take that first step before we can arrive at the planned destination.

    1. These metaphors have to stop.

      1. You know us better than that, Ed.

      2. “What’s a metaphor?” said the child
        “For cows to graze in” said the dad

      3. The fact that you know that is a thing makes you the best writer here, Ed.

    2. *standing ovation*

    3. Yes, but then again your porn name is “Turgid Member”, if I recall correctly.

  9. I think the whole push for gun control is really just a dog whistle for statism. People who love the state are fed up with anyone opposing it. They want those who question government to sit down and shut up, or, barring that, be lined up and shot. The best way to do that is to try to fix it so only the government goons have guns.

    1. This.

      I think they despise the way we don’t kowtow properly.

    2. You are exactly right Inigo.

      Safety and crime reduction have nothing to do with gun control efforts.

      “I don’t care about crime I just want to get the guns!” -Frustrated Senator Howard Metzenbaum

      1. and they accuse owners of having a fetish for these objects.

        1. Classic case of projection.

    3. Here’s what it is. Central planning would only work in a society so static that no one died, no one retired, there were no children, no accidents, no weather Even then, it would take centuries to get the kinks out.

      Most people, even statists, when faced with that concept, agree that said basis can never exist. The problem is that statists believe so much in scientific central planning by Top.Men that they cannot admit, they cannot conceive, that the irregularities in the weather, births and deaths, accidents, innovation, etc are sufficient to derail central planning. They know it takes time, experience, feedback, and Top.Men to make it work.

      But weather, life, innovation — those are part of nature, so they know they have to allow for them, so they believe they can allow for them.

      Whereas as people — ah, now there’s something they can control, with the right propaganda, laws, regulations, and nanny care. Pass a law forbidding progress (the precautionary principle — never do anything the first time), and now you are back to the natural obstacles of weather, births and deaths, accidents. Top.Men can deal with those.

      They just have to stamp out individual independent thought. And guns, like Big Gulps, tobacco, and personal cars, are all too dangerous in their flexibility.

      1. I sometimes think this gets back to the eternal question, why are we here? Set aside religious answers which really just push the answer off one level.

        At one extreme, people should live as minimally as possible to leave as many resources as possible for progress. Don’t buy Pokemon or fancy cars, plow that money into scientific and engineering research, on immortality, on medicine, on warp drives and dyson spheres.

        On the other extreme, hedonism rules. We’re all going to die anyway, so live it up and now and the heck with the future.

        And on the third hand, live as minimally as possible, but forget the future research. Live humble lives and reflect on beauty and morality.

        I don’t think we’re here for any reason. We should just do what we want, as individuals. Maybe most libertarians think the same. But statists abhor that individuality. They have forsaken religion but left a hole in their morality behind, and can only think to fill it with the same morality edicts, but now in service of the social compact. Individualists are wreckers and most be forced to act on behalf of their fellow man, but only as the elite direct them.

        1. At one extreme, people should live as minimally as possible to leave as many resources as possible for progress. Don’t buy Pokemon or fancy cars, plow that money into scientific and engineering research, on immortality, on medicine, on warp drives and dyson spheres.

          Then the point of all that progress is?

    4. Bill Nye approves.

    5. hmm. I think may be true for some, but not most.

      I’ve met a few gun owners who really seem to think that “reasonable restrictions” are OK, or that “no one is trying to take your guns”

      They really think the opposition is working in good faith.

      IOW, they’re useful idiots.

      1. Remember: We think they are misguided idiots. They think we are evil.

        Bill Clinton, 1996, as quoted by that idiot Morris: “We have to win. What Bob Dole wants to do to this country is evil!”

        Bob Dole, for christsakes.

    6. I really don’t think people think about it all that much. It’s more a dog-whistle for people who only react emotionally.

    7. I typically run into three types of hardcore gun control freaks:

      1) The type that, as you say, believes in statism. These people typically look down upon everyone else and know full well they are conning people by asking for incremental gun control while having a long-term gun confiscation agenda.

      Call these people the “I am a superior human being” people, as in they think they know better than everyone else, regardless of the morality of their proposed policies. They are essentially sociopaths and pathological narcissists, and they assume that they will be the elites in the state they dream of (even though the truth is that there is no room for them all in the state’s highest echelons). You could also call them the despots.

      2) The type that believes in world peace. These people typically feel a sense of moral superiority and are committed to their ideal of a violence-free world.

      Call these people the “I am morally superior” people or ideologues. The difference between them and the “I am a superior human being” people is that these typically do not resort to evil tactics or strategies.

      3) The type that are irrationally fearful of guns and weapons. These people are driven out of self-interest in their own perceived safety and security. They just don’t like being afraid.

      Call these people the hoplophobes.

  10. Lowering the number of firearms in circulation would require confiscation. It would mean no-knock raids, flashbang grenades, and other techniques popularized by the drug war, and more. You can’t use drugs to shoot back.

    It’s almost as if they *want* a war on cops.

    And, of course, when their stupid plan throws off a shitstorm of “unintended” consequence, the response will not be honest reflection and thoughtful reassessment, it will be cries for doing more of the same, only harder.

    1. No, they want a war on those of their fellow citizens who are standing in the way of ‘progress’. The fact that the people on their side doing the fighting and killing and dying are the cops who they openly despise is just an added bonus.

      Leftists think that the police and military in this country are like the slave army on ‘Game of Thrones’, who will just mindlessly obey any order that comes from whoever they have been told is their master.

      1. and what happens when sheriffs and police departments refuse to …..

        anyway remember TRUMP is the fascist here. No projection at all

      2. Leftists think that the police and military in this country are like the slave army on ‘Game of Thrones’, who will just mindlessly obey any order that comes from whoever they have been told is their master.

        For cops. I’m not sure they are far wrong.

        For the military, I’m somewhat more optimistic.

        1. For cops. I’m not sure they are far wrong.

          They’ll likely lose their zeal once things get “shooty”…..after all there are pensions to collect.

      3. Leftists think that the police and military in this country are like the slave army on ‘Game of Thrones’, who will just mindlessly obey any order that comes from whoever they have been told is their master.

        That’s what always gets me. The sheer arrogance and ignorance combined to make one believe that Sgt. Joe Reservist, who is statistically likely to be a White guy from a rural state, with a median income of around 41,000 (solidly middle class to lower middle class) is going to unquestioningly follow orders to use deadly force, if necessary to disarm people who are likely to be his kin and kith?

        1. I always laugh when someone says the National Guard would help…ha!

        2. the same applies to Bob Active Duty or, for that matter, to a good many Officer Whomever. They don’t live in separate enclaves. Even in military towns, plenty of folks live on the economy.

        3. That’s what always gets me. The sheer arrogance and ignorance combined to make one believe that Sgt. Joe Reservist, who is statistically likely to be a White guy from a rural state, with a median income of around 41,000 (solidly middle class to lower middle class) is going to unquestioningly follow orders to use deadly force, if necessary to disarm people who are likely to be his kin and kith?

          At the same time, *Adjusts tinfoil hat to jaunty angle* have you read Matthew Bracken’s work? Not to say that his fiction could happen but you gotta admit that relying on Sgt. Joe Reservist’s stability and willingness to hold fire on ‘in group’ civilians when tomorrow it could just as easily be Micah Johnson or Ivan Lopez.

          I mean, we freely acknowledge a nation-wide malicious force in blue on these forums and consistently bemoan the fact that they are increasingly donning BDUs with gusto. That alone kinda makes the Joe Reservist defense seem pretty straw-filled.

        4. thats why they would send them to the next state over, fewer relatives to remind them of their shared history.

          So when they start moving them form state to state thats when you need to get worried about what is coming.

          1. Ah, the advantage of Obama’s envisioned National Police Force.

            1. If I wore a tin hat, I would agree with you taht the ultimate goal of the Black Lives Matter project is the establishment of a national police force. There are great TV programs that show how wonderful the federal police are (NCIS), while the progressives spin a narrative that the local police cannot be controlled by local politicos. Only a national regime can control them. Like the FBI. With J Edgar Hoover in charge.

        5. I’m betting half of my old unit (a shitty BSB support company) would fire on unarmed civilians. The other half would perform long overdue house cleaning on the chain of command.

  11. It does, however, guarantee a lot more police violence and violence against police in order to satiate the “democratic” desires of the electorate.

    They know that simply banning things doesn’t make them go away, but they also know that giving police excuses to “interact” with an obstinate populace is necessary for central planning. The enforcement arm of their schemes are no good to them if they can’t legally force the chess pieces to move where they’re supposed to.

  12. These same people who pass more laws and ban more things somehow say in the same breath that cops harass people too much and too many people are in prison.

    Total fucking idiots

  13. It’s time for the colored to give up their guns.

  14. The FOP is an international org and is intent for several reasons (one of which is universally disarming citizens) on the federalization of the American police which will happen one way or the other. Guns will be banned in America and due to the high level of entrenched individualism that partners well with the American form of patriotism this will require the federal totem.

  15. Just know this – they are perfectly willing to see you and your family killed in order to take your guns. That’s baked into the cake whether they care to admit it or not. If they’re going to start kicking in doors to search houses for firearms, people will die.

    1. I can’t imagine they would have the balls to do it in the first place, and the lack of any common sense to keep doing it once they started.

      1. If insubordination is grounds for cancellation of an officer’s pension, enough of them will gladly get violent on their fellow man – they already proved they would by taking the job.

    2. I don’t know what I would do if they started kicking down doors to confiscate guns.

      I’d probably have to move out of the house, for the Mrs. Dean’s protection. I’d take all the guns with me (except any she wanted to keep).

      At some point, you have to draw the line in the sand and say, “This far, and no further.” I think gun confiscation might be where I draw the line.

      1. I can’t see it. I guess they could outlaw guns, but they would need the military to accomplish gun confiscation.

        1. Not sure that would work – Infantry, particularly Marine Infantry, is a very conservative bunch. Much more serious about their oath to the Constitution than politicians or federal cops.

          FBI, ATF, DEA, etc… on the other hand, they would do it enthusiastically.

          1. I agree about the military, and federal agents do not have the balls to do it. They could try in small areas, but they would take causalities (it’s no fun when people shoot back), and I doubt there are a large number of people signing up kick down American’s doors to take their guns.

            1. Aside from the odd chunk node stalwarts (hats off to you fine men and women) the common American cop wouldn’t bat an eye, Juggles. Mortgages and swimming pools are very fucking pressing items.

              1. It’s all fun and games until the prey doesn’t willingly submit. Imminent death is a great disincentive to bad behavior.

              2. I know a few who would quit on the spot.

                The rest would start batting eyes quick. One thing to bust crooks who might have a 9mm in a pocket. Another to face down an angry group of Veterans sporting ARs, M1 Garands, and hunting rifles.

                1. Correct. This is why they are so focused on “weapons of war” (someone should really let them in on what is the definition of “weapon”?). They want the populace to be as close to disarmed as they can because then the sales pitch to the gendarme is a much easier deal, generally.

                  They do not want to show up at someone’s “castle” and face equipment, personnel, and motivation at least as capable as the hired guns, or close enough to ensure a potentially Pyrrhic victory. And some of us are old enough and armed enough and angry enough to give them more than a small handful of those.

                  The cops and military both have already “enjoyed” a serious amount of urban conflict with real losses and for them go up against some 80M armed Americans would really by a bad day. And let’s not forget that it is not us Citizens who should be afraid, not by a long shot. (all puns are property of the punster and shall not be construed as evidence of any level of intelligence or wit, except as allowed by law)

                    1. Rebel drones.

              3. CORRUPTION. The cops would be in cahoots with the rebels. They’d still draw their salary. They’d just lie about performing raids, while at the same time taking protection money. They’d be sympathetic with their right-wing underground brethren and regard corruption as patriotic.

                Besides, most of the state and local cops would not be on the federal payroll. And locals would not be on the state payroll.

            2. which is why politicians use the incremental approach. If you keep raising the bar to participation, people start to drop out.

              1. That’s the idea but over the last 2 decades, shooting sports, concealed carry, and gun ownership in general has taken off like a rocket.

                1. people have figured out the idea and adjusted accordingly. It’s why the left has lost on this one; no one believes it when leftists claim that they don’t want a ban.

              2. Bingo. Just gradually make it more expensive and inconvient to (legally) own a gun.

                1. That’s funny…the left is always talking about ACCESS to stuff.

                  You know, “Sure there is great medical care in this country, but the poor are denied access to it.”

                  OR

                  “We need to raise teacher salaries in poorly-performing schools even higher, because it’s a question of equal access to great education for every student, regardless of socioeconomic circumstances.”

                  OR even

                  “Yeah, we know that it might be pretty simple for competing bakeries to cater to gay wedding customers who bigoted bakers don’t want to serve, but in rural areas it could become a problem of access.”

                  This must be the ONLY area where they actually want to limit access to something to only those who can pay through the nose for the privilege of exercising what is supposed to be a basic right.

          2. I was not a ground pounder, career Air Wing Marine, but I am not so optimistic about the military, in general, taking their oath to support and defend the Constitution to heart. Sadly, after the Obama purges of independent thinking General officers, I have less confidence that the remaining political sycophants would refuse such unlawful orders. In the case of junior officers and young enlisted, I am afraid they have little capacity for independent, critical thinking to refuse unconstitutional orders from the likes of Obama or a succeeding tyrant.

            1. It’s amazing the general disdain most officers and upper enlisted have for civilians.

        2. … or federalized community policing operating under quietly evident shadows of the great force for world peace otherwise realized as the American armed services.

          The American ideal is at its flaky crusty top grandma’s apple pie simmering the sweet steam of sugared apples and dreams of green valleys, free speech, Jesus, and gun oil while at its squishy baked bottom lies a volcanic stew of twisting vipers.

          1. while at its squishy baked bottom lies a volcanic stew of twisting vipers

            Remind me never to eat your grandmother’s apple pie.

          2. Mmmmm…. Viper pie.

            /Homer Simpson noise

      2. I’m thinking the area surrounding gun-owners’ houses would become kill-zone ambush sites.

      3. At the very least, I’d grease them up, stick them in a PVC pipe, seal it up, and bury them.

      4. I would contemplate moving to one of the block of states running down the spine of the Mountain West/Southwest that would secede – Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Nevada, Utah, and the like.

        And I am not a gun owner.

        1. Moved to one not long ago. Total difference in the mindset.

        2. I’ve contemplated moving to Texas for a while now, but goddamn that state is hotter than hell. Florida was bad enough and I got the hell out of there.

        3. You can add AZ to that list.

          State motto:

          “But its a DRY heat”

          1. “But its a DRY heat”

            And that makes all the difference.

            1. Yes, unless it isn’t, ala “Monsoon Season” (!).

      5. if you wait until they are at your door,it’s already too late. They WILL bring overwhelming force to bear on individuals and small groups. You’ll end up like the Branch Davidians at Waco.

        Pick the PROPER targets;
        the ones to go after are the US legislators who ratified such a law,the putz who SIGNED the law,the judges who upheld it.

        the time to act is right after the oppressive laws are enacted.

        Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross.
        IMO,EVERY gun owner should read that book.

        1. Just remember, wood-chipper, the Justice Department is still reading every one of these.

      6. Well, at least say it in Capt. Picard’s voice.

    3. The scripts have been drawn and plotted. Jots and lines intersected and quantified. What remains is the optimal convergence of sociopolitical will and strategic bureaucratic momentum.

      Afterward the crowds of those who engineer societies get to dance in the afterglow of mass submission, however brutally enforced.

      1. This may not be a popular opinion, but I prefer your sober prose to your late-night poetry. Both are great, though, no homo.

    4. If they’re going to start kicking in doors to search houses for firearms, people will die.

      Yeah, but it’ll just be white trash rednecks and urban minorities. The goodfulthinking suburban limousine liberals won’t have anything to worry about. They’ll be safe in their gun free homes, smug in the knowledge that they’re building a “better world.”

    5. I think once a certain number of people die due to the WOG without any calls to rein it in, gun grabbers (not the cops, but the pols, celebrities, journos, and the like) should be considered legitimate targets. You put out the hit, you go down along with your enforcer. As a bonus, aside from the higher ranking pols, they’re softer targets.

      1. That number is 1.

  16. Time for everyone to sit at the feet of the good Professor Parabellum.

  17. Gun control advocates are offering one more reason for restrictionists to demand closed borders.

    Would anyone care to guess how much this group overlaps with the people weeping and wailing about Brexit and the “destruction” of the Eurozone open borders arrangements?

  18. How well are Australia’s gun laws working?

    “Gun ownership rises 10 per cent across NSW”

    Choice quotes:

    And the biggest rises in gun ownership are in some of Sydney’s most affluent areas, postcodes that encompass Neutral Bay, Pyrmont and Sydney’s CBD, where the number of firearms has climbed by more than 60 per cent since 2010.

    More than 850,000 firearms are now legally registered in NSW.

    Newcastle recorded an 81 per cent increase in the number of people with a firearms licence in the same period.

    Alarmingly, in 22 of the state’s 600 postcodes, registered guns outnumber people.

    This includes four postcodes where guns outnumber people two to one.

    “There are hundreds of thousands more guns now than following the gun buyback.”

    1. “alarmingly”…. fuck you. That’s not alarming. What’s alarming is your stupidity

    2. “Alarmingly, in 22 of the state’s 600 postcodes, registered guns outnumber people.

      This includes four postcodes where guns outnumber people two to one.”

      Just gonna take a wild guess here:

      Those 22 postcodes are out in the rural or wilderness areas where Australian Nature is actively trying to murder everyone and guns are needed just to fight back against the dingo-sized spiders??

      1. They’re in the Greater Sydney area.

      2. I strongly suspect that, when seconds count, the fact that police officers are days away has something to do with it as well.

      3. ” a dingo-sized spider et my baby dingo! ” (I need to go get a Nicole Kidman fix. Where did I put my copy of Coal Mountain?)

    3. What else are you supposed to fight giant spiders with? Sticks and harsh words?

      1. No. Elven blades forged in Gondolin, before it’s fall. Duh.

        1. Are those the ones that glow? I’d accept that.

        2. My rifle glows in the presence of Orcs.

          /Euphemism?

          1. I was gonna write “Skin Deep” (in Mordor) and then decided that was maybe more disturbing….

            … so, here you go!

      2. With Keri Wurher, of course.

    4. I’m an ICU doctor working in the west of Sydney. Where I live, according to that article every 4th household has a gun. In spite of this, somehow every time a gunshot wound ends up in my ICU everybody gathers around, hooting excitedly and pointing at the radiology images. They call the medical students in to come and see. Because of how rare it is. We get perhaps three every year, and we are a major trauma hospital with in excess of three thousand annual ICU admissions. This is really weird. Why aren’t we shooting each other more often? Is there something wrong with us?

      1. Ozzies just not good shooters? Maybe they are just that likeable so hardly a reason to shoot ’em? “Diversity” program just not very effective? Hard to say, just guessing.

  19. The government, being run by shameless unprincipled parasite, just needs an excuse to assault any type of rights they want squished and squashed. They got their excuse in Dallas and I wonder if they’ll go into over drive with it.

    A war on drugs and guns is about as depraved as it gets even for stupid fucks like people who want to prey on a tragedy to push an agenda.

    1. Are we under the impression that if that situation had turned out differently, and had people stopped the shooter sooner, that this writer would be singing the praises of private gun ownership and wholeheartedly support the 2A?

      No? Well then, don’t need to hear from you.

    2. Did they even “fail”??

      Is it likely the open-carrying BLM activists, upon hearing that someone was shooting police, would try to aid police and take out the shooter… or more likely dispose of their guns so as not to be mistaken for the shooter by the massive police presence that had mistakenly ID’ed at least one non-violent, open-carrying, gun owning activist??

      I doubt many with guns at the event tried to stop the shooter. It’d be heroic if someone did, but perfectly understandable if they, in the presence of that many jumpy cops, decided to play it safe, not get involved, and let the police do their job.

      1. Also the article acts like the police would have magically known who was shooting at them and from where if only there hadn’t been other guns around. As if the concealed sniper would have been out in the open if only there weren’t gun-owners around.

        1. most of the anti-gun people cannot comprehend that.

  20. As long as we’re working on the stylebook…
    placing yet more police officers and civilians, disproportionately the poor and minorities, in danger. is problematic.

    I am not a “civilian” I’m a citizen, and I pay those cops’ salaries. I hate that civilian crap.

    1. If they ain’t Military Police – they are civilians too.

    2. It’s like they want the public to view cops as an occupying army.

    3. I am not a “civilian” I’m a citizen,

      Countries with rule of law have citizens.

      We are subjects.

  21. There is an even more fundamental problem: law enforcement itself has become the gun threat. Omar Mateen was in private security and Micah Johnson was Army reserve. And of course, the police are killing far more people than kill them (current events notwithstanding). How can ‘gun control’ reduce the threat from ‘good guys with guns’? Obviously the goal (like the drug war) isn’t to save lives, but to take them and thereby ‘justify’ a war.

      1. Thar’s fucking gold in dem sleepers, Hero.

    1. I agree with you. In fact, the Dallas tragedy illustrates the folly of gun control: if only police and the military may have weapons, how does that prevent one of their own from going on a killing spree?

  22. They really, truly, genuinely believe that we’re under their control.

    1. They don’t serve us or protect us. We exist to be their milch cow – a source of money via civil asset forfeiture and traffic tickets. I mean, if they were actually about the business of protecting people, they might have to risk their lives and shit.

  23. “”Part of what’s creating tensions between the communities and the police is the fact that police have a difficult time in communities where they know guns are everywhere,” the president said ”

    Like in Mexico.

    “It is easier for a teenager to get their hands on a gun than a computer.”

    More lies.

    Sometimes I wonder if these people actually believe their own lies.

    1. Uh, sorry hillbilly, facts are facts.

      There are more guns than computers in the US, therefore, were you to stumble upon a random object that happens to exist in this country, it would be more likely that it is a gun than a computer. Don’t even get me started on guns that have computers in them. OR computers shaped like guns.

      Point. Made.

      1. I have a computer shaped like an ammo can, where does that fit in?

        1. Not sure. Rest assured you are on a list somewhere.

          1. I’m quite certain that I am on many lists.

      2. Some of these motherfuckers even dream in guns colored by bullets.

      3. Cell phones are computers.

        1. hers a gun that turns into a cell phone

          http://www.thefirearmblog.com/…..e-handgun/

      4. any kid of any age can buy a computer without having to show ID,fill out a 4473,or have a background check. you can take home the computer the same day.You can buy them mail order,and across state lines,shipped direct to your home.
        You can’t do any of that in a legal gun purchase.

      5. And far more likely to be a dildo, but I don’t think that helps so I will shut up.

    2. You can buy a kindle on Amazon for $30 today that will be anywhere in the country on Thursday. On this, you can read books, check e-mail, type documents, and browse the internet. Capitalism is the worst!

      1. Well /I/ can buy a gun at Magickal Gun Shows for a penny today, and have it show up anywhere yesterday!!

        1. Unless you get outed by gun rights groups as having broken multiple federal firearms laws, in which case you will have to do some serious backtracking on your lies.

      2. Ah, but if I had a gun, I could make you read books to me, check my email for me, type my documents for me…..

        1. The Good,the Bad,and the Ugly,Clint Eastwood as Blondie,says to Tuco “there are those of us with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig”.
          Chairman Mao; “power comes from the barrel of a gun.”

          1. I always enjoy the presswits who report “And he had a loaded gun…”. Yes, an unloaded gun is quite a lot less useful and all responsible gun owners know all weapons are loaded. What kind of complete nimrod walks around with an unloaded weapon? (Barney Fife, yes, and Californians frequently sure but who in their right mind would?)

            1. Started to say those without Viagra, but that doesn’t mean it’s unloaded, does it?

  24. Prog Logic:

    Police Reform: Cops are racists can’t be trusted

    Gun Control: Only cops should have guns

    1. mind=blown.

    2. Only crazy people think crazy people should be allowed to own guns.

      1. Only crazy people trust the government to define crazy people.

        1. “Only crazy people trust the government.”

          There, fixed that for you, no charge.

    3. It really DOES seem like the left and right just arbitrarily picked sides on every issue ever.

      There’s NO ideological consistency!!

      We’ve got a side that blindly trusts “science” but fears GMO’s, that wants to legalize drugs (or at least talks about that occasionally) but calls for more tobacco regulations, that is upset by police violence but wants police to have a monopoly on firearms, that is against corporate money in politics yet is lining up behind the politician who is getting ALL the corporate money this election…

      Meanwhile you’ve got the other side who believes in family values but is endorsing a divorcee, advocates free speech in opposition to hate speech, except hate speech against cops, opposes reckless spending, but not in the areas where America does the most spending, defends the second amendment on grounds that fighting tyranny is necessary, yet opposes “treason” in opposition to tyranny…

      It’s not even matters of ideology at this point, it’s just straight-up Tribalism.

      1. *free speech even when it comes to hate speech

      2. at this point

        There is no at this point, dear. Tribalism and collective wandering through the brackish swamps is the constant death knoll for gathered humanity- both historical and contemporary.

  25. There is an argument that gun prohibition would work better than drug prohibition because guns are more difficult to manufacture and harder to conceal.

    There is an argument that drug prohibition would work better than thought prohibition because drugs are more difficult to manufacture and harder to conceal.

    1. There is a belief that prohibitions can work, and it is wrong.

      1. That belief must be prohibited too ’cause I see a lot of it about.

  26. Why didn’t the Congressional Black Caucus learn their lesson from the Drug War? Because much of their constituency is dependent upon the law enforcement industries and prison-industrial complex. As a result they are invested in maintaining a war, now especially urgent as the drug war dies down. However BLM supports decriminalization and its members will no longer allow themselves to be sacrificed upon the altar of their parents’ career ambitions. What a conundrum and irony. It’s all good.

    1. The CBC, like most other congress-critters, is there for their own personal aggrandizement and accumulation of wealth and privilege, not to represent their constituents or safeguard our freedoms.

    2. much of their constituency is dependent on government employment,period. Or gov’t largesse.
      that’s why they’re always for bigger government. “progressives” cannot live,cannot survive without it.

  27. After Bush made an apparently half-decent impartial speech about not judging a movement by it’s worst characters, Obama said this in his:

    “It’s easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer…or even a book!”

    He actually said that.

    1. “Well, uh, a teenager that looks like Trayvon.”

    2. Well, to be fair, e-books have taken a large share of the book market.

      1. Teenagers also have unfettered access to e-Glocks.
        Thanks, Counterstrike.

        1. CS:GO, the gateway drug to pedophile app PokemonGo

    3. I am sure they are puzzled as to why they cant sell their shit. Keep saying things like that Obumbles. Keep telling transparent lies.

      Does anyone know if he is still trying to give guns to criminals to help gun crimes rise and thus scare us into gun control? I find it hard to believe getting caught would be enough to make him stop.

      1. If by criminals, you mean radical Islamic militants in ME countries, then yes, he is still trying to give them guns.

      2. I have no proof or evidence that such horrors as you are describing are taking place by deliberate liberal intent.

        I am cynical enough, however, to believe a possibility of “progressive” anti-gun types staging such things as Dylan Roof’s rampage or the Sandy Hook school massacre by brainwashing some dupe and aiming him at a ‘soft target’ calculated to raise as much outrage AT THE GUN as possible. Don’t blame the perpetrator, it is obviously the ‘evil’ gun and easy access to firearms that caused any mass shooting incident.

        Obama the inept has pontificated…

        1. “Obama the inept has pontificated…”

          Yes, he did but he excused himself and politely waived the odor away, so it is all good.

    4. Is there a taxpayer-sponsored gun library in every town in the country where I can go in and borrow virtually any firearm ever developed free of charge for a month? I must have missed that.

      1. Oh man! NOW you have something there hero! I am going to start looking.

    5. that’s because they don’t know where their local library is,or even how to find one.

  28. I have pointed this out before, and I’ll do it again.

    Where I live, in Montana, virtually every single person I know owns at least (guns are kind of like mice- you never just have one) one firearm. This demographic includes, in no particular order: lesbians, two time Obama voters, school teachers, self described socialists, Berniebots, bankers, fishing guides, investors, libertarians (firebreathing and otherwise)… you name it.

    I don’t believe Bloomberg’s minions have thought this through.

    1. “Montana. So, about, ….. what, 500 thousand yahoos? Meh.”

    2. Late, aside from their blurred edges white people are generally and extraordinarily submissive when edicts accompany a geometrically impressive hat, shiny badge, and a muscle car that screams shark and horned bull at exactly the same time.

      1. Considering people get shot when eating waffles in view of a cop with a drawn gun, can’t say that I blame them.

        1. Fear is an impressive and timeless governing tactic.

    3. But whenever you mention the lower murder rates anywhere outside big cities and in hillbilly gun-fetish country Appalachia where all our gun problems supposedly come from, they claim it’s because of population density. People will kill each other more when they live closer together. I can kind of see the logic in it, but whatever effect it has has nothing to do with the massive disparities.

    4. I live in a state with 6 of the 30 most heavily armed parish…counties or whatever you barbarians call them, in the country. In my county there are about 25,000 people and I would bet every one of them is armed to the teeth. The sheriff here would be nuts to try confiscation. Short of a military occupation confiscation would never work here, and even then would probably fail.

      1. Career-ending felonies can be created at the swish of a golden pen and intelligent people fear them. Never underestimate the power of felony on the collective mother in the nice brick home.

        1. I am aware of this. Hawaii is trying that approach now.

          Obumbles already took a swing at expanding the definition of ‘mentally unstable’

          In many rural areas criminal justice is administered by an elected sheriff and those sheriffs are personally acquainted with most of the voters. This approach isnt the single solution the gun grabbers want.

    5. I’m looking at the “demographics” and wanted to clarify, Did you mean to only list about 5 groups or did I just mentally add the first pair of parens?

      “…in no particular order: (lesbians, two time Obama voters, school teachers, self described socialists, Berniebots), bankers, fishing guides, investors, libertarians (firebreathing and otherwise)

  29. I think part of the disconnect, too, is that politicians use guns as a culture war/signaling issue. To a lot of them, they might as well be talking about transgender rest rooms or Terry Schiavo. It’s just a wedge issue to them.

    It’s kind of like the observation about how if a rent seeker can make $30 million with a law, and their rent seeking only costs the taxpayers a penny each, then the rent seekers can spend $30 million to fight for the law, but if taxpayers spend more than a penny opposing it, they’re behaving irrationally.

    Only in this case, it’s the gun grabbers in deep blue states who have no costs associated with using this as a signaling/wedge issue, and the gun owners who have everything to lose from confiscation. Talk is cheap. 100 million American homes have gun owners–just because politicians can talk about confiscation without any costs doesn’t mean the people who have everything to lose from confiscation will just bend over for the gun grabbers.

    I swear, if Trump doesn’t win this time, some anti-elitist is gonna bounce back next time with even more support. The left is doing everything in its power to make elitism the most important issue in national elections, but they’re on the wrong side of that issue.

    1. Ken, did you see Inigo Montoya’s 3:20PM comment above?

      1. No.

        And I don’t think they’re really intending to line up and shoot people.

        They’re just talking about gun control as some kind of meaningless chit chat–is what I’m trying to say. They aren’t really taking confiscation seriously. They talk about it, but it’s just a meaningless wedge issue for them. If it wasn’t gun control, it might have been abortion or prayer in public schools.

        Gun owners take confiscation seriously, and the people in purple states probably wish their deep blue state brethren would shut the fuck up about confiscation already.

        1. actually,they’re VERY serious about their “gun control”,they’re putting a lot of effort and political capital into it this time,pushing hard. Staging marches and riots. They don’t intend direct confiscation,they know that route means war,they’re going for making possessing the guns criminal,so they can pick people off whenever they show or use their guns. They’ll offer a mandatory “buyback” or a grace period to turn them in with no penalty,same as they did in 1968. The 4473s that dealers have kept per law are what bother me. They’ll let F-Troop trace the guns back to the owners,who they can then watch for slipups.

          1. Late to the party but…

            ” When a firearms transfer is completed as planned, the original Form 4473, along with any supporting documents (such as a multiple sales report), must be kept 20 years.”

            I gave up my FFL more than 20 years ago. Twenty years later, I destroyed all of the records of the transfers that I performed to law abiding citizens.

            I’m hoping other dealers are at least as diligent. And less so, if F-Troop comes knockin’.

            CB

    2. Collective political realities utilize wedges and signals because the engineering of consciousness wouldn’t be possible otherwise.

    3. “The left is doing everything in its power to make elitism the most important issue in national elections, but they’re on the wrong side of that issue.”

      And they are going to be SO surprised and outraged when somebody comes along and rams it up their un-lubricated backside.

      1. To be clear, I think the backside lubrication ratio (BLR) is maybe somewhat higher than your initial estimate.

        Not judging, hell, I’m not opposed, I’m just sayin’ that you may see a bit less resistance than you anticipated in some cases.

    4. They’re already just a step or two away from imprisoning their political opponents. They absolutely want them disarmed, they don’t just want to talk about it. One can only hope that eventually their lust for power gets the better of them and they move on to attacking the people without disarming them first.

      1. You’re giving them to much credit.

        It’s just like with ObamaCare. They didn’t want to implement that either–it just became politically impossible for them to not pass something. They didn’t want to pass something they knew would fail–it just worked out that way.

        The old adage about how you look for the one who benefits assumes that elected buffoons know what’s in their own best interests. They don’t.

        They’re playing along, mouthing the words–but if they actually had to vote on something that would pass, they’d only do so if they felt like they had no choice.

        Like I said, the people who lose because of their gun grabbing take the gun grabbers far more seriously than the gun grabbers take themselves. The gun grabbers think they’re just beating their same old drum in the culture war–it hasn’t really sunk in with them, yet, what would happen if they ever tried to actually do the things they’re talking about.

        100 million otherwise law abiding homes with guns. They really haven’t thought it through.

  30. So, they’re going to model the next phase of their massively unpopular and unsuccessful campaign against gun ownership on the drug prohibitionist playbook that as been in place, AND FAILING MISERABLY, for the better part of a century.

    Sign this plan up for success!

  31. how do you think the gun war will look?

    Even bloodier.

    1. The cops and other State functionaries who are likely to side with the gun grabbers are also the ones who are east likely to actually PRACTICE much with their guns, or know much about tactics.

      I think the “War on Guns” might look very brief.

    2. Round, blurry on the edges and with a pair of intersecting lines in the middle.

  32. I think the gun controllers want to turn this:

    I have been told that before prohibition we had a saloon at every corner; since prohibition we have a distillery in practically every home, and only lately, in one of the exclusive suburban towns near Newark they have discovered the so-called community distillery, where all of the people living on one block club together and contribute to the making of synthetic gin, which is then distributed pro rata among those that were contributors to that weekly.

    (Testimony of Henry Hilfers, President of the New Jersey Federation of Labor, on National Prohibition before the Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate, April 1926.)

    Into this:

    I have been told that before gun control we had a gun dealer at every corner; since gun control we have an armory in practically every home, and only lately, in one of the exclusive suburban towns near Newark they have discovered the so-called community armory, where all of the people living on one block club together and contribute to the making of ammo, which is then distributed pro rata among those that were contributors to that weekly.

  33. I think it’s pretty clear that gun control advocates want to see more dead police officers.

  34. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars.it was my previous month’s payout.just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts. it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly.

    Go to the web>>>>>>>> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  35. I don’t see the problem. From the actions and policies of “Progressives”, it seems they ultimately *want* a police state.

    1. Of course they want a police state. That, ultimately, is what Socialism becomes when practiced on a national level. That is what they have been working towards for more than a century. What defies reason is that they have had multiple examples of Police States brought into being by Progressive Intellectuals like themselves and in each case one of the first groups to be rounded up and liquidated was the Progressive Intellectuals. Yet they persist in believing that it won’t happen to THEM.

      *facepalm*

      1. Can’t we just cut to the chase and get to the “rounded up and liquidated was the Progressive Intellectuals” part now? Seems like that would eliminate quite a bit of hand wringing and teeth-gnashing.

        Not like the FBI is paying any attention to enforcing law anyway, right?

        1. westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com

          /2012/09/11/what-i-saw-at-the-coup/

          Had to split the link as it was considered a single word over 50 letters.

          In any event, read up.

  36. I have yet to see anyone question the logic that if a cop thinks someone might have a gun, the cop is justified in shooting that person to preempt any potential threat.

    Why is that? We’re not talking about police shooting someone who pulls a gun, or shooting someone who is being aggressive. In the two recent shootings we’re talking about cops shooting a someone who objectively *wasn’t a threat* just because the police imagined that they might be.

    At what point do cops, just maybe, have a moral obligation to subject themselves to some risk, in order to protect innocent lives? Oh wait, that’s what we hire them for – to do dangerous things so that innocent people don’t get killed. Silly me. I thought cops existed to raise money for the government by confiscating private property and handing out traffic tickets. We can’t have them getting killed in the process. Sorry peons, your lives are of secondary importance to those of the state enforcers.

    1. I have yet to see anyone question the logic that if a cop thinks someone might have a gun, the cop is justified in shooting that person to preempt any potential threat.

      Not sure where you’re getting that idea, but I’ll question that logic.

      In the two recent shootings we’re talking about cops shooting a someone who objectively *wasn’t a threat* just because the police imagined that they might be.

      I imagine you’re talking about the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings. In the first, the cops were wrestling with a guy who had come to their attention because of a report that he was pointing a gun at someone. While wrestling with him, he kept trying to get his right hand towards his pocket that, you guessed it, had a gun in it. And he had a prior felony for possession of drugs with intent to sell while, carrying a weapon. Alton Sterling was plenty of threat, no imagination needed.

      The Castile shooting OTOH looks like a gigantic fuckup so far, even with the info that the cop pulled over Castile because he resembled the guy who stuck up a minimart down the street a few days prior. I’d like to hear the cop’s side of the story, and any body audio recording if he has one. My thought is that the LEO is probably guilty of manslaughter, and if so, needs to go up for more than Mehserle got in Oakland.

      I agree with you though on their trading off their risk for increasing risk to you and me.

      1. Surely there are way to stop a handcuffed man from getting at the gun in his pocket and subsequently shooting a cop, besides immediately killing him by shooting him several times at point blank range in the back.

        For example, one could take the gun out of his pocket. Threat eliminated.

        Why is it that some remote scenario in which he *might* get ahold of the gun and somehow manage to aim it at the cop and fire sufficient to say “let’s kill him immediately! It’s easier!”

    2. “wasn’t objectively a threat”? Castile was stopped for being an armed robbery suspect,and had a gun in his lap. Who also would not stop moving (despite what every carry permit class teaches about traffic stops),while his “side b_tch” (Castile’s own words on FB) was yelling to distract the officer. Castile was a CRIP. His FB pages were full of Crip stuff.
      Alton Sterling was a convicted felon in possession of a gun,who resisted arrest,and was shot during a STRUGGLE with the officers,trying to grab an officer’s gun,just like Michael Brown.
      What the HECK is wrong with you?

      1. Did he point the gun at the cop? Did he threaten the cop? If he was a “Crip” how come he had no criminal record? How come he had a legal carry permit?

        Alton Sterling was handcuffed and face down on the ground. How exactly is he a sufficient threat to justify killing him?

        He was struggling? So fucking what? He was restrained. He was not in a position in which he posed a realistic threat. You don’t just kill people because in some fever-dream you imagine that they have magical Houdini powers that allow them to somehow steal your gun despite being handcuffed, and aim it well enough with their handcuffed hands to kill you.

        The police have a moral responsibility to assume that the process of arresting people is going to impose some risk upon them. I know that dead bodies are safer, but we don’t just preemptively shoot every suspect because it’s fucking safer that way.

  37. …….There is an argument that gun prohibition would work better than drug prohibition.

    Last time I looked, both are not authorized by the US Constitution.

    Perhaps Obama is referring to the communist constitution?

    1. I am not even going to say it but maybe it was the thing that starts with a “K” and ends with “oran”? He might very well have been thinking of that classic movie song “They Call the Wind Sharia”. Hard to say what the big cheese is thinking these days but much of it is not good from the sound of it.

      My buddy is certain that guy is going to whip out a prayer rug the moment he’s out of office. If he does, you all owe me a doughnut.

  38. Police,the ones on the street,actually like lawfully armed citizens. they’re the ones who are NOT any trouble or threat. They are the ones who’ve taken the time to actually learn the law on what constitutes a credible,imminent threat that allows the use of deadly force,they’ve been vetted through background checks including fingerprinting,and have received some minimal level of training. Such lawfully permitted carriers have PROVEN themselves over decades of concealed carry with VERY low levels of permit revocation or crimes committed.
    It’s the political Chiefs of Police that are largely anti-gun,anti-Carry.
    the REAL problem is the people who are armed despite their being prohibited from doing so,the thugs,gangsters,drug dealers,crooks,etc. The same ones who likely obtained their firearms illegally,through thefts or straw purchases.

    1. Yeah, if only we could just eliminate people who don’t follow laws… then we could just write laws and everything would be perfect.

  39. Guns are even easier to manufacture than drugs. All you need is some metal hand tools and a lathe. The idea that you can keep people from making guns or ammunition is ridiculous.

    1. Several YouTubes are available to show you how to build a 12g shotgun out of a piece of pipe.

    2. All you need is some metal hand tools and a lathe.

      What if you don’t have metal hands?

  40. “Reducing the number of weapons in circulation in the United States?estimated at 350 million?would require substantive police action, placing yet more police officers and civilians, disproportionately the poor and minorities, in danger.”

    Is this really your top concern? The 350m legal guns are overwhelmingly owned by white Americans. “Disproportionately” endangering minorities? Not a chance. You are correct that an astounding amount of force would be necessary; however, that force would trigger a shooting war such as this country has never seen. It seems that the Left believes these could be just taken by the cops/military without resistance.

    So, you say you want a revolution…

    1. Doing my part to help make that 351M.

  41. If the US military had such a hard time fighting illiterate goat herders in Iraq and Afghanistan, think about how difficult it would be to subjugate a group of American gun fanatics, who train religiously and own firearms that are top of the line (in semi-auto technology, anyway).

    1. There is really no need for a semi-auto unless you are forced to stand and fight. Otherwise, one shot, one down! Look up “guerrilla sniper” or “partisan sniper (WWII)”. Personally, in the event of SHTF, I agree, a semi-auto is preferred, but you use what you have.

      1. Simplistic rules of Guerrilla Sniper Warfare:
        1. There is nothing to be gained and everything to lose by “stand and fight”. If you try to fight their war, you will lose! You are not an army. Each person is an individual with only one objective, to disable or kill as many government agents as possible and you can’t do that if you are dead!
        2. The government has long and short range IR sensors so pick your hide with care. It can’t be obvious, and you need to be able to get to it and, more importantly, leave it without being seen. Once you pick your hide, keep it, but only until you take a shot. The Government agents need to have “boots on the ground” to take control, so just wait and they will have to come to you.
        3. One shot, hit or miss! With 10s of millions shooters there is no reason to take more than one shot at a time. “He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day!” Don’t take a bad or risky shot and don’t expose yourself; take your time. Remember, dead is good, but a permanently disabled target on the ground and screaming is even better. As soon as the bullet leaves the barrel, the shooter needs to disappear, because if they locate you, they will kill you!
        4. A secret can only be known by ONE PERSON! No one needs to talk to anyone about their next shot, or their last one. Just make sure you know your target.
        5. Re-read rule 1, hide your firearms and ammo someplace until you need them again. Until then, blend in, and go back to rule 2.

  42. The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.

    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s= The+TRUTH+about+the+”supremacy+clause

  43. Is the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Constitutional – Its a Trojan Horse..

    The bill is a dastardly trick and a Trojan horse for institutionalizing licenses, permits, national ID cards, etc.

    And the end game of all those licenses, permits, national ID cards and such is eventual confiscation of all arms.

    And after that extermination.

    Here is the 2014 edition: https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 113th-congress/senate-bill/1908/text

    Also, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    video on arms, here it is: https://vimeo.com/60944105

    State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of hell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the free sample of heroin.

  44. Is the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Constitutional – Its a Trojan Horse..

    The bill is a dastardly trick and a Trojan horse for institutionalizing licenses, permits, national ID cards, etc.

    And the end game of all those licenses, permits, national ID cards and such is eventual confiscation of all arms.

    And after that extermination.

    Here is the 2014 edition: https://www.congress.gov/bill/ 113th-congress/senate-bill/1908/text

    Also, the federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    video on arms, here it is: https://vimeo.com/60944105

    State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of hell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the free sample of heroin.

    1. Interesting observation in your last.

  45. The War On Drugs was a bureaucratic screwup. A War On Guns would, I think, be a whole lot worse.

  46. Unconstitutional – not going to happen!

    The people of the USA are not the same as people of other countries and they will react very differently to militarized, over aggressive police/government. As the fringes of the police/government act more and more like Gestapo, the fringes of the USA population will also react. That is what we are seeing now. If the government doesn’t address the over aggressive behavior and violations of peoples’ civil rights, by a few, then these reactions by both the people and government agents/police will escalate and spread. The people of the USA are approaching a tipping point with the: Patriot Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, NSA Surveillance, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, “Gun Control”, Militarization of Police, and now over-aggressiveness and abuses by police and government agents.

  47. Any attempt to repeal the 2nd Amendment is doomed to failure! Any blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment would probably result in civil warfare in the USA. In that event, some members and officers of the military and law-enforcement may remember that their oath is to the US Constitution and not to some government official, but don’t count on it! Those that remain and try to enforce “gun control” would merely be bringing us more and better weapons and ammunition. The term “from cold dead hands” works both ways! It is probably true that the US military has sufficient weapons of mass destruction to destroy most of this country and its citizens BUT, I would not live in a country that destroys itself and its people, so I have nothing to loose!

    1. In order to exercise control over a population and area, the government needs “boots on the ground”. However, in the lower 48 states there are 3 million square miles of land that they have to control. How many troops would it take to control 1 square mile? Is it more than 1.2 because that’s all the government has and then they are in our back yard. We have 300 to 400 million firearms in the hands of over 100 million gun owners versus 2.25 million military and 1.35 million law enforcement (3.6 million total)! In the event of civil war, we are ready. The strategy is “guerrilla sniper” and we are the shooters! We will run out of targets long before we run out of bullets. As soon as government agents step out of their tanks, armored vehicles, etc., they are also a target. Even planes and drones need to land and be serviced. Not only any and all government agents; but also any and all officials that sent them are our targets. With 10s of millions “hunters”, there is nowhere they can’t be reached. In that extreme scenario they will lose! We are already hunters and target shooters. There are 22 million military veterans that been trained and have learned from Vietnam, 2 wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan. We don’t believe in suicide missions but we do understand guerrilla warfare and we know why the US military could not win those wars!

  48. Showbox Download, Showbox Apk Download, Showbox App Download: Nowadays technology has brought a lot of changes in our lives, especially in education and communication.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.