Tag: Gun Rights

Additional Comments Regarding the NRA Press Release

I got through reading a transcript of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press release [PDF]. Everything thing I said in my previous post, which was based on a live blog of the event, still stands. I also have a few additional things I’d like to note. First there was this comment:

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation’s refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

There is a great deal of irony in the NRA discussing the lack of a federal database in a negative light. A federal database for mentally ill individuals would be a disaster. Consider the stigma mental illness has in this country. Many people will not seek help when they are suffering a mental illness because doing so carries a great deal of social consequences. People who received psychiatric help are often seen as crazy. People in the United States also hold a general attitude that a mental illness is forever. How many people suffered from depression, post traumatic stress syndrom, and other temporary mental illnesses only to make a full recovery and lead normal lives? Do we really want these people to be listed in a federal database? Federal databases are already used by employers to weed out potential employees. Creating a mental illness database would likely lead to people in that database being unable to find meaningful employment. Federal databases aren’t a solution for violence and they aren’t a solution for mental illness.

Also consider the ramifications of a mental illness database. Who here could be diagnosed with a mental illness? Most Internet denizens could be diagnosed with some form of autism. If an adult version of oppositional defiant disorder is ever created I’ll be diagnosed with it. I suffer a severe case of psychological reactance (Does it show?), which could easily be labeled as a mental illness. Do we want to base the right to keep and bear arms on a mental illness database? Do we want our gun rights in the hand psychologists who determine what qualifies as a mental illness? What the NRA suggested is a dangerous path, one I don’t want to see this country travel down. We need to help those who need help. This means encouraging those who suffering from mental illness to get help. Considering the social stigma that mental illness carries in this country I don’t think creating a mental illness database is going to do anything but discourage those needing help from seeking it.

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America’s gun owners that you’re willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice

This was a good point. The primary issue at hand is that violent criminals know the cost of performing violence in schools is relatively low because there are no armed personnel there. With that said, the NRA’s approach to correcting this issue leaves something to be desired:

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America’s schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America’s police force.

The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

In my opinion expanding the police state into public schools isn’t a good approach. I favor repealing laws that establish gun-free zones so that armed individuals can enter school property without first having to disarm. That solution raises the cost of performing violence in schools by removing the practical guarantee that no armed individuals are within. Having costume-clad guys with badges will further reinforce the police state on children. Furthermore I don’t feel comfortable having children guarded by individuals whose primary job description involves extorting wealth from people. A majority of police time is spent enforcing state decrees against nonviolent individuals who have harmed nobody. Do we want individuals guarding children when their job consists of kicking down doors in the hopes of finding other individuals in possession of a plant?

Putting bureaucracies in charge of protecting children is bound to fail. At the very least repealing laws that establish gun-free zones would allow local communities to develop more appropriate solutions to deal with school shootings. Ultimately though I think Jeffrey Tucker nailed it:

So armed guards it is, at least according to the NRA. Instead of letting school handle their own security and getting out from under the government’s central plan (see my article on this), the NRA is living up to the caricature and proposing that more weapons in anyone’s hands as the solution. The real solution is to deal more broadly with the issue of security itself.

[…]

Contrary to left and right, the solution is not more guns in the hands of the cops and other state officials, much less gun-totting teachers (or disarmed teachers and administrators, for that matter). The solution is to have schools deal with security in the same way that jewelry stores, banks, and private home owners deal with security issues.

One of the biggest problems regarding school security is that public schools don’t have any incentive to provide security. Children are practically mandated to attend schools that are either run or heavily regulated by the state. No consequences befall a school when something bad happens. Will anybody be prosecuted for failing to provide proper security to those children in Connecticut? No, because the state was tasked with that job and the state has a monopoly on determining who can and can’t be sued. Furthermore suing the state accomplishes nothing because it gets its money through extortion. If the state allow you to sue it and it grants you monetary compensation you merely motivated it to extort more money. The primary reason schools fail to provide security to students is because they are state managed institutions, meaning there are no failure conditions.

If you want to protect your children remove them from state managed schools. Homeschooling, unschooling, and agorist education solutions will allow you to regain control over your children’s education and safety. Why rely on the state? It has a proven track record of failing in the task of providing education and safety.

The NRA Press Conference

I haven’t had a chance to watch the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press conference yet but based on the live blog done by Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned I’m not at all impressed. First I’ll point out the following notes:

Wayne now says the media is trying to hide a dirty secret that there are violent video games. He highlights a game called Kindergarten Killers that’s been online for 10 years.

Now he’s talking hurricanes and natural disasters. He then cites music videos that show violence – but who is airing music videos these days? He says that this stuff is the worst form of pornography.

He says that these issues bring cruelty into homes. He says that kids witness 16,000 murders in media by the time they reach 18. He says that the media is to blame.

Is this what the NRA has resorted to? They’re seriously trying to imply violent video games and media is, at least partially, responsible for the real violence we experience? Blaming violent media has been a favorite pass time for many groups over the ages but the simply fact is such blame assumes individuals are incapable of separating fiction from reality. I grew up playing violent video games, watching violent movies and televisions shows, and listening to violent metal yet I have never initiated violence against another human being. This is because I understand the difference between fiction and reality, as do most people. Blaming violent video games for real world violence pissed me off when I was a gamer and still pisses me off today. I’m not surprised to hear LaPierre trying to find something, anything, to blame but he should have focused his blame on issues that can actually lead to violence.

NRA, as the top instructor, is highlighting their law enforcement training programs and offering them to communities. He notes that NRA did use these training programs to help in WWII. He says they are developing a new model call National School Shield. It’s going to focus on many facets – access to schools and teacher training.

They have tapped former Rep. Asa Hutchinson to lead the National School Shield. NRA will pay for it. Schools get it free of charge. No money required by schools or communities to get the materials to get them talking about how to secure their school.

Wayne notes that we should be securing our schools at least as much as sports stadiums.

This concerns me as well. Securing schools as much as sports stadiums requires making schools even more like prisons than they already are. Many major stadiums have metal detectors, cameras everywhere, and guards performing pat downs on those entering the venue. Since stadiums are private institutions I don’t care how they run their operations. In his apparently desperate attempt to the Connecticut shooting on something LaPierre hasn’t considered the consequences of making schools more like prison. If he believes violent media causes violence in society then submitting children to prison style security is likely to make them more subservient to the state. As the state has a vested interest in disarm the populace it would seem counterproductive to the goal of protecting gun rights to instill even more obedience into today’s youth. Maintaining gun rights requires a populace that will stand up to the police state, not submit to it. Having children go through metal detectors, submit to searches of their persons and belongings, and being under the constant eye of Big Brother can only instill authoritarianism, which directly opposes the stated goals of the NRA.

I don’t want to spend all of my time lambasting the NRA without pointing at the conduct of gun control advocates. For some time now gun control advocates have been demanding a conversation about gun. Now that we’re having that conversation how do you think they’re conducting themselves? I’ll let you be the judge:

We have a Code Pink infiltrator getting in the way of Wayne. The Code Pink protestor is getting more attention since he’s being allowed to scream. The security didn’t remove the guy early enough.

[…]

Another Code Pink protester with credentials. She started screaming from the beginning. Now the media is interrupting Wayne on the protests. And he then starts attacking the media again. This is clearly a speech meant for NRA members & gun owners who support the policies of NRA members.

When they said conversation they must have meant a platform from which they could make their demands to a sizable audience while silencing all opposition. Advocates of gun rights have at least, for the most part, conducted themselves in a professional manner and have given gun control advocates the ability to speak their part unmolested. It’s too bad they won’t show us the same amount of respect.

I think the conduct of gun control advocates compared to the conduct of gun rights activists speaks volumes. The goals of gun control advocates are authoritarian in nature. They want to utilize the state’s capacity for violence to disarm non-state entities. Gun control advocates claim to desire peace but rely on the threat and use of violence against gun owners, whether they’ve done something wrong or not. Meanwhile the desires of gun rights advocates are the opposite. Instead of demanding authoritarian violence be initiated against nonviolent individuals gun rights advocates want individuals to go about their business peacefully. Those of us who advocate gun rights oppose punishing innocent people. We believe punishment should be reserved exclusively for those who have done wrong. This stark difference manifestes itself in the strategies used by each side. Gun control advocates attempt to silence any opposition, which is a very authoritarian tactic. Gun rights activists allow their opposition to speak and rely on argumentation, a very libertarian tactic. One side wants to control you while the other side wants you to be in control.

Even though I don’t like what the NRA said at their conference they at least conducted themselves in a professional manner. They waited one week before saying anything while gun control organizations moved in immediately to exploit the tragedy while it was still fresh. The NRA allowed gun control organizations to say their piece without interruption while gun control advocates attempted to shout down the NRA. In my opinion the most notable thing about this news conference wasn’t what was said by the NRA, it was what the gun control advocates did in an attempt to silence their opposition.

Panic Buying in the Twin Cities

Last night I went to a couple of gun stores and was able to view the panic buying first hand. The first gun store I stopped at was the newly reopened GunStop in Minnetonka. There were a couple of customers in there but it wasn’t as crazy as I had expected. GunStop still had some Colt ARs in stock, likely because they are extremely expensive ARs (which is why I don’t have a Colt). There were no AK pattern rifles. Overall it didn’t seem that out of hand there.

The second gun store I stopped at was Cabela’s in Rogers. That place was a zoo. There were likely 10 to 20 people waiting in line for their National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) check and at least another 10 to 20 looking at the guns. All of the modern semi-automatic rifles were sold out as were the standard capacity magazines. Cabela’s was raking in the money.

I was going to stop at Gander Mountain in Maple Grove but they apparently closed sometime between last night and the three or so years it’s been since I worked in the area. Too bad for them, if they were still open they would be making bank right now. In fact they could probably get away with inflating their already overinflated prices.

Seeing all of those people buying guns made me smile. My girlfriend is likely annoyed because she has been planning to pick up an AR for some time now but I take solace in knowing all of those guns are out there. Even if an “assault weapon” ban goes through the market will be flooded with rifles and magazines. Prices will go up, that’s beyond a doubt, but things will be available so long as the state doesn’t try to ban currently owned rifles and magazines (in which case I will simply say come and take them). Seeing record sales has to piss the gun control advocates off.

An Offer to Peacefully Secede

A politician from Texas has asked gun owners to punish themselves for something they didn’t do:

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) on Wednesday afternoon urged people to turn in their guns, arguing it would be an appropriate response to last week’s mass shooting in Newtown, Conn.

“I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns,” Jackson Lee said on the House floor. “Oh no, I’m not going to take your guns. But look at what Dick’s Sporting Goods did … they wanted to be part of the solution and part of America.”

Let me get this straight… if I don’t turn in my guns then I’m not part of the solution and therefore not part of America? Deal! If I can secede from this country by the simple act of keeping my firearms then I’m entirely on board. Of course I have some demands that must be met before I sign the contract. First, I must be guaranteed that I won’t be subjected to state violence. I don’t expect the state to “protect” me but I also demand that my secession be allowed to happen peacefully. Second, I will no longer be expected to pay taxes. This is part of what secession means, I won’t partake in state services and the state won’t steal wealth from me. Third, the state must make no attempt to take my property. This agreement is based on my act of keeping property and I demand that the state not attempt to take it by force after the fact.

I’m sure you will find these terms agreeable Mrs. Lee. Please mail the necessary forms to my address so that we can get this underway.

EDIT: 2012-12-27: 11:01: I originally referred to Sheila Jackson as a senator, which was incorrect. Thanks goes to Mike for pointing it out.

The Problem with Determining Need

Gun control advocates like to claim nobody needs a semi-automatic rifle. Their statement implies that the legality of property should be determined by need. A major failure exists in this implication though. Policies based on need ultimately require that somebody decide what is and isn’t needed. If we are to travel down the path of determining legality based on need we have to establish who gets to decide what is needed.

My question is simple, who gets to decide what is needed? I already know that advocates of gun control would like themselves to be elevated to the position of Grand Determiner but under what justification could they claim such authority? They would likely claim such authority by stating they hold a great deal of concern for the safety of others. That justification also works for gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates want to liberalize (using the classic definition of the word) gun laws because they hold a great deal of concern for the safety of others. By legalizing the act of carrying a firearm gun rights activists want to give every individual the ability to defend themselves against a violent attacker. Obviously there is a conflict here because two ideologically oppose groups can justly claim the same authority for the same reason.

The fact of the matter is that an individual is the only person able to determine what he or she needs. Each of us is in sole possession of our lifetime experiences. Because of this we each hold specialized knowledge regarding our own lives that nobody else holds. Who better to determine what a battered wife needs to defend herself against her abusive husband than her? An uninvolved third party cannot know whether her husband possesses body armor or a posse willing to help him retrieve his wife should she run away. In either case access to a semi-automatic rifle would greatly enhance her odds in a defensive situation against her abusive husband. What about the owner of a store that is located in a place of civil unrest? How can an uninvolved third party know the circumstances under which the store owner lives? Perhaps the store owner’s existence is dependent on that store and without it he could not afford to feed himself or his family. Maybe the store owner can’t afford to operate in a nicer area. Should the store owner be put at a disadvantage, putting his store and livelihood at risk, if a rioting gang decides to target his store?

Saying something shouldn’t be legal because nobody needs it is an arrogant statement at best. Somebody making such a statement is saying two things. First they are saying that they know what a third party needs. Second they are saying they know who should be granted the authority to prohibit that third party from possessing unneeded things.

Furthermore polices based on needs are self-defeating. If somebody claims the authority to determine the legality of things based on need I can claim that person doesn’t need that authority. From there another person can claim I don’t need to authority to determine whether or not another person has the authority to determine legality. It’s an infinite recursion problem for which no solution exists.

Plan OM

So far we’ve heard nothing from the National Rifle Association (NRA) other than a short blurb on their website and a promise of a news conference to be held Friday. In their absence individual state gun rights organizations and gun bloggers have been urging members of the gun rights community to mobilize. I’m sure you’ve already heard the call to write and call your senators but I don’t hold any faith in defending gun rights through political means. Even Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned, who us usually rather upbeat when it comes to gun rights, sounds concerned about our possibilities in Washington.

My assumption is that you’re not reading this blog looking for another post asking you to write some busybodies in Washington begging them to spare your right rights. Who comes to an anarchist’s gun rights blog for that? I already mentioned Plan B, setting up decentralized firearm manufacturing and cranking out verboten firearms, but some people may be unwilling or unable to participate in such an endeavor. Realizing this I offer yet another alternative; call it Plan OM for Operation Mindfuck.

For those of you unfamiliar with Discordianism Operation Mindfuck is a project meant to, as the name implies, challenge currently held assumptions by inspiring creative thought. That is to say Operation Mindfuck hopes to change the way people view the world by fucking with their heads. This lofty goal is accomplished by rather subversive means including civil disobedience, practical jokes, hoaxes, and trolling.

Plan B really is an act of civil disobedience to ensure firearms such as AR-15s can never be effectively banned. Beyond civil disobedience there is also old fashioned fucking with minds. Although I’ve not had a great deal of time to think up strategies (which is why I’m posting this project proposal on the Internet, I want input from others interesting in screwing with the gun control movement) but I have a few initial ideas. For some reasons buying some of the most prominent members of the gun control movement National Rifle Association (NRA) memberships sounds fun. I also believe some fun could be had by attending anti-gun rallies dressed up as Nazgûl. Inevitably somebody would ask us what we’re doing and we could make rather entertaining quips about serving the One Right; a task that requires monopolizing power, which anti-gunners do a marvelous job at. There is also the classic move of inducting proponents of gun control into the Bavarian Illuminati.

Operation Mindfuck may not accomplish anything but it serves to be a great deal of fun and is, as far as I know, an untested strategy for fighting gun control. One thing I do know is that we must be flexible and have different strategies available. Relying on the Republican Party to defend our gun rights isn’t a reliable strategy since there is no guarantee they won’t turn around and stab us in the back.

Why Marxists Should Oppose Gun Control

I don’t view gun rights as a Republican versus Democrat issue. Instead I view gun rights as an issue that transcends political parties all together. Expanding the ranks of gun rights activists is the only way we’ll be able to stop advocates of gun control from achieving their desires. Although I’m an individualist anarchist, which is a philosophy that doesn’t mix well with Marxism, I will gladly work with Marxists in the fight for gun rights. In fact Marxists have just as much skin in the gun rights game as anybody else:

Second, I am not a ‘gun-nut’, a member of the NRA, or even remotely conservative. I do not believe that guns have mystical qualities or that they grant the owner access to abstract conceptions of honor, courage, or bravery. Guns are only tools of death. A tool I would not want to be monopolized by the capitalist state.

The above statement easily summarizes my entire position. A position founded upon a recognition of class war and the extent of that struggle. To base the protection of gun ownership on a principle of ownership is to set your foundation in erosion. These lofty abstractions are meaningless; especially when they do nothing to challenge the material existence of the status quo. Talking aimlessly about natural rights of gun ownership only reaffirms the poverty of ethics. At most such abstractions are petty bourgeois talking-points with no sense of direction, and thus can be of no service to a revolutionary.By allowing the bourgeois state to monopolize the ownership of these tools, we only hurt the working class. The liberation of the working class must be our utmost priority, for without it, a truly ethical system is unreachable and humanity will forever be subjugated. It is for this reason, not for a love of guns, that Marx writes:

“… the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition… Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. ” – Karl Marx, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League

Most gun owners would find Marxists to be strange bedfellows indeed. It may seem odd that may political ideologies supporting gun rights would have any common ground with Marxists. Generally supporters of gun rights are libertarians, classical liberals, constitutionalists, and followers of other more individualistic philosophies. Truth be told that Marxism, being a revolutionary philosophy, requires that the people be armed. Marxists should be just an embroiled in the fight for gun rights as libertarians are. I know that many gun rights activists hold a great deal of animosity towards Marxists but we should all be willing to put aside our differences when a common goal exists.

I’m quite willing to work together with Marxists, Democrats, Republicans, social anarchists, and anybody else who want to stand against those trying to disarm the people.

So it Begins

Obama has officially thrown down the gauntlet and declared his desire to punish all gun owners for the actions of a murderer (who obtained his firearms through theft):

The president said a “majority of Americans” back changes to some laws.

Those include the renewal of an assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines and an end to loopholes allowing gun purchases with no background checks, Mr Obama said.

He urged Congress to hold votes on those issues when it reconvenes in the new year.

“If there is even one thing that we can do to prevent anyone of these events, we have a deep obligation – all of us – to try,” he said.

This shouldn’t surprise anybody. The only reaction the state ever has to a tragedy is to exploit it in order to grab more power. Don’t bet on the Republicans either, they’re already meeting and it sounds like they will be selling us down the river:

Republicans need to “have a discussion on guns” in the wake of last week’s grade-school massacre in Newtown, Conn., Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told his conference Tuesday.

[…]

Boehner also told Republicans that they need to be “circumspect” in their observations, the lawmaker said, warning that “it’s not helpful” for lawmakers to call for arming teachers as a way to prevent mass shootings.

They’re looking for a conversation but that conversation won’t include remove schools from the list of gun-free zones and will likely include supporting some form of gun control. I wouldn’t be surprised if Boehner makes some kind of back room deal with Obama that includes supporting some form of new gun control legislation in exchange for items in the fiscal cliff negotiations.

We won’t hear the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) response until tomorrow but I’m not holding out a great deal of hope that they’ll have a plan other than telling members to write and call members of Congress. Unfortunately this fiasco couldn’t have sprung up at a worse time. Voters can threaten to vote against senators and congressmen but the next election is two years away and the politicians know that a majority of people will forget all about this current crisis and be focused on a different crisis by then. They also know that your vote doesn’t matter. Feel free to write and call them anyways, raising a little ruckus can be a spot of fun, but don’t rely on a political strategy to protect your gun rights.

I’ve also seen some gun rights activists claim that we need to focus on negotiations at this point and try to get the best “deal” possible. I refuse to be a party to such dealings. If you believe negotiating is the only option at this point then I won’t stop you but I will refuse to participate and point out the simple fact that negotiating with the enemy only leads to being stabbed in the back.

I still think our best bet is to flood the market with banned firearms. Previous prohibitions, namely the prohibitions on alcohol and drugs, were pointless. In the case of alcohol prohibition people made their own liquor and sold it to friends and family members. Speakeasies were established and people wanting to head out for a night of drinking and partying could do so. The current prohibition against drugs has been a complete failure. Anybody wanting to obtain marijuana can do so because so many people grow it. Other drugs are also easily obtained. There is demand and that demand will be fulfilled, that’s how markets work.

The nice thing about manufacturing AR lowers is that it’s perfectly legal so long as you don’t transfer it to another owner. Another benefit is that AR lowers manufactured for personal use need not be serial numbered. Without a serial number there is no way for a law enforcement agent to know whether your rifle is “pre-ban” or “post-ban” (which may not matter based on what provisions are put into the new “assault weapon” ban).

That’s not to say things won’t turn out well for us. Perhaps no new gun control legislation will make it through the legislative process. Perhaps any new gun control legislation will be shot down in a court battle. But seeing how quickly the rats are fleeing from the sinking ship I’m not holding out a lot of hope. Companies usually don’t dump profitable endeavors unless they are almost sure not doing so will hurt them down the road.

I Think It’s Time to Implement Plan B

In the aftermath of the Connecticut shooting the rate at which us gun owners are being sold down the river is probably the only thing in the universe that is actually faster than light. Former suporters of gun rights have come out in support of gun control and companies that previously profited from mutual exchange with us are now terminating our mutual relationship. We have been shown that those who enjoyed our support are willing to abandon us to the zombie hordes. Since we cannot rely on others we should band together with one another, we should begin implementing Plan B.

What is Plan B? Plan A was using the political means in order to preserve gun rights so Plan B a strategy to preserve our gun rights by using non-political means. Plan B consists of using modern household manufacturing technology to produce firearms at such a rate that cannot be controlled. Pioneers are making progress in this endeavor and we need to help. Right now gun control advocates are calling for another “assault weapon” ban. The only proper response to such a ban is to begin manufacturing firearms that are prohibited by “assault weapon” bans as fast as possible. Make it so anybody wanting an AR-15 can produce one. Work together with fellow gun owners to create decentralized manufacturing lines of AR-15s. Pool resources to purchase machining equipment. Decentralize production to prevent these manufacturing lines from being shutdown easily. Setup redundancies.

Consider the following. An AR-15 is, legally speaking, an easily reproduced milled out block of aluminum. One can punch out AR-15 lowers on computer numerical control (CNC) machines, which are becoming more affordable every day. If several gun owners pooled their resources together they could purchase a couple of these machines and operate them at separate locations. Designated members of the group could manufacture AR-15 lowers while other members could purchase machines necessary for the production of barrels. Legally recognized firearm manufactures may be prohibited from producing AR-15 rifles but that doesn’t mean manufacturing such rifles is impossible, it merely means production needs to take place “underground.”

Organizing in cells is often considered a tactic utilized only by terrorists but such tactics have also been utilized by radical groups throughout the ages. Radical groups have traditionally developed under tyrannical states. Eventually things become so bad that individuals are willing to risk standing against the state’s decrees to fight for what they believe in. As gun owners we must recognize that we are, in fact, now radicals. We are advocating for social reform, namely the transfer of power from the state back to the people. As radicals we are also future targets of the state’s aggression. Every shooting rekindles the state’s drive to increase its power and reduce our own. Politicians, like vultures, descend on the copses of those killed with firearms and gorge themselves. They know that by exploiting tragedy they can increase their hold on the people by getting a majority of them to voluntarily cede power. What stands between the state and absolute power are those who refuse to capitulate. If we want to have any chance of maintaing our gun rights we must refuse to capitulate, we must actively resist our aggressors. By working in cells we can ensure that stomping us out will be very expensive. By manufacturing verboten firearms we can actively resist the state’s attempt to grab power. In the end we can make gun control irrelevant.

What We’re Up Against

With emotions running high, gun control advocates dolling out death threats, and supposed friends abandoning us we gun control activists sometimes lose sight on an important fact, many of our philosophical opponents are really dumb. I received a screenshot from an anonymous source demonstrating the incompetency of gun control advocates. This screenshot is from a Critical Thinking class discussion board at Hennepin Technical College. After reading this one must wonder how such an individual could not only graduate high school but also get accepted at any form of higher education institution (click to embiggen):

These are supposedly high school graduates. Notice that their grammar and spelling would net a failing grade in any elementary level English class. On top of that the second person stated that the first person’s argument was good but there was no argument, just a long poorly written diatribe typed by an angry college student who appears to be incapable of either mastering the English language or expressing his thoughts in a coherent manner. It’s like stacking stupid onto of stupid. This is what we’re often up against and somehow they find other people that are willing to take them seriously. It’s almost laughable… until you realize that the author is a college student, then it becomes depressing to think about.