UPDATE (FROM GLENN): This is bold talk from a military, and a government, that hasn’t won a war in my lifetime. Not even the War On Poverty . . . But the Transgender Awareness Training is up-to-date, I’m sure.
Seriously, this kind of threat is not just absurd and unseemly, but a disqualification for public office. One of many, I realize.
And I guess the ammo shortage will be back on.
ANOTHER UPDATE (FROM GLENN): Larry Correia: So you want to nuke Omaha? “For those of you who don’t know me, I’m a novelist now, but I retired from the Evil Military Industrial Complex, where I helped maintain those various advanced weapon systems you expect to bomb me with. Before that I was a gun dealer and firearms instructor. So basically I sold guns to the people you expect the people I trained to take them from.”
Plus: “In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because ‘we kept the gloves on’, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas. You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns?”
In a U.S. civil war, the first targets would be politicians, and media figures, and they’re all soft targets. Which is odd, because they seem the most eager to get things started.
Also: “The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once. In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.”
Three years ago, this correspondent wrote an essay on how to understand people who want a disarmed population. It was popular, but did not appear on AmmoLand.
I have updated the essay for current conditions.
There is an easy way to understand people who wish you to be unarmed.
It takes a little discipline. You may have a little mental discomfort. It is not particularly difficult. For the ability to understand the other, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.
Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.
Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement “guns are bad”.
Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed.
If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to accept that as true.
If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.
Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive, because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person. You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.
One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant.
Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions. Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.
Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed.
Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.
There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.
1. The AR stands for Armalite Rifle (not assault rifle) because the gun was developed by a company called “Armalite.”
2. It is not an “assault rifle.”
3. It’s not a machine gun either. It’s semi-automatic. One trigger squeeze gets you one commie stopper.
4. They are not used in a majority of mass shootings.
5. The Assault Weapons ban of 1994 didn’t keep ONE rifle from being made. It just called for certain gun modifications, like no lug for a bayonet (you know, to curb all the mass bayonet murders), no high-cap mags, flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, and no pistol grips.
6. Big, scary AR-15s actually come in many pretty colors. Great Lakes Fire Arms makes one in black cherry. You can find them in camo pink.
7. More people are murdered every year by edged weapons (knives, swords, Ginsus, etc.) than by ALL rifles combined (ARs, hunting, Civil War reenactors, etc.).
8. More people are murdered every year by feet and fists (Kung Fu, Krav Maga, punches) than by ALL rifles combined.
Source: AR-15 facts
The recent string of multiple-victim incidents of gun violence and police shootings of black Americans has once again resulted in renewed calls for restrictions on gun ownership. President Biden has said that executive instructions to various branches of the Federal government will attempt to reduce the frequency and possibility of such violence.
BUT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS WERE UNKNOWN: Flashback: When toting guns in high school was cool.
New York City high schoolers used to pack heat as often as they packed lunch.
This month, more than 100,000 city public school kids walked out to protest gun violence — but last century some students attended class armed with their rifles and practiced shooting on school grounds.
Many of the city’s public high schools had shooting clubs and a few even had gun ranges on their premises, according to accounts from the Department of Education and others.
By James D. Agresti and William T. Reynolds March 31, 2021
Beyond the duplicity of highlighting race only when the killer is white and the victims are not, progressive lawmakers, activists, and journalists are using a litany of falsehoods in an attempt to ban common semi-automatic guns used for home defense and hunting.
In the wake of the Boulder supermarket massacre and other mass shootings, progressive activists, politicians, and journalists have misled the public about major aspects of these tragedies. In contrast to their claims:
Less than 1% of all murders in the U.S. occur in mass shootings, defined as shootings where four or more people are killed.
The defining feature of firearms commonly used in war is that they are automatic and have the capacity to fire multiple bullets with the single pull of a trigger.
AR-15s and other guns that progressives call “weapons of war” are actually semi-automatic guns that can fire only one bullet with each pull of a trigger.
Federal law has generally banned civilians from possessing military firearms— including machine guns and assault rifles—since 1986.
The 1986 ban is not associated with a decline in deaths from mass shootings.
Two years after automatic firearms were banned, progressives moved to ban certain semi-automatic guns by calling them “assault weapons,” a phrase that sounds like “assault rifles”—the most common type of military firearm.
A leading gun control activist wrote that their strategy to achieve a ban would take advantage of the “public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic” guns.
The guns that progressives are now seeking to ban are popular firearms used for home-defense and hunting.
Federal law banned such guns along with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds from September 1994 to 2004.
Magazine capacity restrictions give a strategic edge to the killers who plot mass shootings over law-abiding citizens who carry a gun to protect themselves and others.
Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the portion of the U.S. population killed in mass shootings in the decade after the ban expired rose by 12% compared to the decade while the ban was in effect.
The weapons banned in 1994 became more accessible in the early years of the ban.
Some infamous mass shooters have stated they were motivated to kill for the fame that the media bestows on the perpetrators of such massacres.
Perpetrators of indiscriminate mass shootings are far more likely to suffer from serious mental illness than the general public.
Bearing in mind that association does not prove causation, the average annual rate of indiscriminate mass shootings rose by more than five times along with the mass psychiatric deinstitutionalization that occurred in the U.S. from 1955 to 2010.
The U.S. has one of lowest rates of psychiatric institutionalization in the developed world, and Japan’s rate is about 10 times greater.
A Michigan-based ammunition shop is refusing to sell to any customer who voted for President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. ” We’ve had a few potential customers call this morning to ask why they have to check a box stating they did not vote for Joe Biden in order to purchase our ammunition,” Fenix Ammunition tweeted yesterday morning.
So which is it when private companies get political—a brave and respectable act, or something that should be totally disallowed and result in anyone who tries it getting destroyed?
Conservatives can’t have it both ways.
Neither can Leftists. If the rule is, “private businesses can refuse to do business because they don’t feel like it”, they should not be too surprised when conservatives decide to play by the same rule.
What happens if Democrats decide rioting is fine when done by non-Deplorables and citizens have to deal with riots:
When word is received that a flash mob is forming at one of their pre-reconnoitered intersections or highway interchanges, the SAV team will assemble. Sometimes cooperating police will pass tactical intel to their civilian friends on the outside. Some clever individuals will have exploited their technical know-how and military experience to build real-time intel collection tools, such as private UAVs. Police will have access to urban security camera footage showing MUYs moving barricade materials into position—a normal prerequisite to a flash mob riot intended to stop traffic. Tip-offs to the vigilantes will be common, and where the networks are still functioning, citizens may still be able to access some video feeds. Sometimes, police will even join the SAV teams, incognito and off-duty, blurring the teams into so-called “death squads.”
The operation I will describe (and it’s only one of dozens that will be tried) uses two ordinary pickup trucks and eight fighters. Two riflemen are lying prone in the back of each truck, facing rearward, with removable canvas covers concealing their presence. Their semi-automatic, scoped rifles are supported at their front ends on bipods for very accurate shooting. A row of protective sandbags a foot high is between them and the raised tailgate.
In the cab are a driver and a spotter in the passenger seat who also serves as the vehicle’s 360-degree security. The two trucks don’t ever appear on the same stretch of road, but coordinate their movements using one-word brevity codes over small FRS walkie-talkie radios. Each truck has a series of predetermined elevated locations where the intersection in question will lie between 200 and 500 yards away. Each truck is totally nondescript and forgettable, the only detail perhaps being the non-MUY ethnicity of the suburbanite driver and spotter driving relatively near to a riot in progress.
By the time the two SAV pickup trucks arrive at their firing positions on different streets and oriented ninety degrees to one another, the flash mob riot is in full swing. A hundred or more of the rampaging youths are posturing and throwing debris into traffic in order to intimidate some cars into stopping. The riflemen in the backs of the pickups are waiting for this moment and know what to expect, trusting their spotters and drivers to give them a good firing lane. The spotters in each truck issue a code word on their radios when they are in final position. The tailgates are swung down, and the leader among the riflemen initiates the firing. All-around security is provided by the driver and spotter.
A major function of the police is to protect criminals from mob justice. Remove that barrier, and we may not like what results.
Last week’s installment of this updated series asked a fundamental question: Do human beings have an unalienable right to self-defense? There is no question the founding fathers of our constitutional, representative republic—we are not a democracy, thank God–believed they do–they must–and they acknowledged–not created–that unalienable, individual right in the Second Amendment. This was finally–in 2008 and 2010 […]Guns And Liberty, 2021: Part 2 — Stately McDaniel Manor
Piece by me at Quillette , just posted, about how I ended up having a violent felon “camping” outside my house — and why: I never wanted a gun. In fact, I wanted to never own one–until around noon on Thursday, August 20th… Please read the rest at Quillette.