Missed this opinion piece from a few months back. Most readers are well aware of the failure that is Venezuela - but there are various subplots unfolding in that nation which are specifically relevant to this thread.

Venezuela - a communist/socialist government stripping its citizens of firearms, cementing government dominance over the citizenry - and then BIGGOV using firearms to kill and control political opposition.

Excerpt below and complete article at link.

“Providing the Maduro regime with a façade of deniability, the colectivos perpetrate the killings for which the Maduro regime wants to avoid public recrimination. Heavily armed, colectivos have even utilized machine guns against protesters.

How could such sophisticated weaponry fall into the hands of private citizens, given the nation’s stringent firearms prohibition? In 2017, the dictatorship announced that it was providing weapons to approximately 400,000 “militiamen.”

In other words, the Maduro regime stripped Venezuelans of their right to self-defense and then transferred the confiscated firearms to its loyal thugs.

When the public is disarmed, ordinary criminals have greater impunity to rob and murder the innocent. So do criminal governments.”

<snip>

In the wake of a gun ban, Venezuela sees rising homicide rate

BY DAVID KOPEL AND VINCENT HARINAM, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS — 04/19/18 02:00 PM EDT
The Hill

Since April 2017, at least 163 pro-democracy protesters in Venezuela have been murdered by the Maduro dictatorship. Venezuela serves as an example of how gun prohibition can sometimes encourage gun crime.

In 2012, the communist-dominated Venezuelan National Assembly enacted the "Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law." The bill’s stated objective was to “disarm all citizens.” The new law prohibited all gun sales, except to government entities. The penalty for illegally selling or carrying a firearm is a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Despite criticism from the democratic opposition, the bill went into effect in 2013.

Ostensibly, the motive for gun prohibition was Venezuela’s out of control violent crime. In 2015, Venezuela’s homicide rate was the world’s highest, with 27,875 Venezuelans murdered that year. More broadly, the Bolivarian Republic is the only South American nation with a homicide rate that has steadily risen since 1995. In the year prior to Maduro’s disarmament initiative, the Venezuelan capital of Caracas had a homicide rate of 122 per 100,000 inhabitants, nearly 20 times the global average of 6.2.

By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate in 2015 was 4.9; the U.S. gun homicide rate was 3.03 (based on calculation from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports).

In 2011, 40 percent of homicides in Caracas stemmed from robberies. The 2009 National Survey of Victimization and Perception of Public Safety found that 70 percent of all major crime incidents in Caracas were armed robberies, 40 percent of which involved cellphones that were resold on the Venezuelan black market.

Communist economics, particularly the government’s seizure of private property without compensation, have been disastrous for Venezuela. As a result, 87 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty; 64.3 percent lost an average of 11 kilograms of weight in 2017. Given the statistical associationbetween poverty and crime, Venezuela’s rampant violent crime and economic problems are linked.

The nicest explanation of Venezuelan gun confiscation is that, for a government that would never loosen its deadly stranglehold on the economy, its best alternative was to actively engage in reducing crime. Given that all legal firearms in Venezuela were already registered, complete disarmament should have been an easy task.

There are an estimated six million firearms (registered and unregistered) in Venezuela. However, voluntary surrenders were close to nil. For example, in 2013, only 37 firearms surrendered, while 12,603 were confiscated. More importantly, the national homicide rate rose from 73 per 100,000 in 2012 to 90 per 100,000 in 2015. The real figures are likely higher as the Maduro regime is well known for purposely undercountingcrime.

One effect of gun prohibition has been the increase of lethal violence against law enforcement. Venezuelan law enforcement are targeted specifically for their firearms with 252 officers being killed in 2015.

Nevertheless, the Maduro government has intensified efforts to disarm Venezuelans, investing $47 million in 2014 to establish 60 centers for voluntary firearm trade-ins and publicly destroying 1,939 confiscated firearms in 2016 as a show of political might.

As has been typical of tyrannies since the dawn of time, arms prohibition has aided in the suppression of dissent. Indeed, the Venezuelan Violent Observatory has reported a notable increase in state violence; lethal extrajudicial force is frequently used against criminals and against political dissidents.

In 2014 and 2017, many Venezuelans took to the streets to protest the Maduro regime’s looting of their economy and destruction of their democracy. In response, the dictatorship employed asymmetric warfare. Heavily-armed state officials and pro-government groups used lethal force against protesters who could defend themselves only with improvised arms such as rocks, fireworks, and giant slingshots that launched jars of paint and human excrement.

As Human Rights Watch reported, the Venezuelan government used live ammunition against protesters, but also fired rubber bullets and teargas canisters at point-blank range with the intent to kill. More than 30 protesters have lost their lives to these methods.

Pivotal to the suppression of protesters (and thus to the perpetuation of the Maduro dictatorship) are colectivos (or “collectives”): pro-government citizen gangs that carry out the regime’s rule by violence. Conceived by Hugo Chavez and trained by state security officials (who are in turn trained by the Cuban secret police), the colectivos paramilitaries are government proxies. They prevent the publication of unfavorable news, decide union disputes, and stifle political protests. Similar gangs are operated by Nicaragua’s Cuban-trained communist dictatorship, for similar purposes.

Moreover, the colectivos have impunity to injure and murder protesters. Providing the Maduro regime with a façade of deniability, the colectivos perpetrate the killings for which the Maduro regime wants to avoid public recrimination. Heavily armed, colectivos have even utilized machine guns against protesters.

How could such sophisticated weaponry fall into the hands of private citizens, given the nation’s stringent firearms prohibition? In 2017, the dictatorship announced that it was providing weapons to approximately 400,000 “militiamen.”

In other words, the Maduro regime stripped Venezuelans of their right to self-defense and then transferred the confiscated firearms to its loyal thugs.

When the public is disarmed, ordinary criminals have greater impunity to rob and murder the innocent. So do criminal governments.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/...-homicide-rate

Thanks - article is totally relevant.

For those that would deign to engage the commies in this country in actual discussion or debate about this subject (I won't):

It has been postulated & fictionalized before that it could happen in a disarmed USA, where the feral bands - rather than the official gov't - are the ones that bend the populace to their will through terror. Venezuela serves as a post-20th century reminder of where motives of despots go when exercising their "wisdom" of knowing what's best for the peasants.

Oddly, progressives seem to admire places like Venezuela - free health care and cheap government gas...

...all the bad stuff is just an inconvenience caused by conservatives and their right wing ideology

LOL...I'll chip in for a One-Way Ticket, it can become the "New Venezuelan State of California"....We can send them on Progressive Airlines...:p

The Failed State of Venezuela.....let's ration our food for the masses...starve out the population....These extreme Socialist States will always fail because their ideology is not about "free for all"; it's always about Control.....Absolute power in the hands of a few ....:munchin

Forewarned can be forearmed
 

Britain’s Failed Weapons-Control Laws Show Why the Second Amendment Matters
By DAVID B. KOPEL
& VINCENT HARINAM
August 28, 2018 6:30 AM
National Review

Edited excerpt below - complete article at link.

”The English government prioritizes the safety of criminals over the safety of their victims. As England shows, the slippery slope of gun control doesn’t end with the confiscation of handguns, but with destruction of the right to self-defense itself.”

Despite very severe anti-knife laws, Great Britain has been suffering from a surge in knife crime. Some Britons propose making the laws even harsher. Others are offering more constructive solutions to get to the root causes of the problem.

Britain’s experience demonstrates the importance of the Second Amendment. Under the logic of the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision, knives are certainly among the “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. Courts in Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Washington are among those that have recognized as much, with courts in the first two states finding that particular knife controls went too far and were unconstitutional.

Although England’s 1689 Bill of Rights recognized the right to possess defensive arms, that right is now a dead letter, as are many of the others enumerated in that document. So today, Great Britain has trapped itself in a vicious cycle of rising crime and intensifying repression.

By the government’s count, knife crime in Britain rose 36 percent between 2013 and 2017. Some of the statistical increase can be attributed to changes in the recording practices of police departments, which have long underreported all sorts of crime. But the Home Office, whose functions include collecting crime statistics, acknowledges that knife crime is up sharply.

National Health Service hospitals reported a 13 percent increase in admissions of victims of knife-related assaults between 2015 and 2016. The next year, between 2016 and 2017, there was a further 7 percent increase. London mayor Sadiq Khan tweeted, “No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.”

The problem certainly isn’t a lack of laws against carrying knives. As Joyce Malcolm details in her book Guns and Violence: The English Experience, since the 1950s, the British have banned carrying anything with the intent to use it for self-defense. This even includes a hatpin, if a woman were to use it against an attempted rapist. In the Orwellian language of British law, the willingness to use something for self-defense makes it an “offensive weapon.”

According to a British police website, it is illegal to carry any “product which is made or adapted to cause a person injury.” Britons are allowed, for example, to carry colored dye spray to mark an attacker, but if they spray the dye in the attacker’s eyes, it “would become an offensive weapon because it would be used in a way that was intended to cause injury.”

An American tourist was even convicted of carrying an “offensive weapon” after she used a pen knife to stab some men who were attacking her. Then, in the 1996 Offensive Weapons Act, carrying a knife was made presumptively illegal, even without the “offensive” intent to use the knife defensively. A person accused of the crime must “prove that he had a good reason or lawful authority for having” it to avoid punishment.

And even then, in practice, having a good reason is no protection. The first victim of the anti-knife law was Dean Payne, a man whose job at a distribution plant was to cut the straps on newspaper bundles. During what a local newspaper called “a routine search of his car,” the police found a lock knife, a small printer’s knife, and a Stanley knife. The magistrate readily accepted Payne’s testimony that he had no intention of using the knife for “offensive” purposes, but nevertheless sent him to jail for two weeks.

The persecution of crime victims and laborers seems to have emboldened rather than deterred violent criminals. So in 2016, the government banned the sale of so-called zombie knives, horror-film-inspired blades that are marketed as collectors’ items. Furthermore, online knife purchases cannot legally be delivered to residential addresses, and all sales to persons under 18 are prohibited.

Earlier this year, Poundland, a British chain of discount stores, terminated the sale of kitchen knives at its 850 locations in the U.K. and Ireland. The company expressed hope that “other retailers will join us.” Dr. John Crichton, chairman of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, has urged lawmakers to prohibit the sale of pointed kitchen knives. Luton Crown Court judge Nic Madge has proposed a national program to file down the points of kitchen knives.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Great Britain had very low homicide rates, and knife controls were close to nil. So what’s driving the present surge in knife attacks? According to the British Home Office, gang and drug activity are significant, interrelated contributors. Between 2014 and 2017, the proportion of homicides involving drugs increased from 50 percent to 57 percent. Conversely, non-drug-related homicides decreased.

Burgeoning crack-cocaine markets have mainstreamed the use of knives (and guns) among British youth. As in the U.S., illegal crack markets incentivize weapons possession and violence. For example, British gangs routinely engage in “taxing” — a new term for old-fashioned violence in territorial battles between gangs. Reporting on a particular method of drug distribution favored by British gangs, U.K. police forces recorded increased knife and firearm possession.

Meanwhile, weapons possession by gangsters has prompted non-gang-affiliated youth to arm themselves for protection.

In short, the U.K. has a drug and gang problem masquerading as a knife problem. Knife control is, by itself, a shallow solution. The futile effort to restrict the supply of knives and anything else that could possibly be used as a weapon ignores the root causes of criminal activity: As is the case everywhere else, crime in the U.K. is strongly associated with broken homes and poverty.

Making things worse, the number of police officers was reduced from 143,734 in 2010 to 123,142 in 2017. Leaked Home Office documents acknowledge that the police cuts “likely contributed” to rising violence, notwithstanding public denials from the Conservative government. Meanwhile, between 2010 and 2016, youth services were cut by £387 million, and 603 youth clubs were closed. Idle youth, broken families, and police cutbacks are a deadly combination.

Fortunately, the Home Office’s recent Serious Violence Strategy offers some sensible ideas, including early intervention and prevention with youth and community partnerships. Somewhat belatedly, there is now also a greater emphasis on hot-spots policing, which allocates scarce policing resources to the areas most affected by violent crime.

But there is more to be done. The U.K. might consider Cure Violence’s violence-interruption program, in which ex-convicts are trained to work in the community to prevent homicides. In the U.S. the program lowered shootings in seven Chicago neighborhoods (reductions of 41 percent to 73 percent), four in Baltimore(reductions of 34 percent to 56 percent), and two in New York (reductions of 37 percent and 50 percent). Perhaps this might help in Britain too.

Arms rights in England were never as robust as in the United States. The U.S. Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, declares that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” The more limited 1689 English Bill of Rights allowed “subjects” to “have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Today, there are no conditions under which English subjects may possess a suitable defensive arm in public. The English government prioritizes the safety of criminals over the safety of their victims. As England shows, the slippery slope of gun control doesn’t end with the confiscation of handguns, but with destruction of the right to self-defense itself.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...efense-rights/

— David B. Kopel is an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Vincent Harinam is a law-enforcement consultant and incoming Ph.D candidate at the University of Cambridge.

Although actually a First Amendment argument...
 

Well done Judge Nunley. :cool:

LINK to original article

As long as we have competent judges we do not have to worry that we may have to exercise the 2nd amendment to preserve the 2nd amendment

True - as long as we continue to elect politicians that don't appoint activists to the bench

Go after the parent...
 

Parent/holding company that is.

Never forget that the war comes from many fronts.
Main LINK to story.

The Moral Right to Self-Defense, and the Right to Bear Arms
 

The Moral Right to Self-Defense, and the Right to Bear Arms

Some historical support for the right to keep and bear arms - 169,000,000+ and counting - complete article at link - excerpts below.

“While details may vary from country to country, any government that respects the full scope of human rights won’t deprive citizens of the tools to save their own lives.”

“University of Hawaii professor R.J. Rummel estimated in 1994, the total number of victims of mass murders by governments from 1901 to 1987 at 169,198,000. The figure doesn’t include deaths of soldiers or civilians from war. With 169 million deaths due to mass murder by government, the risk to life from criminal governments is overwhelmingly larger than the risk to life from lone criminals.”

“Genocide is almost never attempted against a well-armed population.”


The Moral Right to Self-Defense, and the Right to Bear Arms

THE EPOCH TIMES
BY DAVID KOPEL
September 27, 2018 Updated: October 1, 2018

Commentary

Do humans have an inherent right to self-defense? The answer doesn’t depend on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The U.N.’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights preamble recognizes the right to forcible resistance to criminal governments: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

Rather than creating a new right, the U.N. declaration was acknowledging an ancient one. Long ago, the “Analects” of Confucius sanctioned popular revolution: “The head of the Ji family was richer than a king, and yet Ran Qiu [a disciple of Confucius and statesman] kept pressuring the peasants to make him richer still. The master said: ‘He is my disciple no more. Beat the drum, my little ones, and attack him: You have my permission.’”

Mencius, the most influential developer of Confucian thought, equated rapacious governors and ordinary robbers, saying, “Now the way feudal lords take from the people is no different from robbery.” So, according to Mencius, killing a tyrannical emperor (namely the “outcast Tchou”) was not “regicide,” but merely punishing a criminal.

Around 140 B.C., the “The Masters of Huainan” explicated Taoist political thought. Expressing the same principles that would later be stated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Taoists argued that governments are instituted for the good of the people; so if government itself destroys security, the people have a right to overthrow the government.

“The reason why leaders are set up is to eliminate violence and quell disorder. Now they take advantage of the power of the people to become plunderers themselves. They’re like winged tigers—why shouldn’t they be eliminated?” the text states.

Western Views on Self-Defense

Similar truths were recognized in the ancient West. As Aristotle explained in “Politics,” when citizens are disarmed, they become “in effect, the slaves of the class in possession of arms.” Thus, “tyranny” is based on “distrusting the masses … consequent upon it, of depriving them of arms.”

The fundamental Roman law was the Twelve Tables, which were literally 12 bronze tablets set up in the Forum. Table VIII affirmed the lawfulness of killing a night-time home invader. In the daytime, killing a thief was lawful only if the thief defended himself with weapons.

According to Cicero, the great Roman lawyer and orator of the first century B.C., self-defense against lone criminals and against tyrants were both applications of the natural “instinct of self-preservation.” So “if our life be in danger from plots, or from open violence, or from the weapons of robbers or enemies, every means of securing our safety is honorable.”

Later, the Corpus Juris, a compilation of all Roman law, became the foundation of the legal systems in most of continental Western Europe. Under these laws, “it is permissible to repel force by force” and “arms may be repelled by arms.”

Later, Thomas Aquinas elaborated on Gratian’s insights. Self-defense isn’t murder, because the defender’s key intention is to save his or her own life. Likewise, overthrowing a tyrant isn’t “sedition.” “Indeed, it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition,” because tyranny disturbs the proper harmony of society.

Recognizing the right of the people to lawful government, England’s Magna Carta of 1215, Hungary’s Golden Bull of 1222, and the Spanish Castile’s Pact of 1282 all detailed the structures of lawfully armed resistance to a monarch who violated the people’s rights.

The modern system of international law began in the 16th century. Leading theorists such as Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez of Spain were followed by Hugo Grotius of Holland and Samuel Pufendorf of Germany. All of them extrapolated the international law of war from the natural laws of self-defense.

For example, one may not kill a person who is no longer a threat—such as a home invader who has been apprehended and tied up, or a foreign invader who has become a prisoner of war.

Pufendorf approvingly repeated Grotius’s point that a people would never enter into a social compact that forced the surrender of the right to resist an unjust and violent government. It would be better for people to suffer the “Fighting and Contention” of a state of nature than to face “certain Death” because they had given up the right to “oppose by Arms the unjust Violence of their Superiors.”

The genocides of the 20th century would provide deadly confirmation of this point.

Disarmament and Genocide

University of Hawaii professor R.J. Rummel estimated in 1994, the total number of victims of mass murders by governments from 1901 to 1987 at 169,198,000. The figure doesn’t include deaths of soldiers or civilians from war. With 169 million deaths due to mass murder by government, the risk to life from criminal governments is overwhelmingly larger than the risk to life from lone criminals.

Genocide is almost never attempted against a well-armed population. Bosnia, Cambodia, China, Guatemala, Rwanda, the Soviet Union, Sudan, Uganda, and Nazi Germany are among the places where genocidal tyrants made very sure that the victim populations were first disarmed. When genocide is initiated against populations that have been incompletely disarmed, as by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians during World War I, many were able to fight and survive.

Everyone is familiar with the problem of mass shootings by extremists and by persons who are dangerously mentally ill. (The two groups significantly overlap.) The vast majority of these crimes are perpetrated in so-called “gun-free zones.” This continues a historical pattern.

Initially, genocide was carried out by the Nazis using mass shootings. As soon as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union began on June 22, 1941, special SS units called Einsatzgruppen were deployed for mass killings. All the Jews or Gypsies (Roma) in a town would be assembled and marched out of town. Then they would all be shot at once.

The mass shooting of a million people would not have been so easy if the intended victims hadn’t been long-disarmed by Communist and Tsarist arms-control decrees.

To the extent that the European Jews in the Holocaust were able to obtain arms, they fought. They participated in partisan resistance at a far higher rate than any other group in Europe. Armed Jews shut down the extermination camps at Sobibor and Auschwitz. The Jews who did fight, usually by escaping into the woods, had a much higher survival rate than did those who stayed behind in the ghettos.

Because there is a right of self-defense, there must necessarily be a right to possess some defensive arms. Otherwise, the right would be a practical nullity. How can a small woman defend herself against a pair of large rapists if she is unable to arm herself?

The most thorough study of defensive arms use, by professors Jongyeon Tark and Gary Kleck, found that “[a] variety of mostly forceful tactics, including resistance with a gun, appeared to have the strongest effects in reducing the risk of injury.” Thus, “the best available evidence indicates that victim resistance to crimes is generally wise.” Further, “armed and other forceful resistance does not appear to increase the victim’s risk of injury.”

While social scientists have many disagreements about firearms issues, the above results haven’t been challenged.

As for resistance to criminal governments, the utility and necessity of defensive arms against genocide are well established—including by the assiduous efforts of genocidaires to disarm their intended victims.

The sanctity of the home against violent and unexpected invasion is a widely expressed fundamental human right all over the world. Accordingly, the self-defense right and its auxiliary right to arms are at their apex in the home. Laws that impede home defense are especially egregious violations of human rights.

The inherent, global auxiliary right to arms isn’t necessarily as broad as the U.S. Second Amendment. In some situations, chemical sprays or stun guns might be sufficient. For defense against a murderous government, firearms would be necessary.

While details may vary from country to country, any government that respects the full scope of human rights won’t deprive citizens of the tools to save their own lives.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-mo...s_2663983.html

David Kopel is an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington. His most recent book is “The Morality of Self-Defense and Military Action: The Judeo-Christian Perspective.”

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Good read. Thanks.

Funny, Politicians and Leftist Morons talk about repealing the 2nd Amendment but really fail to realize it's our right as American Citizens to bear arms. Issues with gun violence that need to be addressed are about criminals who illegally obtain weapons who commit the most crime/murders with guns. What a shit show, go downtown Baltimore and there are guns everywhere. The cops won't look for them because of the issues in the past unless they have too. Just yesterday there was 8 shootings; 8.....and the leftists and media F's talk about mass shootings when 3 are killed. Look at the statistics; it's not the normal "by the law" citizens; it's the low-life criminals who are protected by the law and the idiot lawyers and judges. BS.....who in the hell are they protecting? Not you, not me....F'tards the lot of them......Blah....Hump Day.....:D

My right to bear arms is not because I'm an American citizen, but because a human being inherently has the right to self defense.. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges the basic human right to bear arms in self defense (and other events) but the right is not bestowed upon me by the Constitution.

Otherwise, I agree with you. I believe that government bodies at all levels understand the problem is not guns, but they the elected representatives are too gutless to address the real problems. Between that and those pursuing the communist agenda of disarming the people through any means necessary puts law abiding citizens in the cross hairs of the anti-freedom crowd.

Stating the obvious
 

Just had to pick up one of these....

LOL....Nice:D

For those who Mentor an SF or other Active Duty
 

These one of the web sites and programs I use when mentoring young SF and Active Duty personnel.

https://www.hillsdale.edu/academics/...nline-courses/

I tell the to start with the Constitution 101. I mean how many times did all of us raise the right hand but really had no idea what it says.

The 2A is the long pole in the tent and the Constitution is in the way of those who wish to change this country.

We have to win the political war at the local level to win the overall war. So lets arm ourselves correctly.

Good sources given that I question what (if any) Civics is taught in schools today.

The Federalist Papers are also a must read in order to place the issues associated with the content of the Constitution into the context of the period. It becomes much easier to understand the why, and also to understand the current day relevance and applicability.

Hillsdale is not cheap, but worth every penny for those who care. They brook no PC/SJW krap and a student will get the stuff (that us FOGs were taught in grade-school & junior high when it was called things like "civics" and "citizenship"), and more. They also have lots of free online courses that may be worth one's time.

I have a friend there (who I came to know through love of instrumental surf music) who is an Econ prof (besides being a scary-good guitarist). He's originally from Yugoslavia (Dad & family brought him over), still speaks Croat, and is not bashful about his stance. He did a wonderful little video of one of his seminars where he completely disembowels Socialism as an economic model. Not specifically 2A related, but a good listen. I'll see if I can find the link... ahhh:

For those who have an attention span longer than the average political-activist snowflake, it's about an hour and :eek: yeah, you're seeing right - he gave it at UC-Berkeley, in the belly of the beast. He gets kudos & beers from me for that.

Oh, yeah; it's not all about personal self-defense either, so maybe it is related. Because with aspiring socialists around, the 2A enables me to literally keep what's rightfully mine because without personal property rights, there is no liberty.

Collateral link
 

I think it's important that the current (as of this date) goings-on in the failed Socialist state of Venezuela are memorialized here, with link to CURINTEL on the actual ramifications of gun confiscation (and consenting to it). The article tonyz links to here, with it's 2nd page in the following post is a read that should not be missed. If the Venezuelans' own words don't serve to ring the bell, you are deaf & numb & should just shut up & get on the fuckin' boxcar.

I think you're going to need a lot more boxcars. Besides - given the years of indoctrination inflicted on this country; I don't think there are enough vacant Walmarts to process the contents of those boxcars. (Though the Walmarts were originally supposed to be for the anti-establishment types ;).)

Attention Wal-Mart shoppers! Would all of the progressive socialists please report to either room 5.56 or room .308 immediately.

If we're going to borrow from the "progressive" playbook, isn't that a bit of overkill? IIRC, the Lubyanka made do with Tokarevs and Makarovs (though their victims were counter-revolutionaries which aren't quite as hard-headed as the average progressive).

So you're saying rooms 9, 40 or 45 instead? :D

Maybe this could be used as a stepping stone to go after gun bans based on cosmetic features ("assault" weapon bans).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rt/2347167002/

Something to pay close attention to, regardless of how you feel about the item in question. The legal implications are... unsettling, if allowed to stand.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/bump-stocks

To understand the context, you must understand that the ATF previously ruled Bumpstocks are not machineguns. They "changed their minds" under pressure from the head of the DOJ, who was directly asked/ordered by the president to change the classification. In other words, the executive branch pressured the DOJ into effectively changing the law. No congressional oversight. Legislation by fiat, if I may say so. There are already several lawsuits in progress, but the simple attempt is very disturbing to me.

"No."
 

Someone pre-emptively said "No" in Boulder, CO last April and now, following the 1 Jan deadline, affirmed that here.

Don't the elites in Boulder look so proud of themselves.
:munchin

Not a whole lot of testosterone on that council, not that that would probably make a difference in Boulder.

Americans have forgotten who they are and where they came from...the seductive, but flawed mantra of diversity and multiculturalism for its own sake...the cries for open borders and massive tax increases (that’s the true desire of elite climate change advocates)...walls, armed security and private jets for the elite...increased crime (heck, Boulder wants to make some otherwise law abiding folks CRIMINALS overnight) and misery for the rest...rules for thee not for me.

Is there really any doubt remaining that the socialist/globalist agenda is really about tyranny. All differing viewpoints are deemed immoral or labeled hate speech. How inclusive...the phony power grabbing lot of them. We have all viewed the two sets of law currently practiced by the elites in DC...one for the elites and one for the rest of us. This is really shaping up to be an interesting lead up to 2020.

Please excuse me for my difference of opinion, and I hope to not be flamed, but the broad brush of "Americans," leaves me to suggest that maybe a better point of view would be to say, "Some Americans."

Being an American myself and supporting Our American Fighting Forces, leads me to this conclusion that not ALL Americans have forgotten who they are, or where they came from. I know I haven't! And nothing about the current goings on will change my opinion.

Maybe we should use a smaller brush to paint, Americans???:munchin

Just my very humble opinion on this topic.


Holly

Ok. Too Many Americans - and if that weren’t true - we would not need the letter that was the subject of the OP.

But, it is true, and we need that letter and all the follow up.

The Consitutional Republic is under attack daily.

POWER for the "elitist " ?????
 

TOO LATE for the 7 zip-codes around DC to do anything about the 2nd Amendment. There are an estimated 300 million firearms in this country & with the very deep division in the USA who will come to collect your weapons? The local police, the federal police, The US Army,???

Tonyz, I get it. Trust me. I get the point. In today's day and age though when someone says, "Americans," and implies All, it just gets my shirt up...and gun. ;)

We are on the same side of this issue. Believe me. I have been following this thread since its inception. :lifter


Holly

I sure hope you are right. However, there are current and former generals as well as some SOF folks and many, many political thought leaders who would argue that civilians don’t need most semi-auto rifles currently in common use.

If the Stateist/globalists continue to indoctrinate enough young folks...they’ll just outlast the dinosaurs and hell many may voluntarily turn those evil black rifles in. If the biggest threat to the world is global warming whatch gonna need a piece of iron for?

Never mind that cartridges may eventually cost a months salary, legislatures may have mandated strict liability for any use, mandatory insurance, no more public or private ranges, increased zoning restrictions, etc., etc.,

Buy ‘em cheap and stack ‘em deep.

Trackin’ Holly ! but the mere existence of this web site and this very thread supports the notion that “Americans” by definition...most def does NOT mean “all Americans” as used in the post which caused you some concern. I must acknowledge that I was not that precise. Mea culpa and my apologies. Point well taken and duly noted !

Being on the same side sometimes requires flexibility, diplomacy, communication skills and tact...attributes which I obviously need to work on daily. :D

I think that something to keep in mind as times get 'sportier' is that, certainly initially, the individuals who say "No" are going to be vilified & demonized in main-stream accounts of these things. Someone will get jammed up by an ex- mother-in-law twice removed & find themselves at the wrong end of one of these no-due-process "red flag" laws, and say "No." Someone will get ratted out by a flannel-shirted trap-shooter at the range for having an evil 30-round magazine, there will be a visit, and they will say "No."

So it's important to understand the terrain, especially when we know that reporting as it's done these days relies on spellcheck and zero understanding, where more than 2 firearms is an "Arsenal!" :eek: and more than a brick of .22 LR is a "massive stockpile!" :eek:

Until the feelzgood crowd starts seeing some personal consequences as a result of their actions, this is only the beginning. All the diversity mongers, and soy-boys and "genteel gentlemen" and youngsters with ethnic studies degrees on the town councils are just another echo chamber. As a sage blogger recently wrote: "Diversity is Stockholm Syndrome writ large." Until they see the potential for torches & pitchforks, they'll continue to think they did the right thing.

So, not caring whether the following is gender-inclusive, some folks in Boulder had better "man up."

Marco Rubio Brings Back 'Red Flag' Bill for New Congress
http://sunshinestatenews.com/story/m...l-new-congress

Sure glad this squishy NRA A+ rated cuck isn't POTUS.

Guilty until proven innocent.

Politicians of all stripes openly demonstrate (intentional or unintentional) contempt for due process these days.

The pressure to “do something...”

“...anything...”

Often results in the creation of horrible law.

Punishing a person who is merely accused is a recipe for problems.

A fast track evidentiary hearing allowing both sides to appear would seem respectful to the Constitution and still provide for community safety.

Not for nothing but what happens when one of these empty suit politicians is "red flagged" by a concerned citizen?

...people get fucking shot all the time over "SWAT'ing" pranks.
Now we are going to kick it up and let folks start red flagging each other just to put them on Big Brothers radar.


O'Brien would be so proud !!!

A gun owner, jammed up by a po'd relative has already been killed in Maryland (warrant servers don't like to hear "No").

That cuts two ways. What does the bestowing of an A+ rating say about the NRA?
:rolleyes: