Category Archives: 2nd Amendment

PJB Warns Of “Revolution” If Government Attempts Ban

Archconservative Patrick J. Buchanan, a regular panelist on The McLaughlin Group, is never at a loss for words. However, his warnings about the potential implications of an attempted gun ban and/or confiscation law certainly left his fellow panelists – notably, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek – speechless Sunday:

JOHN MCLAUGHLIN: With no Second Amendment, Congress could pass a law, as limited as this: banning assault rifles or as sweeping as prohibiting all private firearm ownership and requiring the surrender of all privately held firearms.

BUCHANAN: There would be a revolution in this country!

MCLAUGHLIN: Baloney! That doesn’t mean you can’t own one, but you have to put it in first and then go try —

BUCHANAN: There are 270 million guns in this country right now, John, and they’re adding to them at a rate of 16 million a year.

The Giant, Gaping Hole In Sandy Hook Reporting

David Kupelian, managing editor of WND, and author of the bestselling (except in liberal circles) book How Evil Works has written a groundbreaking article about how the media is ignoring a common thread in mass-shootings: in most of these incidents, the perpetrators were either taking, or just coming off of, some form of psychiatric medication.

Adam Lanza, who is vaguely reported to have had psychiatric issues, probably was on some sort of P-meds. However, the media shows little interest in getting to the bottom of this particular facet of the case. Historically, the media has shown similar disinterest, for example, in the fact that Eric Harris, of Columbine infamy, was taking prescription Luvox; or that Kip Kinkle was taking Prozax and Ritalin; or that Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui  was taking a witch’s brew of prescription P-meds.

The warning labels for these drugs all warn of possible side-effects and contraindications that are consistent with the behavior of rampage killers:

Paxil’s known “adverse drug reactions” – according to the drug’s FDA-approved label – include “mania,” “insomnia,” “anxiety,” “agitation,” “confusion,” “amnesia,” “depression,” “paranoid reaction,” “psychosis,” “hostility,” “delirium,” “hallucinations,” “abnormal thinking,” “depersonalization” and “lack of emotion,” among others.

The most popular class of P-meds are the Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs. In animations on the Internets and on television, and in ubiquitous magazine ads, depression is shown as the result of low-levels of seratonin or other neurotransmitters in the brain. These molecules are released in certain quantities, fitting like keys into tiny locks in the next neuron, causing it to fire. Not enough firing, and depression sets in. Blocking the reuptake of these chemicals by neurons allows them to stay in the synapses between neurons longer, causing the receiving neuron to keep right on firing, thus alleviating the depression. At least, according to the animations.

However, the action of SSRIs, and their supposed benefits for depressives, is largely theoretical. The biochemistry and pharmacology of the brain, and how this relates to things like mood or sanity, is not well understood. Nobody has ever peered into the synapses of living brains and observed this reuptake inhibition occurring, much less mapped out the exact mechanisms of depression. SSRIs are produced as a theoretical way to solve a poorly understood problem. Clinical trials are then conducted to see if consumption of this medicine actually helps. Pharmaceutical companies say they seem to help; so does the FDA, which approves them for use.

However, I deal with persons every day – sometimes several times a day – who are mentally ill and using these meds. The pattern seems to be that the patient reports depression, and is given a drug. If it doesn’t work, another drug is given … and so on, until something given by the doctor produces satisfactory results. In other words, it is all trial-and-error, a crap shoot from patient to patient. If this is science, it is voodoo science.

Obama, his pals in the media, and members of his regime in government may say they want a “comprehensive” approach to gun violence in America. But clearly, they are fixated on guns as the culprits, and want to remove them from our hands.

If they were honest, they would look at the correlations between mass shootings and psychiatric drugs, and seek to address why the real bad actors in these incidents – those pulling the triggers – decided it was OK to shoot up innocent people.


Obama Regime Plans Broad Gun Control

The Obama regime is considering – in the words of Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence – proposals for gun control that are, “… a deeper exploration than just the assault weapons ban”:

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

In other words, a bunch of feel-good, social-work-feeling nonsolutions that’ll cost a lot of money but play well to the press, wrapped around a ban of most modern firearms.

The entire story can be read here, at the Washington Post website.


Illinois Contemplates Confiscation

The Illinois State Rifle Association has sent out an “urgent alert”  regarding a pair of pending bills in the Land Of Lincoln (LOL) that would effectively ban gun ownership here. These are the bulletins, with relevant links, courtesy of the ISRA:


MESSAGE FROM COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS: “Eliminating law-abiding gun owners is a good ‘first step’ towards a ‘civil society.’”

Votes on HB815 and HB1263 were split along party lines in the Senate Public Health Committee Wednesday night with the committee Democrats voting 6-4 and 6-3 to send the bills to the full senate. If these two bills become law, they will resulting most, if not all ranges in the state going out of business as well as the banning of ALL semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns as well as banning all pump shotguns and rifles.

In comments made during testimony, committee Democrats stated plainly that HB815 and HB1263 were “first steps” and that these bills have as their objective the creation of a “more civil society.” In other words, elimination of lawful gun owners is a required first step for creating a more civil society. Of course, there was no mention of the impact of eliminating criminals.


1. Call Senator Dave Syverson at (217) 782-5413 and tell him “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

2. Call Senator Shane Cultra at (217) 782-6597 and tell him “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

3. Call Senator Christine Johnson at (217) 782-1977 and tell her “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

4. Call Senator Carole Pankau at (217) 782-9463 and tell her “THANK YOU” for supporting lawful gun owners by voting “NO” on HB815 and HB1263.

It is very important that you praise these Senators for their support.

The ringleader of the effort to shut down shooting ranges and take your guns away from you is Senator Dan Kotowski. You may wish to call him at (217) 782-3875 and politely explain to him that, as a law-abiding gun owner, you do not appreciate being treated like a criminal and that you oppose any efforts to regulate shooting ranges, ban semiautomatic firearms, or ban standard capacity magazines.

Posted Wed Jan 2 22:29:34 CST 2013




A pair of nightmare bills is on the move at this moment in the Illinois Senate.

These two bills would:

1. Run all gun ranges out of business by imposing heavy fees, imposing special staffing requirements, warrantless searches of ranges and customers, unlimited unannounced “inspections.”

2. Ban all semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns as well as pump action shotguns.

Here are direct links to the two bills:






1. Follow the instructions below and contact your Illinois State Senator. Politely tell your senator that you are a law-abiding gun owner and you want them to vote AGAINST HB815 and HB1263. CALL NOW!

2. Pass this information on to your gun owning friends and family, tell them to call as well.

3. Post this alert to all Internet blogs and bulletin boards to which you belong.

The worst of the two bills, HB815 is being sponsored and pushed by anti-gun Senator Dan Kotowski. Go to his link: Call him at the numbers listed and tell him that you do not appreciate him trying to shut down gun ranges and taking your guns away from you. He needs to hear from you!

Posted Wed Jan 2 21:17:56 CST 2013


Illinois Senator Dan Kotowski (pictured above) is touted as the fellow most responsible for this legislation. According to his official biography:

Since taking the oath of office in January of 2007, Dan has quickly become an independent voice for the 33rd Senate district ushering in a new era of progressive leadership for Illinois. He was sworn-in for his second term on January 14, 2009.

Kotowski sponsored legislation in 2007 that would have prohibited assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles. His bill made it through a Senate committee but died on the floor.

Another Illinois State Senator from the 1st District, Antonio Muñoz – pictured below – is responsible for the “Assault Weapon Ban” components of this legislation. He is an ex-Chicago PD cop, and a longtime foe of gun rights. Also, he is pushing to provide illegal immigrants/undocumented workers valid Illinois driver’s licenses. A comprehensive bio of Muñoz can be found here, at Ballotpedia.

Illinois State Senator Antonio Muñoz

Illinois State Senator Antonio Muñoz

Apart from allowing grandstanding “progressive” politicos another chance to stand before the cameras with their arms dramatically outspread, like mini-Mussolinis addressing cheering mobs of fascists on the Illinois floor, I can’t imagine what they expect to accomplish with these bills. Well, sure … they’d like to see us all turn in our guns to the Illinois State Police; and certainly, they’d like very much to get reelected by their “progressive” voter bases. But down deep, they have to realize these bills are about as airworthy as lead dirigibles. Like Kotowski’s Quixotic 2007 attempt to ban .50 cal rifles, this new effort is probably doomed.

I say “probably” because, let’s face it: these are powerful men. Downstate, our representatives will not support these bills. However, just as the super-massive black hole in the center of our galaxy calls the shots way out in the spiral arms where we live, the super-ignorant black hole in Cook County, Illinois has substantial influence all the way down to Cairo at Illinois’ southernmost tip.

So, yes, if you live in the LOL, get on the phone, on your e-mail account, maybe even write a letter using actual paper and raise five kinds of bloody-friggin’-hell with your elected representatives.

Obama To Go “Quickly” For Gun Control, Immigration Reform

An Obama Regime official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Huffington Post today the Prez will go “quickly” for gun control and immigration. Some sort of action is expected by the end of January, 2013.

The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well.

The HuffPo article mentions U.S. Rep Zoe Lofgren as spearheading Obama’s efforts on immigration reform; there is no word as to which moonbat will command the Push For American Citizen Disarmament, but it seems likely their name will end with einstein and start with F.

What is being suggested is a legislative push on both issues, rather than Executive Orders. But Democrats seem to see passage of sweeping gun control and immigration reform as a cakewalk, and are cheered by the fact that House Speaker John Boehner seems to be tucking tail in dealing with the White House:

Good news for immigration advocates may have come Tuesday night, when Boehner broke the so-called “Hastert Rule” and allowed the fiscal cliff bill to come for a vote without support from a majority of his Republican conference. Given opposition to immigration reform by many Tea Party Republicans, the proof that Boehner is willing to bypass them on major legislation is a good sign, the Democratic aide said.

Indeed. Neither Boehner nor former VP Candidate Paul Ryan offered much resistance to Obama’s demands on the “fiscal cliff” crisis. If this sort of invertebrate behavior continues when gun control comes up for a vote, we gun owners may have a real problem.

Taking a lead from USMC Corporal Joshua Boston, we should be contacting our elected representatives and reminding them that Democrat efforts to ban guns, and register owners like sex offenders, will not be tolerated.

U.S. Marine Gives Feinstein The What-For

Joshua Boston, a former U.S. Marine who was deployed to Afghanistan from 2004 – 2005, has sent a scorching letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) in regards to her plan to disarm the American public. The letter has gone viral all across the Internets. It is so succinct I have to reproduce it here:

Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,

Joshua Boston

Cpl, United States Marine Corps

As harsh as this letter sounds, I imagine it is quite gentle next to some of the mail Madam Senator has surely received in recent days from gun owners.

Feinstein Ban “Political Suicide” For Dems

Attorney Mark Kogan is certainly no friend to firearm owners. Only last week, he hyperventilated over the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre calling for armed guards at schools.

Since then, Kogan has penned a piece entitled, “Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban Is Political Suicide For Democrats“:

In one sweeping stroke, Feinstein intends to instigate the pro-gun lobby, alienate the majority of Americans who oppose re-instating a federal assault weapons ban, and run head long into a constitutional battle, all without even the faintest hope of bill passage.

While the bill sounds great on paper if you’re playing to a politically progressive base, it will do little if anything to actually address gun violence in this country.

In 1994, Congress passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban outlawed the new manufacture and sale of specific models of semiautomatic weapons and high capacity magazines.

After a decade in existence, the bill did little more than cost Democrats the control of Congress.

Kogan argues that the problem of gun violence is more a cultural phenomenon than a function of the ease of purchasing so-called “assault weapons”. He recommends more pragmatic solutions, such as better background checks to ensure mentally ill persons cannot purchase firearms, and better enforcement of existing laws. Welcome to the NRA, Mr. Kogan.

Calling an attempt to pass Feinstein’s ban “divisive” and “bone-headed”, he warns his progressive comrades that they will lose, and lose big, in the next election for even supporting such a bill.

Already, even the threat of such a ban has had unhappy consequences for gun-grabbers. As pointed out by Mike Adams at InfoWars, in a story entitled, “By Calling For Gun Control, You Are Unleashing Your Own Worst Nightmare“:

By screaming about how they wish to destroy the Second Amendment and disarm the American people, collectivist media gun grabbers and “school shooting doomsday” fear mongers have managed to do exactly what they hoped NOT to do: They have pushed millions of AR-15s and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition into the private hands of Americans.

This has certainly been my observation, watching recent action at gun shops and shows. Since the financial crash of 2008, and the onset of the Obama regime, there has been an explosion of ordinary, everyday people deciding to purchase serious ordinance. Every time the word “ban” is uttered by someone in Washington, there is a tsunami at the gun shops and gun shows. Just the other day, I was shopping in the housewares section of Walmart when I happened across an attractive, well-dressed woman talking with a teenage girl, presumably her daughter. They were talking about buying guns for home defense. Firearm ownership has become ubiquitous in America, along with the fear that something bad – a natural disaster, economic collapse, etc – could happen.

It gets even better. Bill Owens, author of So You Want To Own A Gun, and an accomplished gun writer, did a column for the Western Rifle Shooters Association entitled, “What You’ll See In The Rebellion“. In it, Owens makes the following observations:

Ironically, while the gun grab was intended to keep citizens from preserving their liberties with medium-powered weapons, it completely ignored the longer-ranged rifles perfect for shooting at ranges far beyond what a security detail can protect, and suppressed .22LR weapons proven deadly in urban sniping in Europe and Asia …

The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they can not be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic.

While Owens is not advocating the armed overthrow of the US government, he understands not just the mood of the country, and the capabilities of its citizens as well. His blunt description of a hypothetical armed rebellion in the wake of a gun ban from Washington should give progressives pause.

Liberal or conservative, no matter which way you slice it, a renewed Assault Weapon Ban, in which legal gun owners would be registered like so many child sex offenders, is bad news for all concerned. It would be far better if Feinstein and her ilk recognized the foolhardiness of such a law, and stood down. Absolutely no good will come of it, for anybody.

For Every Action …

Whatever you’ve been hearing about what madhouses gun shops and gun shows have become the last week or two, the reality is far, far more intense.

Here’s a gun show I myself attended in St. Charles, Missouri. The sheer volume of people in attendance was unlike anything I’ve ever experienced; the footage fails to approach the reality of this:

No, I’m not the guy at the 0:00:05 mark wearing the black “Punisher” hoodie. But if you look closely at the crowd footage, you might see me somewhere in the background.

There have been plenty of remarks in the media about “panic buying” at gun shows and gun shops. I didn’t get a sense of “panic” at this event; buyers were calm and polite. “Determined” would be a better word. Many of the buyers of I spoke to said they already owned several guns, realized some day they’d need to invest in a “black rifle”, but had put the decision off as long as possible. Now, with the threat of a new Assault Weapon Ban, they believed the window for buying was in danger of closing.

“Time to fish or cut bait,” said one.

So I wandered the maze of tables, watching the noobs haggling over AR15s while the old hands stocked up on springs, bolt carriers and other spare parts.

As demand has skyrocketed in the wake of recent events, prices on select semiautomatic rifles have at least doubled – or even tripled, in some cases. What’s more, people – and lots of them – are actually paying these incredible prices.

People are not deterred by the thought of paying close to $3000 for a RRA Elite Operator 2 that, a couple of months ago, went for $1000. Even in these strained financial times, no few people are scraping the money together to buy as many of these arms as possible, before a ban of some sort can hit. The determination of ordinary people to arm themselves – while they can, in their view – should give pause to the gun grabbers. What the Dianne Feinsteins of the world should take from this is that the American people will not easily allow themselves to be disarmed.

This morning on “Meet The Press”, Obama said:

“I’m going to be putting forward a package and I’m going to be putting my full weight behind it. I’m going to be making an argument to the American people about why this is important and why we have to do everything we can to make sure that something like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary does not happen again.

“Will there be resistance? Absolutely there will be resistance,” he said.

The Chattering Class, Obama’s seemingly endless cadre of media propagandists are having a field day. Two of the highlights: morbidly obese filmmaker Michael Moore, who thinks Fidel Castro is a swell guy, burbling, “Calm down, white people, and put away your guns“; and CNN talking head Piers (rhymes with … oh, never mind) Morgan, boasting about his expertise with firearms (he says he once fired a gun in the imaginary caliber of “Magnum 45″), while whining about the petition to deport him at White House dot Gov; and being veddy, veddy angry at how Americans are still buying AR15s – a teddible, teddible thing, old fellow …

Facebook – hardly a Conservative bastion to begin with - has been busily purging pro-Second Amendment and pro-Liberty pages this weekend. It would seem that Mark Zuckerberg has finally figured out that being a plutocrat means stifling dissent wherever possible. Yes, leave the hoi-polloi to play Farmville, post meaningless tripe about nothing at all, and not discuss anything of importance. Sleep, sleeeeeep …

(I once had a Facebook account, for about two months. I found it the most incredibly stultifying experience I’ve ever had, even worse than playing Tetris. But Facebook seemed consumed with mouthy liberals even then – perhaps because liberals are masters of wasting time.)

The relentless pressure from government and media to abolish firearms was on a lot of people’s minds at St. Charles. If I could attribute the massive attendance to a single factor, it would be this one. Liberals think they can stamp out the Second Amendment and everything that goes with it. But their efforts have exactly the opposite effect.

In biology, when a colony of organisms is stressed, it responds by adapting, by evolving. This is why we have antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Bacteria are pretty stupid – though not as stupid as most liberals. Yet bacteria can change, growing harder and stronger, when we attempt to wipe them out. Excepting liberals, people are a lot smarter than bacteria. Place downward pressure on them, and they adapt and evolve with remarkable aplomb.

Try to wipe out the Jews and they create Israel, and stockpile 400 or so nuclear weapons, in no time.

In Russia, as Lenin and the communists came to power, there were “thieve’s guilds” – loose affiliations of pickpockets and petty burglars plying what they considered their trade. Lenin and, subsequently, Stalin tried to wipe them out. These low-level mopes were systematically hunted down, sent to gulags, or lined up in front of open trenches and machinegunned en masse. The USSR was the most powerful, successful police state the world has ever seen … yet, they could not eradicate the thieve’s guilds. Today, the descendants of these petty criminals – the Russian Mafiyas – pretty much run the country, selling purloined submarines to interested buyers.

Attempting to wipe out gun ownership in America will fare no better.

The left has set out to eliminate conservatives in general and gun-owning conservatives in particular. That is an old story, but the right has been changing to address this existential threat over the last couple of decades. The transformation is occurring rapidly, and may explain why Mitt Romney lost the 2012 General Election. Romney was adapted to the conservative environment of the 70s or 80s. He seems never to have gotten the memo that the conservative movement in America was rapidly evolving. These days, even the Tea Party is growing passé.

Conservatives in general, gun owners in particular, are being radicalized at a breathless rate. This is not to say they’re ready to start blowing up police stations, as did leftist radicals in the 1960s. Applied to modern conservatives, the word “radical” subtends a worldview unlike anything we’ve seen in the past. Continued oppression by liberals will ultimately result in a tough, armed, conservative subculture that liberals will be able to neither recognize nor cope with.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Gun Control As Castration

by Michael Enoch, Alternative Right

Is there really any rational basis for the idea of gun control? Or is it just a desperate grasping for some kind of symbolic control after an outbreak of mass violence? Or is it something even deeper? On its face the idea of gun control is ridiculous. Conservatives, libertarians and gun enthusiasts have been making the same basic points for years whenever the issue comes up in response to whatever the latest mass shooting incident happens to be. The fact that there will be such incidents is a social inevitability at this point.

The simple argument is that whatever the latest mass murder happens to be, it was the act of a deranged or vengeful criminal and law abiding folks ought not be deprived of their means of recreation and self defense for the crimes of another. Such shooting rampages inevitably happen in areas where the shooter is the only armed individual and thus faces no resistance. Criminals, and particularly those driven enough to carry out such a rampage, will find a way to arm themselves one way or the other no matter what the law may be. Gun restrictions would only leave the law abiding defenseless against such psychopaths. Some even assert that the proper response ought to be putting more guns in more hands rather than vice-versa.

Some of these points have merit, and some may be stretching it, but the fact remains that gun control is just damned impractical. It cannot actually be done with anything close to the degree of effectiveness that the liberal fanatics would wish. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands in the US. The culture of gun ownership is a part of the fabric of society in areas outside of the liberal havens of the northeast. Any attempt to ban or restrict guns will inevitably lead to far more social unrest and potential violence than it would ever solve. Even if one finds this distasteful, it is the only conclusion that can be drawn based on a sober assessment of reality.

Yet the issue is still pushed with religious fervor by the true believers and social crusaders. Gun rights groups and gun owners are cast as evil accomplices to murder by these do-gooders merely for engaging in pro-gun advocacy. Such was the case earlier today when members of the women’s protest group “Code Pink” – a sort of liberal, feminist version of the Westboro Baptist Church — interrupted an NRA press conference by screaming slogans and unfurling a banner accusing the NRA of guilt by proxy in the recent school killings.

How to explain this? Why such hysterics over the NRA, a fairly moderate and mainstream group by most standards? Do these women really think that they can stop such outbreaks of violence merely by passing some petty bureaucratic measures, all the while continuing to hide their heads in the sand about the real social roots of the “mass shooter” phenomenon?

The answer is that killings and violence are not really the issue as far as the deeper impulses and desires these women have to ban or restrict access to firearms. The fact that it was a feminist group protesting the NRA is not an accident. Gun control is an issue that has historically been pushed by feminist and women’s groups. It comes down to the psychological roots of feminism and the desperate need of such women to control, manage and limit male agency. Essentially gun control is an attempt to perform a symbolic castration of all men in society, in particular those men that would outwardly manifest strength and a will to power by owning a gun, being committed to self defense and engaging in hunting or sportsmanship with firearms.

A gun is an obvious symbol of male power, sexuality and virility. This is the real reason why the gun issue is such an emotional flashpoint for feminists and prompts them to frantic outbursts such as the one at the NRA press conference. Unfortunately as our society gets ever more feminized, as masculinity is ever more marginalized and the traditional male virtues of strength, agency and vitality are ever more demonized, a growing number of virtually cuckolded liberal beta males can be expected to fall in line with this agenda and willingly castrate themselves on the altar of feminism. And of course in a democracy politicians are all too willing to indulge this sort of movement in exchange for power.

In a 1994 research paper titled “Sex and Guns: Is Gun Control Male Control?” Canadian sociologist H. Taylor Buckner documented three surveys he conducted of his undergraduate students concerning their attitudes on guns and gun control. He concluded that:

…students who were pro gun control were also pro homosexual, pro censorship of pornography, and not experienced with guns.

and that:

…men and women have different patterns of motivation for being pro gun control. The men who favor gun control are those who reject traditional male roles and behavior. They are opposed to hunting, are pro homosexual, do not have any experience with or knowledge of guns and tend to have “politically correct” attitudes. The women who support gun control do so in the context of controlling male violence and sexuality. Gun control is thus symbolic of a realignment of the relation between the sexes.

One of the exercises in the survey invited students to do a sentence completion exercise to express in their own words their feelings on guns, gun owners, gun clubs and hunting  The responses are revealing:

When I think of Gun Clubs, I think… (female, unfavorable)

People who seek power/control… Boys trying to prove their value… No guns whatsoever should be allowed anywhere… I am totally against those clubs, first of all guns should not exist, only purpose is killing people and animals… Violent men with a violent pastime… Men collected there to show off their strength and women who go along with it… Of heartless men and wonder about why they attend those clubs; I hate gun clubs… Fear, unacceptable activity… Men who have something to prove by acting “macho.” They are dangerous to society and to themselves… Masochistic people who have to live their lives behind a gun in fear… Kinky, weird people… Ignorance, uneducated… Power through sick minds. Violence.

The psychology here should be apparent. The idea of powerful males or males expressing some sort of dominance, even if only in imagination, is clearly distressing to these women. Their immediate response is to want to control it and shut it down, to appeal to a higher power to enforce the rules on those naughty men and boys. The general hostility and suspicion with which feminists regard male only or “boys club” type social spaces is also at play.

To further hammer home the point that the desire for gun control is essentially irrational and not based on any facts or real world knowledge Buckner tested the students on their own personal knowledge and experience with guns and then correlated those results with their attitudes on gun control. He found:

Less than 1% knew that there is a five year penalty for an unregistered handgun (the most frequent guess was a $500 fine). Only 6% knew that handguns account for less than 20% of the murders in Canada (most guessed that it was around two-thirds, as in the U.S.). Only 11% knew the difference between a rifle and a shotgun. Thirty-two percent knew that the magazine of a gun does not have a trigger. Figure 5 shows, knowledge of the subject is not widespread. Pro gun control attitudes do not appear to depend on knowledge or rationality.

Figure 6 The less knowledge of and experience with guns a student has the more pro gun control they are. In fact, the more experience and knowledge one has of guns the lower the support for gun control.

It is clear from these results that the gun control attitude is not an informed opinion that one comes to after sober reflection and analysis. Rather is a product of ignorance, irrational fear and the desire to control and manage what is perceived as the threat of out of control male sexuality and agency. Gun control is castration.


Originally published at The Right Stuff

Feinstein’s Folly

Corpulent Senator Dianne Feinstein announced today she will be introducing legislation early in 2013 to “stop the spread of deadly assault weapons“.

In a nutshell, her idea is to reclassify “assault” weapons, as well as magazines accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition, as Title II Firearms. People who currently own such things will be permitted to keep them. However, those owners will have to register these arms, submit to photographing and fingerprinting, and pay a surcharge for each weapon (if I read the proposed law correctly, each magazine as well). This surcharge, authorized under the decades-old National Firearms Act of 1934, has previously been applied only to machineguns, silencers, destructive devices, and rifles or shotguns with barrels less than 18″ in length. It is the “Federal Tax Stamp” we all know and love costing, at current rates, $200.

Just the threat of this is causing mass hysteria. One of our detectives commented today that base-model DPMS AR15s, which normally go for around $600, are currently being sold for three times that at some dealers. Over at InfoWars, Alex Jones is saying – not to put too fine a point on it – that we are in “deep shit”.

My view is that just because some grizzled hag from the Land Of Fruits And Nuts (California) introduces legislation, it doesn’t mean it will pass. In the current political climate in Washington, D.C., gridlock rules. While the GOP does not have a majority in the Senate, and while the White House is occupied by Obama, the GOP still calls the shots in the House – enough to throw a giant wrench into the works, so long as we keep them properly motivated.

Obama could sign an Executive Order, as some have suggested, to reclassify semiautomatic firearms as Title II weapons under the NFA. However, analysts on both sides of the aisle realize that such a hamfisted act would carry consequences – the least of which would be widespread noncompliance. Challenges would quickly be brought in the U.S. Supreme Court. Republicans have signaled they would defund the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which would be responsible for enforcing the measure. As with the previous Assault Weapon Ban, Democrats would lose their jobs en masse.

This is not to say the current regime will not try, and try hard, to reclassify semiautomatics and high-capacity magazines as falling under NFA. They would do so not to reduce violence by maniacs (if that were the case, they’d pass laws allowing lunatics to be more readily locked away). They will try to pass such a law, either by legislation or Executive Order, simply because they are broke, and they desperately need the money.

If you think those in government care – on a human, emotional level – about the children killed by madman Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook K-4, think again. I can say that, because I’ve worked for government these past 27 years. Government cares about exactly two things: (1) money, and (2) power.

When legislators in Illinois passed mandatory seatbelt laws some years back, the public mantra was, “Think of the lives we will save”. But during unguarded moments, political figures – hoping to appeal to the dark side of police – privately said, “Think of the revenue you cops will be able to generate for your departments by writing seatbelt tickets. Of course, the State of Illinois gets a cut. But you guys’ll have plenty of revenue left to buy all kinds of new equipment, get pay raises, and so forth, with this law”. I myself believe seatbelts are good things. Call me crazy, but I believe writing legislation for the express purpose of fleecing the public is a bad thing.

In a similar way, I doubt Feinstein is emotionally invested in the deaths of the children at Sandy Hook. No, this harridan sees dollar signs, not dead children. She sees lots and lots of dollar signs that can be used to feed the insatiable monster on the Potomac.

Nobody really knows how many firearms are privately held in American hands, but the best estimates are around 300 million. Let’s say half of those, 150 million, would require a Federal Tax Stamp at $200 a pop. That’s $30,000,000,000 – a tidy sum, even in this era when the word “trillion” is casually tossed about in government circles. Throw in some magazines for these firearms, each requiring a separate tax stamp for lawful ownership, and we’re in trillion-dollar-revenues territory.

Those in government, like Feinstein, have held onto their power for decades and decades because they buy votes. “I’ll give you goodies – checks, programs and benefits,” they say, “as long as you keep voting me back into office”. The problem is, they’re just about out of money, despite running the printing presses full-bore, and despite borrowing heavily from the People’s Republic of China (who is due to cut up our credit card any day now). No more money, no more goodies; no more goodies, no more votes; no more votes, no more “Senator” Feinstein. She’ll be a nobody, working as a functionary for some nonprofit, with no real salary or influence to show for it.

(I was going to write, “She’d be waiting tables at Denny’s” – a humorous exaggeration. But I wouldn’t want to disparage Denny’s waitresses by comparing them to a worthless beast like Feinstein.)

What we as gun owners need to do, in order to ensure this scheme is thwarted, is to keep the heat on receptive political figures of both parties. Yes, there are pro-gun Democrats or, at the very least, Democrats who don’t want to be voted out of office at the midterms.

We need to avoid overly-militant talk, I think. Drudge ran this story today under the headline, “CIVIL WAR”. While this sort of language is fun, because it drives Blue-Staters stark raving mad, it accomplishes very little. A calm, firm statement of, “If this passes, we will not comply with it” rattles them far worse than calls for Civil War 2.0. In the end, you can only govern those who are willing to be governed. When swaths of the country start laughing in Feinstein’s face, because the cops in those places won’t enforce such a law, what can they do?

Personally, I don’t think it’ll pass. Even so, we gun owners need to stay on guard, especially against those reach-across-the-aisle types.