– Mohandas Gandhi
Publisher’s Note: Herschel over at the Captain’s Journal has been doing yeoman’s work in updating his readers on the Vegas massacre and the aftermath of calls for national disarmament. I recommend my readers go over and check out what he has posted. I’ve been following his blog for years.
In other news, Pinochet’s airborne solution to the communist and Marxian problem set is more and more appealing to me everyday. Communism happens to be an idea so virulent, it violates the Non-Aggression Principle by its very existence. Pinochet was an authoritarian bastard but he did provide a unique solution to the Marxist infection. Pinochet notions on weapons control was interesting. I don’t endorse Pinochet’s military rule but I am fascinated by his narrowly focused solution to the Marxist necro-monger virus.
Per the quote above, I am conflicted about Gandhi’s statement and no it has far more permutations than meet the eye but it will illustrate the main point of this fusillade.
In that passage, Gandhi avers to India’s Arms Act of 1878, which gave Europeans in India the right to carry arms but didn’t allow Indians from doing so, unless they were granted a license by the British colonial government. The full text of what he wrote is: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”
Of course, Mohandas was being coy. Our friend, John Ross, was more direct: “The downside to gun control is genocide.”
In the end, despite the serial bleating hearts mewling about the gun crisis, they are being even more disingenuous because weapons disarmament folk want one thing and only one thing. The dissolution of private firearms ownership; for the government is their godhead and they want it replete with every armament known to man to include the rather simple center fire arms that the police. They do want the great unwashed and un-uniformed or un-badged masses to possess such things. They know that liberty, like war, is all about angles. They know that one single well-placed round in the inflated head of an empty suit adorned in the robes of office can change the political dialog abruptly.
Coupled with Buppert’s Law of Military Topography and the violence brokers have themselves an existential pickle.
“Mountainous terrain held by riflemen who know what they are about cannot be militarily defeated”
So what to do:
Don’t plead with your political occupiers for a solution.
Do gun up, buy every gun and components you can lay your hands on. Go to the range.
Rinse. Repeat. Resist. -BB
So in the wake of the Vegas debacle, all the usual grave dancers are merrily trying to resurrect the joys of population disarmament.
No gun laws should be on the books and per my previous article, I don’t think the Second Amendment does a fucking thing to protect private gun ownership, which even the NRA is shy about. Gun control is part of the NRA’s DNA.
The wunderkind at the NRA, the nation’s largest disarmament lobby, have jumped the sharked, locked their jaws on the nether regions of the nearest politician and declared that ”bump stocks” should be regulated and banned. They needed a sign language translator to transmit the message since their mouths were busy at the time of the announcement. The NRA has been a key player in every article of Federal firearms legislation since 1934 to include the 1934 NFA, 1939 FFA, the refusal to submit an amicus curie brief in the 1939 US v. Miller decision, the 1968 GCA, the 1986 FOPA, NICS, on and on and on.
With friends like this…
My message is incredibly simply and I will aver to the estimable L. Neil Smith to wax poetically on the verities of my notion.
There isn’t a single law or sentence penned that restricts private weapons ownership that holds any moral water to me. No compromise, full stop. I remember being a FFL dealer in the 1990’s to get firearms at cost. I got so disgusted with the whole process and seeing how the ATF sausage got made, I surrendered the license after several years and stored all the 4473s they insisted I keep in a shredder. Never again.
I am encouraged by the resistance even commie states like NY and CT are experiencing with their pre-confiscation registries for cosmetically offensive weapons.
I advocate for not a single law in everything but on this notion, the laws are always repellant to liberty.
May I remind you of a force calculus when armed folk resist such tyranny?
During the post-WWII troubles in Northern Ireland under UK occupation, there were probably a peak of 500 active IRA (and assorted other variants like Provos, Real IRA, Continuity IRA, Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) and such) paramilitaries that comprised trigger pullers and IED personnel. Of course, the auxiliary support to these paramilitaries numbered in the tens of thousands. The UK and satrap Irish forces numbered as much as 55k to rout these small resistance bands.
The history tells us that the UK did not succeed.
Vegas has some parallels possibly in the Omagh incident in Northern Ireland. I highly recommend reading some articles on the subject and viewing some of the new documentaries. GCHQ apparently had live recordings of the bombers on their way to the destination, of course.
There are hundreds of these stories in history where the force calculus (to twist an old Soviet paradigm) has these absurd ratios of in-country forces to resistance forces. It is certainly the case in Iraq and AFG.
Lettow-Vorbeck in WWI led a small German band of under 10k combatants in German East Africa with as many as 600k Allied soldiers and more than 120 general officers arrayed against him at one time or another during the course of the conflict. He saw the end of WWI as the only undefeated German general on Earth.
All of this simply illustrates that the magic number of resisters doesn’t have to be a large organization at all to be effective. Like all things, the US FEDGOD doesn’t extrapolate out the second and third order effects of their diktats and rules.
BTW, the plump commie blowhards over at National Review, a neocon rag, are musing on the joys of Hitler’s notions of disarmament. “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.” Who knew the neocons would so quickly revert to origins and start this parade in concert with their Democratic siblings. The neoconservative movement can be characterized as a philosophy that embraces national socialism at home and international communism abroad. They have no more firm grasp on 4GW than they do on sound economics.
So take a few minutes to read Neil’s gem, he took the words rught my lips to Gods, but more elegantly.
H/T to Pat Hines for jogging my memory on Neil’s post.
I am going to post it in its entirety here for your reading pleasure. I’ve read all of Neil’s books and we have corresponded on occasion.
Why Did it Have to be … Guns? by L. Neil Smith
Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machine-gun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn’t genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody’s permission, he’s a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn’t trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn’t want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he’s sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like “Constitutionalist”—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn’t he betrayed his oath, isn’t he unfit to hold office, and doesn’t he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They’re the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn’t have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn’t you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn’t it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won’t trust you, why should you trust him? If he’s a man—and you’re not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If “he” happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she’s eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn’t want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn’t it? You don’t have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that’s why I’m accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn’t true, is it?
Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
And a big fat fuck you to the NRA and every Fudd they coddle and every politician they suckle at.
“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
― Jeff Cooper, Art of the Rifle