The Government Hates Your Guns by Bill Buppert

“When a people lose the courage to resist encroachment on their rights, then they can’t be saved by an outside force. Our belief is that people always have the kind of government they want and that individuals must bear the risks of freedom, even to the extent of giving their lives.”

“The right to buy weapons is the right to be free.”

― A.E. van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher

“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”

– Luke 22:36

The NRA will not save your ability to defend yourself, they are invested in the government just as much as the commies…

The weapons prohibitionists who seek to eradicate all private ownership of guns, and notably have no such case for government arms, are at it again. Usually the murder of apex political violence brokers by private gunmen like Boothe, Guiteau, Czolcosg, and Oswald sets the gun prohibitionists in a lather. Much like the frustration of the American central state in the first 150 years of failing to be capable of imposing a mandatory and trackable tax on income until 1913; the attempts remained feeble and uncoordinated until the Kennedys were killed in the 1960s; the magical combination of bureaucratic horsepower, accountancy standards, tracking of arms through a nation-wide database and the political will on the part of American collectivists (twice as many Republicans as Democrats would vote for the 1968 Gun Control Act, a horrific infringement on self-defense that would start the cascade of nonsense that would bloom like communist inspired kudzu across the fruited plain).

This would be presaged by Ronald Reagan going full gun control with the backing  of the NRA (of course) in 1967 with the Mulford Act. The uppity blacks who dared to actually carry weapons in public made the Republicans fill their pants in California at the time.

Fast forward to today and we see that the usual suspects are at it again. What is curious is that the political vermin and their deep state alliance are doing two curious things: they are floating trial balloons for eradicating about repealing the Second Amendment demonstrated most recently by the former Supremes zombie aspirant, John Paul Stevens, spewing his vitriol about having to repeal the 2A to curb gun violence. Like the other ancient communist ghouls on the bench (at every level), their brief is the eradication of freedom that is not explicitly granted by a gargantuan beneficent state.

I welcome the repeal, of course, as I mentioned in this screed.

“The call for repeal of the Second Amendment is nothing new, a cursory internet search will reveal hundred of opinion-editorials and the usual collectivist vermin calling for this to happen; they, of course, hail from the government supremacist viewpoints of the collectivist keening and whining that is the national media voice in America on both Fox and CNN and everything in between (excepting the lonely planetary outpost at ZeroGov).

 Not that the 2A is worth the paper it’s printed on. The 2A is a sham to protect weapons ownership. It has no teeth whatsoever. If it did, how could the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, the decision in US v. Miller in 1939, 1968 GCA, Nixon’s pogrom against handguns, the 1986 FOPA, Bushevik I’s ban on foreign cosmetically offensive weapons in 1989, the NICs, the AWB all the way to the conservative zombie Scalia’s Leninist bromide about “dangerous and unusual weapons”. On and on and on.”

 What’s curious is that if the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee an individual right as so many American socialist observers contend, then why bother? Isn’t the wholesale ownership of the judiciary by government supremacist boosters enough to use the judiciary to simply stamp out the right for good?

The usual suspects have been floating this nonsense for decades including this gem from 2007:

“This seems to me the right response to the amendment no matter which broad historical interpretation is correct. If, in fact, the amendment embodies only a collective right and the right to keep guns is indelibly linked to membership in the old militias—institutions that no longer exist—the amendment is already a dead letter. Repealing it would be then a simple matter of constitutional hygiene, the removal of a constitutional provision that has no function now nor could in the future but that, by its language, encourages the belief in an armed citizenry that I, for one, do not wish to see.”

It appears that this notion of individual firearms ownership really gets under the skin of the academic scum who churn this detritus out for a living while other rodents in the academy applaud politely the “heroic” stance of wanting to disarm and dismember the private ownership of weapons in an entire society.

No government weapons included, no restrictions there. Why, that would be…ahem…uncivilized.

The author, Wittes, further avers: “If, on the other hand, the amendment really does as Silberman, Tribe, Amar, and Levinson essentially claim–and I suspect they are all more right than wrong—then it embodies values in which I don’t believe.

This is the crux of the complaint from the women of both sexes and frightened males who need a fainting couch if someone talks about owning a weapon much less shows one to them. Next they’ll be making me pay for their adult incontinence diapers so their not fear-shamed in public for their unmanly natures.

They not only don’t believe in your right but feel their discomfort merits the wholesale confiscation of property that is not only private and expansive but secures a seldom seen quality; not only does it offer a brake to tyranny but it has been demonstrated planet-wide and throughout history to be a sure thing in effecting regime change. A confiscation that of contested will demand the liberal use of government guns to affect the forced removal of arms from Americans who refuse their betters in government’s request to surrender their arms. They may even have the temerity to violently repel boarders at their homes and take the seizure so seriously they commence a guerrilla conflict to play plink-a-pinko with the government agents the cowardly academics and politicians send to do their dirty business (don’t they always).

One can see the present assaults on freedom of speech from these same confreres whose delicate sensibilities demand the fist of the state to stop them from filling their pants when someone dares to disagree with them and refuse to speak the language they seek to force them to. These communists get the vapors if anything happens in society without the government boot as a preamble to behavior.

I intend on revisiting the latest attempts by academia and book publishers to press the edge of the envelope with the historical fiction that not only was early America gunless but much less of a gun culture than any observer imagined. In this case the fantastical and fiction filled exploits of Bellisiles successor, Comrade Michael Waldman.

He has a number of conceits that I will examine such as his claim that the 2A only applies to government forces. Any government does not need a Bill or Rights to arm its military, then or now. I have yet to see such a citation in any funding resolution for the DoD.

And keep in mind I am no defender of the Constitution but even his interpretive framework strains credulity to the limit.

Which is why his book is being used as a bulwark to defend calls for disarmament (again).

I will craft a much more in-depth examination.

I leave you with this tidbit from David E. Young:

“There are fundamental problems with this book, and historical errors and internal contradictions abound. Waldman views the state militia protecting nature of the Second Amendment as crystal clear. However, this conflicts with numerous assertions of the Second Amendment’s utter ambiguity, no doubt designed to cloud the rather clear “right of the people” language- “foggy wording”, “odd locution”, “is so inscrutable”, etc. His emphasis on the impossibility of understanding the Amendment’s language flows into reviews of the book. Waldman’s ambiguity campaign and his admission of not knowing why Madison’s version was phrased as it was, result in this question – why would anyone read this book to find out about Second Amendment history and intent?
Treatment of Vermont’s 1777 Declaration of Rights ‘people have a right to bear arms’ provision by Waldman is schizophrenic, the result of adamant refusal to accept its private rights protecting nature. His argument on the number of right to arms provisions is in error unless Vermont is included. He treats Vermont as a state in his text, then criticizes Justice Scalia’s Heller decision in a note for mention of Vermont because it was “a separate republic”. Yet, in that note, he refers to Vermont’s declaration of rights as that “state’s” charter. Justice Scalia’s Heller decision and Justice Stevens’ dissent both quote Vermont’s right to bear arms provision, treat it as significant, recognize it as protecting individual rights, and use it in their argument. Scalia is rebuked, while, conversely, only praise is heaped on Justice Stevens’ “powerfully set[ting] out the historic record”. Agenda driven spin is apparent throughout this book.

Waldman’s fundamental error is constant conflation of the Second Amendment and its predecessors with unrelated militia powers amendment history and intent. He quotes George Mason in the Virginia Ratifying Convention discussing a militia powers amendment, but leaves off the amendment Mason specified, substituting in its place the entirely unrelated bill of rights predecessor. This conflation of the Second Amendment predecessor with militia powers amendment history and intent demonstrates the unfounded nature of Waldmans’ beliefs. The author quotes some of the essential period sources but always misinterprets them due to this error.

Entirely ignored in this book is the extensive Bill of Rights historical foundation of the Heller decision presented in briefs and cited by the court. He also ignores the existence of the Parker decision, appealed to the Supreme Court as the Heller case. Parker cited extensive historical evidence from the Fifth Circuit’s Emerson decision, which Waldman only mentions in passing as an individual rights ruling. The reason for individual rights rulings commencing with U.S. v Emerson is it was the first case where the full Bill of Rights history of the Second Amendment was ever cited to any federal court.

Waldman’s historical argument essentially follows that in Justice Stevens’ dissent, which follows the assertions of professional historians in their Heller case brief. Advocates of gun control will like The Second Amendment: A Biography, and it will be useful for someone studying typical gun control advocate views about the Second Amendment. However, it will also be uncritically accepted as historically accurate by many, who will be misled into accepting the author’s unfounded belief system. Waldman’s stated purpose is to support a “new history-driven regime” where professional historians and law scholars are paid handsomely to advance his ‘clear’ understanding of the Second Amendment. In other words, Waldman wants to brainwash the people and the courts into accepting his completely erroneous view of our history relying on the assertions of credentialed ‘experts’.

In stark contrast to Waldman’s confused historical work, there are sources that document every detail of the Second Amendment’s development. Those in search of reality-based history should consider sources relied on by the federal courts as well as Alan Gura, the attorney who won the Heller/Parker cases.“

 When the government tells you they intend on restricting something that is presently available, buy more. Lots more.

And remember when the government seeks to disarm, the only reason that is important is the ease with which it allows the same government to make you dead.

“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary, to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”

[OSA, p.197]

14 thoughts on “The Government Hates Your Guns by Bill Buppert”

  1. The idea that one must be part of a government militia to exercise the RKBA is an absurdity. The government has NO rights, only delegated authority which comes from the States and the People.

    Also, the government has NO delegated power for any gun control laws pertaining to the People, EXCEPT “for governing such Part of them (the Militia) as may be EMPLOYED in the service of the United States. (article I, Section 8.16) According to the clear wording of the 10th Amendment, the government may do NOTHING and its power is RESTRICTED to governing only the part of them, the armed citizenry that it EMPLOYS.

    The subordinate clause that begins the 2nd Amendment sentence mentions “militia” to reference the limited enumerated delegated power in Article I, Section 8.16.

  2. SemperFi, 0321

    The NRA isn’t going to take a bullet for you, sooner or later you’re going to have to wipe the dust off your old flintlock and put it to use.

    Doesn’t matter how much money you give to these pro-gun special interest groups, the inevitable is going to happen, you will have to stand up for yourself, or roll over and succumb. There are no other choices, no matter how much you keep hoping and spending. This nation has ridden itself into the ground on it’s exceptionalism, time has now run out.

    Take a good look in the mirror and meet your new problem solver.

  3. Well, the 2A is already gutted … and with no hint of resistance from any American.

    The 2A makes no mention of guns; and the term ‘arms’ is wholly inclusive, as far as I can see. Yet, the majority of ‘arms’ have already been proscribed and denied to the American man. All the ‘good stuff’ is already forbidden. And, no-one has contested this.

    My second point is that the State garners its supposed Authority from the Consent of the individual. That is the basis of Government… that each man lends his own authority to the State, so that it can act on his behalf.

    How is it then, that the State can have a ‘right’ to wield all manner of arms … whilst the individual has no such ‘right’?

    AFAICS, that situation is logically-impossible.

    1. The State, particularly, the Federal Government has NO rights, only delegated powers from those who have rights. The whole system has been perverted!

        1. Hey Beagle….You need to be concerned with the moslem invasion and Islamatization of YOUR country, Great Britain. Hell, you and your fellow subjects are having 1,000 knife attacks, every month, in London alone. Courtesy of your leftist countrymen, Parliament and Prime Minister May.

          Worry about your country first.

  4. Bill,

    The government, and its little apparatchiks drawing their lifetime pensions, don’t just hate your guns, they hate you. And me. And anyone able to critically examine their activities, including the caging, maiming, murder, and enslavement of its own chattle for two plus centuries.

    I think of the strongholds in nowheresville USSA that can be held with a rifle, men that know their terrain, and their dope, and how the Bolsheviks in their state capitals must disdain those people, and the way they live. Being independent, or self-reliant is now reason to be announced on some government lackey list.

    Hopefully I’ve been able to scrabble towards the top of their stupid fucking list, I’ve cancer clubbin it anyway.

    I’m so glad you continue to write for us, as I’ve nearly given up on the fucking complete fools that populate this plantation, as they run down every select number of years to select the color of their leash.

    Like I heard, ‘Either learn to drive your rifles, or ride their rail cars’

    Your Choice.


  5. Who cares about the 2nd amendment? Or the entire feckless screed that is the constitution for that matter? When I hear or read of people advocating repeal of the 2nd amendment I chuckle. Especially when it’s a supreme court (in)justice. These people to a person believe that the constitution is endowed with magical powers and it and it alone bestows rights. It does not. The entire thing can go the way of the dodo and we would not have any fewer rights. It’s an indictment of the entire public school system that people believe that the constitution / government gives us those basic human rights of life, liberty and property. Our rights are unalienable which means non transferable. Go ahead and repeal the entire bill of rights if you want and I still have these rights.

  6. There are no rights. There is only will and determination. If enough people don’t have that, we will be disarmed. If enough do, politicians and professors will end up hanging from lamp posts. We will see how far they want to push this. It’s a pretty big gamble by people who are not thinking things through, not aware of the possibilities…

  7. It’s sad that it seems like the only way we will finally be free is if the sociopaths think that there is a possibility that many of us may be carrying a sandwich nuke.

  8. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal)

  9. Pingback: ZeroGov | Fantasy History and the American Left on Private Arms by Bill Buppert

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top