Um, No

From the poxy New Republic  (thanks, I’m kinda okay with the old one circa Calvin Coolidge’s time) comes this breathless statement:

It’s debatable whether even the most stringent gun-control measures would prevent mass shootings, and it’s doubtful that those measures would survive the Roberts Court’s scrutiny. But time and time again, these proposals reveal a troubling window into the mindset of the gun-rights activists who oppose them. That, in turn, only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger. If the main reason you need an AR-15 is to murder civil servants and elected officials, you shouldn’t have it in the first place.

Well no, that’s not quite accurate.  We don’t want to own AR-15s “to murder civil servants and elected officials”, we need them to hold off government agents when they arrive at our door to disarm us — in clear violation of the Constitution (which, lest we forget, said gummint agents swore to uphold as part of their office-taking oath).

And by “hold off” I don’t necessarily mean “kill them” (it’s not murder  if they attack you first, BTW, no matter what un-Constitutional law they hide behind);  “holding off” also means making them a little more fearful of the consequences of their actions, and a little more reluctant to be statist bullies.

The Stalinist- and Nazi police forces could go door to door and disarm law-abiding gun owners in their respective countries without fear of resistance, simply because the KGB / Gestapo knew that people were either fearful, or willing to comply, or both.

That’s not the case in the United States, of course, because while that might be true in many — or even most — cases, there is a considerable proportion of gun owners in this country who will simply say “fuck you” to the government, and either ignore or else actively resist such efforts at universal disarmament of the population.  (And just to reiterate:  “resistance” is not “murder”, dipshit.)

And if that resistance “only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger”, then I would respectfully suggest that this is similar to the situation where someone teases an otherwise-quiet dog into attacking, then shoots the dog “because it was vicious”.

If there was an active and heartfelt acknowledgment that while mass shootings and killings are admittedly awful, but the isolated incidents did not provide sufficient cause to disarm everybody, then there’d be no snarls of “molon labe”  or “bring body bags”  from the gun-owning population.

But of course, the statist politicians (mostly of the socialist ilk, but regrettably some so-called conservatives alike) are not going to let a good crisis go to waste, and want to use these crises to further their goal of totalitarian control of the general population.

That, Mr. New Republic, is what gets us angry and more likely to make those statements that have you pissing in your yoga pants.

As an adjunct to the above, allow me to suggest that anyone who doesn’t yet own an AR-15 but wants to own one (after the confiscationists’ statements last week), my research on “off-the-peg” ARs last week resulted in this consensus input:  go to Palmetto State Armory and see what takes your fancy.  Mine would be this one:

…or the AR-10, in a non-poodleshooter chambering (albeit more spendy) in the manly .308 Win:


Just in passing, I see that PSA also has a decent-looking AK-47 for sale at what seems to be a reasonable price:


…and for a hundred bucks more, one with a folding stock:

No prizes for guessing what I’d choose, of course, but that’s because I’m already familiar with the AK, even though I lost mine (honest, cross my heart) in that Regrettable Canoeing Accident on the Brazos River lo those many years ago.

Just note that PSA’s stock levels of all their products are, shall we say, depleted — so don’t shilly shally around.

Anyway, let’s just call this addendum a Public Service Announcement (PSA)… [groan]


  1. The funny thing is, I wouldn’t have much interest in owning an AR-15 EXCEPT for the c*cks*ckers who want to tell me I can’t have one. Shit, when I lived in NJ the M1 CARBINE was specifically verboten as an assault weapon.

    It’s not surprising that a bunch of journalists call for gun control when people say they’ll react to gun confiscations bullets-first. As noted, ALL those politicians and LEOs took an oath to uphold the very Constitution they’re violating, but breaking an oath is no big deal now is it? After all they have their pensions to think about.

    Mark D

    1. in NJ the M1 CARBINE was specifically verboten as an assault weapon.

      I’d expect no less from the Gestapo or the Vopos.
      Look at the NJ State Police uniforms – those look right out of the Third Reich or Commie East Germany, especially that jacket version with that crap on their lapels and the Sam Brown belt.
      I wonder if they all have ceremonial daggers to go with them for formal occasions?

  2. My public reason for having any gun is to put holes in paper. But really, it is no ones business about anything I own.

    Whatever it is, it is mine, I own it, and no one else’s business.

    Every heard of this thing called “property rights”? My property rights include all of me and everything I own. If anyone else thinks they can control any of my property, including my all of me or any part thereof, this constitutes a threat to my person which will be met by overwhelming counter force.

    This is basic right to life stuff and it’s disappointing that so many people are running around without a clue. But you know what?

    If you turn the situation around, say, tell this rotten Texas politician, that you get to confiscate his property and watch him squeal like a bald tire.

    He is a child trapped in an adults body.

    1. “…confiscate his property and watch him squeal like a bald tire.”
      Especially if you’d try to take his microphone away. Linus and his security blanket can’t hold a candle to Beetoff and his mic.

  3. You wrote:

    “And if that resistance ‘only makes the case for enacting such measures much stronger’, then I would respectfully suggest that this is similar to the situation where someone teases an otherwise-quiet dog into attacking, then shoots the dog ‘because it was vicious’.”

    One wonders if that is exactly the goal here. Work the “crisis” to get unconstitutional legislation passed, begin confiscation, provoke the expected response from those who refuse to give up their rights, and then use that as the excuse for “shooting the vicious dog” thereby removing the primary impediment to the rest of the statist agenda. The sticking point, as you’ve noted, is that said plan would require that enough folks be willing to risk their lives in taking out the armed resistance. We know it’s unlikely, even if they called in the military, but they may very well be living in delusional hope.

    1. Resistance is always the reason given for greater oppression. It’s one of the reasons why the Left is getting increasingly more deranged — the more aggro they offer, the less we conservatives don’t rise to the bait, the worse they become.

        1. ^^ This.

          We Americans are extremely patient, until we’re not. Then we do like we did to Imperial Japan back in 1945.

  4. “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    ― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

  5. A few years ago, my employer and his wife were participating in a fundraiser for the Boca Raton Historical Society. It was a “Roaring Twenties” theme and they were going over to city hall in his ’39 Caddy convertible for a photo op. He asked me to bring my tommy gun. When I met the mayor, chopper in hand, I said don’t worry. I did not bring any ammunition. He said Thanks, I didn’t bring any guards.

    That was less than ten years ago and I probably couldn’t do it today.

  6. I picked up a PSA 11″ barrel pistol kit last fall on sale for $249. The furniture was done in haze gray which made this old squid happy. I had a $40 ish gun show Anderson lower – btw Anderson lowers are one of the best deals out there. I put all of the parts in a box, shook it a couple of times and a functioning $300 AR pistol fell out. I used a set of no name iron sights out of my junk box and later hung a cheap laser under the barrel. The gun shoots great and looks cool even though that’s not supposed to matter. My only negative comments are that the pistol is LOUD and while it is “legal” today with the arm brace, I’m only one ATF ruling or one change in administrations from being a criminal.

    Tragic boating accidents aside, PSA seems to do a pretty good job in the lower end AR market. I don’t know that I’d purposely go to war with one – that’s what my Garand is for – but for general purposes they will serve you quite well.

Comments are closed.