Monthly Archives: August 2019

You Can’t Fight Drones and Tanks with AR-15s!

I like to point this out to people…

I used to live in Garner, NC. When the NC CHP database was something you could get, I searched it for everyone with a Garner address. There were more than 850 people who had Concealed Handgun Permits in the city of Garner. Not “gun owners,” but people who had taken a one day class and spent about $200 total just to get permission to carry a gun. You have to assume that the total number of gun owners was far higher.

Garner had (at the time) a total police force of 56 sworn officers. The total number of officers on patrol never exceeded 12 and was usually 6-8.

How the hell are 12 people going to police a town that has 850 concealed handgun permit holders and an unknown number of gun owners unless those gun owners WANT to be policed?

We knew exactly where the Mayor lived. And the Town Manager. And every single member of the Town Council.

One phone call and we could have summoned the cops on duty to an ambush and murdered half the cops on patrol before anyone knew what was going on. Then hit the Mayor’s house. And then randomly start attacking infrastructure. And then disappear, only to pop up from time to time whacking cops or town leaders or burning down buildings.

There’s literally nothing the cops could do to stop us. Cops would have to ride two-up in cars and respond in groups. They’d have to stop short of the call location and be careful on the way in, never knowing if it was an ambush or a real call. The Town Council could never meet again in public. Never mind having elections.

And where would the State and the Feds be in all of this? Dealing with their own troubles. One town rebels and they could all descend on them like a ton of bricks. Piss off everyone and the same thing starts happening everywhere. There are 800K sworn police officers of any description in the US, from your local beat cop to the head of the FBI. There’s no possible way that 800K could force 300 million to obey.

And don’t give me any guff about the US military. They’d desert before they went to war against their own people. (as would most of the police, but let’s ignore that for now) You can’t run drones or warships without safe locations to refuel and rearm. Guess what? We know where all those places are. Where do you think the people who man these weapons live? In a secure bunker someplace inaccessible? They’re your neighbors. So are the people who move the fuel and armaments. What do you think will happen to their families if they chose the wrong side?

We obey because we want to. They police us with our consent. If that consent was withdrawn, no one could exert power over us ever. That’s the reality of an armed population. That’s why we fight to keep our firearms.

Image result for you can't fight tanks with ar-15

The Greatest Gun Control Plan of Our Lives

Please, I’m begging the Dems to take up this plan and run with it.

The student activists who crashed the political arena after the mass shooting last year at their high school in Parkland, Fla., are throwing their weight behind a new and ambitious gun-control program that they hope will set the tone for the debate following the most recent mass shootings and headed into the 2020 elections.

Oh? So what’s David (Camera) Hogg’s plan?

Every day in America, more than 100 lives are taken by the deadly epidemic of gun violence. Among young people, gun violence has become a top cause of death, second only to drug overdoses. It has many root causes, including hate, poverty, and despair. It’s a deeply intersectional issue, inextricably bound with our long journey for racial justice, economic justice, immigrant rights, and the rights of our LGBTQ allies. And it’s amplified by the societal belief that a gun can solve our problems. Gun violence is destroying our generation. This is simply unacceptable. That’s why, as survivors and students of March For Our Lives, we believe it’s time for a Peace Plan for a Safer America.

OH! A PLAN! Gimme some nuts and bolt, please. I’d like to know what you think the terms of our surrender should be.


Advocate and pass legislation to raise the national standard for gun ownership: a national licensing and registry system that promotes responsible gun ownership; a ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other weapons of war; policies to disarm gun owners who pose a risk to themselves or others; and a national gun buy-back program to reduce the estimated 265-393 million firearms in circulation by at least 30%.

Let me see if I can break that down into action steps

  • Hold Star Chamber hearings to take away the civil rights of people convicted of no crime.
  • Ban Semi-Auto rifles. (and probably a whole lot more)
  • Ban magazines that hold more bullets than I have fingers.
  • Confiscate them, but throw a few bones at the citizens serfs you just took them from.
  • Keep taking guns until there are only about 200 million left.
  • Make a complete list of all citizens serfs who have official permission from the government Soviet to possess arms suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.
  • Make a complete registry of all guns that remain permitted so they can be collected at a later date when the rules change.

OK, what’s next


Mobilize an urgent and comprehensive federal response: declare a national emergency around gun violence and announce an audacious goal to reduce gun injuries and deaths by 50% in 10 years, thereby saving up to 200,000 American lives.

This isn’t a plan. This is a goal. This isn’t even a goal, really. It’s wishing upon a star. I could “declare” a “financial emergency” and “set an audacious family goal to make a million dollars next week,” and it would have about the same total effect as this “plan.”


Hold the gun lobby and industry accountable for decades of illegal behavior and misguided policies intended to shield only themselves; reexamine the District of Columbia v. Heller interpretation of the Second Amendment; initiate both FEC and IRS investigations into the NRA, and fully repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Ok, that’s more like it. He’s giving us some more steps.

  • Reverse the Supreme Court decision that said the right to keep and bear arms was the right of INDIVIDUALS to keep and bear arms.
  • Instigate some lawfare against a civil rights organization
  • Return to the days when deep pocketed states and localities could sue gun manufacturers for the criminal actions of third parties, lose their case in court, but still win because they bankrupted the gun manufacturer in the process.

Yeah, OK, I see where you’re going here.


Appoint a National Director of Gun Violence Prevention (GVP) who reports directly to the President, with the mandate to operationalize our federal goals and empower existing federal agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – agencies that have all been structurally weakened by the gun lobby. The National Director of GVP would begin by overseeing a down payment of $250 million in annual funding for research by the CDC and other federal agencies on gun violence prevention.

Ok, some more action steps. A bit vague, but…

  • Hire a professional gun hater to work inside the government.
  • Turn the ATF, the DHHS, and the CDC into anti-gun groups. (worse than they already are)
  • Prime the pump of anti-gun “research” by giving a quarter of a billion dollars to Garen Wintermute, David Hemenway, and Arthur Kellermann so they can fake up some more anti-gun statistics rather than get honest jobs.

All right, the picture is getting clearer.


Fully fund targeted interventions addressing the intersectional dimensions of gun violence, including community-based urban violence reduction programs, suicide prevention programs, domestic violence prevention programs, mental and behavioral health service programs, and programs to address police violence in our communities.

Apparently everyone causes “gun violence,” from crazy people to cops. But no good “plan” for more government forgets to slop a little pork barrel spending onto their favored foot soldiers. Can you guess who will be first in line to get a piece of that particular pie? If you said “gun grabber groups” then move to the head of the class.


Automatically register eligible voters and mail voter registration cards to all Americans when they turn 18. Create the “Safety Corps,” a Peace Corps for gun violence prevention. The younger generations are disproportionately affected by gun violence. They should have a say in how their country solves this epidemic.

A “safety corps?” A “Peace Corps for gun violence prevention?” Are they Handgun Hall Monitors? Ballistic Crossing Guards? Seriously?

I, too, think that everyone should be registered to vote. I think that when people turn up at DMV to get their driver’s license they should be offered a voter registration card and a Concealed Handgun Permit card. If we’re trusting you with a 2 ton missile capable of triple digit speeds, we can trust you with a gun and a vote. But I don’t think Camera Hogg agrees on this point.

This “plan,” which is more of a pie-in-the-sky wishlist, needs to be the front and center at the next Dem debate. I’d like to see a show of hands…

Durham Wants New Gun Laws, Won’t Enforce the Ones it Already Has

Surprising absolutely no one, a report entitled “Felons with Firearms in Durham County” shows that out of 363 arrests for “felon in possession” in the last three years, 53% of were dropped.

The report also indicates people sent to prison from Durham for possession as a firearm as their most serious crime have declined steeply. From 2016 to 2018, there was a 54 percent decrease in prison entries for that charge (from 35 to 16), while North Carolina saw an 11 percent increase.

I have my problems with the idea of a permanent ban on gun possession for those who have completed their sentence, but it certainly puts into perspective the recent attacks on lawful gun ownership while Durham, one of the most violent cities in this state, doesn’t seem to care about actual lawbreaking.

“I think it raises questions as to what happens when someone is arrested on that charge,” said report author Jim Stuit, gang reduction strategy manager for Durham County.

Ya think?

There are some reasons that these charges get dropped.

“A defendant may be charged with armed robbery and with possession of a firearm by a felon,” [professor of public law and government at the UNC School of Government and director of the North Carolina Judicial College] Welty wrote. “If the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the robbery, the State might agree to dismiss the gun charge. There’s nothing nefarious or inappropriate about that.”

Daniel Meier, a Durham defense attorney, said to really know if a dismissal is meaningful, “you need to know what, if anything, wasn’t dismissed.”

But this seems to me to be a red herring. If you’ve got the guy on a big charge, what’s the harm on adding the “felon in possession” charge? Failing to do so sends the message that as long as you’re willing to commit bigger crimes, no one will care that you do it with a firearm.

“At least at first blush, it makes it seem like we are not taking firearms seriously,” Meier said. “I think that is one of the big issues. Before you start focusing on new gun laws and everything else, enforce the ones we have.”

City Manager Tom Bonfield was surprised by the number of dismissals.
”It does seem to me to send a signal that the possession of a firearm by a felon is not that big of deal,” he said. “There is not really consequences.”

I’d like to get my hands on the actual report, but it doesn’t seem to be available online. The story certainly didn’t link to it, and a Google search doesn’t reveal it.

Warren, in comments, provides a link to the report itself.

Let’s hope for the worst gun ban ever

Image result for assault rifle

I’m hoping for the worst gun ban ever, and you should be too.


Let me explain politics to you. If you can’t get your enemies (and they are our enemies) to pass the bill you want them to pass, then get them to push for the worst, most draconian, most evil bill they can think of. Why? Because it’s easier to defeat a horrible bill than a merely bad one.

This is one of the biggest mistakes gun owners make in politics. They try to educate their enemies. “Maybe if they just understand how things work, they’ll change their minds.” Or worse, they tell the enemy what we will accept. “Oh, that’s terrible, so you need to get rid of this part and this part and we won’t fight you on that last bit.”

Our enemies know what they need to know. Gun ownership is a direct threat to their desire to rule over us. Our guns mean they can’t force us to obey. They don’t need to know the details of how their laws are just freaking moronic, because their desire isn’t to “reduce crime” or any of the other lies they tell us. Their desire is to reduce the number of guns we own. Down to zero if possible.

Our enemies also don’t need to know what compromises we’re willing to make to save as much of the 2A as we have left after all of our previous compromises. That’s literally giving information to the enemy.

The best strategy is to convince our enemies to fill their anti-gun bills with every single awful gun ban they can imagine. Why do you think they failed to pass so-called “Universal Background Checks” after Newtown? Because they also tried to ban AR-15s. They pissed us off so badly that we went hard at our representatives and enough Senators filibustered everything that came down on us. That’s our strategy.

So how do we accomplish this goal? We make the enemy believe he can pass everything he asks for. We make the loudest elements of the Far Left believe that they have a chance to pass their fondest desire, disarmament of their enemies, us. We encourage their would-be leaders in the Dem presidential primary race to run as far to the anti-gun left as possible. We promote a bidding war between the candidates to see who will be the hardest against guns.

And then we fucking stomp them.

In order to accomplish this, we need two things. The enemy to be encouraged to act stupidly, and the pro-gun base to be outraged and ready to fight.

Watch the President’s moves. See how my explanation of his goals accurately predicts his moves. His daughter is running around talking to lawmakers, “gauging support.” He himself is signalling openness to gun bans.

This will convince the enemy to overcommit. They’ve already submitted a near total ban on semi-auto rifles. A nudge and a wink, and we can get them to go full retard on this bill. These actions have also caused the pro-gun side to go apeshit online. They’re ready to fight.

All we need now is for Congress to get back in session so we can get the enemy to speak openly about how many guns they’re going to take away from us. It’s all just posturing until then.

I’m hoping for the enemy to push for the absolute worst anti-gun bill they can dream of. And you should be hoping for that as well.

What if I need to kill a lot of people?

Whenever some jerkoff mass murders people with a semi-auto rifle we have the usual suspects lining up to screech “‘Assault weapons’ have no legitimate purpose! They are designed solely to kill!”

Ok, so what?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. They’re also good for target and sport shooting, as well as hunting. Anyone who owns an AR knows several things they can do with it that don’t involve killing anyone. But go with me for a second. For the purposes of argument, let’s pretend that the gun grabbers are correct. Let’s pretend that there is LITERALLY nothing else I could do with my AR-15 besides killing people.

So what? Really, SO WHAT?

I carry a handgun. I don’t carry it because I think an IDPA match will suddenly spring up. I don’t carry it because I’m hoping for a deer to pop up so I can whack it for dinner. I carry a handgun in case I meet someone who needs to get shot. I would hate to meet a person who needs to get shot and not be able to oblige him by shooting him. My handgun’s primary usefulness is to shoot people. Yes, shoot them only in the appropriate circumstances, but shoot them.

That’s what it’s for.

My rifle is the same, but even more so. I absolutely want to hunt a deer with it. I even have a silencer that I can attach to it so I can be a little more respectful of those around me. But that’s really not what I own an AR for. I own it in case I need to shoot someone.

Or several someones.

Its primary purpose is to shoot people. Not paper, not deer, and not those annoying coyotes who live on my friend’s property. The reason I own it is to shoot people who need to get shot.

So, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s assume that the gun grabbers are correct and my AR is solely for killing people. So what? You know that in certain circumstances it’s totally legal to kill another person, right? It’s even considered by most people to be a socially responsible thing to do. If someone kicks in my door at night with the intention of robbing, raping, or murdering me and my family, pretty much everyone agrees that putting a few bullets in him is not only legal, but moral, and ethical as well.


Why not? Who are you to tell me that I can’t or even shouldn’t do exactly that? What’s the difference to you if I shoot a home invader to death with a shotgun or with an AR? Dead is dead.


So what? What if I need to kill a lot of people?

This is usually their back up argument. First ARs are only good for killing. Then they’re only good for killing LOTS OF PEOPLE!

Again, so what? Let me philosophize with you a bit.

How many grains of sand constitute a beach? How many grains of sand do I have to pile up in one place before you are willing to call it a beach and not just a pile of sand next to some water?

One grain? Surely not.

Two grains? Still no.

Ten million grains?

At what point does a pile of sand next to water become a beach?

Same thing goes for self defense. When the gun grabbers fall back from “It’s for killing!” to “It’s for killing LOTS of people really fast!” they’re trying to make the argument that maybe it’s ok for you to kill one person who is trying to murder you, and maybe two… or three at the outside. But not TEN!

Why not? Is there some tipping point where the criminals have gathered enough people together who want to kill you that you’re outvoted? If the vote is three to one you’re allowed to fight back, but at ten to one you’re supposed to lay down and die like a good little subject?

No. I don’t care if you line up the entire population of Newark, New Jersey outside my house. If they try to take me, I’m legally, morally, and ethically permitted to keep shooting until every one of them is dead, running away, or otherwise unable to continue harming me.

The gun grabbers, however, are terrified of having this conversation. This conversation exposes them for what they really are. They aren’t anti-gun. They’re anti-self-defense. They don’t believe that you should be permitted to use deadly force for any reason. You’re not a government agent, sprinkled with the pixie dust that imbues cops and soldiers with the authority to kill. You’re just some peon whose life belongs to the State.

So the next time you’re given some BS line by the gun grabbers, ask them a simple question.

“Is it ever legal, moral, or ethical for me, a non-police officer, not military civilian, to kill another human being?”

If they’re honest they will say “no.” If they’re mealy mouthed about it, make them describe in detail when they believe you are permitted to kill another person. I’m betting you’ll get some convoluted explanation that basically means “never.” But if you get a “yes,” along with conditions that seem reasonable, ask them one more simple question.

“If it’s legal, moral, and ethical for me to kill another human, why do you care if I do it with an AR-15 rather than a 12 gauge?”

“Red Flag” Laws, or, Why Gun Owners are Stupid

What is it about gun owners that makes us argue stupid things? We get all facts and logic about something but the reality is that facts and logic don’t change minds. If facts and logic worked to change minds, no one would be pro gun control.

Case in point. So called “Red Flag” laws. Sometimes called “Extreme Risk Protection Orders,” these laws basically say that someone can report you to the government, usually in secret, and a judge will secretly order your guns seized without ever giving you a chance to dispute it in court. At some later date, you are expected to show up in court, with a lawyer you’ve paid for, and try to get the judge to agree that you’re not a danger to anyone.

Cue the gun rights activists:

This seems like a fair criticism, doesn’t it? Secret Star Chamber rulings that take away enumerated fundamental civil rights seems like it would be totally against the Constitution. Kind of a slam dunk 4th and 14th Amendment violations.

Here’s the problem.


Is that a little harsh for you? Too bad. No one gives two hoots in hell about the due process of law for gun owners. The gun grabbers actively want to prevent you from getting any due process, and the middle ground people just don’t give a damn one way or another.

Why does this matter? Because gun owners are so stupid that they make unpersuasive arguments that no one but they care about. Only gun owners actually care about due process of law for gun owners. So stop making the argument and pretending that you’re moving public opinion.


To my mind there’s a much better argument against so called “Red Flag” laws.

They don’t work.

It’s not because they are gun control laws and gun control laws by their very nature just don’t work. No, “Red Flag” laws don’t work because they were never intended to work. They literally cannot achieve their stated purpose.

Let’s take a look…

Imagine that you were a person of good will, just trying to prevent crazy people from doing damage to the rest of society with their craziness. For the purpose of this discussion, “crazy” encompasses everything from “psychotic” to “hates people because of their skin color.” While technically being a racist isn’t in the DSM-V (as far as I know), people who murder others based on their skin tone are crazy for our purposes. Regular well adjusted people (even racist ones) don’t murder people. Only crazy people do that.

For the purposes of this discussion, we’re going to imagine the “best case scenario.” In this case, the “Red Flag” law works EXACTLY as it is intended. Nothing at all goes wrong. No one does anything foolish, stupid, venal, or criminal in the process. Everything works perfectly.

  • A person is actually dangerously crazy for whatever reason.
  • A person with a legitimate concern goes to the appropriate reporting agency and reports that the person is dangerous.
  • The reporting agency does their due diligence and verifies all the information given to them.
  • That agency takes the reporting person in front of a judge, who carefully evaluates the reports of the person reporting and the agency that evaluated the situation
  • After careful review the judge comes to the correct conclusion that the dangerously crazy person is actually a danger to himself or others and authorizes seizure of his/her/xer’s firearms.
  • The local police, in a carefully planned and perfectly executed mission capture the dangerously crazy person, expertly search his house, car, and all his possessions, and seize every single firearm the dangerously crazy person has.
  • Then they walk away, leaving the dangerously crazy person free to do whatever he wants with the kitchen knives, gasoline, and the chemicals under the sink.

Remember, this scenario is the BEST CASE SCENARIO.

Let Gru explain the process to you:

Image may contain: 1 person, text

Would anyone with even half a brain have come up with this stupidity? Get a judge to rule that a person is dangerously crazy but instead of putting him somewhere he can be helped (or punished) just leave him on the side of the road after taking his guns? No one with a lick of sense would even consider a law this dumb. A two year old could figure out that if a person is so dangerous that you need to take his firearms, he’s so dangerous that you need to invite him for a custodial stay at the happy place with the nice young men in clean white coats. Or he needs to go to jail.

This is how you know that the gun grabbers are lying. They say, “It’s not about the guns, it’s about safety!” But in the end all they’ve done is seize the guns. No attempt is made to put the dangerously crazy person in a mental institution. Nope, just take the guns. It’ll be fine!

So called “Red Flag” laws are a lie. There’s no way to make them work. They aren’t designed to work. They’re designed to violate your civil rights while not actually solving the problem of preventing crazy people from killing themselves or others.

Stop making the weak Due Process argument. Judges might be interested in that argument once it gets into court, but the public doesn’t care. Use the stronger argument. That argument is “If you’ve gone to all the trouble to convince a judge that dude is nuts, why not take dude down to a safe and secure location where he can get the treatment he needs?”

Anyone who cannot be trusted with a firearm cannot be trusted without a custodian.