Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01


Better sit down for this one. It’s an article in the New York Times by a trembling, soaked-diaper liberal gun-grabber, but it actually has a little bit of truth in it.

FOR those of us who argue in favor of gun safety laws, there are a few inconvenient facts.

More than just “a few,” bub. In truth, all of the facts are “inconvenient” as hell for those of you supporting the anti-freedom position. But then, that’s the case for more than just the issue of the right to self-defense.

We liberals are sometimes glib about equating guns and danger. In fact, it’s complicated: The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

Then there are the policies that liberals fought for, starting with the assault weapons ban. A 113-page study found no clear indication that it reduced shooting deaths for the 10 years it was in effect. That’s because the ban was poorly drafted, and because even before the ban, assault weapons accounted for only 2 percent of guns used in crimes.

Move on to open-carry and conceal-carry laws: With some 13 million Americans now licensed to pack a concealed gun, many liberals expected gun battles to be erupting all around us. In fact, the most rigorous analysis suggests that all these gun permits caused neither a drop in crime (as conservatives had predicted) nor a spike in killings (as liberals had expected). Liberals were closer to the truth, for the increase in carrying loaded guns does appear to have led to more aggravated assaults with guns, but the fears were overblown.

One of the puzzles of American politics is that most voters want gun regulation, but Congress resists. One poll found that 74 percent even of N.R.A. members favor universal background checks to acquire a gun. Likewise, the latest New York Times poll found that 62 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s executive actions on guns this month.

So why does nothing get done? One reason is that liberals often inadvertently antagonize gun owners and empower the National Rifle Association by coming across as supercilious, condescending and spectacularly uninformed about the guns they propose to regulate. A classic of gun ignorance: New York passed a law three years ago banning gun magazines holding more than seven bullets — without realizing that for most guns there is no such thing as a magazine for seven bullets or less.

And every time liberals speak blithely about banning guns, they boost the N.R.A. Let’s also banish the term “gun control”: the better expression is “gun safety.”

Actually, the best expression is the one the Founders used, for any circumstance in which the fundamental natural rights of citizens enumerated in the Constitution are abrogated by a greedy, grasping, too-powerful government: tyranny.

In short, let’s get smarter. Let’s make America’s gun battles less ideological and more driven by evidence of what works. If the left can drop the sanctimony, and the right can drop the obstructionism, if instead of wrestling with each other we can grapple with the evidence, we can save thousands of lives a year.

Translation from the Liberalese: if all of us, both Left and Right, can just agree to drop the Constitution and any pretense towards individual liberty, we can do something that will make liberals feel better and less irrationally frightened of inanimate objects but will stop not one crime or terrorist offense–but will assuredly render every one of us incapable of defending ourselves against those things without being wholly dependent on government assistance. Which, in the end, is what this is REALLY all about.


The big picture

Jonah provides a snapshot:

The whole objective of the early New Deal was to cartelize the economy so the government could form partnerships with Big Business. When Clarence Darrow wrote his final report on the success of the National Recovery Administration he concluded that in “virtually all the codes we have examined, one condition has been persistent…In Industry after Industry, the larger units, sometimes through the agency of…[a trade association], sometimes by other means, have for their own advantage written the codes, and then, in effect and for their own advantage, assumed the administration of the code they have framed.” 

What’s interesting about this situation is the unintended nature of it. There’s no way Obama likes gun manufacturers any more than Democrats in the 1990s liked big tobacco. But the result of all of the big tobacco regulations of 20 years ago, government — I should say “governments” —  is now in bed with big tobacco and is much more hostile to small tobacco companies that didn’t sign on to the master settlement.

I don’t know a huge amount about how the National Rifle Association and other gun groups handle their relationships with gun manufacturers, but I suspect they provide a service few appreciate. If guns were widgets, you would expect Big Widget to cut deals with the government that screw the little guy and create “moats” around their businesses. Uncle Sam could say something like, “If you stop selling retail, we’ll guarantee you sales to law enforcement and military of X,” or some such. But gun manufacturers probably can’t do that. In part because of liberal hostility to firearms. But a bigger reason is probably that the gun lobby would have a zero-tolerance policy for compromises that undermined gun rights in America.

At least since Liberal Fascism if not before, Jonah G has been one of the very best there is at connecting the dots that together form the ugly picture of Progressivist corruption, dishonesty, and depravity.


“Opinions and ideologies make a pretty thin shield against the bullets of a madman”

Talking sensibly to people with no sense at all: a waste of breath, as always.

TO THE man I sat next to on my way in to Boston:

When I boarded the commuter rail, you were already in the midst of a spirited phone conversation and didn’t seem to care about how loud you were talking. You were talking with someone about the Paris train attack and the growing epidemic of gun violence in America.

You spoke about the “murderous NRA” and “bloodthirsty gun nuts” who were causing our schools to “run red with blood.” You spoke profanely of the Republicans who opposed President Obama’s call for “sensible gun control,” and you lamented the number of “inbred redneck politicians” who have “infiltrated Capitol Hill.”

I found myself amazed at the irony of the situation. While you were spewing your venom, I sat quietly next to you with my National Rifle Association membership card in my wallet and my 9mm pistol in its holster. You were only 12 inches away from my legally owned semiautomatic pistol. I suppose I didn’t look like the “bloodthirsty gun nut” you thought I should be. It apparently didn’t register to you that I could so cleverly disguise myself by wearing a fleece coat, Patriots hat, and khakis.

So, to the angry liberal who sat next to me on the commuter rail: I don’t hate you. I don’t have any ill feelings toward you. I don’t wish to do you harm. And I don’t regret sitting next to you. On the contrary; I feel bad for you. It must hurt carrying that much hate inside of you.

And as predictably as this morning’s sunrise, the comments section explodes with a frothing spew of hatred and inchoate fear, as the good Boston “Strong” mouthbreathers declare themselves absolutely terrified that there might be a legal and properly handled gun in their midst, and accuse the stout gun owner living in the cauldron of such irrationality of being a “coward” and a delusional victim of “paranoia.”

Hopefully not too many of the bleating, cringing sheep will be slaughtered before the men with guns get there to save them the next time some boiling-point nutcase goes off like a grenade in their local gun-free zone. I say hopefully, because inane “hope” is all they have to defend themselves with.

But speaking strictly for myself, I wouldn’t care a whit if the next Tsarnaev wannabe gunned down every liberal in the Boston metro area. He could take all year about it before I’d lift a finger to stop him, were I unfortunate enough to live among such useless, despicable fools.

They’ve certainly come a long, long way from Lexington Green, that’s for sure. In light of that sad, pathetic fact, the author is going to have to rethink his misplaced sympathy for them sooner or later; they’re more to be censured than pitied, seeing as how they won’t rest until we’re all rendered as contemptible, dependent, and helpless as they are. He’s extending them a courtesy and a humanity they in no way deserve, and they surely wouldn’t grant the same to him.

To hell with them all.


“America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem”

I decided there was no way to improve on Daniel’s title.

Lanza and Newtown are comforting aberrations. They allow us to take refuge in the fantasy that homicides in America are the work of the occasional serial killer practicing his dark art in one of those perfect small towns that always show up in murder mysteries or Stephen King novels. They fool us into thinking that there is something American about our murder rate that can be traced to hunting season, patriotism and bad mothers.

But go to Chicago or Baltimore. Go where the killings really happen and the illusion comes apart.

There is a war going on in America between gangs of young men who bear an uncanny resemblance to their counterparts in Sierra Leone or El Salvador. They live like them, they fight for control of the streets like them and they kill like them.

America’s horrific murder rate is a result of the transformation of major American cities into Sierra Leone, Somalia, Rwanda and El Salvador. Gun violence largely consists of criminals killing criminals.

As David Kennedy, the head of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, put it, “The majority of homicide victims have extensive criminal histories. This is simply the way that the world of criminal homicide works. It’s a fact.”

America is, on a county by county basis, not a violent country, just as it, on a county by county basis, did not vote for Obama. It is being dragged down by broken cities full of broken families whose mayors would like to trash the Bill of Rights for the entire country in the vain hope that national gun control will save their cities, even though gun control is likely to be as much help to Chicago or New Orleans as the War on Drugs.

Obama’s pretense that there needs to be a national conversation about rural American gun owners is a dishonest and cynical ploy that distracts attention from the real problem that he and politicians like him have sat on for generations.

America does not have a gun problem. Its problem is in the broken culture of cities administered by Democrats. We do not need to have a conversation about gun violence. We need to have a conversation about Chicago. We need to have a conversation about what the Democrats have done to our cities.

But…but…but…how the hell is THAT going to help get more Democrat Socialists elected?


Prescription: more ditches

You’ll have to click on through to see what my title refers to.

Obama’s gun-control executive orders today, and the left’s latest call for full citizen disarmament, are acts of desperation. The left feels its grasp of my life slipping from its fingers, causing their envy and resentment to reach levels of insanity. Their depression in these coming months will reach critical levels, and I hope their physicians will make the necessary calls to the government in order to stem the tide of lefty/jihadist lethal attacks against innocent life. People’s lives matter more than the survival of the Democrat Party.

Do they ever. But it’s increasingly clear that the two are antithetical, at least if the people we’re talking about intend to live in freedom.

Via WRSA, who also throws in this bonus image:


Let him “cry” for all me, phony as his tears are. The more unhappy he is, the better off America will be.


Boiling it all down

These just might be the best, most succinct two paragraphs on the rights protected by the 2A you’ll ever read:

Does everyone who uses a firearm to protect himself survive? Of course not. But as a free man, I do not consider my inalienable rights to be contingent upon my ability to exercise them successfully. I may debate freely, even if I am destined to lose the argument. I may enjoy a jury trial even if I am guilty. And I may defend my life and my liberty even if I eventually succumb.

It is from this understanding that all conversations must proceed. The Second Amendment is not “old”; it is timeless. It is not “unclear”; it is obvious. It is not “embarrassing”; it is fundamental. And, as much as anything else, it is a vital indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual. Unless those calling for greater restrictions learn to acknowledge this at the outset of any public discussion, they will continue to get nowhere in their deliberations.

Anyone who would live free can only hope so–and be fully resolved to do absolutely anything and everything he deems necessary to keep it that way.


Calm, rational, logical…and true

Larry Correia does it again.

Most people just want to fix problems. However, the buzzards? They don’t care. There’s a crisis, they want to get something out of it. Stimulus, response. Strike while emotions are high. Some want control. Others just want to posture. Since their proposals would actually make things worse, they’re scum.

Every member of the gun culture watches these things unfold and thinks, hell, here we go again. Want to know something sad? I promise at most of the gun stores around America the news was on, and everybody in there was listening, thinking some variation of please don’t be somebody the news can somehow make out to be like me… Even though the vast majority of the time the shooter isn’t one of us, has nothing to do with us, and in fact, people like us are the last line of defense against them, it doesn’t matter. We know we’re going to get blamed.

Then they’ll attack us, hound us, insult us, legislate against us, and if they can, disarm us in more ways and places… So we can be even more incapable of defending ourselves the next time somebody who isn’t us does something evil. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

Then they revealed who the shooters were.

Immediately the same exact people who’d just been screeching about evil Tea Party, racist, hate monger, right wing, ciswhitehetero male phantoms, began urging calm, saying don’t jump to conclusions. It isn’t fair to tar the big group because of the actions of a few. Watch out for that hateful rhetoric, because you might inflame people.

Sure, they had no problem making sweeping generalizations and “inflaming” half the country a few minutes ago… But that’s okay. Because when the left talks about how violent and blood thirsty the right is, they’re just virtue signaling for their tribe. If my people were a fraction as evil and hateful as they portray us, they’d never say a word. They do it because they know it is safe to do so. Christians aren’t going to saw their heads off. The Tea Party isn’t going to set off a car bomb in front of their house. Ever notice how to the media talking about radical militant Islam is islamophobia, but there’s no equivalent media buzz word for being irrationally terrified of half of America?

We all saw the idiotic meme floating around with the thing about how there had been something like three hundred and fifty something mass shootings this year. The only problem? It’s crap. It isn’t the FBI’s definition of that particular crime. They changed the definition to anything where multiple people got shot, so it’s mostly gang violence, drug crime, and even includes things like family murder suicides. Worse, it looks like some of those “mass shootings” never even happened. For my low population, heavily armed, but really low crime state, they list like half a dozen! A friend of mine went through them, found most were regular crimes, and couldn’t even find a single news report about one of the supposed events.

Even then most of those three hundred “mass shootings” took place in jurisdictions with extremely strict gun control laws, like Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington DC. They usually happened in cities that haven’t elected a republican in generations. So who gets blamed? People in red states where we own piles of guns and have crime rates similar to Canada. I hate to break it to you but no matter how many restrictions you put on gun ownership in Nebraska, people in Chicago are still going to get shot.

In reality gun ownership is at an all-time high and violent crime is way down. In a country of three hundred million people we have some mass shootings, but they’re actually very uncommon. However, they get a huge amount of news coverage. I talk about it in great length at the link above, but breathless, panicked, 24/7 media come aparts bestow instant celebrity and infamy, which actually spurs on and motivates one particular type of mass killer.

And San Bernardino? Straight up terrorism. Like dictionary definition terrorism. Like the kind that the prog vultures all railed against George Bush for being so naïve and awful with his “fighting them there rather than here” approach. We certainly ended that imperialistic strategy. So how’s that working out for you now western world? If you think three coordinated, body armor wearing, bomb building, planned in advance, Go-Pro wearing, shooters just suddenly sprung into existence as “workplace violence” because of an argument at a Christmas party, you’re smoking crack.

No amount of gun control matters to a militant jihadist. In the other article I talked about how criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law. Terrorists are criminals on steroids, and militant Islamic death cultists think they’re bringing about the apocalypse and they’re cool with that. Militant Islamic radical terrorists aren’t going anywhere. They’re in it to win it.

But hey, let’s make even more places gun free zones! That’ll show them.

As is always the case with Correia, it’s a long piece, it’s perfectly argued and very well written, I could really just repost the whole thing and be happy doing it, and you’re going to want to read all of it. But if I had to reduce it to a bottom-line summary quote, it would be this one:

This administration is a bunch of clueless screw ups who can’t concentrate on real problems because they’re too busy freaking out about imaginary ones, and most of our media exists to provide them cover, yet your solution is to make them the only line of defense?

Bingo. Oh, and that other article Larry mentioned above? It’s here. I’m sure I probably linked and excerpted it here back when it was fresh, and I’m also sure it would be well worth re-reading.

(Via Insty)


Another “national conversation”

Speak up, Progtards.

So let’s talk about “common sense gun laws.”

California has very restrictive firearms laws, probably the most restrictive in America. The laws are so restrictive that gun manufacturers have to make gunsspecifically for California. Many gun dealers or manufacturers just don’t do business in California at all. It’s a pain in the ass. Here’s a great piece discussing the firearms laws in California by Brian Doherty at Reason.

If these two murderers passed background checks and waited the 10 days that are required according to CA law, what other “common sense” laws could we consider? One important “common sense” law we do have here in America is the prohibition against murder. That law didn’t stop these killers, why would we think more gun laws would be respected?

But when pressed for specificity about “common sense” restrictions on firearms, we don’t hear much about a plan to stop gun violence. Following the California paradigm, where most assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines are straight out illegal, what additional restrictions are we missing? A longer waiting period? Background checks that include more information? What kind of information other than criminal history should be included in a background check?

So really? What’s the plan? You know, the “common sense” one that doesn’t involve a total ban on firearms?

As we all know by now, the total ban and confiscation IS the plan. That’s the real goal of every single one of them, from Barky and Hitlary on down to the least wispy-bearded, balding, doughboyish Lesbian/Transgender/Sheepfucker Studies prof, although they’re way too chickenshit to ever say so except under their breath or among themselves.

Likewise, though, it’s simply not true to say that there is no gun law that stands any chance of preventing or mitigating these Moslem atrocities. There IS one–and only one–and CapLion knows what it is.

NOW whatcha gonna do, Poindexter update! Headline from a screaming fascist ninny: “My Right to Safety Outweighs Your Right to Own a Gun.” No, actually, it does not, you gutless pussy. And your right to delude yourself into thinking you’re safe while abdicating your obligation to take responsibility for your own safety most certainly does not outweigh my God-given right to effective means of self-defense as specifically and clearly enumerated in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution–still the supreme law of the land, if merely nominally and observed almost totally in the breach nowadays.

In short: wring your hands, mewl, even cry if you like. Wave your chubby fists around and throw as many high-dudgeon journo-tantrums as you feel are called for. Hold your breath till your soft little cheeks turn amusing shades of indigo under your little hipster-douchebag faux-lumberjack beard. When you’re done, see if you can work up the guts to come and take them.

Failing that, shut the fuck up and continue farming out your security to better men than you’ll ever be. Your lack of dignity and self-respect, and your pathetic and contemptible campaign to shame law-abiding citizens who have committed no crime and harmed no one at all out of theirs will continue to have absolutely no effect on anyone or anything except your own ego.

Failing that, move to Canada already. Better yet, Paris. You’ll no doubt feel much safer in the bosom of that Gun-Free (snicker) Zone, and will enjoy the added benefit of being able to assuage your bruised Feelings by marching in many cutesy parades, one after another, to show “solidarity” with the smoldering corpses left in the streets by the latest Moslem massacre. Then you can all have a good cry together, holding hands as you Tweet various plaintive hashtags pleading with your killers to Stop The Violence while you tremulously wait for the next massacre. Light a candle, cast your teary, bleary gaze to Heaven, and meekly await your turn on the slaughterhouse floor. It surely cometh, and that right soon.

In even shorter: fuck you, and every least benighted soul who “thinks” like you.

I repeat yet again: come and take them, if you dare. You won’t get them, except bullets first. Not ever. Not you, nor any army of any size you can ever assemble. There are still millions of us out here who have no intention of getting killed for lack of shooting back, and we don’t give a good goddamn how many of you precious, twee Little Lord Fauntleroys don’t like it.


Just another gun-grab

And speaking of con jobs:

Having overwhelmingly lost the public debate about whether the Obama administration’s Syrian refugee screening policy should be enhanced, Democrats have retreated to more comfortable rhetorical ground: demanding more gun control.

Their new secret weapon? A bill that would ban anyone whose name appears on a terror watch list from buying or possessing a firearm. The idea sounds reasonable enough until you dig into the details and realize that the proposed Democratic legislation is a shocking assault on the constitutional right to due process. What makes the proposal even worse is that the Democrats’ assault on due process isn’t necessary to accomplish what they say is their only goal: preventing “dangerous terrorists” from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list. In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.

It gets even worse, though. If your name erroneously appears on that watch list, which as of 2013 included nearly 900,000 names, the Democrats’ proposed legislation renders you virtually powerless to find out why your name is on there, let alone to have it removed. And having your name erroneously or fraudulently added to that list isn’t as far-fetched as you might think.

Under the Democrats’ proposal, the government doesn’t have to tell you why your name is on the list. The proposed law allows the government to keep that information secret. And if you decide to take the government to court over it, the Democrats’ bill creates a brand new legal standard that tilts the scales of justice against you.

Remember, you don’t have to be convicted of any crime whatsoever to end up on the terrorist watch list. You don’t even have to be charged with a crime to lose your constitutional rights under the proposed law. If this proposed legislation were to become law, some DHS bureaucrat–perhaps the type of bureaucrat who wrote earlier this year that “right-wing terrorists” pose the biggest threat to American national security–only needs to snap his fingers and add your name to the blacklist in order to immediately deprive you of your Second Amendment rights and yourconstitutional right to due process. You don’t even get to review the entirety of the evidence against you.

So? Those are all features, not bugs, for the Goosesteppin’ Left. They get to A) continue to ignore Moslem terrorism, B) brag that they’re “fighting” Moslem terrorism, and C) destroy the 2A and disarm more law-abiding Americans. For a gun-grabbing liberal fascist, what’s not to like? There’s even more to it than what I’ve highlighted here, as you might expect if you know the dishonest swine behind efforts like this “close the due-process loophole” swindle; I suggest you read it all.


The ever-changing tune

Okay, I know I was just ranting about the liars of the GOP and all. But let’s sit back and allow the Father Of Lies to give us a lesson in how it’s really done.

President Obama on Tuesday dismissed the notion that he is seeking to take away people’s firearms as he delivered his latest call for stronger gun laws.

Speaking to police chiefs in Chicago, Obama sought to rebut the argument made by conservatives, which he said is designed to stoke fear.

“Some of you are watching certain television stations or listening to certain radio programs, please do not believe this notion that somehow I’m out to take everyone’s guns away,” he told the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

“Every time a mass shootings happens, one of the saddest ironies is suddenly the purchase of guns and ammunition jumps up because folks scared into thinking that, ‘Obama’s gonna use this as an excuse to take away our Second Amendment rights,’” he added. “Nobody’s doing that.”

Nobody but you, and everyone who thinks like you. Anyone remember this, from all of a couple of weeks ago?

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings,” the president said. “Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”

And this, from even further back in antiquity?

Couple of decades ago, Australia had a mass shooting, similar to Columbine or Newtown. And Australia just said, well, that’s it, we’re not doing, we’re not seeing that again, and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since.

Our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no advanced, developed country that would put up with this.

And there’s no truly free, self-respecting polity that would put up with the likes of you anywhere near the levers of power. No, nobody’s trying to take anyone’s guns away. Except when they are.

My GOD, the balls on this scurrilous douchebag.


Liberal beats meat to his favorite fantasy

This is who they are, folks.

And so, the gun control debate has come to this. D. Watkins, an NPR and CNN contributor, has run to Salon (where liberals really get to emote) to advocate for a rather draconian form of gun control:

As a teen I watched Chris Rock brilliantly address America’s gun problem during his Bigger and Blacker stand up. “We don’t need gun control,” Rock pleaded to a packed house, “We need bullet control––if bullets were $5000, people would think before they shot some one! You gotta really piss someone off for them to dump $50,000 worth of bullets in to you!” And just like the crowd, my brother, some friends and I erupted in laughter.

Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.

…So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot. You need to feel a bullet rip through your flesh, and if you survive and enjoy the feeling­­––then the right to bear arms will be all yours.

We’ve officially reached the stage of the debate where some on the Left are essentially in competition to see who can express the most disgust for guns or — more precisely — gun owners. Australia? Confiscation? That’s yesterday’s argument. Now the cool people actually want to shoot those gun-owning SOB’s. 

Oh, we didn’t only just now reach that stage; chickenshit liberal-fascists always did feel this way about freedom-loving Americans. It’s just that now they feel emboldened enough by their current political dominance to dispense with the dissembling, climb out from under their slimy rocks, and come right out and say it openly. If a nebbish, sanctimonious little liberal twerp like this Watkins guy had balls enough to actually take a gun in his damp, dainty little hand and pull the trigger without pissing himself (and believed he could get away with it), he’d be perfectly happy to do the shooting himself. And he’d have a huge cheering section of likewise limpwristed Lefty pissants urging him on.

I repeat yet again: come and take them, liberal pussies. Let this frothing milksop and every like-minded pantywaist he can muster step up and try it any time they think they’re ready. We’re waiting, punks. French closes:

But really, Watkins makes everybody a winner. He gets to moralize, his fans get to enjoy their two minutes hate, and law-abiding gun owners are reminded, once again, at how poorly they’re understood and how much they’re despised.

They better be reminded of a damned sight more than that: they better be reminded of how much seething, gut-wrenching hate liberal-fascists truly do harbor for them and their freedom, and of just how far history tells us they’re willing to go to exterminate us once they’re comfortable with the level of control they’ve established over us.


Carson is right–again!

Kinda surprising, considering his stated position not all that long ago on “common-sense” gun control.

During the October 11 airing of Face the Nation, host John Dickerson went after Ben Carson for contending that the Jewish people would have suffered less under Nazism had they been armed. And instead of examining the substance of Carson’s observation, Dickerson tried to intimate that Carson was suggesting we are under a Nazi-like regime now.

But Carson would not relent. Rather, he doubled down and reminded Dickerson that our Founding Fathers’ purpose in adding the Second Amendment was to keep the citizenry armed and the government constrained.

Yep, right as rain. Again.

Breitbart News previously reported on Carson’s October 8th contention that the Jewish people could have curtailed the Holocaust, had they been armed. Dickerson used this contention as a springboard when quoting from Carson’s book, A More Perfect Union, saying, “Confiscating the guns of American citizens would violate the Constitution as well as rendering the citizenry vulnerable to criminals and tyrants.” He then looked directly at Carson and said, “So I want to ask you, who wants to confiscate all the guns of the American citizens?”

YOU do, asshole. As does your filthy, lying, neo-Marxist tyrant of a pRetend pResident; every Democrat Socialist politician on those rare occasions when they’re being honest; every liberal “journalist,” without exception or qualification; all of the terrified, bedwetting hothouse flowers living in your decaying urban shitholes; every pissypants ivory-tower egghead indoctrinating students into the joys of global socialism. Every “liberal,” in other words.

Funny Dickerson should even bother attempting the tired old “nobody is talking about taking your guns away” line precisely at a time when more and more liberal-fascists, from the Oval Office Antichrist on down, are coming right out and admitting it was nothing more than a useful lie all along.

Update! When it comes to being right, the man is definitely on a hot streak.

Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson says one of his predictions is coming true: The mainstream media is manipulating reality, based on its ideological underpinnings, to come after him during his presidential campaign.

“They’re actually playing right into the narrative that I have predicted for them,” Carson told host Matt Boyle on Breitbart News Sunday. “Because they can’t stand the thought of a black person who is a conservative, who hasn’t had to make it on their handout and be at their beck and call and doing the things that they want them to do. It just infuriates them.”

Yep, right again. You can tell from the all the gore splattered about from “liberal” “journalist” heads exploding all over the place, and the bloody froth they spew as they shriek “UNCLE TOM!” at Carson at the top of their lungs, and then turn around and scream “RACIST!” at anybody even half-heartedly calling out their Half-Black Jesus’s hard-Left politics.

Updated update! Did somebody say Carson was right? Did someone mention empty “liberal” heads exploding?

Why yes. Yes, I believe someone did.

But Carson is only telling half of the anti-Semitic Nazi gun-control story. In addition to the disarmament that took place in the late 1930s, for about five years in the early-to-mid-1930s the Nazi Party had engaged in a massive nationwide seizure of weapons from political opponents. The Jews were predictably among the targeted groups.

In Breslau in 1933, Jews were ordered to “surrender [their] weapons forthwith to the police authorities” on the basis that “Jewish citizens have allegedly used their weapons for unlawful attacks on members of the Nazi organization and the police.” This was a regular occurrence all over Germany until the Waffengesetz of 1938, which effectively banned Jewish firearm ownership in all of Germany (though this had been something of a reality for a while, as in 1935 the Gestapo had ordered no weapons permits to be issued to Jews without the approval of the Gestapo itself).

The Nazis were also happy to exploit actual instances of Jewish quasi-insurrection. In early November of 1938, after a young Jewish man attempted to assassinate the German ambassador in Paris, a general campaign was launched to disarm the Jewry of Berlin. As the Berliner BörsenZeitung reported, Jews in Berlin found still in possession of a weapon without a “valid weapon permit” would be treated with “the greatest severity.”

So it went. The disarmament of the Jews was a political and social fact in Nazi Germany. It is uncontestable and inarguable. It was one of the many harsh realities of German Jewish life in the 1930s: if you were a Jew and you had a gun, the Nazis wanted to take it. Adolph Hitler himself knew it: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make,” he said, “would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.” The Nazi Party was ruthlessly methodical. It knew that disarmament was a pretext to annihilation. You could not easily kill a Jew if he could easily kill you back.

So, both historically and practically, Carson is right and his clueless, hysterical critics are completely wrong. The Nazi government was a zealous disarmer of Jews, and this disarmament made it easier to eventually ship the Jews to death camps in boxcars. This is patently obvious.

Yet the general reaction has been one of almost comical obtuseness. Rabbi David Wolpe accused Carson of “blaming the victims.” Both the fashion magazine GQ and pot-smoking fartsmith Seth Rogen told Carson to “fuck off.” At The Guardian, Nigel Jones called Carson’s remarks “ignorant, offensive, and downright stupid.” The Twitterverse exploded with indignation. All of this was spectacularly witless and uninformed.

Well, coming from the perennially witless and uninformed, that’s hardly a surprise.

Progressives refuse to believe civilian armament has any utility whatsoever. Indeed, they claim gun ownership is actually a threat to civil society and should be tightly regulated, if not banned altogether. So when Carson points out what even Hitler himself acknowledged—that Jews in Nazi Germany would have been better off with firearms instead of without them—they cannot acknowledge the sheer obviousness of his position. Their response: “Fuck you, Ben Carson.”

OUR response: come and take them, you sniveling little pussies. You’re going to find the sledding a good bit rougher than Hitler did, thanks to probably the most crucial component of the American exceptionalism you so ardently despise and deny. And that’s a promise.


Myths, and the monsters who make them

I wouldn’t have called them myths, actually. I’d call them lies. But whatever.

After every shooting, politicians and activists rush to the cameras or their keyboards to tell people exactly what should be done to stop mass shootings in the future. Gun control proponents demand more gun control. Gun rights advocates dig in their heels and explain why new laws won’t stop evil people from doing evil things, especially when current laws aren’t adequately enforced.

Unfortunately, the debate between the two sides is rarely illuminating, as it usually devolves into tired recitations of worn-out talking points about the issue. These talking points are invariably littered with myths and factual inaccuracies. Here are 7 myths about gun control that just won’t die.

Read all of it, and maybe bookmark it for future reference too. It’s a handy little guide for debunking just a few of the lies told by gun-grabbers to deceive the ill-informed into supporting their fascist program.

Update! Okay, gotta include this one, which is pretty danged funny.

3) Buying A Gun Is As Easy As Buying Groceries
Last March, President Barack Obama was asked about guns during a press conference, and he responded by saying, “It’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable.” Ignoring for the moment that the president does not understand the difference between a clip and a magazine, his claim is not true.

It is not easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a fresh vegetable, or any canned vegetable for that matter. Never in my life have I been required to fill out federal form 4473 and have the cashier run a background check on me before being allowed to buy an onion.

There are no federal laws requiring onion dealers to register with the federal government prior to selling onions. There are no state laws requiring that you apply for and receive an onion purchase permit, complete with background check, prior to purchasing an onion. There are no onion waiting periods or limits on how many onions you can purchase within a certain period of time. Nor are there, to my knowledge, any state or local laws prohibiting the possession of onions in schools or government buildings.

There are lies, there are stupid lies, and then there’s…Obama.


“We don’t like you. We don’t trust you. And we won’t submit”

I could have added this as an update to the earlier gun post, but it really deserves its own space, I think.

Hey Barack Obama, you don’t get to disarm us. We can see that our defiance eats at you. Good.

That’s why you were so mad when you came out in front of the cameras to blame us normal Americans for the Oregon murders, something you do every time some freak goes on a killing spree. But we’re laughing at your futile, petulant anger. Because you don’t get what you want this time. You don’t get to make us submit. You don’t get to break us.

We know that what spurred your rage at the podium was not bloodshed caused by a militant atheist who probably cheered when the people who nominated you booed God on the convention floor. We see through you.

If you actually cared about bloodshed, you wouldn’t be focusing your rage on law-abiding Americans who merely wish to exercise their natural right, recognized by the Second Amendment, to protect themselves, their families and their Constitution. You would be demanding that your buddy Rahm Emanuel unleash the Chicago Police Department on the gangs butchering exponentially more people in that liberal cesspool you evolved from – a liberal cesspool with the most fascist gun control laws in the country.

You’ll want to read all of it, but I gotta include this bit too:

We are not blind. We know who you consider the real enemy to be.


You are right to take it personally, because it is personal.

You are a liar, knowingly making the false accusation that we American citizens are to blame for the actions of murderers who overwhelmingly align with your sick politics and worldview. Good luck on that quest for the Great Tea Party Mass Shooter; every time the media investigates one of these semi-humans, we inevitably start seeing hints of how he was right at home with your progressive pals and suddenly the mainstream media switches to radio silence. Who was on the campaign button that scumbag in Virginia wore? Oh right, it was you.

Y’all might remember I jumped all over Schlichter a couple of weeks ago for missing the point on the Trump business, but he’s back to his usual form of being right as rain and pulling no punches while going about it here.


Just move already

Why the hell is this guy even still here?

Research on guns is murky. It’s necessarily an area where it’s hard to do rigorous experimental research, so most studies are conducted after the fact, raising all kind of methodological challenges. That means it’s good to be skeptical of big claims from single studies — e.g., that licensing and background checks alone could cut gun homicides by 40 percent.

But we have accumulated some general knowledge all the same. Perhaps the single most supported contention in all of gun research is that more guns mean more gun deaths. The US doesn’t just have a gun violence problem because of its lax gun regulation. It has a problem because it has a culture that encourages large-scale gun possession, and other countries do not. That, combined with Australia’s experience, makes large-scale confiscation look like easily the most promising approach for bringing US gun homicides down to European rates.

Large-scale confiscation is not going to happen. That’s no reason to stop advocating it. (I also want to repeal all immigration laws and give everyone a monthly check from the government with no strings attached, and will argue for those ideas even though they’re doomed.) But it does mean that we should be realistic about what gun control with an actual shot of passage can achieve. It can make us safer. It cannot make us Europe.

This muttonhead simply glosses right over a whole ton of facts that argue against the wisdom of pursuing his preferred course of action–which naturally is revocation of American liberty and the right to self-determination and self-defense via confiscation–beginning with the fact that a whole bunch of us simply will not comply with his fascist edict, but by no means ending there.

But my perennial question for him and those like him is this: if you truly do want to live in an America that has been transmogrified into Euro-lite, as seems to be made abundantly clear by…well, by this whole hot mess of a bullshit article, what the hell are you still doing here? Fucking MOVE already. You won’t even have to cross an ocean to enjoy the dubious “benefits” of living in a Eurosocialist tyranny; Canada is close enough for anybody’s purposes, it’s right next door, and with all sorts of conveyances heading there every day, you won’t even have to drive your own vehicle.

Why, they even have harsh “hate speech” codes revoking another fundamental natural right that your ilk finds troublesome, uncomfortable, inconvenient, and threatening. What could be more perfect for any pissypants dimestore dictator with delusions of grandeur and an unshakeable belief in his own intellectual superiority? Go North, young man. Take your Stalinist tendencies someplace where they’ll be welcomed with open arms. May your chains rest lightly upon you; there are still plenty of us here who have no intention of ever letting you wrap them around our necks.

You don’t want to live in America as founded, or are too delicate to endure the rough and tumble of freedom? The risks of liberty are too scary for you, and far outweigh the rewards in your arrogant estimation? Hey, nobody is forcing you to stay. All any of us is asking is to leave free men and women one place–one damned place–in all the world where our precious individual liberty isn’t trampled on by a bunch of thumb-sucking, bedwetting pussies who think they have some divinely-ordained right to exert total control over everydamnedbody and everydamnedthing. One lousy place.

But no, the filthy Leftist bastards just can’t leave anyone alone. If you ever kidded yourself for one second that these hothouse flowers might be trustworthy on any level, that they might not actually be so bad deep down, think about that. Think about what it might mean for your own future, and your children’s, as a free man or woman in any area in which they achieve and maintain political control. Think about it long and hard.

For anyone out there who still thinks Progressivists are really decent people at heart, filled with “good intentions” and all that rot: the depth of their megalomania and will to power is demonstrated by one simple fact: they are constitutionally incapable of leaving us that one place. They can not, they will not, leave anyone alone. Not ever. They will not listen, they will not learn, they will not back off a single inch. They will not stop until either we, or they, are dead and buried. Nothing less than our total enslavement to every least facet of their will will ever satisfy them. It is them, or us.

I know which I prefer.


“Trust me, it’s not unreasonable to treat liberal policies as if they have a tendency for mission creep and unwieldy expansion”

On most any issue–but especially 2A ones–mission creep is the whole point. As it was with Obamacare–which was never intended to solve anything but rather was just another step down a much longer road–it’s the actual, barely-hidden goal.

What happened in Oregon is tragic, and the nation should comfort families and look for reasonable and practical ways to stem violence, but there is only one murderer. Now, if government somehow bolstered, endorsed, or “allowed” the actions of Chris Harper-Mercer—as they might, say, the death of 10,000-plus viable babies each year or the civilian deaths that occur during an American drone action—a person could plausibly argue that we are collectively answerable as a nation.

Then again, when the president asserts Americans are collectively answerable, what he really suggests—according to his own broader argument—is that conservatives who’ve blocked his gun-control legislation are wholly responsible. The problem with that contention, outside of the obvious fact that Republicans never condone the use of guns for illegal violence (in fact, these rampages hurt their cause more than anything) is that Democrats haven’t offered a single bill or idea (short of confiscation) that would impede any of the mass shootings, or overall gun violence. This is not a political choice, because it’s likely there is no available political answer.

For the liberal, every societal problem has a state-issued remedy waiting to be administered over the objections of a reactionary Republican. But just because you have a tremendous amount of emotion and frustration built up around a certain cause doesn’t make your favored legislation any more practical, effective or realistic. It doesn’t change the fact that owning a gun is a civil right, that the preponderance of owners are not criminals, or that there are 300 million guns out there.

And if it’s a political argument you’re offering—and when hasn’t it been?—you’ll need more than the vacuousness of “this is bad and so we have to do something.” That’s because anti-gun types are never able to answer a simple question: what law would you pass that could stop these shootings?

But despite all the administration’s fearmongering, and as horrifying as any shooting is, gun violence has precipitously declined over the decades without any meaningful federal law being enacted. This likely tells us there are a number of other social currents driving this kind violence. The Left believes the number of guns is at fault, rather than social ills—since no person can be evil, only a victim. So the debate takes on the same old contours, and we focus on firearms and nothing else.

Well, in the first place, there is NO legislative solution to the problem of random killing by an obscure and pretty much unsuspected madman. A spontaneous tactical solution–ie, someone present at the scene with the will, the means, and the competence to put him down–will pretty much always have to do in cases like that, and is difficult enough itself.

In the second, liberal-fascists from Ogabe on down to the lowliest yapping commieblogger (or idiot WaPo “journalist“) are liars–first, last, always. Their “nobody is talking about confiscation” bullshit (which threadbare cover they seem to feel confident enough to dispense with now) is true only to the extent that they don’t DARE talk about it, and wish to misdirect people into willingly taking the first step down yet another of their many slippery slopes. Once they achieve that, they know it’s only a matter of time till they get what they wanted all along. Which is always and forever one thing, and one thing only: absolute, total control over an anesthetized, docile populace.

In the case of guns, yes, this means confiscation, despite their repeated lies to the contrary. That really is all there is to it. More from Cooke:

As I suggested on Morning Joe earlier today, would-be gun controllers such as Obama like to pretend that we all “know” deep down that there are “ways to prevent” gun violence, but that for some reason some of us are just too recalcitrant to get with the program. They are wrong. Contrary to the president’s implications, Britain and Australia are not “countries like ours” when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms; they are completely, utterly, extraordinarily different. When the British government banned handguns in 1997, there were fewer than half a million in circulation. Because there was almost no opposition, they were quickly collected up without fuss. Likewise, after the Australian government pushed through its ban in 1998, federal officials easily confiscated around 650,000 guns — between one third and one quarter of the total.

At present, there are around 350 million guns in circulation in the United States — more than one for every person living here — and the American people enjoy constitutional protection of their right to keep and bear them. If the American government did what Australia did in 1998, they would bring in about 100 million guns but leave between 200 to 250 million on the streets (about as many as there were in total in 1994). This, obviously would be rather pointless. More important, perhaps, such a move would lead to massive unrest, widespread civil disobedience, and possibly even a war.

Careful what you wish for.

Indeed. So once again, I repeat to the Goosesteppin’ Left (and you might note I’ve even added a new category for posts like this, which I expect to be doing plenty more of): come and take them. Do your worst, “liberal” fucks. Send whatever minions you can find willing to do your bidding and wreak your authoritarian will on once-free men, if you have the goddamned guts–although you might find enlisting those minions a good bit more difficult than you seem to think.

As just one perfectly typical example, Amanda Marcotte says, “We’re Sick of the Pro-Gun Arguments” in yet another of her dull-witted shrieks from the infantile Lefty Id. Well, fine, then. Stop running your useless yap, get off your fat ass, and do something, bitch. Bring your friends–all of them–and let’s party. Get on with it, you lame punks. 2A supporters are more than ready…and waiting. Fact is, we’re sick of a great many things ourselves–sick and damned tired. Our ol’ bud Silverdeth puts it this way:

No more gun laws will be tolerated – and as you pricks have seen in Washington, Colorado, Connecticut and New York, we gleefully wipe our ass with your pathetic gun regulations – and laugh at you and your impotent Stasi. Any new infringements will be summarily ignored. Anyone so foolish as to attempt enforcement had best get their affairs well ordered beforehand – seeing as we will only allow the “confiscation” of our weapons hot, dirty and empty.

Furthermore, you don’t have enough jack-boots to take our weapons before we rise up and erase them. We represent one of the most heavily armed standing armies in the entire world, and we outnumber your “forces” hundreds to one. Not only are we, the American patriots, saying “Fuck You,” the logistics of your fantasy itself says “Eat Shit and Die.“ You could not enforce this even if you yellow gutless puss-bags had the gonads to try.

Should the fools spouting weapons confiscation nonsense deeply and earnestly wish to bring the Yugoslavian war home to the United States… well then… we find your proposition acceptable – if regrettable. But know this… once we’ve dealt with all the storm troopers… and hung the men who sent them… we’ll be coming for those who supported ’em. If you wish to usher in the next great American tragedy, we’re prepared to grant your desire – but do so understanding this is war to oblivion. There will be no more of us or there shall be no more of you when the rubble settles. The children of those few survivors will have a lifetime to feel guilty over the atrocities collectively committed in the civil war you wish to kick off.

To the Marcottes, Dionnes, and Hiatts of the world I say this: does he sound like he’s joking? And just how sure are you that there are no more than an insignificant handful of people who feel the exact same way about you and your now-open longing for a fascist future, and are good and tired of being blamed for every nutcase that comes down the pike to wreak havoc on the innocent? Do you really believe that these ordinarily law-abiding people are willing to shoulder the burden of blame for violence they didn’t commit themselves, enough to allow you to do away with their fundamental rights? Are you willing to stake your very lives–your pampered, spoiled-rotten, privileged existences, so far removed from that of ordinary Americans–on that belief?

I have long maintained that if there’s anything in this world that stands a chance of kicking off a much-needed Second American Revolution, it’s an attempt at gun confiscation. In the coming days, weeks, and months, we’re going to see just how “sick” the Marcottes, the Dionnes, the Hiatts of the world really are of American Constitutional rights. We’ll see, at last and for real, what their level of commitment to their adolescent fascist fantasies really is. We’ll see if they really do have the stones to take that Final Solu….uhhh, step in their fundamental transformation of this nation into the opposite of what it was meant to be.

This far. No fucking further. Not one step. We’re done talking to you. Try us and see. No more talk. Just do it already. Or develop a bit of humility, rein in your cheap emoting, understand at last that simply having an ill-considered opinion based on nothing but lies is not tantamount to possession of holy inspiration and does not confer any Divine Right To Rule over the rest of us, and shut the fuck up.




"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options


If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards


RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix