Notes from the Resistance
David Codrea, in Firearms News reports that “While parallels to the situation in Ukraine are understandable enough to make with this new move to recruit civilians into the defense equation, the biggest similarity (and biggest mistake) is, both nations waited until the wolf was at the door to start the process. [More]
I was talking about Taiwan, but yeah, the parallels are there too.
I’ll take whatever publicity I can get as long as it doesn’t come with a mug shot.
[More]
Lying leftist motherf***er says that’s “ambiguous.”
Elias Alias deconstructs more of his moronic and deceptive foolishness in Oath Keepers: Targeted Red. I finished it and need to find time to write a review.
I recommend people buy it. I’ll explain why in my review.
Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir announced Tuesday that 10,000 assault rifles are being purchased and distributed to civilian security teams in communities along the country’s borders. [More]
This isn’t a case of just handing out rifles to civilians like they did in Ukraine:
Civilian security teams provide security to small towns and communities in Israel’s periphery and in West Bank settlements, some of which helped defend residents from the Hamas invasion on Saturday before the IDF was able to arrive.
But like Ukraine, what the government giveth, the government taketh away:
Approximately three years ago, the IDF began taking away firearms from some of these security teams due to the repeated theft of such weapons … they were essentially unarmed during Hamas’s invasion.
“Gun control” kills.
[More]
My Firearms News article was cited in 2A scholar Mark W. Smith’s Disarmed: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans About the Right to Bear Arms.
I often cite him around here, so I guess I’d better get a copy and see what else he has to say.
Israeli Defense Minister Orders Weapons, Ammo Supplied to Gaza Border Communities [More]
Like with Ukraine and like with here, how does waiting until the last damn minute leave you anything but unprepared?
A scene from Blade Runner comes to mind…
‘Calling forth the Militia’ [More]
Not if the government has anything to say about it.
A lot fewer of us would die if the damned elected traitors and their functionaries hadn’t undermined our ability to organize and approach something resembling “well regulated.” And our “gun groups” with their legal efforts focused exclusively on “self-defense” own their portion of the mass uncoordinated unpreparedness.
[Via CP]
Acosta repeatedly asked Norman how Republicans planned to secure the border if there is a government shutdown and said, “I guess I don’t understand that.” [More]
HOW DO YOU EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO WORK IF IT’S RESTRAINED BY THE CONSTITUTION…???
Disregarding for a moment that there’s such a thing as priorities and it’s not like the powers that be are just going to tell the military to go home, there’s a whole ‘nother deliberately unused resource that those same powers have a vested interest in ignoring…
Washington hijinks aside, Wyoming’s Cowboy State Daily reported on Monday that “despite the Biden administration’s efforts to defund school hunter education and archery programs as ‘dangerous weapons training’ for students, Wyoming will go ahead with expanding those programs in public schools throughout the state.” [More]
And yes, Cornyn and Tillis are tools.
That said, where in the Constitution is this even a thing?
And what’s with ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ for “sporting purposes“?
Let me know when they replace Fudd Funding with “Introduction to Your Militia Duties” classes.
[Via Michael G]
America is in the midst of a police officer shortage… [More]
I don’t suppose anyone is conditioned to treat this as an opportunity…?
Or is it easier to just hire Hessians…?
[Via bondmen]
“We’re patrolling the neighborhood. But we have guns because the Second Amendment says that if you have a license, you are allowed to carry one,” he said. [More]
That’s not what it says at all.
While it’s encouraging to see this, you can’t very well claim rights if you don’t understand them.
Still, I wouldn’t mind seeing the racist implications of Connecticut’s asinine “duty to retreat” exposed.
[Via Jess]
“We remind the court that the Second Amendment refers to a right ‘of the people’ without mentioning age, and certainly young adults fall within the definition of ‘the people’ ever since they’ve been allowed to vote, and generations before that when they were considered part of the militia, and have been accepted into the military.” [More]
They’re not just “considered.” They’re recognized by law.
Desperate survivors in Lahaina are robbing people at gunpoint as they wait for food and shelter in the aftermath of the Maui wildfires, Hawaiian locals said. [More]
If only there was some Constitutional provision for dealing with mass social unrest…
[Via bondmen]
Switzerland is a country that has a high rate of gun ownership but doesn’t have a high level of gun violence. It’s because they actually have a well regulated militia with high levels of mental and legal vetting AND training to own a gun. [More]
And nothing else factors in?
If so, he should have no problem showing commensurate higher rates of “gun violence” among people of Swiss ancestry here.
Except challenge him with facts and he runs away…
And we shouldn’t lose sight they have their own totalitarian wannabes trying to destroy their historic security and sovereignty by mandating global citizen disarmament edicts.
That the antis have glommed onto “self-defense” as an exclusionary qualifier was inevitable since that’s all the “common possessors” on our side ever talk about.
If we keep limiting ourselves that way, arms needed for the core purpose and all new technological developments restricted to military/police use will be forever denied to the people the Second Amendment was meant to apply to, and not just for “self-defense.”
I’m waiting for one of our legal influencers with a reach longer than mine to admit this and start using it.
Alternatively, I’m waiting for one of them to have the guts to challenge me on this and prove me wrong.
[Via Jess]
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments about whether a Pennsylvania law banning 18-20 year olds from having firearms in public when a government declares an emergency violates the 2nd Amendment. [Watch]
At the very least, it violates U.S. Code.
You have to wonder what kind of treasonous, mad Democrat would demand and defend this, and the answer is the same kind whose policies have made the type of 18 -20-year-olds making daily headlines in Philadelphia inevitable.
[Via Jess]
Once the breaking point is reached, deplorable ants will make the picnic a living hell. [More]
What’s kept it from happening so far is people still have so much to lose. Take that away by destroying the system that delivers essentials and things will quickly change.
The wild card is the role foreign enemies will play.
[Via Keith B]
If you want to have a gun, you need to join the militia. [More]
Inigo would like to have a word about “well regulated.”
Marsha hasn’t read Heller, has she?
Or found anything from the Framers to support her ignorance?
Still, we ignore those first 13 words at our peril. Just understand that the “well regulated” part applies to when on duty and your rights go back home with you intact.
Does this mean we get new M16s?
[Via Jess]
Colleague José Niño examines the varied and in-your-face ways states are getting away with undermining the right to keep and bear arms and gets some quotes from one of my favorite people along the way…
“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]
Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:
What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.
Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.
That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.
As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.
[Via Stephen I]
Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition of handgun sales to young adults have filed a reply to the federal government’s arguments supporting the ban. The case is known as Reese v. ATF. [More]
What must the grabbers think of those they think old enough to vote Democrat?
Because what was in common use in the past is not what is in common use today, nor what will be in common use tomorrow. At least by the military and by law enforcement. [More]
Withhold technological developments from We the People based on “common use” and at what point in the future does planned obsolescence kick in? Also, as an aside, I don’t know why the editors replaced my photo with one that’s irrelevant to the topic and the caption I wrote.
Governments that started as a vision of Freedom, equality, justice and prosperity that grew tyrannical, genocidal and evil. There is nothing in our Constitution that seems to be preventing that from happening again. [More]
That’s why the totalitarians are so desperate to destroy it.
[Via Doc]
