Mac Kelly

Author Bio.

The Great Dichotomy of the Second Amendment Argument

Another day, another mass shooting. Only this time, it wasn’t a school but the YouTube headquarters in California that was targeted. I didn’t follow the story, but I can only presume the motive was fueled by the shooter’s disdain for YouTube’s interactive ads. What else would make someone so irate with YouTube that they resorted to shooting up a place and then turning a gun on oneself?

You Might Like
Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Yeah, I realize that last comment kind of makes me an insensitive prick, but I’m over news anchors, talking heads, politicians, and message boards spending obscene amounts of time trying to rationalize or speculate the reasoning behind a horrific event. At this point in the blame game, it almost seems like a moot point.

You know what also is a moot point? This arbitrary debate about gun control. It will always be a conversation spurred solely on hypotheticals. In other words, we will never really know if gun violence will recede under stricter gun laws because nobody is willing to try. It’s kind of like refusing to date because you’ve heard statistics about the prevalence of domestic abuse, cheating, and divorce coupled with anecdotal insight from your friends in bad relationships. Sure, you COULD end up with a wonderful lady who lights up your life, but you aren’t willing to try because you’re afraid of the potential consequences.

The problem with this continual banter regarding 2nd Amendment rights isn’t that it’s crazy for people to want to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. Believing the government can go after you and your family for whatever reason isn’t being paranoid. If history has taught us anything about power, it’s how easily sovereignties can snatch away your rights. Literally, every country in the world has had this happen at one point or another. It’s scary, it’s real and probably not likely to stop any time soon. Just look at Venezuela.

That being said, fiery rhetoric about how guns will protect you against the government is pretty stupid. Here’s how I know you are far less concerned about executive intervention and far more concerned about just being “right.”

You’re posting your opinions regarding the 2nd Amendment on Facebook.

If you’ve been too busy polishing your guns to pay attention to the news, I’ll fill you in. Facebook and Papa Zuckerberg are in the hot seat for allegedly siphoning the unauthorized information of millions of Facebook users for political targeting, You know that whole thing about Russia meddling in the 2016 United States’ elections? Yeah, you can tip your hat off to Papa Z for helping to enable that mess. It doesn’t even matter what political party you affiliate with or how much you hate Hilary or Donald Trump – the Russian government undeniably influenced the outcome and if you are concerned about your OWN government messing with you, then you should REALLY be concerned about Vladimir Putin sticking his nose in the democratic process.

“But I didn’t know the government might have used my Facebook information to collect data on me, then use it to funnel advertisements and articles that catered to my interests as a way to control what I buy, read, listen to, and believe in.” To which I will kindly say you are a moron for being totally oblivious to this.

Look, if you are utilizing a social media platform that has ALL of your information and tracks ALL of your posts, comments, and interactions then you, sir, are NOT concerned with the government interjecting itself into your life. Here are other ways I know you aren’t truly taking effective measures to safeguard your rights:

  • You gave your DNA to
  • You let hospitals enter your health information into the national database
  • You don’t have an emergency fund in a place NOT regulated by banks or unable to be traced.
  • You are totally fine with the GPS in your phone allowing anyone to know where you are at all times.
  • You use things like Apple Pay that link all your bankings and savings accounts to it
  • You use Facebook to sign in to Venmo
  • You allow your phone to utilize your location on any app to “help ensure accuracy,” including photos, messenger, workout apps, etc.

Look, I get it. The purpose of technology is to make your life easier, and most of these things do just that. I’m not judging you if you choose to utilize any of them. Technology is great!

I WILL, however, judge you if you perpetually scream about your right to protect yourself against the same government you freely give all of your information to. Because the reality is, if you are willing to leave a paper trail of everything from your bank account information to your physical location at all times, then you clearly aren’t that concerned about taking measures to safeguard you and your family.

Furthermore, has anyone really thought about what it would look like were you to kill government officials in the name of justice? It would be you shooting an officer. And we all know how well society responds to a civilian shooting an officer. Donald Trump is currently trying to implement a federal law requiring each State to impose the death penalty against any civilian that kills a cop.

Think about that. Really think about how that law will impede your citizen rights. IF YOU HAVE TO SHOOT AN OFFICER TO PROTECT YOURSELF AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY GET THE HARSHEST SENTENCE AVAILABLE. That right there is worth paying attention to, because if you think not having the right to carry a gun goes against your inalienable rights, then you may want to pay attention to other measures that discourage or penalize your rights.

I promise you that, if and when the government comes after you, your gun isn’t going to do jack shit. As Jim Jefferies puts it, “You’re bringing a knife to a drone fight,’’ and that’s just a fact.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t own a gun. Guns are undeniably a great instrument to protect yourself against attackers and thieves. I’m not even saying you shouldn’t have a gun as a measure to protect yourself against shady sovereignty. What I’m saying is that, if you want to effectively take steps to distance yourself from the scrutiny of a government regime, you may want to do things that ACTUALLY do just that.

  1. Post Author

    Sir, speaking about Venezuela, do you think it is remotely possible that THAT situation will happen here, in the USA? Absolutely NO, NO, NO!!! If you are as intelligent as you seems to be, I have nothing to add in reference to WHY IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE here. And if you doubt the reason is the fastidious GUNS, you are not transparent, sir!
    To begin with, I, for one, have not done all the things you imply that Americans do. But even if I did, the real problem comes when physical force from the Gov. faces the individual. An officer? So, dear sir, what is more IMPORTANT to the individual, when facing death, any one’s life, OR HIS?HER OWN??? I’ll be rather be judged by 12, than be carried by 6!!!
    And, btw, this is just my opinion, like your article is your own.

    • Post Author

      Does anyone ever bring up the history of the second amendment and it’s relationship to the days of slavery

  2. Post Author

    To stop gun deaths you need to get one of two things—guns or people, I would prefer guns. If solid gun control regulations are created they must include the manufacturers. It would take a generation for the gun control laws to take effect, but Americans are not that patient.

  3. Post Author

    What do you mean we will never know if stricter gun control will work because nobody is willing to try? Just look around the world Mac, in many cases the people had no voice in the debate and their guns were taken away and along with it their ability to defend and protect themselves. Dont give me that crap because that is so far from the reality and the fact is those of us that wont try this is because we have seen it tried (as you so eloquently put it) in other places and it serves only one purpose. To give those that want to control the population the ability to do so, unfettered and unchallenged. It is a fact that gun control did absolutely NOTHING to stop violence with a gun. It only serves to enable violent people to do their dirty deeds unchallenged. So I guess I am on the side of those that wont try, but dont make it sound so lame, because I wont try because I am against seeing it work. I am against it because I know it wont work and I refuse to have some idiot that has armed security around them 24 hours a day dictate to me and tell me they will protect me when the fact is history has proven the ones claiming they will protect you often turn out to be the ones that kill you! I really think you need to rethink what you said here because it was wrong and you know it!

    • Post Author

      Amen!! Well said.

  4. Post Author

    “…you may want to do things that ACTUALLY do just that.” Like what?

  5. Post Author

    No Sport, you still don’t get the 2nd Amendment thing. Kudos for recognizing the risks of technology and putting your information out there for any and everyone to use for their own purposes. But you are a silly willy on the gun thing. No, you as an individual with your 12 gauge or AR is not going to stop a drone strike on your house, not can you defend yourself against an Abrams tank rolling down your street. That is not the issue. The issue is that no government in its right mind would even consider tyrannical action against its people if 200 million of them are armed to the teeth. There is no possible way that a government can successfully enslave a population with such firepower. So this is not like “bringing a knife to a drone fight”. This is like bringing several million rounds of ammunition to a drone fight. I wouldn’t be putting my money on the drone.

    Historically, tyrannical governments always “peacefully” disarm their subjects before they really start the abuse of the population. That is a lesson that should be learned and remembered by anyone who actually gives a damn about the future of the country.

  6. Post Author

    I believe the second amendment is a deterrent against a tyrannical government and I’m not stupid.

  7. Post Author

    Email and hospital records seem to be the only vulnerable areas for me. I’m very cautious with email content but how can one prevent hospitals from sharing information.

  8. Post Author

    ignore history do you think we are all stupid?

  9. Post Author

    How do stop people from buying guns on the black market and out of trunks
    of cars. Bring back movies that entertain.

  10. Post Author

    Someone needs to visit their doctor and get their meds adjusted!

  11. Post Author

    The debate is NOT theoretical, one only has to look at other countries to see the result of law abiding citizens giving up guns. 1) criminals, felons, terrorists, cartel members and jihadis DO NOT obey laws and/or give up guns. Would be dictators become full fledged tyrants. The people who suffer at the hands of these aforementioned are the law abiding who now become subservient to same. Anyone with the ability to reason through can see the folly in “gun control”. It is a deception practiced by the left and anyone who wants to rule. Start messing with the Constitution and you are on a slippery slope, taking away the 2nd will result in loss of the rest. We need to add ammendments to support the rest, NOT subtract!

  12. Post Author

    I don’t authorize my phone to broadcast my location. I also refrain from posting everything I do on Facebook and i don’t follow other sites. I figure the less I put out there the better.

  13. Post Author

    If you want to talk about a foreign entity influencing an election, should we begin with illegals voting in our elections, or our Government influencing elections in Israel and a long list of other countries?
    My gun won’t make a difference if the Government goes full retard? Maybe not, but the guns of 120 million Americans will. How many members of the military still support the Constitution? How many police officers support the Constitution? How many police officers who do not support the Constitution live in the communities they work in? How many would like to go home to their families at the end of their shift? How many would like to find their families alive and their house still standing at the end of their shift? I know a lot of people would like to take guns away from the American people, but I don’t know many who would like to be shot in the face attempting to do so. I don’t know many military commanders who would like to be fragged for giving illegal orders to confiscate weapons either. The thing is if only 10% of gun owners resist, that is 12 million people. The politicians and liberal news media would have a huge target on their backs, and millions of scoped high power rifles waiting for them to make an appearance. The 1st Civil War would look like a picnic compared to what is on the horizon.

  14. Post Author

    I understand your point but if all the people who care about our rights go underground and drop off the radar then they win and just remove all rights because nobody is standing up and shouting against them. Humans have been fighting against each other since the dawn of mankind and it will never stop because peace on earth has never existed, we all want it but nobody is ready to give up their peace of the pie.

  15. Post Author

    We have a property developer near here building cheap condos and/or rental units. his “intention,’ so he says, is to create “affordable’ housing, but in other communities in which he is already operating this has led to increased crime from the element he rents to.
    Although I am leery of the government, I fear I will not be able to protect myself from the scum element breaking in to my home if I don’t have a firearm. Last time there was a burglary in the neighborhood it took 45 minutes for the police to arrive.

  16. Post Author

    The UTube shooter was responding to changes at UTube in the way of censorship that effectively destroyed her livelihood and her ability to feed and house herself. I know many UTubers and they are unanimous in condemning these changes in policy which are highly biased in the direction of left-wing rights restrictions. If you had actually been paying attention you would have known that.
    And if history has shown us anything it is that an armed population can withstand and even defeat any standing military, simpley through overwhelming numbers. Roughly 120 million to 2 million, or 60 to 1 odds. Yes the established military has superior weapons, but they would quickly be wiped out. Look at what happened to us in Vietnam, or to the Soviets in Afghanistan, or to us in Iraq or Afghanistan. We cannot win in these places without wiping them off the face of the Earth, which would be a huge crime against humanity. Your knife to a drone fight just won’t stand. There are enough good skeet shooters in this country to remove every drone from the sky with little effort. In addition, any orders to the military to turn them against the general population would be unconstitutional and the military have no obligation to follow illegal orders. Most of them would turn and fight against the government in the case of imposed tyranny.
    You are right that in general the people are stupid sheep who do not understand technology enough to know how to protect themselves. As a Vietnam vet with 53 years in IT, the intrusiveness of the government today is chilling to say the least. Anything we can do to prevent the collection and consolidation of our personal information is worth the slight inconvenience it might cause in our lives.

    • Post Author

      I would also like to point out that there might be a very large portion of our standing military that might side with those of us trying to maintain our freedoms.

  17. Post Author

    Always wear a condom when using the internet. Invest in a VPN, turn off location services, and keep cash on hand. Do not rely on an ATM card in case of emergency. The first 72 hours are up to you, the next 6 months are up to you, too.

  18. Post Author

    A well regulated malitia is not an arsenal in your basement. The Armory is a place that will house your gun in the event……..

    • Post Author

      What event? Did you skipped the other comments?

  19. Post Author

    Couple of things here: hospitals don’t “ask” your permission or opinion about electronic records, they just arbirtrarily DO that; they made the decision unilaterally to go electronic. If you need the hospital it will be electronic, period. The other thing is that we DO know that were guns proliferate LEGALLY, and people are trained in their use and care crime does go down, including violent crimes. What the gov’t wants to do is remove legal guns, leaving criminals still armed, as in Chicago and the UK. To stop all violence, they’d have to ban every possible weapon; GOOD LUCK with rocks, hands, feet, etc. You ready to give up eating utensils, household furnishings, etc, as well as motor vehicles? Because that’s what it’d take, and then it wouldn’t stop all violence. HUMAN NATURE has a propensity to violence and it will persist until that NATURE is changed. That won’t happen until Jesus returns. In the meanwhile, “9 mil beats 911 every time” is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind, when your life is threatened, whether by an individual or a gov’t.

  20. Post Author

    President Regan said no more gun laws and there are are over 20000 on the books now. That number is hard to imaging but I am sure there are more than enough. Besides taking all guns from everyone, if that were even possible, what would you propose to do to keep these shootings from happening. Most of the guns are legal, and they broke many laws doing the shooting. Can you predict when or if someone is going to lose control? Guns make it easy but if not guns, fire, cars, planes etc. where are you going to stop?

  21. Post Author

    You think one person is going to take on the federal government by himself, you are’t very smart. The only time guns would be used against the government is during a full scale rebellion. The US probably has around 700 thousand troops under arms. There are around 150 million Americans with guns. Not to mention that under a trianical government many soldiers would abandon the military rather than fire on US citizens. Just look around the world right now, ISIS gave The armies of the world a hard time with a hundred thousand rag tag soldiers. What would a 150 million mad Americans do? Government have been overthrown with far fewer than that. It could all start with the government taking our rights by force.

  22. Post Author

    It’s the part about “when you need the cops they’re just minutes away” so as you try to outrun the bullets for those 2 minutes it’s then you’ll realize why we have the Natural Right to protect our lives with a bazooka if we can carry it! Remember the Christians in Iraq that ran up the hill of boulders trying to hide from the bullets of the Muslims armed to the teeth. Where was their government when they needed them? Or as they tried to sneak down the hill to get food and water because they were disarmed by their government or the Khmer Rouge slaughtering every Cambodian that had glasses and could read but were disarmed by their government only to be slaughtered in the Killing Fields. In a free country you shouldn’t need to rely on your government to protect you, you should be able to protect yourself it sure stopped the Japanese from invading during WWII look at the quote from Tojo or whoever it was that said every bush will have an armed American hiding behind it. Get over it we’re armed and that’s that!

  23. Post Author

    One military style weapon against a Totalitarian Government is nothing, but there are millions of these in our population, most of them owned by law abiding ex military all over the Country. Organizing into Militias is as easy as it was in both the Revolutionary and Civil War. You must take into consideration that the National Guard is composed of people and ideals of the State they serve. Your story is that of a Government against one person, it is never one person. Should the Government tear the Constitution up and use the Armed Forces against it’s own population, we will have ceased to be the United States of America, and we will again have a Civil War. As an example, if every Jewish family in Germany during the late 30’s and early 40’s had been armed, how would the German Army dealt with the casualties every time a squad went to remove Jewish families? Not to mention sniping and sabotage. Back to reality….a gun is only a tool, if misused the lawbreaker should be held accountable, not everyone who owned a similar tool. Gun crimes should never be dropped by liberal Judges and should be tried to Federal standards regarding punishment. Read what Federal prison time is for a Felon in possession of a firearm, or using a firearm in a felony, instead these Judges drop gun charges in exchange for a plea, then drop the charge to simple robbery, gets two to five and normally gets half that for good behavior and out in 18 months. This is the problem you need to address, our lack of enforcing the gun laws on the books.

  24. Post Author

    Many Gun owners and the gun nuts cringe at the word “Gun Control”. Gun control should be laws to keep NON-US Citizens from legally purchasing, owning, selling and carrying firearms. It should also include most felons and those arrested for domestic violence and those persons diagnosed with mental problems. It should also include all persons who are under 21 years of age from purchasing, owning, carrying a firearm and buying ammo. Military personnel under 21 of age would be exempted. All US states must have a conference on similar gun laws and minimum penalties for the unlawful use of firearms, for nonvalid users. A state and a national database must be created of all persons arrested for all crimes. A universal background check for all new and old users who attempt to purchase a firearm or buy gunpowder. Pre background permit must be obtained for All firearm and gunpowder purchases at Gun Show and from Licensed dealers. Closed secondhand sales loopholes (straw sales). All assault-type rifles and ammunition clips that can hold over 18 rounds with must be registered with the US ATF.
    Change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with all law enforcement agencies.
    Ban any accessories that simulate automatic weapons.
    Allow all persons that have left a law enforcement agency in good standing, be allowed to receive a special endorsement to carry a Conceal Handgun in most restricted areas.

  25. Post Author

    Great thought-provoking article! Well said and worth acting on!

  26. Post Author

    Sorry to disagree, Mac, but I think you overlooked one important fact; with over 300 M guns in the hands of 100 M Americans, the notion that ANY govt. geniuses think they will go door-to-door asking for firearm contributions will quickly inhabit a rubber room (of which we need a LOT more – rubber rooms occupied by govt. critters.) Doesn’t mean the govt. goons won’t figure a way, just isn’t gonna be that easy. In the mean time, “When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.”

  27. Post Author


  28. Post Author

    Excellent essay, especially your concluding paragraph. However a ban on guns is not purely hypothetical; Chicago and Washington D.C. both have strict gun laws. The crime rate has gone up since those laws were instated. Yes, this not necessarily cause and effect, but worth considering.
    Please consider my viewpoint carefully since, in registering to post this comment, I have dared to share my information with you 🙂

  29. Post Author

    After Japan surrendered, a high ranking Japanese General was asked-“did You ever consider invading the U. S. ?” The answer – ” No, because We knew, behind every blade of Grass,
    there would be Someone with a Rifle” .. Our 2nd Amendment should have included the following, which has been said to be a quote from George Washington . ” A FREE PEOPLE
    GOVERNMENT .” !!! i will translate into modern English for You .. “Armed & Disciplined ” means that We should have Weapons, and training in Their use .. “Sufficient Arms and
    Ammunition” means We should have Arms comparable to Those intent on subjugating Us..
    Which when It was written meant Muskets, Powder & Patches, and now means ,at least,
    semi automatic Rifles with at least 30 round capacity Magazines.. “To defend Themselves
    against Any ” means a Foreign Entity intent on destroying Us, or, which is more likely, our
    “deep state”, headed up By Someone as evil as George Soros and His Spawn …
    The Patriots of America are not intimidated by the threat of Drones .. Most of Our Military
    who pilot these Drones would be with Us, and Drones don’t have unlimited range and endurance – They would have to land for maintenance, refueling, and re-armament . The
    “Blades of Grass” mentioned in the first sentence would find these Bases, and destroy Their logistic support, if need should arise .. Do these Liberals, who desire to destroy Our Country
    and turn It into a Third World open borders Cesspool , and our own “deep state ” Elites, realize
    how close WE are to an armed REVOLUTION .. ????

  30. Post Author

    OK, your article is true. Wow, I said it, this article is True. Well yes it is and no its not. Wahoo, how can that be? You mix Apples, Oranges and throw in some Grapes.

    First, tracking by the Federal Government is not nefarious in and of itself. How do you not be tracked, how do you drop off the grid. Lets Look; No credit cards, every transaction is noted by location/time. No ATM withdrawal, same as Credit cards, location and time, and let’s adds photos of who is doing the withdrawal. Most places anyway. Checking Account nada zip tracking you.

    What about everyday things, have a cell phone? You turned off the GPS function because you don’t want someone, anyone, tracking you. Guess what, it didn’t do anything, they are still tracking you. That is how cell phones keep the calls up and talking as you go from location to location, without wires. Each phone, when turned on, has a signal, a ping that keeps it in communication with the closest cell tower. Each company, if needed, can tell what phones by their pings, are up and running and close to where they are. They know who belongs to that phone, because all that information is in the data base used to bill you each month for service. The only way to not be tracked is to turn off your phone. However, the minute you turn it on, it knows who and where.

    What about the new car’s that have multiple devices that will track you without your knowing it. GM cars / trucks that have on star devices are tracking you, how about lojack, the anti theft device, yep tracking you. There are other companies that sell this kind of tracking devices, and some are designed to be used by boyfriends/girlfriends/ fathers/mothers, which place these devices to track where someone goes. Got to stay away from any of those, to be off the grid.

    Internet, even in a public WiFi system, your computer or your internet account sends identifying information to the network, yet tracking you again. Phone calls from a pay phone, still gives those that want it, the location and street, so called burner cell phones, may not be as good or close, but they can track the city and state, and sometimes location.

    Want to drop off any radar, everyday things that won’t let you. Drivers License, Pass Port, Utilities, grocery and store loyalty cards, library card, credit applications/loan applications. Rental applications, even large sums of cash no longer let you stay hidden, don’t have an account can not change a large bill, and in some cases you can’t pay your bills in cash. Then of course do not get sick, or go to a doctor, all medical records are in and on the grid.

    Yes the government can and does track you no matter what you do. So while the above article is true, it is also false as it doesn’t make a difference, except in those cases where you are running from the government, and your comment “I WILL, however, judge you if you perpetually scream about your right to protect yourself against the same government you freely give all of your information to. Because the reality is, if you are willing to leave a paper trail of everything from your bank account information to your physical location at all times, then you clearly aren’t that concerned about taking measures to safeguard you and your family” Is bogus.

    There is nothing in the government tracking you, and keeping your accounts safe from prying government eyes that has a thing to do with the 2nd Amendment. The two have nothing to do with one another, really, they don’t, only in your immiganiation are they linked, one is day to day paper trail, that is almost impossible to avoid and i’m not sure it would be wise to do so, and the other is about physical protection against a rouge government

    The 2nd amendment. It is designed to give us the American people the ability to offset / repeal / or over throw a rogue government. “IF YOU HAVE TO SHOOT AN OFFICER TO PROTECT YOURSELF AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY GET THE HARSHEST SENTENCE AVAILABLE” really. The fact to do that, someone is going to HAVE TO shoot a government officer. Point of fact. The other side is your comment has nothing to do with shooting a police officer, that Trump wants to put a pentalty on, that is a day to day social issue, not a governemnt issue. These have NO correlation to each other, the Police issue is a break down in society that threatens lawful existence of a normal society, and yes, you shoot a police officer, you get what you ask for and yes, vice versa, police are not above the law. This is not a 2nd Amendment issue, this is juducial society issue.

    However, in an anti government or armed coupe threatened take over, how that plays out, is up to who wins the war. In the secession of the colonies from England, that colonist that stood their ground against the English for taxes and the fact they had come to take their weapons away, was the same as shooting a government officer. That they become patriots, is only defined because they won. If not, they were noting but thugs and rebellious rebels. So, under the current 2nd Amendment, if it comes to a shooting war and the government officials are fired upon, it will be the outcome of that war as to which side of the coin it all falls upon and if it falls against you, yes the sentance will be swift and sever. The main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is that it allows for individuals to stand and make that fight. Another issue of the 2nd Amendment, which we as a country are CURRENTLY in, is that just having the 2nd Amendment keeps a government in check, because they don’t want to risk an armed conflict. This is why it is so important, one side is trying to gut and weaken the 2nd Amendment, because it is so much easier to go against a population that has no arms or is under armed and cannot mount a sufficient defense and can be overthrown. This is evident in the current debate, even though it’s said to be about saving lives, there are so many more programs that could realize far greater numbers of lives saved, but no it’s about weakening the 2nd Amendment so that guns are no longer available to those who would use them to keep the government intact.

    Now for, as the late Paul Harvey used to say, the rest of the story. What nobody takes into account are two things that in effect make some of the Apples and Oranges a non issue.

    First Apples, in a full blown anti government conflagration, the power grid will be compromised, without electricity all the cell phones, computers, and every thing else will go away. No goggling for answers, no internet, no tracking by signals, as everything will be shut down, and if it isn’t it will be limited to very confined spots run for a little while by generators, or it will be government backed, which now becomes both a asset to the government or a liability as those on the other side takes advantage of these government systems. The loss of the power grid will cause some to die because of this power loss, however, that will just be the collateral damage that will take place. But it will negate all the electronic data and computer spying. It will also shut down the tracking using those electronic sources or at least slow the searches and results way down. People will have to learn about living without all the modern advantages. This is one of the main reasons I said electronic data tracking and spying has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, as electronic data pretty much goes away as we know it. Where the physical nature of Arms and Ammunition will not suffer from a loss of electricty, actually it might help the patriots as the government will have a slow or non existence access to gun records and background checks.

    The second of these two things, the talk about the ability of the civilian side to take on the military forces, that will be against them. As the poster highlighted ” I promise you that, if and when the government comes after you, your gun isn’t going to do jack shit. As Jim Jefferies puts it, “You’re bringing a knife to a drone fight,’’ and that’s just a fact.” Sorry to disagree with you, but that is not the FACT and will not be the case. This has been proven by so many wars.. including our own Revolutionary war, where civilians went head to head with seasoned drilled federal troops and won, then there is the Alamo, with a small band of insurgents that took on and made Santa Ana pay dearly for the his victory. Come up to recent times, with the Viet Cong fighting a gorillia war against the best equipted and trained modern army. Then the Afghanistan rebels against the Russian troops. This thought process of bringing a knife to a drone fight, doesn’t hold water in the actual real world. If he or anyone else thinks this is a true fact, they are going to be in for a hard reality.

    Two serious thoughts, about this topic. One not sure how many of the current military personnel will stay in the service and fight against the civilian population. Orders or no Orders. The oath taken by all military, talks about lawfully issued orders, and that they will defend against aggressors both foreign and domestic. Even if 1/4 were to leave, that would put the standing military at a great disadvantage. The other issue is, the civilian population has about 23% being of ex military personnel. These are military trained and in some cases, combat hardened personal. If only half of that ex military come forth and took up arms against the aggressor government, it will pose an obstacle that the aggressor government was not counting on, or at least they will have an opponent that is as trained as they are and quite possibly as well armed, outside of large weapons. With the estimate of 340 million guns and within that close to 10 million AR platform rifles, the small arms are there in spades.

    That issue of large weapons, could be offset by those prior trained service members capturing those weapons, like tanks, or air power, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft and using them against the aggressor government, in a gorilla war. It also is nard to use large weapons against small bands of roving defenders who have the ability to engage when and where they want not when the military wants, It also is a truth, that civilian ex military are just as versed on tactics and modern warfare as the curret generals. Most of our current military schools are run by ex military or civilians and it bears to see how many of those stay with the military or how many defect to the defenders.

    Not sure, after going through your article, just were you wanted it to go, but trying to tie the 2nd Amendment to the electronic internet intrusion to our lives is not possible. The two are not intertwined the same as wanting to physically secure our country verses electronicly securing our lives are not even close to the same. You point out the following, “because if you think not having the right to carry a gun goes against your inalienable rights, then you may want to pay attention to other measures that discourage or penalize your rights” well the fact is, if you don’t have the rights to carry a gun you won’t have to worry about the others, The right to freedom of speech and to own and carry arms make everything else happen, lose the 2nd Amendment and all the other rights fail.

  31. Post Author

    You may want to review the history of early Nazi Germany and Cambodia. In both cases among many other incidents of history, the common folk were disarmed by the government. Following this the people the government didn’t like were slaughtered. In the case of Cambodia (I aided many Cambodian refugees fleeing Pol Pot and his murderous regime. He was slaughtering intellectuals and anyone who wore glasses, even a factory worker, was perceived to be an intellectual and a threat.

    Be careful what you wish for. People who don’t know history tend to repeat it to their detriment.

    • Post Author

      Be careful what you believe. People who don’t know history, may misrepresent that history to our detriment.

      Regarding Nazi Germany, white nationalist William L. Pierce wrote in his 1994 pamphlet: ‘When you have read (and compare the 1928 and 1938 German gun laws), you will understand that it was Hitler’s enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today’. The general disarming of citizens and a generic gun law was imposed by the Allies on the Weimar Republic after WWI. These laws were relaxed in 1928 and then further relaxed in 1938.

      You also mention Cambodia. Yes, the unfortunate Kampucheans were used and abused from 1975 until 1979 and continue to be abused by Westerners using their tribulations to make political points today. Gun ownership had nothing to do with Pol Pot’s victory in their civil war. It was Western neglect that sealed the fate of the Cambodians. Where was America and the west when the Khmer Rouge were carrying out their genocidal purges? Oh that’s right, they had been busy invading Vietnam and when they were finally booted out of Vietnam, it was left to the Vietnamese to assist the Cambodian people by invading and destroying most of the Khmer Rouge’s army.

      The Khmer Rouge finally fled to Thailand whose government supported them while they continued to fight the Vietnamese and the new People’s Republic of Kampuchea. This war didn’t end until 1991. However, the Khmer Rouge held onto Cambodia’s UN seat (with considerable American and international support) until 1993.

      ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions’

  32. Post Author

    Your initial premise is totally wrong. We have decades of evidence on the effect of gun control laws. To keep it short and simple, gun control laws primarily affect law-abiding citizens, not criminals. In jurisdictions with strict gun control, crime rates are high. It makes a safer environment for criminals to ply their trade. Why do you think mass shootings happen in “gun-free zones”? In jurisdictions where the acquisition and ownership of firearms is relatively easy, crime rates are low. Society is safer when the criminals don’t know who might be armed. You can look up the data. All 5000+ counties in the U.S. have been studied.

    • Post Author

      To keep it short and simple, your reply is total nonsense and you know it. Making false statements purely because they support your preferred view and that of your target audience, diminishes your argument and contributes nothing positive to the debate. The reason you provide no evidence is that the evidence proves otherwise, as the Australian experience shows. It’s easy to find. Just google Port Arthur massacre 1996, or the 2002 Australian gun control legislation. Society is safer when no one is armed!

  33. Post Author

    Sorry . . . I don’t see where the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to own a gun for protection – only to guarantee a militia.

  34. Post Author

    Hi Mac. You make some pertinent points here. However, many are begging clarification.

    The YouTube killings had nothing to do with advertising. It was motivated by the young lady’s issues with particular aspects of web access denied to her.

    The debate about gun control isn’t arbitrary and there IS evidence that gun control will recede under stricter gun laws. Stricter rules were introduced in Australia in 2002 after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. These laws have lowered Australian firearm deaths by two-thirds. The evidence is there if you care to do a search. Do you realise how many innocent American lives (mainly the young who have no legal say in any decision), could be saved annually? Also, a 2010 study published in the ‘American law and Economics Review’ found firearm suicides fell by 74 per cent in the ten years after the gun law reforms were passed.

    Unfortunately, a large proportion of Americans seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the second amendment, to the exclusion of any other clauses or amendments. It is understandable that after the repression of a foreign power that restricted firearm access on those under their control, the drafters of the constitution wanted firearm ownership protection enshrined in their constitution.

    However, that was relevant for historical reasons. Today America doesn’t have a foreign government anymore and are democratically self governed (I know that can be debated – plutocracies etcetera). However, what is this power they need protection from? Do you really think a person is going to be able to protect him/herself with a gun against the might of their government’s arsenal of weapons and army? Of course not. It is going to be used against other citizens in the main.

    You refer to Venezuela as an example of individual rights being snatched away by ‘sovereignties’. Is this supposed to be irony. Just how many South and Central American governments have been overthrown by US intervention over the last two hundred years? Yes, their citizens rights have more often been overthrown by a foreign power, rather than their own. The democratically elected, popular Allende government was overthrown by the war criminal Pinochet, supported by the CIA in 1973 is just one example.

    On the subject of domestic abuse, who on earth is going to be reluctant to get involved with a wonderful lady because of the prevalence of domestic abuse!!! Just stop beating up on women. It’s not rocket science. All I can deduce from many of the comments in this publication is that a culture of violence seems to be so entrenched in American society that it is taken as the norm and as a consequence, has a negative impact on attitudes about how to resolve social issues. Unfortunately, many of Americas problems are entrenched in legislation, the constitution and the dominance of the ruling plutocracy.

  35. Post Author

    We dont have to try disarming “just to see how it goes”. We can look at places like Australia and England, where crime has increased. Including gun crimes.

    • Post Author

      And your evidence for this is? Just as I thought, it doesn’t exist and the opposite is actually true as indicated in my reply regarding the Australian experience. Total denial, ‘fake news’ and outright lies destroys any credibility of the anti gun control movement.

  36. Post Author

    It all started 50 years ago when people started handing their social security numbers over to banks for opening an account, when the numbers were supposed to be for employment purposes only. Some resisted for a time, but each successive generation loses perspective on the slow, gradual loss of freedoms. For example, dogs and cats being kept restrained. Doesn’t anyone remember when they roamed free? I remember a time when it was not unusual to pass a dog on the sidewalk. He was going somewhere, just as intent on his destination as you were, trying to stay out of the reach of children’s groping hands. At what point did they become monsters to fear? And how did they become that way?

Leave a Reply