patrick.net

More Legal Guns Reduced Crime in Brazil
Homicide fell 34% after Bolsonaro made firearms permits easier and cheaper.

“Lives are on the line,” President Biden said after the Supreme Court held New York state’s restrictive gun-permit regime unconstitutional last week. Gov. Kathy Hochul warned: “This could place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way.” Brazil’s experience suggests otherwise.

Answer, at least in last few school shootings, is that they would have been prevented if EXISTING laws would have been enforced, and that they would have been much less deadly if heroes in BLUE! would have done their damned job.

New York Times opinion editor wants a gun
By Tom Knighton | Jun 30

Personal Information of Every California Concealed-Carry Permit Holder Leaked

@_evelynrae
Jul 3
This could have ended very differently had it not have been the 2nd amendment…

This could have ended very differently had it not have been the 2nd amendment…

The mainstream media has picked up on a story of a heroic armed citizen being heralded as “a good Samaritan” for shooting and killing a gunman who opened fire inside a Greenwood, Indiana mall. It’s been a long time coming, but it’s better late than never for such left-leaning media outlets as ABC, NBC, People magazine, the Today Show, the Washington Post and others reporting what gun owners have known forever: the best — and ofttimes only — way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with another gun.

Yesterday, a man with a rifle managed to kill three people inside the Greenwood Park Mall. But then, a 22-year-old man used a firearm he was legally carrying concealed to shoot the gunman and end his killing spree. Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison told reporters following the incident:

The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop that shooter almost as soon as he began.

Defensive gun use not rare; concealed carry laws do not cause gun crime

Shannon Watts, a gun control activist and the founder of Moms Demand Action, claims that defensive gun use in the United States is “rare” and that laws allowing people to carry guns increase gun crime. Both of her claims are dubious at best.

When the Second Amendment was written as a part of the Bill of Rights, it was uncontroversial. The new American republic had just transited through a grueling revolutionary war to throw off rule of the British crown. The British government had been violating the rights of Englishmen, including the right to keep and bear arms. The first battle of the war started as the British army marched through Lexington to Concorde, Mass., to confiscate arms and ammunition the colonists had stockpiled. After several instances where arms and ammunition were confiscated from individuals, General Gage acted to disarm the entire town of Boston.

let us start with SA’s own words:

The essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot.

When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”

And it was.

-Saul Alinsky “rules for radicals”

it’s not new, you just don’t think it could happen here.

but you know what the thing that all societies which succumbed to armed marxist or fascist oppression by violence have in common?

they didn’t think it could happen there either.

these new “woke till you choke” impositions are being used not so much as a means to change minds as a screen for ideological purity and a form of signaling about “what sort of people are welcome in the military these days.” if you’re not a “pronouns in email” kind of guy, uh, person, uh, entity, uh, (jeez this gets hard) then ship out. we don’t want you here, won’t promote you, and intend to make your life a misery.

this is a classic marxist playbook move. you start from the top and replace the generals with political hacks, but this is insufficient. the goal is to shape the military to serve your politics and if the rank and file do not believe, they will not turn upon their own. so you get them learning to fight about pronouns instead of learning to win battles on the field. because, in the end, you want a different kind of soldier. you want a soldier who sees a different kind of enemy.

it’s easy to change the top ranks. in peacetime, pretty much nobody gets past (or even to) colonel without being a politician. but the rank and file soldiers are different. many came from humble upbringings. many joined as a path to an education or a better life. many joined because they believe in and sought to defend america. many fought in overseas wars. and those are difficult things to change, especially changing allegiance from combat commanders to political commissars. it’s easier to change people.

so you have to make it a misery as a means to cull them out and “here, your service is now politically correct puppet-shows and while falling asleep on watch is a no-no, mispronouning the pangendered demisexual otherkin who shares your shower is worse.”

the very absurdity of the ideological purity test is what makes it so effective.




... and this sets up a no win situation for the rank and file because in the military the rules are not like they are outside in “the world.” if you fail to inhabit the hallucination (or at least act as though you do) you get in serious trouble, your career is hampered, and you generally have a bad time.

this is what makes it such a potent selector for generating the right sort of rank and file and ensuring ideological purity. those who disagree wash out. those who remain are either the sorts of “woke” ideologues you prefer or those who will play along to get along. free thinkers and free speakers are expunged.

selecting for people anxious (or at least willing to knuckle under to) such bullying selects for those sufficiently dogmatic or pliable to fight to impose these wokeshevik ideologies upon “domestic foes” that “oppose the revolution.” ...

what if, rather, the aim behind replacing patriots with polemicists lies in domestic ends and a conscious reshaping of what groups the military may be induced to perceive as “enemy”?

it has long been an article of faith the the US military would never turn upon “we the people” but this is historically false. it’s one of the first things it did. over taxes. read up on the whiskey rebellion some time.

and this has been longstanding marxist practice. ...

the capture of justice and investigative/enforcement arms in service of ideology and one sided political partisanship is the road to one party rule. and “brand political foes as terrorists/reactionaries/enemies of the state” is pure bolshevism 101.

but in the US is runs into some problems:

police forces are mostly localized, highly unionized, and basically untouchable. while this certainly produces a set of problems (many quite serious) the silver lining appears to be that it prevents this sort of nationalized political penetration. the cops will not do what DC (or anyone) tells them. they are a power base unto themselves.

did you think the sudden prevalence of this notion amidst rising crime and crackdowns from federal authorities was a coincidence?




this serves 2 aims: it eliminates a competing power base that appears more likely to side with the people if things ever really got bad and it helps make sure that things keep getting worse.

those pushing anti-sanity policies of legalizing theft, preventing policy enforcement, making it impossible to run business in many neighborhoods, and making people feel unsafe as crime surges are not insane. they just have a plan that is not in alignment with your interests.

they WANT it to get worse because that’s how they “teach” you that their intervention is needed and that more draconian top-down diktat and dictatorship is the only way “back to making the streets safe.” ...

every time you see this:




what you’re really seeing is this:




... and the manner in which this may be prevented is twofold:

keep politics (all politics) out of the military, the FBI, the justice department, and every other facet of the armed state.

ensure the populace retains its ability to defend itself against all enemies, foreign and domestic including and especially the government.

Democrats Don't Care Whether Banning 'Assault Weapons' Is Constitutional
Even while conceding that the rifles they want to ban are commonly used for lawful purposes, they refuse to grapple with the implications.

A week before the House of Representatives approved a ban on "assault weapons," a federal judge in Denver explained why such laws are unlikely to pass constitutional muster. House Democrats either were not paying attention or did not care, because they view the Second Amendment as an outmoded provision that imposes no meaningful limits on gun control.

Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise, ruling that the government may not prohibit law-abiding Americans from keeping handguns at home or carrying them in public for self-defense. The Court also has said the Second Amendment covers bearable arms "in common use" for "lawful purposes," which presents a problem for Democrats who want to ban many of the most popular rifles sold in the United States.