Ex Feds and Wall Street Execs Are Going Into Hiding Why?



by Dave Hodges –  thecommonsenseshow.com

December 25, 2012

In my role as a talk show host, I have been approached by individuals who claim to have “insider information” about what is coming, and according to these individuals, what is coming is very bad. Most credible sources demand complete anonymity. As a result, I have found myself in a position to try and evaluate whether to write about and broadcast some very controversial information. Sometimes, my insider information turns out to be stunningly accurate as evidenced by the Chris Stevens murder story which was spot on. My information on the Aurora Batman shootings  has also proven to be very accurate.

There is a risk in using unnamed sources. Simply, they could be wrong, they could be disinformation agents or they might just be crazy as they are looking for their 15 minutes of fame. It takes a degree of courage to air information derived from confidential sources. Therefore, I want to thank Doug Hagmann for daring to publish his dire warnings which come from an inside source at DHS. I have subsequently decided to reveal what I know as well. The decision to air these warnings will undoubtedly encourage others to come forward. Hopefully, so many “insiders” will come forward that it will become impossible to hide what it is coming from those who are actively seeking answers. To the general public, it does not matter what their told for they will still believe that the government will take care of them, CNN truthfully reports the news  and Santa Claus exists. As a result, these fools will never know what hit them.

Although the Hagmann warnings differ somewhat from my sources, there are some common threads. One area that Hagmann’s source did not focus on is the dropping out of sight by ex-federal officials and prominent figures on Wall Street. and that is the remaining focus of this article.

The Marrs Observation

In a December 9, 2012 interview on The Common Sense Show, Jim Marrs discussed how approximately 400-500 top level bankers have left their positions and have gone into seclusion. Marrs reminded my listening audience of how the elite have developed seed vaults for which they only have access to. Marrs was clearly alluding to the fact that some very bad events are coming and the global elite are aware of it and are moving to meet the threat. My insider sources inform me that the same thing is happening in various federal organizations who have recently retired from the CIA, DHS, NSA and FEMA. This fact is indisputable. I have firsthand knowledge of three ex-fed officials and their families who have relocated to safety enclaves when doing so was very disruptive to their respective family’s lives. Increasingly, it is looking like some major event(s) is/are coming and persons with insider information are attempting to remove themselves from harm’s way.

Massive Retirements From
the Alphabet Soup Agencies

When government officials, from the various alphabet soup agencies, retire en masse, it is not necessarily a noteworthy event. However, when the same officials retire en masse and then relocate to form their own survivalist enclaves, then this is something that we should all sit up and take notice of especially when we are seeing the same behavior on the part of Wall Street executives.

In my dealings with purported alphabet soup agency informants, I have been receiving some very dire warnings in terms of what lies ahead for America. Given the above facts, it should be understandable why I found the recent Hagmann interview with Rosebud to be a little bit more than interesting. I have had conversations with two insiders and a relative of another insider who tell similar stories of a coming series of apocalyptic events. Much of the Hagmann information, to a large extent, corresponds to the information I’ve received except for the fact that many ex-feds are forming self-sustaining communities. Therefore, this installment will strictly deal with the fact that officials from the NSA, CIA, DHS and FEMA are retiring/early retiring and going into seclusion with their former comrades in arms.

DHS and CIA Relocations

It is a matter of official agency policy that some current DHS and CIA officials and their families will be provided safe sanctuary in various strategic locations in Colorado in times of trouble. Most people in the know are aware of the underground facilities which lies below the Denver International Airport which has an underground connected railway to the Cheyenne Mountain NORAD/Fort Carson/Peterson Air Force Base underground facilities. The structures are part of the Continuity of Government program developed by the United States government in the early days of the Cold War. However these facilities are increasingly becoming the planned refuge for many of the global elite residing within the United States when all hell breaks loose. In September 2011, the evacuation of the elite to this safe hideaway was rehearsed in the DHS exercise known as Operation Mountain Guardian in which the Denver airport was shut down to commercial air travel except for specific, undesignated planes which were allowed to land in preparation for some staged catastrophe. This aforementioned event is not newsworthy because it has been reported in the mainstream. However, where this even becomes noteworthy to the public is because it is not coincidental that the CIA has relocated its major data collection facilities to underground structures in the Denver International Airport. The implications for residents living in or near the Washington DC Metropolitan area should be clear. The planned obsolescence for the nation’s capital is becoming increasingly apparent. If I were you and I lived in this area, I would be looking for a new place to live in the very near future. The previous information is what is publicly available. The following information has not been disseminated but is highly relevant to what lies ahead.

Ex-CIA and DHS Relocations

Parallel to the Colorado being prepared to become the new capital, it is highly relevant to note that retired officials from the DHS and the CIA, who are not part of the privileged elite but who know what is coming, have developed their own enclaves in the Rocky Mountains outside of Denver and Colorado Springs. As it has been described to me that these facilities are a poor man’s imitation of the Denver International Airport facilities. The structures are largely natural, but are very well equipped and the resources include a self-contained air supply. My source for this information is a former DHS insider. This is the same insider who revealed to me in mid-2008 of a rift between the old guard of the New World Order and the up and coming new wealth of the same group. His information at that time proved to highly credible then and I believe that this is credible as well.

NSA Relocations

Recently, retired officials from the NSA have relocated to an area in the Ozarks where they have access to underground safety zone which have/are being transformed into mini-villages of self-sustainable protection. Their properties consist typically of 5 to 10 acres for each family, contains a portable water supply, residents are armed to the teeth, have alternative communications that are not reliant on the grid and have years of stored food. My source is an individual who retired from the NSA almost two years ago. His decision to participate in the relocation was triggered by the impending re-election of President Obama which he said will hasten the onslaught of what is to come because Obama’s administration fully embraces the destruction of America.

Ex-FEMA Relocations

Recently retired officials from FEMA are relocating to mountainous areas, in North Carolina, approximately one hour from the coast. Their enclave contains the same resources involving air, water, food and guns. These enclaves also include underground structures which are sensibly self-contained and can serve to isolate the inhabitants from the outside. I have two sources on this information which includes a family member and a retired FEMA official who has chosen not to participate in this relocation. The nonparticipant ex-official from FEMA did not seek sanctuary with these groups because he feels that several of these enclaves will be targeted for destruction by the powers that be because of the knowledge contained by the inhabitants in this case of “dead men tell no tales.” This makes sense because it would allow the elite, following the coming cataclysms, to rewrite history in their own version without any contradiction from knowledgeable individuals that know what really has gone on. This insider knowledge is a threat would serve as an obstacle to the new truth. Personally, I think this view has a great deal of merit.


I fully realize that unnamed sources don’t carry as much credibility as documented sources. However, as similar stories make their way into the national discussion, it might be wise to take a closer look. I don’t ask that the facts presented here be taken at face value, I encourage everyone to do their own research  and if you find credibility to the claims made in the following parts in this series, it would be prudent to take the proper precautions.

What is coming, you ask? That will be the topic of part two.

Part Two

Insiders Warn of More False Flags to Confiscate Guns


Dave Hodges, Contributor
Activist Post

There is a chill that is settling in over the country. In my years on the planet, I have never seen such a foreboding of collective dread and doom. The re-election of Obama has seemingly brought these feelings of extreme apprehension to the forefront. My sources, retired ex-feds, tell me that America is in much more danger than just a looming and catastrophic depression, resulting food riots and extreme government suppression of civil disobedience.

Soon, if my sources are correct, nobody will be safe, not even the politicians. I would add that my sources, as revealed in part one of this series, are voting with their feet as they are joining other ex-federal official and several hundred Wall Street bankers by going into hiding in order to escape what they believe is coming.

Why the NDAA? 

The NDAA allows the government to play Gestapo with the population. In fact many of us in alternative media have been fearful of the NDAA because we are concerned that it will be used against us if we ever uncover a story which is too sensitive, and that we will just be “disappeared.” However, my sources, ex-feds from FEMA and DHS, tell me that the reason that the NDAA was passed was to frighten federal would-be whistleblowers into silence. The forces behind gun confiscation want to come like a thief in the night with little or no warning so as not to stir up any more opposition than need be. Some ex-feds continue to talk behind the scenes because they do not agree with what is being planned and implemented, but I believe that they do so at their own peril because of the threat of the NDAA.

In part one of this series, I detailed about how I have learned that there are settlements of ex-federal officials who have gone into relative “hiding”, with some forming enclaves with like-minded people from the same background and professional affiliations. Uniformly, they seek to avoid the draconian imposition of martial law and accompanying gun confiscation. The second phase of what is planned for America, following gun confiscation and martial law, contains a degree of oppression never before seen in our country and will rival some of the world’s darkest days.

This part of the story details how the government plans to get our guns. Gun confiscation is the primary short-term goal of the globalist forces which have hijacked our country. Americans, in large numbers cannot be permitted to maintain private gun ownership. One of my sources states that the dark side of our government refers to private gun owners in America as the Viet Cong. The historical reference should be obvious as American forces were not able to subdue South Vietnam because the communist farmers by day became determined foes by night and no matter how hard American forces would try, they were not able to separate the Viet Cong from their weapon supplies. The globalists seek to avoid history repeating itself here in America.

Guns Are the Last Bastion of American Freedom

America can never become a subjugated nation so long as we have 300 million guns in our possession. The ultimate goal of the globalists is the total destruction of America. These two facts are on a collision course. My sources, in effect, have said that the powers-that-be are ultimately seeking to make America lower than a third world country. All of my sources are uniform in this point in that the globalists want to destroy our dollar, our culture, our language and most of all, our Constitution because it is antithetical to the establishment of a complete police state grid where a few have the power of life and death over the many.

Many ex-fed sources feel that if the American economy was merely crashed by the planned destruction of the American dollar, that there are enough Americans with the ability to rebuild this country, that we would be able to create an even stronger America than before. The globalists view traditional American notions of freedom and resilience as a form of virulent cancer which must be totally cut out and destroyed. When George W. Bush said “they hate us because of our freedom,” he was right. However, in all candor, he should have been talking about the globalists who have hijacked our government, which are the ones who hate our freedoms, not the imaginary terrorist threats that the globalists have created in order to strip away our civil liberties.

Our guns are the backbone of our strength because our guns give us the ability to resist foreign occupation and throw off the shackles of an oppressive government. Every source has stated that getting as many guns as possible out of the hands of the people is the number one goal. What does it say about how evil the government has become when ex-federal officials from the alphabet soup agencies have gone into hiding because even they are afraid of what is coming? In short, our guns must be seized and this is how I have been told they are going to accomplish this goal.

Gun Confiscation

Most well-informed sources, including my own, believe that we are on the precipice of martial law. However, the globalists do not want a lot of direct confrontation in the early stages with a majority of the population. Their 1.6 billion rounds of recently purchased DHS ammunition will only carry them so far. Therefore, before martial law can be carried out against a minimal amount of opposition, as many guns as possible must be seized, without sparking a Lexington and Concord event. The fact that these ex-feds and Wall Street banking executives have gone into hiding at this point is not coincidental. The potential for gun confiscation to become a flash point for civil war is significant and these people and their families were in a rush to get out of the cities and into their perceived safe havens.

The guns must seized through a series of incremental actions by government and by the purveyors of false flag attacks in order to resurrect the spirit of the Reichstag fire in order to give the government the pretext that they need to totally subjugate the American people. I cannot over emphasize what I have been told. The guns are the target. For now, everything is about getting the guns. Along these lines, I have been told that the leadership will likely be targeted, set up if you will, in embarrassing criminal endeavors (e.g. child porn) in order to discredit their pro gun stance.

Please allow me a digression. Here we have criminal government which shipped tens of thousands of guns into Mexico in order to undermine the Second Amendment under Fast and Furious. Holder was in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify, Obama tells the fairy tale that he did not know about Fast and Furious, conducted right under his nose, which resulted in the death of 40,000 Mexicans, last year alone, 300 Americans and three border patrol including Brian Terry whose family is suing the government over his death. Obama has killed hundreds, if not thousands of children, in his Predator drone attacks in various foreign countries. Not one federal official has gone to jail. And this criminal government wants your guns? You would have to be dumber than a box of rocks to surrender your guns to these criminals and render yourself and your family defenseless.

According to my sources, gun confiscation will be achieved in two phases. There will continue to be false flag operations (e.g. Batman and Sandy Hook shootings) against individual citizens in order to achieve a public consensus against the private ownership of guns. The media will continue to beat the anti-gun drum and they are already having some effect. One of my sources thinks that as many as 25% of American citizens can be influenced to participate in gun buy-back operations. As an aside, we are already witnessing a well-orchestrated psyop against gun owners through publishing gun owners names and locations in New York City. The full court press is on and the guilt meter for gun owners is going to be ramped up after the inauguration.

My sources are of like mind when they say that if Congress will not sign on to the UN Gun Ban Treaty, Obama will incrementally ban guns through a series progressively draconian executive orders, with each likely to follow another progressively horrific false flag attack. One of my sources felt that at some point in America, gun ownership will eventually become a capital crime. It is estimated by the DHS insider that as many as 70% of the guns can be confiscated through these Obama Executive Orders and accompanying compliance. The belief is that most Americans will buckle to perceived authority when push comes to shove. I agree, as we have become a nation of sheep.

I asked how far the false flag attack will go in their intensity and lethality. I was told that the psychotropically, mind controlled lone gunmen who shoot up the malls and schools is wearing thin in terms of public believability and that plans are now in effect to ramp up the body count by using a different strategy.

All of my sources agree that the Batman Aurora massacre was a false flag attack but it quickly lost its punch because there were too many holes in the story and the alternative media was quick to point out the implausibility of the government’s explanation and the mainstream media could not hold together the story because of all the provable lies and inconsistencies. Since the election, America has seen three mass shootings and each is championed as a reason to seize American guns. The Sandy Hook shootings are riddled with just as many holes as the Batman shootings, but the administration has control of most of the media and the media is putting on the full court press for de facto gun confiscation as they continue to assume facts not in evidence against Lanza at Sandy Hook. I was told there were three shooters at Sandy Hook. It is likely that all three are now dead in order to cover their tracks.

Former FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, an infiltrator of Obama’s original backers from theWeathermen Underground with Bill Ayers, has also told me that the word on the street is that two teachers took down Lanza. Another unnamed source told me that there were at least 3 other shooters, not including Lanza. I must say that the evidence is compelling as we listen to the raw police radio recordings where the police are clearly stating that they have two shooters in custody, after two teachers reported seeing two shooters run by the gym.

In addition, CBS News reported that they had a man wearing “camo” in custody. What do you want to bet that these three individuals are no longer around to tell their side of the story?

Here is another account of another arrest in these tragic shootings.

If Sandy Hook is a false flag event, and it has all the earmarks of being every bit of a false flag as the Batman shootings, what will they stop at if they are willing to murder our children in order to get our guns? The public is asking a lot questions, even those that think the corporate news is objective in their reporting. Let me be clear on this one point, if this government is willing to murder innocent children to get our guns, how far are they willing to go? Does that give any of you any notion about how bad things could soon become?

Phase Two: Widespread “Terrorist Attacks” 

All of my sources are in agreement that we are in the midst of series of escalating false flag events which will tear down much of the opposition to seizing our guns. I asked what escalating meant and one of my sources have told they will go as far as they need to in order to get what they want. I have been told that school and mall shootings will soon escalate to bigger and more horrific mock terrorist events, Mossad style. I asked my DHS source to define bigger and more horrific and he said all options are on the table. I asked if that meant nuclear and he said he believed that going nuclear is the last line of defense in this strategy which is designed to bring about martial law. However, my other sources tell me that the coming false flag events could go biological and involve a one or two densely populated areas.

For many reasons, I believe that Chicago will be the site of a horrific false flag attack. For individuals who think a false flag upon Chicago sounds crazy, ask yourself why Rahm Emanuel, most likely a Mossad agent, would leave a high level cabinet post in the Obama Administration and step down to the relative lowly position of being a mayor of a city? The simple and obvious answer is that this foreign asset was put in place to carry out the task over overseeing a false flag event, so big, so devastating, that the Obama Administration will have their pretext to execute martial law in order to stem the wave of (1) massive protests which will surely accompany the globalist plans to have the United States commence a war in the Middle East over Iran’s insistence over selling oil to Russia and China for gold, thus forsaking the petrodollar; or, (2) a false flag terrorist attack upon a major American city as a pretext to martial law and total seizure of most guns. Two of my sources agree with logic of this assessment, although neither has any direct knowledge of Chicago being the site of a false flag attack. However, I would encourage you to ask yourself, why did Obama sell his Chicago residence and take up permanent residence in Hawaii, his alleged birthplace?

My original source for this information about Chicago becoming the victim of a false flag attack was Jeff Joe Black. I first encountered the eccentric Black as he frequently called into my talk show. Some of his information was intriguing and I had several off air conversations with him. At one point, Black was scheduled to be a guest on my talk show and Black cancelled at the last minute. Black informed me that he feared for his life and was going into hiding, which he subsequently did.

Earlier this year, Black resurfaced and contacted me. We spoke a couple of times about his appearing on my show to talk about Emanuel and his evil intentions towards Chicago. Why do I think that Black was on to something nefarious about Emanuel? Because Black appears to have been murdered this past October and his death is being investigated as a homicide. His supposed murder was also recently reported on RBN. Black told me, on several occasions, that his life was in danger and he was obviously correct.

Based upon the combination of my unnamed sources and what Black had told me, I still believe that we are going to see Chicago being the site of a massive false flag operation which will be the catalyst to martial law. This will follow a massive wave of house to house gun confiscations. My sources refused to speculate as to the specific site of a false flag attack, but they are uniform that this would be an event which will take place as a lead up to the implementation of martial law. As an aside here is a video of Black being arrested for protesting after he filed paperwork challenging Emanuel’s eligibility to run for mayor based upon this status of being a non-resident in Chicago.


Please allow me to be very clear. Soon, and from all indications, based upon the fact that some ex-feds have recently gone into hiding, I would say that this phase will follow congressional action on gun control and Obama’s rollout of his new set of executive orders designed to separate Americans from their guns. Nobody has any firm time estimates. In saying goodbye to one of my sources as he was moving to his safe haven, I asked him if this would be over before the end of an Obama second term, and he felt that without a doubt that it would be. Obama is the right man at the right time to carry out this agenda on behalf of his handlers.

What will martial law look like? What will follow the implementation of martial law and gun confiscation? This will be the topic of part three of this series.

Part Three


You Are Playing In a Game With No Rules


Dave Hodges, Contributor
Activist Post

We sit in the aftermath of Sandy Hook debating what to do about the murder of innocent men, women and children in America’s gun free zones.

There are some politicians, two in Arizona, who want to protect our children while they attend schools. Arizona State Attorney General, Tom Horne, has unveiled a plan in which each school campus in my home state would be required to have at least one armed staff member. In my opinion that is not enough, but at least it is a productive start.

Hypothetically, can anyone argue that schools would be the safest place in America if 10 staff members on each campus were trained and armed? The question is rhetorical because the answer is obvious.

Horne’s idea is not new. In fact, he is copying what my friend, former Arizona State Senator Jack Harper proposed four years ago. Harper’s idea was soundly defeated and continued to leave Arizona’s students defenseless. I call Harper a friend because he was helpful in helping me save my community of 2000 rural residents from having their homes stolen by the State of Arizona without a plan in place to pay one dime in compensation. Why was this done to us? Because my community sits near a planned CANAMEX Highway, as well as the fact that we sit on the state’s largest underground water aquifer. We are in the way; the powers that be wanted us gone, and they did not want to pay anything for the planned loss of our properties.

Because I became the spokesperson of our community, this launched my writing and radio career. Jack Harper, like a lot of politicians, knows the score about the globalists takeover of this country.
Once a rising star in Arizona state politics, Jack Harper made the mistake of challenging voter fraud in Arizona. As a result of his vocal attacks on the lack of integrity on the voting system in place in Maricopa County, Jack’s political career went south and he was increasingly portrayed as a delusional conspiracy theorist who was prone to knee-jerk reactions.

The point in bringing up Harper is that there are politicians who fully understand that our country has been conquered and, as a result, when they challenge the status quo, they are marginalized. The point of the Harper revelation is to point out that there will be politician who will ride in on their white horse and save the day. Where will the resistance come from, you ask? Look in the mirror, because the American people are on their own, and God help us if we ever give up our guns.

Harper and Horne’s idea of arming school personnel goes a long way toward protecting our children. I predict that Horne’s idea will suffer the same fate as Harper’s. Protecting the children, in fact, protecting all of the citizens in the United States is the not the objective of the Obama Administration! Ask yourself, would it be easier to protect school children by arming trained personnel or to risk civil war by confiscating guns? Further, Obama’s children are protected by 11 armed guards while they attend school. Why are Obama’s children more precious and deserve more protection than the Sandy Hook children?

Anyone with an IQ over room temperature should realize that getting our guns is the sole objective of these false flag attacks. Whether Sandy Hook was a false flag event, or not, the children at Sandy Hook are NWO fodder for gun confiscation. On that point, there can be no argument. Therefore, if the government does not want to directly protect our children, why are they going through the charade to get our guns in the name of protecting our children? George Orwell would be proud of this 1984example of doublespeak.

Why They Want Our Guns 

If you were going to rob one of two homes, what would you choose? Would you choose a home that clearly has armed family members; or, would you choose the home where the best weapon in the house is a butter knife? This is the choice being made by the Obama Administration. They have plans to loot your personal resources as they simultaneously facilitate your demise. In the following paragraphs, you will see why you must be disarmed at all costs.

The United States has unsustainable debt. The United States is crumbling under the burden of empire and is fighting wars we cannot afford. The United States treasury has been plundered by the bankers and, with QE unlimited, there is no end to the plundering caused by the illegal banker activities involving the futures and derivatives markets. The dollar will collapse. It is no longer a matter of if, but when. The globalists are taking steps to steal as many assets from the American people as possible before the collapse.

For example, the Federal Reserve is printing $40 billion dollars per month in mortgage backed securities (MBS), each and every month, in order to buy properties in the United States. The total estimated real estate worth of the United States is placed at a little over $23 trillion. When one begins to calculate the real estate acquisition power of the Federal Reserve’s MBS program being done with OPM (other people’s money)  – i.e. your money and my money – one does not have to be economic expert to spell the word feudalism. Just like in the movie, Hunger Games, the government will soon be the major landlord in America as it moves to control all important resources.

Does the current mortgage-related fraud make a little more sense to you now? Does the collapse of the housing bubble, which significantly lowered the net worth of the nation’s real estate market come into play as we watch the Federal Reserve gobble up $40 billion dollars of property each month at dramatically reduced prices brought on by their illegal Wall Street Ponzi schemes? Even Ray Charles could see that these events are not coincidental. But hold on to your hat, as this is just the beginning.

On August 9th of 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that once a depositor places money in the bank, the bank can do whatever they see fit with your money. In other words, the assets in your bank account could be stolen tomorrow and there is not a damn thing you can legally do about it. The canary in the mine for this violation of the public trust took place with MF Global when Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs official as well as the former Governor and Senator from New Jersey, oversaw the theft of $1.2 billion in secured private investment accounts. In other words, this money had already been earned and was not at risk, but it was stolen; and the government overseer of this industry, CME’s Gary Gensler (a former Goldman Sachs official) refused to act on the theft of accounts overseen by Corzine. But it gets worse.

Do you remember that little organization called MERS which was caught selling multiple notes representing one individual mortgage note? Your mortgage note could literally be held by a couple of dozen mortgage companies that could move to foreclose on your mortgage note even though you are current on your payments. I did a brief check on my note and did a title search. Fortunately, I can only find one mortgage note to my property. However, when I looked at the mortgage agreement I have with Wells Fargo, it specifically states – in the fine print of course – that Wells Fargo retains the right to sell my mortgage note and is not responsible for the conduct of any party connected to the transaction. In simple terms, this is a license to steal. According the authoritative book, Clouded Titles, hundreds of thousands of properties have been stolen in this manner.

Now ask yourself, if you knew that you were about to lose everything, what would you do? Well, you would have a garage sale in which you would try and get as much value as you could for things that would not be of use to you following your economic collapse. This is what is happening today in America’s markets and the Federal Reserve is behind it. THEY KNOW THAT AN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE IS COMING AND THEY ARE TRYING OBTAIN AS MANY ASSETS AS POSSIBLE!

To add fuel to the fire, America sits on the precipice of the fiscal cliff. Your taxes are about to rise significantly. The estate tax policies will become draconian and the middle class generational transmission of wealth will be all but halted. People on fixed incomes will suffer greatly and some will be forced out of their homes; of course Helicopter Ben will be there to swoop up the crumbs with their MBS. Doctors treating the elderly will see an income reduction of 30%. Who will be left to medically treat the elderly? When granny dies because she cannot get her heart medication, how are family members going to respond?

We are witnessing the Great American Fire Sale brought to you by the five megabanks on behalf of the Federal Reserve.

In parts one and two of this series, I spoke about how I personally know two ex-intel types who have already relocated to enclaves of like-minded people to what they believe to be safer areas. I personally know of a third person who is in preparation. They tell stories of coming gun confiscation and draconian gun enforcement, the rationing of resources, even more horrific false flag events which will be used to justify the seizing of our guns and yet, even worse unspecified events.

Some of you have demanded names, on these three families, but I cannot break the confidence. All of you in the media understand the importance of not giving up the identity of your sources. I will say this: one source is a family who I originally had a professional relationship with and it grew into a sharing of confidences. This family has already relocated and I will not likely hear from them again. Their move was disruptive to the children of the family and their timetable was greatly accelerated.

Another source I have had for 4 years. The person is an in-law of a very close friend who I have known for years. Each encouraged me to come forward in a general way so people would start to prepare. I have held this information for some time because I did not think I would be believed. However, it was only after Doug Hagmann came out with information from his DHS insider that, to some extent, validated what I had been told, did I decide to print what I know. I am hoping that more unnamed sources will come forward in order that we can establish a preponderance of the evidence which will get people to stand up for their rights, their futures and their children.

I have written statistics courses for colleges. I have overseen master’s theses as a research instructor and consultant. I deal in facts and data and I am better at these skills than most. I do not like using unnamed sources, except I think, in this case, the importance and urgency of the message outweighs the validity component. At the same time, I would be skeptical of the veracity of these claims as well without further proof. Therefore, let me turn my attention to verifiable intelligence sources, which accurately predicted what is happening in our time.

You want names, you say? My current sources are out of bounds. However, my news director for my talk show, Annie DeRiso, and I have intelligence community contacts which goes back almost two decades who warned us of the times that we live in now. Annie was married to Bill Pawelec, who was a freelance CIA operative. Bill and I had been friends for years prior to his meeting Annie. At the time Bill contracted terminal cancer, Bill was in the process of planning to build a self-sustaining community in the approximate vicinity of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, which was going to be inhabited by like-minded intelligence community types. This was such a serious endeavor that he and former NSA operative, Vance Davis, were in contact with the now defunct Enron Corporation to facilitate the construction. Bill and Vance invited me to participate, so I had first knowledge of their plans.

Annie and I also had a lot of contact with the now deceased NSA operative AC Griffith, who was a guest on my show several times. Griffith warned Annie and I about the coming gun confiscation which would utilize goon squads who would go house to house and eliminate any opposition. AC said that they did not have the ability to canvas that many homes, but would work on the principle that the IRS uses when dealing with tax cheats. Namely, they rule by intimidation by publicly punishing the few they catch in very harsh ways so as to intimidate the population. Griffith also warned of an ever-increasing set of false flag events to come over the country as an excuse to impose martial law. Following his death, those closest to him find themselves being followed and harassed and have ceased any level of activism.

For the naysayers, how is this for naming names? And while we are at it, in Jim Marrs’ most recent appearance on my talk show, he revealed that several hundred banking officials have stepped down from their positions and have not been heard from. Interestingly, in the Hagmann interview, his DHS source alluded to the fact that DHS and Wall Street have parallel agendas. America, you are living history, right here and right now.

The forces from the Federal Reserve are poised to literally steal as much as they can from Americans before the economic collapse. And before the economic collapse, the government must get our guns. President Obama and Barbara Boxer are openly talking about the banning of guns. California and New York are poised to “buy back” guns. Seemingly, everywhere in the media, everyone is talking about banning guns. Again, I repeat, if the powers-that-be would refuse to directly protect our schoolchildren with armed guards on the campuses, then we have a right to question their motives in wanting to seize our guns.

Genocides are preceded by gun confiscation. Revolutions are headed off by gun confiscations. What are Obama and his handlers heading off? I believe that you have all the information you need to answer the question. When Americans cannot feed their children, when they have no hope, when the world that they know is gone, they will seek vengeance. Any government under these circumstances would be crazy not to respond. And respond they have, as the entire InfoWars team and popular talk show host, Michael Rivero had their Facebook accounts suspended.

You want more, you are going to get more unless I suffer the fate of Breitbart. If you cannot handle the fact that your life is going to change significantly, then go read a book about how to water your garden, or go watch American Idol. For those who feel that they need this information to start to prepare to survive what is coming, there will be more information coming forth that I pray you and your family can use.

Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials and articles in several publications such as Freedoms PhoenixNews With Views andThe Arizona Republic.

The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.

10 13 11 flagbar



In Defense of the Second Amendment


By Gary North

Remnant Review (Dec. 22, 2012)

I want to go over in considerable detail the fundamental issues of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms.

There is a great deal of emotional commitment in the United States to one of two extreme positions: (1) the right of every non-felon adult citizen of the United States to own any weapon he chooses, and (2) the right of the government of the United States to outlaw the ownership of firearms.

I am hard core. I would extend this right to convicted felons who have served their time or have made restitution to their victims. I would not let the federal government revoke this fundamental right of citizenship.

To understand the Second Amendment, we need to go back to something like the beginning.


In English common law in medieval times, meaning as late as the 13th century, the feudal legal system limited ownership of military weapons to members of the knightly class, and those classes over the knights. In other words, the ownership of weapons had to do with legal status.

The common man, meaning a peasant, could not be called into military service. Military service was a matter of inheritance of land and status, and this inheritance mandated military training, which created a military mindset. Thus, the weapons associated with this class, which was also a matter of social status, were not to be shared with the peasantry. This placed the peasantry at an obvious disadvantage in terms of military power. It also extended to political power. They had little political power. They were represented mainly by priests.

One of the marks of the knightly class was the right to wear armor. Armor was heavy. So, a peasant who had a simple walking staff was in a position to knock a knight off his horse. A knight in shining armor who was lying on the ground could not get up by himself. He was defenseless. So, the fact that a peasant was not allowed to carry a sword, or a bow and arrow, did not necessarily place him at a complete disadvantage, one-on-one, when dealing with a knight on horseback. It all depended on the tactics of surprise. The knight who was not expecting to be knocked off his horse might be at a disadvantage.

Peasants early on learned how to use walking sticks as weapons. Peasants could not be deprived of their walking sticks. So, they retained a degree of power which was not legally associated with their class. The movie scene of Robin Hood, an outlaw from the knightly class, battling Little John on a log over a stream was unlikely. Little John would easily have killed him. Knights were not trained in the use of staffs.

Anyone who possessed expensive weapons began with a competitive advantage in the use of power. The knightly class was careful to guard its legal rights. Magna Carta was a document created by the barons to defend their rights against the king. These rights were jealously guarded both against intrusions of power from below, as well as any intrusions from above. It was part of a hierarchical social and legal social order.

There is no question that, under most circumstances, the knightly class could deal with the peasants in the field of military battle. There were peasant rebellions from time to time. But, over the centuries, the knightly class did prevail against attempts by the peasants to overturn the legal status of the knightly class.

One of the advantages of this system was that civilians, meaning peasants and the people who lived in towns, were to be left alone by the warriors. They were not to be slaughtered in a military confrontation. Warriors were to do battle with other warriors. Warriors were not to use the specialized implements of warfare against civilians. This was a good arrangement for civilians.


Gunpowder signaled the end of feudalism. It did not cause this decline, but it accompanied it. Armies became professional. Mercenaries appeared. Legal access to weapons was no longer based on birth and legal status. With the demise of the feudal order after the 14th century, and the rise of professional armies, which were funded by taxation rather than by a grant of land by the king to specific families, access to military training became available to common men. The more that the armies depended upon conscription, or payment by the central government, the greater the demands for the right to vote by the lower classes.

This demand became open during the Puritan revolution of the 1640s in England. Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army was made up of commoners as well as members of the higher social orders. Puritans believed in the exercise of the franchise in their local congregations. English Puritans were Congregationalists. They did not believe in a hierarchy of bishops, nor did they even believe in the hierarchy of presbyteries. Presbyterianism was a Scottish concept, not an English Puritan concept. So, with the triumph of Cromwell and the New Model Army, the issue of the franchise became an important political issue. Debates were held in 1647 within the New Model Army over what constituted the right to vote. The Levelers, who were not Communists, believed that the franchise should be extended to members of the New Model Army, irrespective of their wealth. This was opposed by the upper classes, including Cromwell, but there was an open debate over the issue. Cromwell’s son-in-law, Ireton, argued for wealth, meaning personally owned land or money, as the basis of the right to vote. Rainsboro, a representative of the Levelers, argued that mere residence in the land should qualify a man to vote.

With the coming of the rifle in the 18th century, it became possible for independent farmers — “peasants” — to purchase the implements of war. These could be used for hunting. Civilians were still not part of the warrior class, but as the price of weaponry fell, beginning in the early 18th century, a shift of political power also began to take place.

In the second half of the 18th century, the common citizen in the British colonies of North America possessed a rifle. In most cases he was a man of the countryside. He had the ability to use it. For the first time, weapons that were available to common people had equal firepower to weapons available to the central government.


So, the central government faced a crisis. The colonists in North America were in a position to resist the King’s will. After 1763, resistance against the King’s representatives increased, and the ability of the King to impose his will on these upstarts became more a matter of finances than technology.

The American Revolution was a revolution of common people who were armed with weapons. The long rifle, fired from a distance, was a formidable weapon. A man who could shoot straight at a distance of several hundred yards could kill an officer on horseback. Officers wore special uniforms. This enabled their troops to identify who was in charge. They rode on horseback, above the troops. There was a universal agreement among the warriors of Western Europe that they would not target the officers. This, of course, was an agreement among officers.

The Americans honored no such agreement. Americans would target the officers from hundreds of yards away. The chain of command of British troops was disrupted by the American rifle. This was considered unsportsmanlike. But the Americans did not honor the same rules and sportsmanship.

This is why the militias were the formidable opponents of the British Army. George Washington only had two major victories, Trenton in 1776 (won by surprise) and Yorktown in 1781 (won by the French Navy). His army was usually unable to make direct confrontations in the field with the British Army. In contrast, militia units, firing from a distance against massed armies, and then running into the woods, could not be dealt with by British Army tacticians. The British armies were always tied to the cities. They could not venture far into the countryside to get food, because too many of them would be gunned down by militia members. They were dependent upon the British Navy to deliver supplies to them.

It was therefore impossible for the British to win that war. For as long as the Americans would stay in decentralized units, firing from a distance into the organized troops of the British, the British could not extend military control, and therefore political control, over the Americans. The Americans kept fighting until British taxpayers grew weary of funding the war, and until the French, during one 30-day period, provided the naval support to block the British Navy from resupplying Cornwallis’s Army. George Washington got the credit, as did the centralized army under his command, but it was the militia that had kept the British at bay for the previous five years.

Americans fully understood this when the leaders wrote the Bill of Rights in 1790. This is why the Second Amendment was inserted into the Constitution. The voters understood that it was their ability to fight any organized army, through the organization of the militia, which was basic to their concept of citizenship. It was the citizen warrior, armed with a rifle that was every bit as good as that possessed by members of the Army, who was perceived as possessing final political sovereignty. The whole concept of “we the people,” which introduced the Constitution, rested on the well-known ability of the American citizen warrior to grab his rifle and fight.


Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University was an expert in the history of armaments in Western Europe. He is famous among conservatives for about 20 pages late in his book, Tragedy and Hope, in which he discussed the influence of the Morgan banking interests. Very few conservatives have ever read all of this book.

In chapter 2, “Western Civilization to 1914,” on page 34, Quigley wrote a very important assessment of the relationship between weaponry and political power.

In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, the majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise. . . . But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840, a revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain).

The American Civil War transformed military tactics. The rise of the railroads and telegraphy made possible the coordination of the movement of mass armies. The only way that the American South could have won that war, other than simply by outlasting the Northerners on the battlefield, thereby weakening the will to continue the war among Northern voters, was to resort to guerrilla warfare. But the generals were mostly the products of West Point, or were promoted on the battlefield by graduates of West Point, and their concept was the same as George Washington’s, namely, that centralized armies financed by the national government were the basis of military success. They were not in favor of guerrilla warfare. (This was not true of Nathan Bedford Forest, a businessman turned self-funded cavalry officer. He was a guerrilla, and he was highly effective.)

From the end of the Civil War until today, nations have been committed to what is sometimes called second-generation warfare. These are armies, navies, and air forces that can assemble massed firepower, using highly precise and very expensive weapons. These military units no longer can consistently defeat guerrilla movements on the ground. Fourth-generation warfare, meaning guerrilla warfare, is now reestablishing the sovereignty of the common man. Vietnam is the obvious case, but Afghanistan certainly qualifies. In the case of Afghanistan, the common man has always had the advantage. Nobody has been able to conquer Afghanistan for more than a few years. This goes back to Alexander the Great. The topography of the nation, and the commitment of its men to fight to the bitter end, meaning the bitter end of the invaders, has been such that these people have not been defeated.

The one Western European nation that fully understands this is Switzerland. Every Swiss male up to the age of 60 is expected to serve in the military. Every Swiss male who serves in the military is expected to master the use of the rifle. It is a matter of honor to be a good rifleman in Switzerland. Bankers in their 50s compete against clerks in their 20s as marksmen. This has been true for five centuries. This is a nation of citizen warriors. It is a nation with a very weak central government, the weakest in the modern industrial world. The presidency is a symbolic office, and it is held on a rotation basis, with only one year as its term. Yet the nation’s army can be mobilized in a matter of days. Switzerland has the longest history of political freedom of any continental European nation.

It is true that the Swiss surrender their ammo back to the local armory at the end of each summer’s training. It is also true that the political tradition of democracy is so deeply ingrained that it would be impossible for any Swiss government to refuse to return those weapons the following summer. The Swiss are not a disarmed population. They simply let the government store the ammo during the year. The attitude is not that the government lets the citizens have access to weapons. The attitude is that the citizens allow the government to store the ammo. The mentality is completely different from the gun control advocates in the United States.

In every nation except Switzerland, gun control advocates want to centralize the ownership of any weapon that could be used systematically against agents of the government. This is not a random outlook. All the arguments about reduced crime are refuted by the statistics of increased crime whenever the government confiscates the guns of the population. Guns are as easily available to the criminal class as illegal drugs are available to the citizens and all other residents.

Gun control advocates insist that the centralization of gun ownership into the hands of the monopolistic government is a moral obligation. Why is it a moral obligation? It is a moral obligation because these people really do believe that the central government possesses legitimate original political sovereignty, an exclusive sovereignty, over the weapons that could be used against the central government.

It is one of those peculiarities that conservatives who say they believe in the right of gun ownership, and who sometimes even say that this is a means of defense against tyranny, are also in favor of invading foreign nations, when those foreign nations have adopted the concept of universal gun ownership that is comparable to the philosophy of American conservatism. The well-armed “little people” in Middle Eastern countries are able to defeat American invading troops, just as others like them did in Vietnam, precisely because the decentralization that is made possible by a diffusion of gun ownership and explosives is effective in combating the expansion of centralized political and military control. In other words, American troops cannot defeat these tiny countries, precisely because of widespread ownership of effective weapons that can be used against the occupying troops.


I want to make it clear that I do not believe that it is possible, under anything like present conditions, for Americans to take up arms against the central government. In a period of financial crisis, in which the central government can no longer deliver the goods economically, and which therefore begins to lose its power to control local communities, there may be confrontations between armed camps. The obvious armed camps that I am thinking of are the gangs. The gangs are well armed, and in comparison with most small-town police departments, far better armed than the law enforcement agencies. The police know this. The gangs are ruthless, and they have something like a military chain of command. In a time of national economic breakdown, there will be some communities in which the gangs possess primary authority. This is true today in much of Latin America.

The best form of defense under such conditions would be for the local sheriff to deputize adult males and females who have proficiency in the use of weapons, and who are armed. This is the concept of the local posse. It is not an independent militia, because there is no such thing as an independent militia. In the early 20th century, under the direction of the New York lawyer Elihu Root, who is sometimes called the first chairman of the American Establishment, the federal government nationalized state militias. That was part of the Progressive movement’s attempt to centralize political power in Washington. It was very effective. So, today, the militias are armed agencies of the federal government, even though they are technically under the command of governors. In any case, they are not local.

The citizens of the United States are so far removed from the citizens of the American colonies in 1776 that it would be inconceivable to organize a military resistance to the central government. I do not suggest that this be done. I do suggest that there is a relationship between the ownership of firearms and the assertion of political sovereignty. I do insist that the right to keep and bear arms is a symbolic affirmation of the ultimate political sovereignty of individual citizens over the central government. This was understood in 1790, and it should be understood today. I do not think it is.

I think the advocates of gun control understand very little about this symbolic relationship. They are usually advocates of the right to vote. They officially come down on the side of citizens’ rights. But they do not understand the symbolic nature of the right to keep and bear arms as an affirmation of the authority of the citizen, armed with a gun and armed with the right to vote, to veto the decisions of political rulers through politics.

The defenders of Second Amendment liberties understand far better than the gun control movement that there is a connection between the right to keep and bear arms and the fundamental assertion of political sovereignty by the citizenry. They understand that the federal government’s violation of Second Amendment liberties is part of a comprehensive program to centralize political power and to overcome the ability of citizens to use the ballot box to resist the extension of this centralized political power.

I do not think that many advocates of the Second Amendment believe that there is going to be a time when American citizens get their guns, leave their homes, and somehow adopt urban guerrilla warfare tactics. But they do understand that the gangs may do this. They do not believe the local authorities will always be in a position to defend them against criminal violence. They understand that the decentralization of weapons ownership is basic to the preservation of peace in society, because guerrilla groups, which the gangs are, are mobile, well-armed, well-organized, and ruthless.

I am arguing that the citizen who owns defensive weapons, and was trained in their use, constitutes the great barrier against centralized power from above and decentralized criminal violence from below. It is the man in the middle, the armed voter, who is the backbone of Western liberty.

Whenever a political movement seeks to disarm the citizen, it is necessarily simultaneously seeking to expand the power of the federal government, and also the power of armed criminals, including gangs. By disarming citizens, the state asserts an ultimate sovereignty over them, and yet it is incapable of carrying out this assertion of sovereignty in local affairs.

The central government can do almost nothing about the gangs. It can do very little against criminal behavior. The decline in crime that we have seen over the last 30 years has been mainly a social phenomenon. The biggest single factor is that men tend to commit fewer crimes as they get older. Also, married men commit fewer crimes and acts of violence. The high point of crime in the West was around 1980. This was also the low point of age. After 1980, the average age of residents of the West began to increase. Crime rates dropped. This was not because the federal government became more adept at fighting crime.

Members of fringe groups call themselves patriots, and sometimes call themselves members of a militia. They adopt a kind of suicidal romanticism regarding their ability to resist the armed forces of the United States. These weekend warriors may go out and stumble around in the woods, armed with semiautomatic rifles, pretending that they would be able to stay in the field for six or seven years, on their own authority, with their own productivity, supported by rural people who see them as liberators. That might have worked in Southern states in 1863, but it does not work today. There are too few people in the rural areas to support roving bands of militia members. These militias would become the equivalent of gangs in short order. Fortunately, they are too incompetent to achieve the status of gangs.


For most gun owners, the ownership of firearms is more symbolic than practical. Most people do not spend a week or two in the summer practicing their skills at shooting. This is what all males in Switzerland do every year. The Swiss are serious about their ability to defend their country against invasion. Americans believe that the government, meaning the federal government, is supposed to do this.

When the federal government proves incapable of doing this, especially along the southern border of the United States, some conservatives seek to empower state governments to do it. The federal government resists this, because the federal government recognizes that this is an assertion of state’s rights and state sovereignty. The federal government is happy to let immigrants flow into the United States across our southern border, because there is really not much that the government can do about it, other than to authorize state governments to do something about it, or county governments to do something about it, and the federal government is not about to do that.

I am arguing, therefore, that for most gun owners, most of the time, the ownership of firearms is more symbolic than practical. This is also true of gun control advocates. I do not think most gun control advocates believe that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy that is chomping at the bit to take up arms, get organized, leave their middle-class lifestyle behind, and overturn the United States government. If any gun control advocate believes this, he has approximately the same connection with reality as the weekend militia member does, stomping around in the countryside with his buddies.

Symbols are important. A citizen who has the right to keep and bear arms, even though he is not planning to join the state militia, which is in fact an arm of the federal government, understands that he possesses a degree of sovereignty that is not possessed by citizens in nations that prohibit widespread firearm ownership. He understands that he is in a unique situation. He still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government’s exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn.

The reason why gun control advocates want this right overturned is because they are in favor of centralized political control. They believe that their class, namely, the intellectual class, is in control of the agencies of civil government. For the most part, this assumption is correct. They assume that their class, and only their class, has the wisdom to allocate weapons. They believe that their class alone possesses the right to determine which citizen has access to weapons, under which circumstances, and for how long.

In effect, the gun-control advocate is rather like a medieval knight in the 15th century. He resents the fact that weapons are becoming cheaper, and that the common man who joins the Army becomes a threat to his social class, and therefore to his social standing. He resents the fact that his weapons no longer give him a monopoly of violence. Weapons have come onto the market, and these weapons can be used effectively by commoners who do not spend decades of training in their use.

The citizen soldiers of the late 18th century faced the problem of the local militias. Professional soldiers found themselves facing common men who could assemble together in the fields, shoot their officers at a distance, shoot the scouts who went out into the field to find them, and then disappear into the woods. Tactics changed, and then strategies changed.


I believe we are coming close to the end of the nation-state as we have known it for the past 500 years. I believe that the military historian, Martin van Creveld, is correct. The central governments are running out of solvency, and their ability to provide protection against crime and also provide retirement benefits for the mass of humanity, is in decline.

Over the next half-century, and perhaps even less, politicians are going to realize that they can no longer protect citizens against armed criminals locally, and they cannot afford to support their aging populations. At that point, there will be a transfer of legitimacy back in the direction of local civil government. Local civil governments will rest heavily upon armed citizens who are in a position to be deputized.

So, I expect a greater decentralization. This decentralization will take place most rapidly in societies where citizens have never surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. This is why I think the United States is the most likely nation to be the working model for this process of decentralization. Americans are more heavily armed than any other people in the democratic world. They may not be as heavily armed as rural residents of Afghanistan, but they are surely better armed than any other Western nation except Switzerland.

I doubt that my view of the Second Amendment is widely shared in those circles that are committed to the defense of the Second Amendment. My defense of the second amendment is based on a particular concept of political sovereignty. I believe that individual citizens are sovereign, not because of a grant of authority by the state, but because of a grant of authority by God. The state therefore does not have the right to confiscate the firearms of the people, precisely because the state did not make the original grant of sovereignty to the people.

Firearms are marks of political sovereignty. They should be defended on this basis, not on the basis of some hypothetical revolution, which is not going to take place. I am saying that such a revolution is not necessary, precisely because the people do possess the right to keep and bear arms. They need not take up arms against the government, precisely because they already possess the arms.

10 13 11 flagbar






The amount of absurdity in “Liberal” anti-gun hysteria that was prompted by the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre is beyond imaginable. It’s like if the “Liberals” tried to follow Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels’s doctrine that a big lie repeated often and authoritatively enough becomes the truth in the eyes of low-informed masses. Now they look and sound as if they were really up to delivering the final kill to Americans’ freedom to keep and bear arms. Yet the co-called “conservative” wing of the establishment and media is acting as if its leaders were getting ready to surrender to the “Liberals’” assault, desperately trying to find “reasonable restrictions” on freedom in order to make us all safer and happier.

As you can imagine, this whole brouhaha did not make me sleep any better. So I decided to call a spade a spade and expose “Liberal” falsehoods and fallacies in hope that the truth would deliver a fatal blow to their well-concerted attack against our most fundamental individual freedom: the freedom to self-defense with a deadly weapon.

The ‘good government versus bad people’ canard

The “Liberals” are perpetuating their mantra that good government will improve upon bad people and will take care of those unwilling or unable to take care of themselves as if they never learned about millions of good people oppressed and killed by their bad governments.

As a matter of fact, of all the people killed during the last millennium, the majority was killed by governments and only minority was killed by private individuals. And regarding the government taking care, ostensibly, of the people, how can the government that runs trillion-dollar deficits and cannot pass something as basic as its own annual budget could take care of the millions that depend on it? Only in fallacious “Liberal” mind such a miracle can be sustained.

Although the “Liberals” have injected their absurd claim (of government’s ability to improve upon the people and to take care of them) to American political landscape without a shred of credible evidence, they flatly dismiss all the criticism of that nonsense with one automatic denial “There is no evidence that the government’s care and improvement of the people must fail.” (Tell me more about hypocrisy. Or is it a new religion?) As a result, practically no one is asking for a before-hand proof that the government will actually deliver what the naive and deceitful “Liberals” claims that it will, although this certainly is the most fundamental question that begs to be asked before any further delegation of power to the government.

A good illustration of this line of wishful thinking is a quote from a gun-control advocate and a husband of a victim of past massacre that appeared in an article [1] in the “Washington Post”:

“In a place of worship, in a movie theater, in a business office, in Columbine, in a McDonald’s, the one I lived through,” Sposato said. “What is it going to take? How many more wounded? How many more dead? How many more children? This is an absolute failure of government to protect its people, and we need to get serious about doing something.”

Well, the government failed in this respect, and miserably so, indeed. But the history suggests that failures of this kind are not an isolated anomaly that just needs to be fixed, somehow. They are in the government’s nature. It has been a common wisdom that out of three parties: the murderer, the victim, and the police, it is the police that arrives at the crime scene last, which illustrates impossibility of governmental effective protection of an individual in a free society. And the courts ruled in the past that police and other law enforcement agencies have no legal obligation to protect any particular person from a prospective assailant, so they cannot be even sued if they fail to do so. Under these circumstances, what we need here is a proof of or convincing evidence for the hypothesis that delegating to the government more power at the expense of people’s liberties will actually lead to improvement, before we consent to any such empowerment.

‘The more government power the better’ fallacy
Despite the well-known facts that clearly contradict their good government versus bad people fallacy, the “Liberals” came up with a fallacy that is even more absurd than anything I heard from them before. They stipulate that if the government failed to protect the people from the armed psychopath then the people must “do something” and delegate to the government even bigger portion of their God-given right to self defense with a deadly weapon.

(With idiot’s “thinking” of this kind, it should surprise no one that they overwhelmingly voted for Obama. At this point, I can only pray: “And deliver us from stupid voters.” )

The “Liberals,” in their fallacious minds, collectively reinforced by the “Liberal” propaganda that the so-called “mainstream” media are flooding this nation with, seem incapable to comprehend that it is in the nature of the government to fail, and to oppress and exploit the people rather than protecting them. After all, the founding Fathers did not draft so carefully the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights for nothing.

The ‘in the government we trust’ fallacy
We the People should fear the government rather than blindly entrusting it our lives and well-beings. Our personal safety and wealth is our own responsibility, and in the past we accomplished a lot in fulfilling it. For our national survival, we empowered the government to carry on its basic duties, that is, the national defense, the criminal law enforcement (not to be confused with personal protection), and enforcement of contracts. But everything that goes beyond these basics, particularly of it infringes on our Constitutional rights, caries a high potential of abuse, waste, and incompetence.

Just look at what happened after the government pre-empted the right to self-defense against invasion (mass illegal “immigration” of Mexican nationalists is an example of) from the states and the People, in clear violation of Article I Section 10 [3] and Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution and of Tenth Amendment. The government’s failure to enforce our national border, due to incompetence or unwillingness, or both, has all appearances of national betrayal. Yet each and every time when a state, like Arizona, or a local enforcement agency, like Sheriff Arpaio and his deputies, are trying to defend the people from the invasion, the feds spend their (seriously limited, according to their explanations) resources on suing the states and the law enforcement for their alleged abuses of invaders’ rights and not on stopping the border violators and sending back those who have already managed to sneak in.

For all those of you who think that the government will jealously protect and defend you against the criminals and psychopaths as soon as you give up your right to possess and use at your will instruments that are capable of instant killing of a raging attacker, the immigration un-enforcement scandal is a good example of what one can reasonably expect here. There is absolutely no credible evidence that the government will protect you any better than it protects the country from illegal “immigration”. (And it does not, as the Sandy Hooker Elementary massacre shows.)

The ‘”gun-free” zones’ fallacy
A typical “Liberal” fallacy is that if ones bans all firearms in a certain area (like, for instance, on school campus) then there will be no “gun violence” there. It is a fallacy because a ban does not imply a lack, particularly if it is enforced by incompetent, slow, or otherwise bureaucratic body. So, the “gun-free” zones fallacy produces a fiction that is a disaster waiting to happen. And it does happen fairly often, as the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre has painfully reminded us about.

The so-called “gun-free” zones introduced by the “Liberal” educational establishment just a few decades ago, became notorious for shooting massacres, while places with the highest concentration of firearms, like gun shows and rifle ranges exhibited no such pathology. And understandably so. A derailed lunatic, like Ryan Lanza, or any other prospective mass murderer, would have been killed instantaneously before completion of his barbaric act in the area saturated with armed good guys, but can indulge himself with spraying bullets around on terrified unarmed victims until the SWAT team arrives, which usually gives him enough time to kill as many people as he wants.

The bottom line here is that there is no credible evidence that disarming the good Americans will make us all safer, even if the “gun-free” zones were somehow enforced. On the contrary, a comparative analysis suggests that these zones have a potential of making us sitting ducks in a cross-hair of a bad guy because their very existence shifts the balance of firepower from the law-abiding (who obediently got disarmed) to the bad guys (who refused to obey the gun bans). Just imagine the magnitude of a possible massacre if the U.S. were declared a one huge “gun-free” zone.

As if the idea of the “gun-free” zones weren’t absurd enough, the “Liberals” now claim, and fallaciously so, that the failure of the government to enforce them gives it a mandate to further restrict our Constitutional liberties. That’s right, the government created a “gun-free” zone, then failed to protect the people in that zone from an armed psychopath, and now the people are going to be punished for the government’s failure with pretty draconian restrictions of their Second Amendment rights. Only in a maniacal mind infected with “Liberal” gun-grabbing ideas may such absurd argument appear as a valid inference.

The ‘government benevolence’ fiction
The “Liberals” tend to perceive the government (at least a Democratic one) as the ultimate provider of good things to the people, so that the people should just delegate to the government their rights, like the right to the fruits of their work, or the right to defend one’s life, in order to make government’s taking care of them easier. Judging from “Liberal’s” confidence that the government is really willing and capable of doing all these good things, they must perceive the government as some kind of god. And so their ideology, deeply rooted in similarly naive doctrines born in Russia and Central-Eastern Europe some two centuries ago, is becoming a new “Liberal” religion.

But despite repeated claims of the “Liberal” ideologues, there is no credible evidence that the government, even if controlled by the Democratic Party, is a natural benefactor of the people. On the contrary, the history abounds in examples of governmental wrongdoing. In addition, many individual liberties that the American people enjoy have a tendency to impede government’s ability to perform its basic duties. So, the government tends to assert adversarial position to the concept of limited governmental powers and virtually limitless individual liberties, as expressed by the Tenth Amendment.

To make this adversarial tendency even more obvious, the very name of the federal agency that has been given power to interfere with our right to keep and bear arms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is not very comforting to the self-defense enthusiasts. I know what was the history behind this suggestive name (collection of taxes), but it does help to create a negative perception of firearms in mind of an average subject of “Liberal” anti-gun indoctrination. Also, the ATF has a long history of power abuse and drastic infringements on the constitutionally protected uninfringeable right. Just imagine suspicion from the co- called “mainstream” media if a federal agency were empowered to regulate our First Amendment rights and was named a Bureau of Gambling, Prostitution, and Freedom of Speech. Both names correctly suggest government’s adversarial role in matters related to individual liberties listed in the Bill of Rights, or its outright contempt of these liberties.

The ‘all people are equal’ fiction
The “Liberals” claim, without credible evidence, that all people are equal. This fundamental “Liberal” fiction prompts one to ignore this simple fact of life that there are good guys and bad guys, and that claiming that these two kinds are equal is absurd. But any suggestion that the bad guys do not deserve the same privileges than the good guys enjoy, which includes the right to arm and to organize, meets with frantic, if not hysteric, “Liberal” opposition. So, if the bad guys are to be disarmed then, according to “Liberal” orthodoxy, all people must be disarmed. Or – in other words – if criminals and psychopaths use guns to kill innocent people then everybody can do equal evil (since we are all equal), so that all the people have to be disarmed.

This is nothing less than a case of social leveling that the Soviet Union and Mao tse-Tong’s Communist China were so notorious for.

The damaging effects of propagating this nonsense are further amplified by the fact that usually only the law-abiding good guys obey the restrictions of gun-control laws while the criminals do not hesitate arming themselves with illegal weaponry. The unequal attitudes towards the law actually make things worse as it shifts balance of power in favor of bad guys. This observation is consistent with the effects of outlawing personal firearms in Great Britain in Australia, which draconian gun-control measures brought a significant increase of violent crime.

The all people are equal “Liberal” fiction has another socially detrimental aspect. To their credit, many “Liberals” are good-meaning, non-violent people. Quite naturally, they assume that all people are like them, and that all people will stop resorting to violence if only their prospective victim disarm themselves (just to show the assailant that they mean no harm) . This kind of fallacious thinking was (is?) the main rationale behind “Liberal” push to unilateral disarmament. Unfortunately, there is no credible evidence that all or most people of the world, or of the U.S., would like to just sit down with everybody else and sing Kumbaya once given a chance, so the “Liberal” story how disarming America improves humanity remains a canard.

Delegating to the government our God-given right to self-defense with a deadly weapon, particularly under the circumstances of government’s inability to actually protect the people in a free society like ours from determined killers, defies facts and logic. In the best-case scenario, it is like awarding a mechanic with a consistent history of botched repairs of one’s car a monopoly on fixing everything in one’s household. In the worst-case scenario, it is like appointing a fox a guardian of a hen house.

The psychopath Ryan Lanza was a dangerous maniac showing symptoms of mental disease. It is good that he was killed in the course of the massacre of the innocent that he committed in a “gun-free” zone. But the “Liberal” maniacs, who refuse to or cannot see the absurdity of their calls for gun control in this dangerous world when a call to arms seems very much in order, are dangerous, too. They are, perhaps, even more dangerous to individual security in our country than Mr. Lanza was. They, too, suffer from a mental condition that drives them to escalate their gun-control mania to the point of hysterical assault on our Constitutional liberties despite a lack of credible evidence that its net result will do any good for the safety of the American people.

Insanity, according to Albert Einstein, is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. So, the “Liberals” and all other maniacs are not going to give up on their dangerous ideas, like “gun-free” zones, that have inflicted so much lasting damage to this nation. Attempts to educate them about irrationality of their insanity are futile and are doomed to fail. Perhaps, mental institutions should play a bigger role in search for a solution of this complicated problem.

10 13 11 flagbar


An opinion on gun control


Regardless of your position on the ‘gun debate’ that will be raging immediately after the New Year, please take the time to read completely through the following.  It is long, but worth the read.  If you are anti-gun, this will give you information you should know before arguing your point.  If you are pro-gun, this will be self-explanatory.


An opinion on gun control

By correia45

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).

Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.

A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.

I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.

I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I’ve worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I’d make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.

I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I’ve got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I’ve won matches, and I’ve been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.

I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I’ve argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.

Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

Armed Teachers

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a “national conversation on guns”. Here’s the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isn’t a conversation at all, it is a lecture.

Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You can’t mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets!

No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again.

Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Colombine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooter’s brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops can’t be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. We’ve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply can’t teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back.

So if we can’t have cops there, what can we do?

The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started.

The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while he’s concentrating on killing them, he’s not killing more children.

But teachers aren’t as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesn’t need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps.

But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply can’t comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and can’t be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

Don’t make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your state’s concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now.

Then they’ll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom… No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now.

When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state.

I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them.

After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless?  None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but I’m happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers weren’t so lucky, so I consider my time well spent.

Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do.

Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them.

As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, I’m sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states who’d be willing to teach them for free.

For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.

Gun Free Zones

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period.

Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So where’s the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that.

The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law aren’t going on rampages.

I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utah’s gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping center’s front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was


The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didn’t attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didn’t attack the closest. It wasn’t about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted


There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative.

1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties.

2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties.

3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead.

4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children.

And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

The Media

Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that we’ve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. We’ve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. We’ve seen it succeed here before.

Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead… If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they don’t say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, I’m a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious). If I become angry because they are promoting policies which are tactically flawed and which will do the exact opposite of the stated goals, then I am a horrible person for being angry. Perhaps I shouldn’t be allowed to own guns at all.

But that’s not why I want to talk about the media. I want to talk about the media’s effect on the shooters.

Put yourself in the shoes of one of these killers. One nice thing about playing the villain and being a punching bag for cops, soldiers, and permit holders is that you need to learn about how the bad guys think and operate. And most of the mass shooters fit a similar profile.

The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group.

These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they aren’t losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. They’ll show us. The solution is easy. It’s right there in front of your nose.

If you can kill enough people at one time, you’ll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and he’ll even shed a single manly tear.

You are a star.

Strangely enough, this is one of the only topics I actually agree with Roger Ebert on. He didn’t think that the news should cover the shooters or mention their names on the front page of the paper. So whenever the press isn’t talking about guns, or violent movies, or violent video games, or any other thing that hundreds of millions of people participated in yesterday without murdering anybody, they’ll keep showing the killer’s picture in the background while telling the world all about him and his struggles.

And then the cycle repeats, as the next disaffected angry loner takes notes.

They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.

Mental Health Issues

And right here I’m going to show why I’m different than the people I’ve been arguing with the last few days. I am not an expert on mental health issues or psychiatry or psychology. My knowledge of criminal psychology is limited to understanding the methods of killers enough to know how to fight them better.

So since I don’t have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then I’m not going to comment… Oh please, if only some of the people I’ve been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.

Gun Control Laws

As soon as there is a tragedy there comes the calls for “We have to do something!” Sure, the something may not actually accomplish anything as far as solving whatever the tragedy was or preventing the next one, but that’s the narrative. Something evil happened, so we have to do something, and preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard.

The left side of the political spectrum loves gun control. Gun control is historically extremely unpopular in red state and purple state America, and thus very hard to pass big stuff, but there’s a century’s accumulation of lots and lots of small ones. There have been a handful of major federal laws passed in the United States relating to guns, but the majority of really strict gun control has primarily been enacted in liberal dominated urban areas.

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. I’ve found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology, so I’m going to go through many of the things I’ve seen argued about over the last few days and elaborate on them one by one.

I will leave out the particularly crazy things I was confronted with, including the guy who was in favor of mandating “automatic robot gun turrets” in schools. Yes. Heaven forbid we let a teacher CCW, so let’s put killer robots (which haven’t actually been invented yet) in schools. Man, I wish I was making this up, but that’s Facebook for you.

We need to ban automatic weapons.

Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then.

Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collector’s items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop.

Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply don’t care, they are able to get ahold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, don’t obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are.

When you say “automatic” you mean full auto, as in a machinegun. What I think most of these people mean is semi-auto.

Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons!

Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger the action cycles and loads another round. This is the single most common type of gun, not just in America, but in the whole world. Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of weapons used for self-defense are semi-automatic, as are almost all the weapons used by police officers.  It is the most common because it is normally the most effective.

Semi-automatic is usually best choice for defensive use. It is easier to use because you can do so one handed if necessary, and you are forced to manipulate your weapon less. If you believe that using a gun for self-defense is necessary, then you pretty much have to say that semi-auto is okay.

Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns. I’ll get to the functional problems with that later.

We should ban handguns!

Handguns are tools for self-defense, and the only reason we use them over the more capable, and easier to hit with rifles or shotguns is because handguns are portable. Rifles are just plain better, but the only reason I don’t carry an AR-15 around is because it would be hard to hide under my shirt.

Concealed Carry works. As much as it offends liberals and we keep hearing horror stories about blood in the streets, the fact is over my lifetime most of the United States has enacted some form of concealed carry law, and the blood in the streets wild west shootouts over parking spaces they’ve predicted simply hasn’t happened. At this point in time there are only a few hold out states, all of them are blue states and all of them have inner cities which suffer from terrible crime, where once again, the criminals simply don’t care.

For information about how more guns actually equals less crime, look up the work of Dr. John Lott. And since liberals hate his guts, look up the less famous work of Dr. Gary Kleck, or basically look up the work of any criminologist or economist who isn’t writing for Slate or Mother Jones.

As for why CCW is good, see my whole first section about arming teachers for a tiny part of the whole picture. Basically bad people are going to be bad and do bad things. They are going to hurt you and take your stuff, because that’s what they do. That’s their career, and they are as good at it as you are at your job. They will do this anywhere they think they can get away with it.

We fixate on the mass shooters because they grab the headlines, but in actuality your odds of running in to one of them is tiny. Your odds of having a violent encounter with a run of the mill criminal is orders of magnitudes higher.

I do find one thing highly amusing. In my personal experience, some of the most vehement anti-gun people I’ve ever associated with will usually eventually admit after getting to know me, that if something bad happened, then they really hope I’m around, because I’m one of the good ones. Usually they never realize just how hypocritical and naïve that is.

We should ban Assault Rifles!

Define “assault rifle”…


Yeah. That’s the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure).

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but I’ll come back to that later) infantry weapon.

The thing is, real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary.

I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay… If you’re going to legislate it, DEFINE IT.

And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off, and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon.

Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal.

One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but I’ll get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! That’s got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. I’ll talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission.

For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Let’s say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders don’t do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isn’t as annoying when you shoot. It doesn’t actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you don’t accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE!

It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied “I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up.”  Oh good. I’m glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up.

Now are you starting to see why “assault weapons” is a pointless term? They aren’t functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Don’t worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as “high powered sniper guns”.

Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons aren’t special.

Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but I’m not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today I’m talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think that’s extreme. That’s because everything you’ve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why.


I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible… Uh huh… Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances.

When I said “stop an attacker quickly” somebody on Twitter thought that he’d gotten me and said “Stop. That’s just a euphemism for kill!” Nope. I am perfectly happy if the attacker surrenders or passes out from blood loss too.

Tactically and legally, all I care about is making them stop doing whatever it is that they are doing which caused me to shoot them to begin with.

The guns that many of you think of as assault rifle are common and popular because they are excellent for fighting, and I’ll talk about what my side really thinks about the 2nd Amendment below.

We should ban magazines over X number of shots!

I’ve seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that we’ve got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then he’ll not be able to shoot as many people.

Wrong. And I’ll break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesn’t really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility.

First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually—contrary to the movies—you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We don’t have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more.

The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isn’t uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone.

Also, you’re going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets don’t penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, “Darn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo.”

So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use.

Now tactically, let’s say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and he’s a complete idiot, he’s not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. He’s picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but don’t for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. They’re just broken and evil.

In the cases that I’m aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds.

A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. That’s a bad assumption, and here’s yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearm’s forums.


So that’s awesome if it happens, but good luck with that.

Finally, let’s look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those.

Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire.

That’s it. Magazines are considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didn’t so much as inconvenience a single criminal.

Meanwhile, bad guys didn’t run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and I’m no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This could’ve been done out of my garage.

Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if you’re already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply don’t care.

Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they can’t. We’ve been stocking up ever since. If the last ban did literally nothing at all over a decade, and since then we’ve purchased another hundred million magazines since then, another ban will do even less. (except just make the law abiding that much angrier, and I’ll get to that below).

I bought $600 worth of magazines for my competition pistol this morning. I’ve already got a shelf full for my rifles. Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I don’t know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR.

So you can ban this stuff, but it won’t actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but I’ll talk about confiscation later.

One last thing to share about the magazine ban from the AWB, and this is something all gun people know, but most anti-gunners do not. When you put an artificial cap on a weapon, and tell us that we can only have a limited number of rounds in that weapon, we’re going to make sure they are the most potent rounds possible. Before the ban, everybody bought 9mms which held an average of 15 rounds. After the ban, if I can only have ten rounds, they’re going to be bigger, so we all started buying 10 shot .45s instead.

You don’t need an assault weapon for hunting!

Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government.

Spare me the whole, “You won’t be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons” reductio ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller.

Well we should just ban ALL guns then! You only need them to murder people!

It doesn’t really make sense to ban guns, because in reality what that means is that you are actually banning effective self-defense. Despite the constant hammering by a news media with an agenda, guns are used in America far more to stop crime than to cause crime.

I’ve seen several different sets of numbers about how many times guns are used in self-defense every year. The problem with keeping track of this stat is that the vast majority of the time when a gun is produced in a legal self-defense situation no shots are fired. The mere presence of the gun is enough to cause the criminal to stop.

Clint Smith once said if you look like food, you will be eaten. Criminals are looking for prey. They are looking for easy victims. If they wanted to work hard for a living they’d get a job. So when you pull a gun, you are no longer prey, you are work, so they are going to go find somebody else to pick on.

So many defensive gun uses never get tracked as such. From personal experience, I have pulled a gun exactly one time in my entire life. I was legally justified and the bad guy stopped, put his gun away, and left. (15 years later the same son of a bitch would end up murdering a local sheriff’s deputy).

My defensive gun use was never recorded anywhere as far as I know. My wife has pulled a gun twice in her life. Once on somebody who was acting very rapey who suddenly found a better place to be when she stuck a Ruger in his face, and again many years later on a German Shepherd which was attacking my one year old son. (amazingly enough a dog can recognize a 9mm coming out of a fanny pack and run for its life, go figure) No police report at all on the second one, and I don’t believe the first one ever turned up as any sort of defensive use statistic, all because no shots were fired.

So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America?


On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns.


Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders.

But let’s not go with the high estimate. Let’s go with some smaller ones instead. Let’s use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, let’s even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad.

So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want.

Doesn’t matter. I don’t like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country.

Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means let’s ban guns.

Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which I’ll get to, but let’s run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they haven’t had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didn’t really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while he’s trying to steal your wallet, and that probably won’t even make the evening news.

And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns.

So then we’ve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, a cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves… Sensing a trend yet?

And then we’ve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves.

Then you’ve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems.

Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened in America.

Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap.

That mass killer used a gun and homemade explosives. Make guns harder to get, and explosives become the weapon of choice. Please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the Afghani equivalent to Radio Shack.

The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan), fire (like Happyland Nightclub) or airliners. There is no law you can pass, nothing you can say or do, which will make some not be evil.

And all of this is irrelevant, because banning and confiscating all the scary guns in America will be national suicide.

You crazy gun nuts and your 2nd Amendment. We should just confiscate all the guns.

Many of you may truly believe that. You may think that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, outdated, and totally pointless. However, approximately half of the country disagrees with you, and of them, a pretty large portion is fully willing to shoot somebody in defense of it.

We’ve already seen that your partial bans are stupid and don’t do anything, so unless you are merely a hypocrite more interested in style rather than results, the only way to achieve your goal is to come and take the guns away. So let’s talk about confiscation.

They say that there are 80 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns, will become suspicious and simply lie. Those of us who don’t want to end like England or Australia will say that we lost all of our guns in a freak canoe accident.

Guns do not really wear out. I have perfectly functioning guns from WWI, and I’ve got friends who have still useable firearms from the 1800s. Plus we’ve been building more of them this entire time. There are more guns than there are people in America, and some of us have enough to arm our entire neighborhood.

But for the sake of math, let’s say that there are only 80 million gun owners, and let’s say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners don’t really believe in the 2ndAmendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier.

So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 8 million instantaneous felons. Let’s say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Let’s be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened.   That leaves 800,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country.

Let’s say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 800,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas.

However, I do honestly believe that it would be much bigger than 10%. Once the confiscations turned violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge. I saw somebody on Twitter post about how the 2nd Amendment is stupid because my stupid assault rifles are useless against drones… That person has obviously never worked with the people who build the drones, fly the drones, and service the drones. I have. Where to you think the majority of the US military falls on the political spectrum exactly? There’s a reason Mitt Romney won the military vote by over 40 points, and it wasn’t because of his hair.

And as for those 700,000 cops, how many of them would side with the gun owners? All the gun nuts, that’s for sure. As much as some people like to complain about the gun culture, many of the people you hire to protect you, and darn near all of them who can shoot well, belong to that gun culture. And as I hear people complain about the gun industry, like it is some nebulous, faceless, all powerful corporate thing which hungers for war and anarchy, I just have to laugh, because the gun industry probably has the highest percentage of former cops and former military of any industry in the country. My being a civilian was odd in the circles I worked in.  The men and women you pay to protect you have honor and integrity, and they will fight for what they believe in.

So the real question the anti-gun, ban and confiscate, crowd should be asking themselves is this, how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to have killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future?

Boo Evil Gun Culture!

Really? Because I hate to break it to you, but when nearly six hundred people get murdered a year in beautiful Gun Free Chicago, that’s not my people doing the shooting.

The gun culture is all around you, well obviously except for those of you reading this in elite liberal urban city centers where you’ve extinguished your gun culture. They are your friends, relatives, and coworkers. The biggest reason gun control has become increasingly difficult to pass over the last decade is because more and more people have turned to CCW, and as that has become more common, it has removed much of the stigma. Now everybody outside of elite urban liberal city centers knows somebody that carries a gun.

The gun culture is simply regular America, and is made up of people who think their lives and their families lives are more important than the life of anyone who tries to victimize them.

The gun culture is who protects our country. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers and cops who are issued a gun and who use it as part of their job who could care less. However, the people who build the guns, really understand the guns, actually enjoy using the guns, and usually end up being picked to teach everybody else how to use the guns are the gun culture.

The media and the left would absolutely love to end the gun culture in America, because then they could finally pass all the laws they wanted.

Let’s take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, simple terrorist attack. They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict gun laws, but once again, criminals didn’t care.

That’s not my point this time however, I want to look at the response. These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely fell apart.

In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because they’d never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to actually master the tool. When you kill your gun culture, you kill off your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary to do the job.

Don’t think that we are so far off here. I recently got to sit down with some fans who are members of one of the larger metro police departments in America. These guys were all SWAT cops or narcotics, all of them were gun nuts who practiced on their own dime, and all of them were intimately familiar with real violence. These are the guys that you want responding when the real bad stuff goes down.

What they told me made me sick. Their leadership was all uniformly liberal and extremely anti-gun, just like most big cities in America. They walked me through what their responses were supposed to be in case of a Mumbai style event, and how their “scary assault weapons” were kept locked up where they would be unavailable, and how dismal their training was, and how since the state had run off or shut down most of the gun ranges, most of the cops couldn’t even practice or qualify anymore.

So now they were less safe, the people they were protecting were less safe, the bad guys were safer, but most importantly their leadership could pat themselves on the back, because they’d done something.

Well, okay. You make some good points. But I’d be more comfortable if you gun people were forcedto have more mandatory training!

And I did actually have this one said to me, which is an amazing victory by internet arguing standards.

Mandatory training is a placebo at best. Here is my take on why.


In conclusion, basically it doesn’t really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming we’ve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really don’t care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control.

If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didn’t get into, but once again, there’s a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, let’s ban other guns that weren’t even involved in any crimes, just because they’re too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think I’m joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything.

They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to ending mass shootings in schools, let’s try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus?

Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids.

If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kid’s school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.

EDIT: I have been stunned by the level of response on this post. I wrote it so that it could be shared, but I had no idea just how much it would be, so thank you. I have received hundreds of comments, emails, and I don’t even know how many Twitter and Facebook messages. It is heartening that this made many people think about the issues in a new way.

I will try to respond and answer questions as I can, but there are a LOT of them, so I will probably take the most common ones and do another blog post when I have the chance. If your comment doesn’t appear immediately, that is because I have to approve first time posters manually to make sure they are not spambots.

If I had realized 30,000 people would read this today I would have proof read it. When you find a typo or something that seems a bit rough, I wrote this 10k word essay from 9pm to 1am and posted it the next day at lunch. 

For those of you who haven’t been here before, I make my living as a novelist. If you click any of the Amazon or B&N links off to the right side it will take you to one of my books. Thank you for your support, encouragement, and honest debate.

EDIT2 After two straight days of responding to as many debate posts in the comments as possible, I’m fried, and hanging it up for Christmas. I’ll still be approving posts periodically, but that’s it for me as far as arguing (and it has rapidly turned into the same thing over and over again)  This post has been read 150,000 times now, gotten national media attention, and been reposted all over the internet. Awesome. I was sincerely hoping people would share it, so thank you very much.  Have a Merry Christmas.

10 13 11 flagbar




 Jesus said“…buy one”. Luke 22:36

 By David A. McElroy

JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON in which carols of We Three Kings are sung. The Christmas of 2012 has been made a very sad one for many in Newtown, Connecticut, following the Sandy Hook school massacre. But we should not forget the celebration of Christ, which is the very essence of the word “CHRISTMAS”. Ironic, is it not, that courts prohibit Jesus from being portrayed in public places during the official national holiday bearing his name in celebration? Why is this? Where is the love? 

Let us recall Jesus is both celebrated and reviled as Lord and Savior, our High Priest and Messiah, Teacher of the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Son of God came into this world to take us out, and sacrificed his life to lead us on the path to Heaven. Some of us choose to follow Christ in reverence, others loathe Jesus. Some will even remove Christ’s name in “Christmas” signage and replace it with an “X” to read “Xmas”! Why? Because Jesus is THE libertarian, and the forces of evil seek to enslave us all. That is why Christ is reviled and his “Holy Day” of Christmas is sullied with an avalanche of sensual delights appealing to our dreams, our gluttony, pride, and lusts. It is why real “Saint Nicholaus” has been perverted from a Christian patron saint of children to become a magical patron saint of merchants pushing earthly delights.

A gilded cage was enticing us all long before we were old enough to know what was going on. Call it indoctrination, or brainwashing, or marketing. Just sit on Santa’s lap, kid, and tell him everything you want. Just keep wanting the shiny new baubles. Just keep dreaming, chasing the illusions dressed up in hopes of a white Christmas around a tree we trimmed in silver and gold. Let those sugar plums dance in your head.
We are told at Christ’s birth the angels proclaimed “Glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, goodwill toward men,” in Luke 2:14. Christ later said “Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword,” in Matthew 11:34.

A sword divides, it severs. Kings wield swords. Christ came to rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, to judge the world and divide God’s sheep from Satan’s goats. This is the end for which Jesus was born into this world as an innocent lamb, to die a noble and ultimate sacrifice to rise up victorious as a redeeming lion of divinely royal lineage. We are graciously given the right of free will, or choice, to follow Christ – or else deceits that bring us despair, destruction, and death. We will reap the consequences of our decisions in personal responsibility to our Creator for our actions. Choose wisely!
Swords, or weapons, are often found in scripture. Is disarming everyone righteous and proper according to Christ? The sword is properly wielded by the righteous, as noted in Romans 13:4. But not all of us are righteous, and laws prohibiting all of us from bearing arms do not stop deranged lunatics, common criminals, or monstrous tyrants like Caesar. So… I ask you now, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

In Luke 22:36, Christ said, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Remember, Roman law prohibited civilian ownership of swords, and Pontius Pilate governed Palestine under Roman military occupation. It was the charge of treason, or rebellion against Caesar, that was brought against Jesus by the Jewish High Priest Caiaphas. This is why Pilate posted “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” on Jesus’ cross, signifying the supposed crime for which he was crucified most unjustly.

Jesus also spoke to the sneaky unjust use of the sword in Matthew 26: 51-55. He warned that “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword”, that using violent force as a way of life only brings violence upon the perpetrator. A libertarian never uses force nor fraud to bend others to his will. Christ offers his teaching, blessings, and salvation freely without coercion. We are not to be forced to come to Christ at the point of a weapon, as he was marched to crucifixion.

But our lives are the most primary of God’s blessings, and not to be yielded lightly. While evil offense is prohibited, righteous defense is a duty. Those who would disarm us insist that stricter laws prohibiting guns are the answer, but the law neither protected nor served those slain in Connecticut’s “Gun Free Zone” school. The US Supreme Court ruled in Castle Rock v. Gonzales in 2005 that police are under no obligation to protect citizens. Police are mistakenly called “first responders”, when it is actually the victim that is first to respond. A gun in hand is far better than a cop on the phone!

When Christ came into this world, “three wise men”, or “kings of the east”, came bearing gifts to the newborn king. They knew a great royalty had been birthed, and followed that star to bear gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Frankincense and myrrh were oils for sweet odors, perfumes, used often in offering prayers and preparing bodies for burial. Gold was money as it has always been. Today, the three kings of Christmas in these End Times are actually Mammon, Lucifer, and Molech. They too bring sweet smelling things that are known to stimulate prayer, accompany death, and finance sweet dreams.
This big gifting season is about money extraction, increased sales, pleasing Mammon. We exalt children and deplore their murder while supporting a world economic system ruled by banksters that preys upon human lives, maintaining a bloody bottom line sending military forces to slaughter men, women, and yes, CHILDREN, capturing wealth in the foreign wars. It is a fact that children comprise war’s vast majority of casualties. The use of depleted uranium munitions guarantees birth defects and radiation sicknesses for many generations to come in places like Iraq. We cringe in horror when American children are killed, but give little thought when troops sent with our tax dollars gun down the children of another people. We even endorse the choice of aborting our own children for virtually any reason, much as the ancients threw their children into the fire at Molech’s feet hoping for economic blessings and convenience. Lucifer laughs at his symphony of illusions and chaos killing us amid sweet dreams. WAKE UP! What would Jesus do?

Right now, many influential voices are openly urging Barack Obama to stand strong as a DICTATOR, arbitrarily eliminate the Second Amendment, CONFISCATE ALL GUNS, and arrest all dissidents, discarding our First Amendment rights as well. People like New York City Mayor Bloomberg and former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper are among a loud fascist cacophony screaming for mandatory disarmament and stifling free speech. It is out in the open, people. It is not some dubious conspiracy talk. It is not a secretive thing at all. FASCIST DICTATORSHIP is Uncle Sam’s Christmas gift of 2012. Obama, a self-proclaimed Marxist endorsed by the Communist Party USA, will not hesitate to pick up the big hammer and confiscate our weapons and arrest all who disagree with his policies. It is the course of action taken in every country overtaken by a Marxist ruler. And after the people are disarmed, policies of mass slavery and massacre of dissidents and “useless eaters” are pursued with a vengeance in the pursuit of godless government efficiency. It is the destruction of God’s people, which He has called to be Christian soldiers armed for the battle with the Serpent’s seed sown among us like tares among the wheat. Certainly, we should read Ephesians 6 for counsel about Christian conduct and the “Armor of God”. But we should also recall God authorizes us to defend ourselves against fleshly enemies with earthly weapons of steel, even “to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people: To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honor have all His saints.” Read this in Psalm 149:7-9.

Recall how presidential candidate Ron Paul was booed and hissed at a GOP rally in South Carolina for stating we should apply the Golden Rule to US foreign policy! Was that in Christian judgment and the honor of the saints? What would Jesus do?
Would Jesus have done as Piers Morgan did on CNN in confronting Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America… flying into a histrionic fury of emotional name calling and illogical nonsequitors to exploit the deaths of school children and slander Pratt and our God-given right to self-defense? Would Jesus, like Reuters, issue an op-ed piece to urge Obama in his second term to act without Congress to arbitrarily impose draconian gun restrictions?

We are in dangerous times. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the FBI, have cited a declining murder rate in America in recent years, and a 65% reduction in violent crime. But fascist faces play upon emotions drummed upon the corpses of children to disarm the future victims of America. They would destroy our freedom and dignity, life and liberty.

It is Christmas time. Let’s honor Christ our king. What would Jesus do?

 ” David McElroy was born in 1952. He attended a state college pursuing journalism only to expose a corrupt administration. In disgust, he left after his junior year vowing to finish schooling at a Christian college. Fresno Pacific College awarded McElroy a B.A. in Religious & Biblical Studies, with a minor in Journalism. McElroy spent some ten years as a journalist covering government extensively, and served as a small town editor. He left the news media fed up with corruption there, and pursued church work. He served as a Baptist chaplain to nursing homes and hospitals, church secretary, teacher, etc. Currently he writes for Truth, Justice & Liberty in Christ’s Love at www.OnlyWay.com and other sites.”

 10 13 11 flagbar

She survived Hitler and wants to warn America



 Rob Kerby | blog.beliefnet

Kitty Werthmann survived Hitler.

“What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or read in history books,” she likes to tell audiences.

“I am a witness to history.

“I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.

“We voted him in.”

 If you remember the plot of the Sound of Music, the Von Trapp family escaped over the Alps rather than submit to the Nazis. Kitty wasn’t so lucky. Her family chose to stay in her native Austria. She was 10 years old, but bright and aware. And she was watching.

“We elected him by a landslide – 98 percent of the vote,” she recalls.

She wasn’t old enough to vote in 1938 – approaching her 11th birthday. But she remembers.

“Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.”

No so.

“In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression. Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed. We had 25 percent inflation and 25 percent bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily. Young people were going from house to house begging for food. Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.

“My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need. Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.’

“We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany, where Hitler had been in power since 1933.” she recalls. “We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.

“Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group – Jewish or otherwise. We were led to believe that everyone in Germany was happy. We wanted the same way of life in Austria. We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family. Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.

“Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

“We were overjoyed,” remembers Kitty, “and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades. The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

“After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order. Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed. The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

“Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women. Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home. An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family. Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

“Then we lost religious education for kids

“Our education was nationalized. I attended a very good public school.. The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore. Instead, we sang ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,’ and had physical education.

“Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance. Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum. They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time. The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.

And then things got worse.

“The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination. The rest of the day we had sports. As time went along, we loved it. Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.

“We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

“My mother was very unhappy,” remembers Kitty. “When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent. I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful. There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination.

“I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it. Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home. I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.

“Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me. They lived without religion. By that time, unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.

“It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly. As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

“Then food rationing began

“In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established. All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps. At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death.

“Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

“Soon after this, the draft was implemented.

“It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps,” remembers Kitty. “During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.

“They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps. After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.

“When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.

“Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack. I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

“When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers.

“You could take your children ages four weeks old to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, seven days a week, under the total care of the government.

“The state raised a whole generation of children. There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology. By this time, no one talked about equal rights.

We knew we had been had.

“Before Hitler, we had very good medical care. Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna..

“After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone. Doctors were salaried by the government. The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything.

“When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.

“If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn. There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine. Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

“As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80 percent of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families.

“All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

“We had another agency designed to monitor business. My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.

“ Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners. Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar. He couldn’t meet all the demands.

“Soon, he went out of business. If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

“We had consumer protection, too

“We were told how to shop and what to buy. Free enterprise was essentially abolished. We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers. The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, and then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps. The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.

“So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded. When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.

“I knew one, named Vincent, very well. He was a janitor of the school. One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.

“I asked my superior where they were going. She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write. The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.

“They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

“As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death. The villagers were not fooled. We suspected what was happening. Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months. We called this euthanasia.

“Then they took our guns

“Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

“No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

“Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.”

“This is my eye-witness account.

“It’s true. Those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.

“America is [WAS] truly the greatest country in the world.

“Don’t let freedom slip away.

“After America, there is no place to go.”


After yesterdays two posts on gun control I have had the largest number of new subscribers since I started this site. That could be good, or it could be because of trolls waking up to my comments section. If that be the case, then I now know I have pushed the right button in DC. If the new comers are legitimate patriots, WELCOME ABOARD! PLEASE, forward all post to your friends and republish them on your own sites.

10 13 11 flagbar





 Posted By: Seawitch

Cold hard facts are rarely comfortable, often stressful but ALWAYS harmful if ignored. In this case they are one hundred percent FATAL. There is only one reason America has never been invaded and only one reason America’s Constitutional government has never been over thrown and dissolved. AMERICA IS ARMED! So what are we armed for? Looks? Are our guns just for show and conversation? No? You may well have to use them just to retain the RIGHT to have them.

We have become a nation of SHEEP led by a ‘COMPANY OF MORONS’ manipulated by a self styled, self-appointed organization of individuals whose gene pool is about as deep as an Olympic swimming pool for fleas. Remember the same Public Fool System that is turning our children into video game addicted, mindless little robots, educated the idiots now posing as leadership and law makers. They sit like “bobble dolls” on a dash board and nod their empty skulls while seasoned criminals like Nancy Pelosi tell them they have to “pass the laws to find out what’s in them”! And nobody comes unglued? YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID

Our Supreme court is less effective than the Motown’s Supremes and a whole hell of a lot less entertaining. Our president thinks he has omnipotent powers and signs Executive Orders faster than Elvis’s doctor wrote prescriptions but at least the doctor had a legal right to sign them. Our Congress is about as efficient and effective as a diaper on an infant made out of cheap paper towels and we’ve got people voting to get a free cell phone and think the Bill of Rights include the right to free housing, free food, free health care and it’s all paid for by Obama’s stash? We’ve all heard of the blind leading the blind but what we have here boys and girls is the BRAIN DEAD leading the BRAIN DEAD! We don’t need ZOMBIE’s we’re turning out whole graduating classes of programmed puppets each and every year! YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID!

Four Americans are tortured, drug through the streets and murdered by the hand of our government aided terrorists while our military are prevented from lifting a finger and our Secretary of State weasels out of testifying? Should be no surprise considering what she did the last time she was caught in the spotlight, uh, “well I just don’t recall”, “hmm I really don’t remember that.” I said she wouldn’t testify and if she did it would be a replay of the Whitewater affair…and yup; SHE GETS AWAY WITH IT AGAIN!

We have seen no less than a dozen and probably more false flag events, continually less professional and successively more sloppy as the elite frantically attempt to complete the NWO mission using an unAmerican, totally unauthorized foreign entity, the UN, since 911 and still the people sit on their butts and take it. Did it never occur to anyone that all we have to do IS SAY NO WE WILL NOT COMPLY AND THEN JUST DON’T? WHY DO WE FEED THIS BEAST?



In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it’s too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are ‘citizens’. Without them, we are ‘subjects’.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun-control message to all of your friends.






Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It’s time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.

You’re not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~


“A nation…cannot survive treason from within…the traitor …wears the face of his victims,…and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly…he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared…….” Cicero, 42 B.C.E.


YOU CAN’T FIX STUPID! But you sure as hell can defend your self from them! If the brain dead so called citizen’s who support more gun control, or the scumbags in government try to take our weapons and ammo there will be blood in the street’s of America like no one has ever imagined.

It matters not that the police and military are better armed than the freedom loving people, because it is what is in our heart’s that will strengthen us. We will not be disarmed and rounded up like cattle or cowards. Death in the act of fighting for our rights to be self sufficient, and armed, is no shame, and is a hell of a lot better than being counted among the cowards who will bend over and kiss ass to live. People who are afraid of guns, and or, people who believe only the military should have them are the lowest form of humanity, except for the traitors in uniform who will try to take them. If you truly want to see America destroyed, try to take our weapons. Molôn Labé!

10 13 11 flagbar