If You Think the 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Protect from Tyranny, Think Again

Ralph Wiggum is his own Militia because the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

How Gun Ownership Protects Citizens From An Abusive Government

those who are unconvinced that civilian gun ownership protects against authoritarianism would do well to give the argument some more thought.

If well-armed citizens could not defend themselves against the U.S. Army, terrorist groups such as ISIS should have shriveled and died long ago. Instead, the U.S. government has been operating in the Middle East since 1990 trying to stamp out whichever comparatively low-budget terrorist group or rogue state was causing chaos. Still, the United States has not succeeded.

If the U.S. government did try to force its citizens into an authoritarian governing system, it would not be wise to use its vast arsenal to bomb cities and destroy infrastructure like it has in places like Raqqa, Syria. The government would be spending money to blow its own assets to pieces.

Who would be carrying out the government’s attacks? Many members of the armed forces would be appalled at the idea of unleashing U.S. military force upon their own country–especially an armed country. Although some members of the military would undoubtedly be loyal to an authoritarian government, many would side with the civilians.

History provides many examples of an armed populace keeping its government in check. Peter Leeson, a professor of economics and law at George Mason University, contends that the ownership of longbows among non-nobles likely led to the Magna Carta’s final reissue. Once documents establishing universal rights bound the aristocrats and royals, politics became more stable and monarchs abused power less frequently. Society respected the rights of the lower classes much more broadly.

Stripping people of self-defense is not only a violation of rights, it spits in the face of America’s own beginnings. The American Revolution itself could not have happened without an armed populace. The U.S. Army was outgunned and often outmaneuvered, but Americans aren’t singing “God Save the Queen” before sporting events because individuals had the agency to protect themselves from an overbearing government.

Many more examples of armed civilian resistance to unwanted government authority exist: America’s failure in Vietnam, the 1989 overthrow of Romanian Communist Nicolae Ceausescu, and the ongoing Syrian Civil War, to name a few.

The Bielski partisans, a small group of Jewish guerilla World War II fighters, were able to protect more than 1,200 Jews from dying at the hands of the Nazis. The group’s main focus was to protect women, children, and the elderly. The Weimar Republic had disarmed its citizens in 1931, and Adolf Hitler’s party seized power in 1933.

It would be foolish to claim an armed German populace would have somehow stunted Hitler’s rise to power, but from their forest headquarters the Bielski partisans were able to run “one of the most successful rescue efforts during the Holocaust,” accordingto the U.S. Memorial Holocaust Museum’s website. That’s obviously a positive benefit to an armed populace.

Armed civilians have the power to resist a bad government, and the collective force of millions of armed Americans absolutely acts as a deterrent to increased authoritarianism from its own leaders.

Read More: http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/04/guns-help-americans-protect-abusive-government/

The FBI Didn’t Follow Up With Google After Parkland Shooter’s Youtube Threat

If their goal is to keep us safe, then law enforcement and the surveillance state failed at every step of the Parkland shooting.

They want us to give up more of our rights based on their complete failure?

(No one has yet shown how limiting ownership to law-abiding citizens will stop the actions of those who would break the law and commit the ultimate sin of murder, in a country with 300 million firearms in circulation.

Simpsons FBI were warned of the shooter and did nothting

FBI didn’t contact Google during probe on Florida shooter

The FBI was told of a threat accused Florida shooter Nikolas Cruz made on YouTube last September but never contacted the company to track down its source, missing an early indicator, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said Friday.

Someone reported the online threat to the FBI and the bureau opened a counterterrorism investigation but closed it on Oct. 11 saying it never managed to identify the person behind the post.

It wasn’t until after last week’s school massacre that the FBI did track down the author and found it was the 19-year-old man now accused of slaying 17 people at his former high school, Mr. Grassley’s office said, after getting briefings from both the FBI and Google.

Google would have been able to help confirm the commentator’s identity if the FBI had followed up, Mr. Grassley’s office said.

The FBI also missed a crucial tip from a caller in January. The person described Mr. Cruz as “mentally ill with violent tendencies,” Mr. Grassley’s office said. The caller said Mr. Cruz mutilated small animals and had pulled a rifle on his late mother, and had threatened more violence.

Read More: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/23/chuck-grassley-fbi-didnt-contact-google-during-pro/

 

By the Numbers: Gun Control is not the Answer

Gun Control in Springfield Does Not Lower Murder Rates

Gun Control Fails: What Happened in England, Ireland, and Canada

12/10/2015

If gun-control advocates want to claim credit for recent declines in homicide rates, they’ll need to explain why they remain blameless for increases in the murder rates that came on the heels of increasing gun controls through much of the 20th century. Of course, in these countries, one could also claim that the lack of sufficiently restrictive gun control was what really caused the increases in homicides mid-century, and that it was the build-up in restrictive laws that finally took effect ten or twenty years ago, thus pushing down homicide rates.

However, this could not be applied to the US where gun ownership has expanded in recent years while homicide rates have fallen.

United States: Homicide Rate Has Collapsed Since the 1970s

Naturally, we should take a look at the US to get a sense of what is happening there during this time period. According to the WHO data, murder rates increased significantly in the United States during the 1960, hitting a peak of 10.5 homicides per 100,000 in 1974. After a series of ups and downs during the 1980s and early 90s, homicides began a significant decline:

Source: World Health Organization 

According to the data published by the World Bank, up through 2012, the homicide rate in the US has continued to decline over the past decade, and is now back at 1950s or early 1960s levels:

Source: World Bank 

Of course, during this period in the United States, gun ownership rates have exploded, with enormous increases in total gun ownership. I examine gun totals here.

Moreover, the number of conceal carry permits has increased significantly over the past twenty years, and as the Washington Times recently noted:

Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop…

Meanwhile, the federal “assault” weapons ban expired in 2004 and numerous states greatly expanded their provisions for conceal carry.

The homicide rate has steadily declined over this period. Not surprisingly, a 2003 CDC report on gun violence concludes:

The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes.

And that was before the continued declines in homicides that occurred during the decade following 2003.

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/gun-control-fails-what-happened-england-ireland-and-canada