USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “No one is talking about taking away your guns,” say those who claim “all” they want is “commonsense gun safety laws.” Someone forgot to tell them that some publications have opinion pieces belying that.
“To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment,” columnist at The New York Times Bret Stephens demands. He says “to repeat” because he’s it’s not the first time “the newspaper of record” has shared his sentiments.
The “repeal” sentiment gets more media play. A history professor ignorant of history endorses the idea in Rochester’s Democrat & Chronicle (“Part of the USA Today Network,” which considering its owner Gannett Publications, should come as no surprise.
“I’ve made it clear in the past that I want extreme measures in response to gun violence – such as repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” Law Professor David S. Cohen writes in Rolling Stone. He has made that clear before, and wants others to join his crusade by “voicing these opinions.”
Plenty more examples exist to refute the reassurances that no wider disarmament goals exist. We’ve got examples from the past, from then Sen. Thomas Dodd, author of GCA ’68 saying “I would be for abolishing all guns … I hope some day the world will say ‘Destroy them all,’” to Nelson “Pete” Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc., admitting his strategy to ban guns is to do so incrementally.
Add present-day Nancy Pelosi admitting she hopes any new concessions on guns help accelerate more edicts down a “slippery slope” and “bipartisan efforts” on “compromise” described as “baby steps,” and it should be clear to all that the “concessions” all go one way and play into the hands of those who will not stop until they achieve complete citizen disarmament and an unchallengeable government “monopoly of violence.”
Actually, after that they’ll just be getting started. History is pretty clear on that.
Anyone who thinks concessions can be made and that will be the end of it is deluding both themselves (assuming they don’t know better) and anyone naïve enough to believe them. Every beachhead allowed or bit of ground voluntarily ceded allows those who want you disarmed to use it to launch their next incursion. To do so makes as much sense as throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting that it will satisfy them, and persuade them to leave you alone.
These are unsettling times for gun owners, as troubling as any I’ve ever seen. We need to remember that ultimately, we won’t lose our guns unless we as individuals make a choice to surrender them.
I know that’s unsettling to some, but really, isn’t it something we’ve always known?
Now, in the midst of all the sound and fury, with all the demands being made and all the temptations for some who posture as our “gun rights leaders” to resort to “pragmatic” concessions, I’d like to introduce (or reintroduce) readers here to an essay written decades ago that I’ve always found inspiring.
I urge you to read, take to heart and share my friend and colleague Brian Puckett’s “Memorandum on Arms and Freedom” and recommit to its central tenet:
“We will not disarm.”
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
![What were you saying about "toast"? [British regulars surrender to militia forces led by George Rogers Clark at Fort Sackville - PD-Art]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Oath-Keepers.jpg)
Captain Bob
Re this Gun Safety routing, who is kidding who. The often stated goal of the anti gunners is, has been and remains the total elimination of priveately owned firearms. Quit dancing to their tunes, recognize that their often stated goals are unchanging, and act to preserve the rights of the citizenry. Nothing less than this will suffice. As to those who refuse to recognize the all to plain facts of the matter, they are undeserving of the rights they will not long in the future loose.
The bottom line with liberals is that they obsessively hate guns and hate the military in part for the guns they carry. So, to hear them join the two together and spout the lies about the AR-15 being “a weapon of war” or alternately “made for the military” weapon “designed to do one thing: kill as many people as possible.” I could say the same thing about big trucks like the one driven by a jihadi in Nice, France who murdered 83 people by mowing them down with a truck (and one that was not a “weapon of war” or… Read more »
Re The Mask Is Comming Off, what Mask might this be, given that ultimate goals of the anti gun set are, and have been plain as the nose on my face. That aside, exactly what “hidden goals”???? have the antis been persuing lo these many years, goals that not only have been unchanged, but very widely advertised. There are people here who are awake to the facts of life. That said, I cannot help but wonder as to when, gun owners in general will wake up and smell the coffee.
Wild Bill:
Like some other academic types, the professor, weighted down by academic credentials seems to have forgotten that 2 + 2 still equal 4.
“I’ve made it clear in the past that I want extreme measures in response to gun violence – such as repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” Law Professor David S. Cohen writes…” Cohen can not be much of a law professor because he does not seem to know that S.CT. case law states that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not dependent upon the Second Amendment. The RKBA is a prepolitical, individual, Civil Right that predates our Constitution.
“I’ve made it clear in the past that I want extreme measures in response to gun violence – such as repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” Law Professor David S. Cohen writes…” Cohen thinks that he would be immune to the death and destruction that would occur in response to the “extreme measures” that he advocates. If Cohen starts the wind, let him reap the whirlwind. But let the Anti-Civil Rights Movement begin the “extreme measures”.
I’m amazed by the sheer number of progun people, including those on this list, who have been lured in by one proposed bandaid solution after another. We just heard from a person here “if they’d eliminate page three on the 4473, blah blah blah”. When do we, as professional, knowledgeable gun owners stop offering up the same panacea for these continuing problems, i.e., either more laws or addendums to existing laws? When do we say no more! Not one more law. You’ve had 50 years (don’t correct me there’s a reason we’re saying 50 rather than 83) and this gun… Read more »
@Captain Bob: I believe in part that what you say is true. I know many LEOs and Military will cave to do the dirty work also. Especially since Bama lowered the standards of our military. But like you I am older but not too old fight an ex-Vet with skills in both combat and personal ones in the martial arts. I’m not running nor giving any of firearms in and will die to keep them in defending America not Amerika. So let them come. Let try passing laws. Let the NRA continue to cave. I will not!!!
Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it’s the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer. Editorial, Taming The Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 1993, at B6 No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons. Editorial, Guns Along… Read more »
What Mask might be a most germane question, for were many sentiment adults ever deluded as to the real goals of these people? Please forgive a dumb question, to which there is an all to obvious answer, that being YES, some of the “deluded” having been movers and shakers at the NRA. As to how that happened, damned it I know, but it did happen.