RKBA

The ISIS Ramadan Massacre in Orlando

by

It’s interesting watching the Main Stream and alternate media “world view bubbles” vie for the narrative following the ISIS Ramadan Massacre at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. The Drudge Report, likely due to Drudge’s ties with the LGBT community in Florida, the UK Media, and blogs like THE LAST REFUGE (AKA The Conservative Treehouse), GATEWAYPUNDIT, AND DAILYPUNDIT drove American television media coverage in a way that effectively removed two days of official denial of Muslim terrorism in the previous San Bernadino ISIS attack time line. During this “vying for narrative” the Institutional Media and Official Government mask slipped and showed that this election is no longer about merely who will be President, but whether American political freedom will survive.

These are the facts of the ISIS Ramadan Massacre in Orlando, as best I can gather.

THE FACTS OF THE ISIS RAMADAN MASSACRE
We know now from the 911 and a Bright House cable News 13 in Orlando call audio that some time before his 2:00 AM Sunday morning attack, OMAR MIR SEDDIQUE MATEEN announced he was pledging his allegiance to ISIS for the atrocity he was going to commit. Some time later (hours?!?) MATEEN began shooting his way past the police officer hired by Pulse Nightclub to guard the entrance to the club. This officer and two more who “rode to the sound of the gunfire” engaged MATEEN and were driven away by MATEEN’s superior weaponry, an AR-15 with “high capacity magazines” and apparently MATEEN’s superior marksmanship (more on this below).

You cannot tell with media and police sources this early, but this implies that MATEEN’s magazines were something more than the US Army standard 20 and 30-round box clips. Aftermarket AR-15 large capacity clips and drums can be had with up to 100 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition. MATEEN’s ability to drive away three trained police officers, two of which arrived in a squad car that very likely had an AR-15 in the trunk, per mass shooter protocols, argues MATEEN ran the three police first responders out of ammunition.

MATEEN then proceeded to kill 50 and wound 53 more people inside the crowded venue, and then, finally, to take hostages. It was unclear if the three police officers above engaged MATEEN inside PULSE or not. It is clear they were driven out of the Pulse, leaving those inside the venue to MATEEN’s mercy.

And MATEEN had none.

Read more

Quote of the Day

by

But, meanwhile, the top-heavy Japanese nobility also began to fear this newly armed peasantry and within a generation had removed guns from the common people. The “Sword Hunt” of 1588 took away not only the farmer’s swords, but their matchlocks as well. This was, perhaps, the earliest gun control of world history. It was followed by the “Separation Edict” of 1591, which made the farmers hereditary serfs. Previously, the great bulk of Japanese fighting men were citizen-soldiers, farmers most of the time, who answered the call when local noblemen needed infantry support. But after the new edicts, only the Samurai could carry swords or shoot matchlocks. The farmers now had only one job: to pay for everything. And pay they did, up to 80 percent of all they grew now went to support the nobility and the Samurai. The Samurai myth has taken on exaggerated elements of chivalry. Popularly represented as brave swordsmen, defenders of the innocent, the truth was often the opposite, for many Samurai were cold-blooded killers who murdered unarmed commoners for perceived insults as slight as simply making eye contact with them. All were merciless, blue-blooded parasites, living off the toil of people they considered vastly inferior. Once the farmers had been disarmed, it was easy to eradicate their few remaining freedoms. So, by the dawn of the Tokugawa Shogunate (military dictatorship), around 1603, Japan had near-total gun control. This notwithstanding, the Japanese myth of “giving up the gun,” and reverting to the sword, often couched as “putting the evil genie back in the bottle,” is more wishful thinking than historical fact. Matchlocks were not gone, they were now only reserved for a favored few. The Samurai still used them for war and hunting, and practiced constantly: marksmanship competitions were not uncommon.

(From “The Village Tiger Gun”, in The Blue Press, April 2016, p. 80.)

#NeverHillary — Gun Rights

by

#NeverTrump folks, friends, do you care about gun rights?

Or do you prefer virtue signaling about how much you hate Donald Trump, and pretending he is no worse than Hillary Clinton?

Do you want the American people to become a disarmed civilian population, rendered helpless in the face of violent crime and government oppression? The kind of defenseless population that was the prey of state power in the last century?

If Clinton is elected, she will pick Scalia’s successor. When that happens we will rapidly see 5-4 SCOTUS decisions reversing Heller and McDonald.

Legally, it will be over. Repeat it will be over. The Second Amendment WILL BE GONE. Your legal right to possess lethal force to defend yourself, your family and your property WILL BE GONE.

Forever, beyond recall.

Gun confiscation is a major campaign point for Clinton. There is zero doubt about her intentions in this regard.

We will then see the Clinton Administration begin a series of actions leading to widespread gun confiscation, perhaps initially by executive order. Citizens will have zero legal recourse.

Most law abiding people will hand over their guns, rather than face arrest and imprisonment.

But here and there we will see armed resistance. That resistance in turn will justify any type of executive, emergency measures the President wants, including further eroding of civil rights against police power. This is a downward spiral which will be ruinous for freedom.

This is going to happen in America if Hillary Clinton is elected.

If through inaction and moral preening people who don’t want this outcome help to put Hillary Clinton into the White House, that is what is going to happen.

Whether or not you like Trump is irrelevant.

The only way to stop the destruction of our Second Amendment rights is to elect Donald Trump. Trump is solid on gun rights. Trump has shown a personal commitment to the right to keep and bear arms. He has a concealed carry permit, and he carries.

Disappointment is part of adult life. I have never once had the opportunity to vote for a Presidential candidate I actually liked. I gagged as I did it, but I voted for such clowns as Bob Dole and John McCain, as the only way to vote against a worse candidate.

Face the binary reality.

Third options are imaginary.

Choke down your pride.

Choose the lesser evil — if you believe Trump is evil.

Work to defeat Hillary Clinton.

#NeverHillary

A Conservative Case for the Militia Clause in the 2nd Amendment

by

The traditional modern conservative opinion on the 2nd Amendment diminishes and almost entirely dismisses the opening clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. I believe this to be an error that leaves leftists an opening to prolong the Second Amendment assault forever. That opening needs to be closed. A substantive construction of this clause that makes sense to the general public is necessary to put down the gun control movement permanently.

But first, a little Latin. Crimes can be generally divided into the categories “malum prohibitum” and “malum in se”. Malum in se are crimes that are universally considered wrong or immoral that all just societies prohibit. Malum prohibitum are crimes that a legislature creates and are only crimes because they told us so. Tyrannies thrive by multiplying malum prohibitum crimes and turning honest citizens into fearful subjects that can be seized by the law at any time. Militias only go after malum in se crimes and are thus useful to the people who want a just society but useless to any sort of tyrant.

The militia’s uselessness to tyrants is its greatest selling point and one that the colonists implicitly understood because none of the abuses of King George were ever enforced by the militia (if there are examples where this actually happened, please share in comments). With that understanding, the introductory clause makes perfect sense to us all and gives us a common sense reason why even today, it’s important to have a strong militia so that our security is, as much as feasible, in the hands of people who will not sweat the small stuff. In fact, it’s truly necessary for the security of a free state.

The alternative is to entirely rely on paid agents of the state for our security, whether military or police. Is there ever a case where governments who are hard up for cash don’t make petty rules to extract fines and hem in the people’s liberty? Is there a government out there that does not favor its supporters and disfavor its opponents? Controlling these agents’ salaries is a powerful inducement for them to do the wrong thing if the government asks them. Over time and across a large number of governments, there will always be cases where they will be asked and there will always be agents who are willing to be tin pot tyrants. They have households to maintain after all.