Guest Blog by Abolitionist Arms

A friend of mine send me this:

As a pro-2nd Amendment novelist, NAGR activist, and editor for the Armed Citizen Project; I have come to view the gun rights debate from a unique perspective that has made me conclude that a new tactic in the fight to restore the 2nd Amendment is needed.
You see gun control activist have very masterfully crafted and used the term “Assault Weapons” to describe what are more aptly referred to by actual gun owners as “Tactical Weapons”. By ruthlessly associating the term “Assault Weapons”  with any kind of mass shooting where the shooter had semi-automatic weapons, and even going so far as to make up new ones when the shooter did not, such as the infamous AR-15 Shotgun. They have marketed gun control to the masses with their absurd question “Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?“; with Glocks and AR-15s being their favorite guns to hate. So common is this tacit of using the term “Assault Weapon”. That many gun control activists actually know not to say “Assault Rifle”, and fall into the trap of proving they are clueless about guns; even if they proclaim that we need to ban Glock 10s in their next sentence (A.K.A Steven King). Since using the same term over and over in a speech is bad form that can dilute a message, gun control activist commonly use “Military Style” as a replacement synonym for “Assault Weapon” to change things up.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against political marketing as I recognize that unless gun rights activist expect everyone they encounter to have first read John R. Lott, JR’s More Guns, Less Crime. Then convincing people that non-infringed gun ownership is an important right requires that the message of the 2nd Amendment be simplified and direct it to a specific audience; which is the quintessential definition of marketing.

I therefore don’t have any problem when groups like NAGR calls the “UN Small Arms Treaty”, the “The UN Gun Ban Treaty” in order to market why gun owners should sign a petition to stop the treaty, in 3 seconds or less. Given that NAGR, and alike, first and foremost have an extensively researched and historically proven case for why a treaty that calls for international gun registration would lead to international gun confiscation.

That said what I do very much have a problem when gun control advocates use the term “Assault Weapon” to market their message; because quite simply the term fails to be backed up by any academic merit. For to quote Gregory Smith author of Selling the Second Amendment

Anything can be used to assault anyone, a hammer, a screwdriver, even a pencil can be wielded with deadly purpose (stick it in someone’s eye). Thus assault really is a behavior, not a device”. Likewise with the term “military-style” he notes “every weapon is military-style since they have all been used in the military at some point”.

However, instead of criticizing gun control advocates for so extensively using the intellectually dishonest term “Assault Weapon” over the past few decades; my unique perspective is that we should instead be thanking them as they have inadvertently made possible the largest opportunity to promote the right of citizens to keep and bear arms since the signing of the 2nd Amendment itself.

As I see it, even though “Assault Weapon” is a term so vague as to technically include any weapon; thanks to constant media exposure by gun control advocates, the term has become definitively defined as:

  1. Firearms that are black and semi-auto
  2. Firearms that have removable magazines and can thus accept “High Capacity Magazines”
  3. Firearms that have pistol grips, barrel shrouds or other “Scary” cosmetic features
  4. Single shot Glocks and blot action AR-15s (A Joke)  

So not only have gun control advocates given a vague term definite meaning. In so extensively focusing the gun rights debate on the question “Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?“; they have to use some military terminology, thereby left the flanks of said debate open to a massive offensive for restoring the second amendment.

Because rather then coming out and being intellectually honest that they don’t support the 2nd Amendment at all. Gun control advocates, politicians in particular, have said that they only want to ban “Assault Weapons” and/or “High Capacity Magazines”; while at the same time claiming they “support the 2nd Amendment”, least they be instantly booted out of office since the majority of Americans support the right to keep and bear arms to at least some extent.
Now I assume that most gun control advocates keep the double standard of claiming to support the 2nd Amendment while wanting to also ban “Assault Weapons” & “High Capacity Magazines”; tend to do so assuming that the only time when the 2nd Amendment was not contested was when everyone had muzzle loading muskets. However, this assumption overlooks a time in American history right before and during the civil war when the 2nd Amendment was not contested, unless of course you were Negro, and firearms technology made some major advancements.

This particular time period is important because during it the Republican Party, and the abolitionists who created it, came to see arms as the way to end slavery to the extent that…

When the time came, many joined the struggle bearing arms. Many abolitionists joined Northern armies, leading soldiers into battle against the South, when it became obvious it had become a war of liberation. Many fought bravely and sacrificed their lives and for that, they are immortalized in our heart of hearts.

Source: http://www.worldfreeinternet.us/cbboard/bb1.htm

In fact if you have read Chris Kyle’s book American Gun you will know that the greatest abolitionist in world history Abraham Lincoln, test fired the revolutionary lever action Sharps Rifle on the White House lawns, and immediately wanted to order 20,000 of them for the Union Army.

 

Realizing that none of the arms used by the overwhelming majority of abolitionists to eliminate slavery in the civil war were semi-automatic, featured detachable magazines, or even painted black. I recently had the inspiration to come up with the term “Abolitionist Arms“, along with the replacement synonym “Lincoln Guns“, as a way to classify all “Non-Assault Weapons” in general and any kind of manual action firearm with non-detachable magazines in specific.

 

Now “Abolitionist Arms” is of course not a historically accurate term, after all I just coined it this year; but unlike the term “Assault Weapon” it has three points of academic merit it can stand on…

  1. In the civil war Abolitionist did indeed use these types of arms in the fight to end slavery even if at the time they did not call them “Abolitionist Arms”
  2. The number of people around the world who would not be living as defacto slaves to modern socialist dictators, if said socialist dictators had not first taken away the peoples “Abolitionist Arms” is in the millions.
  3. At the very least a man who cannot defend himself is a slave to his attackers. 

 

Therefore, the new tactic I that think is needed in the fight to restore the 2nd Amendment. Is for gun rights activists to push for non-comprised laws at the state level that guarantee the right of citizens to own “Abolitionist Arms” at home; while keeping the larger gun rights debate focused on the right to own “Tactical Weapons” and have concealed carry reciprocity.

 

The aim of this tactic is quite simple, because historically speaking gun control activists typically use the following slippery slope method to eventually ban all guns…

  1. Demonize & ban “Assault Weapons”
  2. Demonize & ban Handguns
  3. Demonize & ban Rifles
  4. Demonize & ban Shotguns
  5. Make muskets available by permit only

Though the exact order of how various guns are demonized and them banned varies from country to country (you can get a shotgun with a permit in the UK), the general principal of demonizing particular types of guns one at a time is the same. Therefore if gun rights activists can successfully make the argument that all “Non-Assault Weapons” should be called “Abolitionist Arms”. Gun control proponents would then have to try and do the following if they wanted to ban all guns…

  1. Demonize & ban “Assault Weapons”
  2. Demonize & ban “Abolitionist Arms”

Suffice to say it would be highly unlikely that gun control activist could ever make the argument that “Abolitionist Arms” should be demonized; especially when you consider that some of this nations first gun control laws were Jim Crow laws that were written to specifically keep Negros from owning guns, least they revolt against their slave masters.

While this means that more states will inevitably implement an all out ban on “Assault Weapons” as gun control activists are forced to use their over played political marketing scheme even more. I it will be near impossible for said gun control activists to be able to accomplish anything more than that, if gun right activist can successfully pass non-comprised “Abolitionist Arms” laws. Furthermore when you consider that citizens living in DC, Chicago and alike will be able to buy shotguns and revolvers as they wish for home defense, thus building the number of gun owners. Over time this increase in gun ownership will translate into increased efforts for citizens to legally own semi-automatic “Tactical Weapons” and be able to carry them concealed.

However, Key to the success of state level “Abolitionist Arms” laws is that they must be non-comprised, and when I say non-comprised I mean…

  1. No waiting periods
  2. No mandatory training required
  3. Only driver license based background check required to buy
  4. Absolutely no registration required EVER!!
  5. Points 1-4 must also apply for buying ammo too.

While I will elaborate on those points in future articles on the topic of “Abolitionist Arms” it is important for gun rights activists to note that according to NAGR activists classes. It is far better for long term gun rights to have non-comprised gun rights legislation loose in a roll call vote; then it is to have it be passed after some of your key demands are left out for the sake of compromise. Even if its the NRA that is suggesting you comprise!

Email: for questions comments and suggestions

 

Tennessee Traitors: Meet the 4 Mayors that oppose Guns in Parks

 

Don’t let their southern drawls fool you, the mayors of Chattanooga (Andy Berke), Knoxville, Nashville and Memphis are opposing pro-gun legislation by Sen. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville, legislation that “seeks to strip local governments of their power to keep firearms out of public parks.”

“When I was in the Legislature a central part of what I fought for was local control,” said Berke, who was elected mayor last year. “This gives people the chance to decide what’s best in their own community. By taking away that right, the state Legislature would be saying there’s only one way to do that and Nashville knows that way.
Source: http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2014/jan/30/berke-against-loosening-strictures-on-guns-in/?local

Isn’t this the same kind of argument segregationists used in the 1950s and 60s? How is Berke different than the Kluxer who doesn’t want blacks and whites mixing? Sorry Berke, but there are issues that go beyond state’s rights or city rights, the 2nd Amendment is a NATIONAL RIGHT. As Campfield explained: the Tennessee Constitution has a provision providing “the legislature shall regulate the wearing of arms” and that it “doesn’t give us the authority to delegate that down to the local governments.”

There is one trouble aspect, however;

It says handgun-carry permit holders can bring their firearms to any of those areas unless there’s a school function.  

I don’t get the school function exception, why make it easier for the mass shooters by creating an unarmed environment? But if you understand the philosophy of “death by a thousand cuts”, then perhaps this is a stepping stone towards greater freedom.

Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, a former Knoxville mayor, reiterated his opposition to the bill. “My concern … is this isn’t just a Second Amendment right,” the governor told reporters. “It’s also a question about how we determine what the owner’s voice is and what happens to that property.” Cities and counties “bought those properties with their own tax dollars,” the governor said. “And I think that’s the proper place for a decision to be made, is according to who actually owns the property.”

With Republicans like him, who needs Democrats? It’s true that he has signed pro-gun bills in the past, but he’s dropping the ball on this one.

 

ABC blacked out Armed Citizen Project

Did you watch 20/20 Young Guns? If you did, you saw what can be described as a 30 second interview of the Armed Citizen Project, but according to a source, here’s what you didn’t see.

With hours of footage to choose from along with expertly complied stats given to 20/20 by Kyle Coplen and other ACP members, 20/20 did a pretty good job of blacking us out. Not once mention that ACP uses donations to create responsible gun owners! Of everything that can be said about ACP, the fact that we use donations to create responsible gun owners in an effort to actually reduce crime is by far the most unique attribute. Therefore even if 20/20 mentioned that ACP is some kind of crazy gun charity that puts more guns into the homes of single mothers; and thus tried to make our organization look like like if was full of extreme gun nuts. That would have been better than them not mentioning our core cause at all.


Last Hispanic Hope: Zimmerman will Box for Charity

0130-george-zimmerman-boxing

Last Hispanic Hope

TMZ wrote:

Now’s your chance to kick George Zimmerman‘s ass with zero legal repercussions — he just agreed to a celebrity boxing match … and he says he’ll fight ANYONE … even black people.

Celebrity boxing promoter Damon Feldman threw down the challenge, offering George money to step in the ring. Now here’s the kicker … the opponent has NOT been selected.

We’re told George is open to fighting a black person, but the promoter is not discriminating, telling us “We’re not looking at it as a race thing … We haven’t discussed purple, yellow, white, black.”

Lately George has been more interested in boxing than guns … regularly training in the ring.

As for George’s cut from the fight, we’re told he’s donating the money to charity.

If you’d like to throw your hat in the ring for the March 1 match, email [email protected].
Source: http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/30/george-zimmerman-celebrity-boxing-match/#ixzz2s18osOk0

As I wrote on Twitter (GunGregory), #Zimmerman is being dumb. We’re men, we fight with guns, not fists. We fight for survival, not entertainment. Charity? There are plenty of ways to raise money for charity. Zimmerman isn’t famous for beating Trayvon to death but for shooting him, a shooting that was justified.

7 things Zimmerman can do instead of Boxing

1. Join a reality show, maybe a “Top Shot” for Amateurs

2. Start a podcast/blog

3. Write a book

4. Get a job at a gun company

5. Become a gunsmith

6. Act in porn

7. Sell T-Shirts on Teespring like this Gun is Good tee.

This Zimmerman fellow is starting to scare me, I think he’s testing the waters of the anti-gun side, maybe he’s getting ready to defect to Moms Demand Action. Why not? Who better than Zimmerman to play the role of the ex-gun owner now gun hater? I know, I shouldn’t give him ideas.

 

DeBlasio joins MAIG, NY Daily News surprised

Forming a rare alliance with his predecessor, Mayor de Blasio is joining the gun-control advocacy group founded and funded by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Daily News has learned.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/blaz-joins-gun-control-group-mike-founded-article-1.1596230#ixzz2rsIWeqao

A rare alliance would be a sheep making love to a wolf.  Bloomberg is a gun-hating crony capitalist, DeBlasio is a gun-hating Marxist-Sandinist, it’s a marriage made in hell, people. Why is The Daily News surprised? In fact, one of the rules of journalism is that you’re supposed to avoid adjectives. “Forming an alliance with his predecessor” is how the sentence should be. “Rare” is an adjective, it’s OPINION which belongs to the opinion section or a blog.

Often critical of the previous administration, de Blasio told The News he’s a big supporter of Bloomberg’s high-profile push for stronger gun control measures.

“Mayor Bloomberg took on this fight when few others would, and today we are safer for it,” de Blasio said in a statement to The News. “He built a national movement for common-sense gun control — one I am proud to join.”

Safer? New Yorkers victimized by crime will disagree. Tell that to the woman who was raped because she didn’t have a gun, I’m sure she’s thanking Bloomberg now.

De Blasio said he plans to focus on two issues once he joins the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He wants to work with the state’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, in their fight to increase penalties for “straw” purchases of guns by one individual for another buyer.

De Blasio also wants to work on keeping guns away from the mentally ill and those who have been convicted of domestic violence.

These people are full of crap, if you are convicted of domestic violence that’s a felony, which means you’re no longer allowed to keep and bear arms. The gall of this people, they try to fool the people with issues that sound like “common sense” until you think about them

Straw purchases? It’s already against the law to buy a gun for someone else.

The mentally ill? A court has to judge you mentally ill and put you in the loony bin, having Apergers, Autism, depression, does not make you mentally ill.

So let me tell the uninvolved gun owner this, the one who thinks people like me are full of paranoia and we should just compromise with MAIG.  When was the last time MAIG supported concealed carry, armed guards in school, tort reform, not suing gun companies into oblivion,  the end of gun-free zones? You know the answer, they never have, never will.

MAIG is your enemy, MAIG hates you. Bloomberg and his fascist a-holes have never reached out to the NRA, they have never tried to understand our point of view, they hate our 2A, hate the American independent spirit, and I’m glad to hate them back.