“Hey, I don't mind you having guns. In fact, I hope you gun cretins all shoot yourselves and make the world a better place just like Meleanie [Hain] did. No, that's not hate, just a sincere desire to see a better world, which this will be without your sorry arses preventing proper gun laws from being adopted.”
by James Charles Michael Bannerman, writing as 'Laci the Dog'




"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

know them by their words

Why do I so adamantly fight “gun control” supporters almost whenever and wherever possible, even when they harass me and implicitly threaten my family and me?

Why have I taken to calling those individuals “anti-rights cultists”?

Conveniently enough, those two questions have the same answer, provided in a as he quotes from Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea*:

Recognize Insurrectionism as a threat to the entire progressive movement. Too many political progressives assume that the gun rights movement can be co-opted or simply ignored. Progressives fail to understand that the Insurrectionist idea is part and parcel of a broader reactionary worldview. Unless progressives recognize that the Insurrectionist premise of the modern gun rights movement is fundamentally hostile to the progressive project and its values, the “conservative” movement will use gun rights as a building block for organizing and propagandizing.

So the obvious question is who, exactly, is an “Insurrectionist”? From conversations with the official leadership and representatives of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence – Joshua Horwitz, the author of this book, is the president of that anti-rights organization – from reading various other documents they have published, and from examining their stances on the various issues, one is forced to conclude that an “Insurrectionist” is, in their minds, anyone who believes the following words:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

You see, the “problem” (at least in their minds) with private ownership of firearms is that the American citizens with those guns can say, “No,” and not only mean it, they can follow through on it to boot:

Gun ownership is one of the major signs of independence, especially self-defense guns. By carrying a weapon upon your person or in your home, you signify that you are willing to stand up for yourself, that you do not intend to rely on the state to provide for your protection. Hunters show they do not need to rely on the USDA certifying their meats or the heavy taxation and regulations placed on the food supply. And self reliance is the death knell for ‘progressivism’, which demands that you bow before the all powerful state so that everyone can share in the misery.

And that ain’t going to happen.

As always, this debate boils down to one central concept: control. Oh, sure, we talk about firearms and concealed carry and open carry and restaurant carry and college carry and “assault weapons” and “high-capacity clips” (*snicker*) and “gun deaths” and all the rest of that gos-se, but, really, those are just proxies for the real fight that is going on – a fight between those who want to control people, and those who want to live free:

According to Sean’s reading CSGV strikes him as more of a left-wing progressive/socialist group that’s using gun control as a means to an end. (A little like how I discovered that GOA is simply a Republican front group using Gun control for political leverage.)

But in no way are ANY gun control advocates interested in stopping at banning guns. Just look at the UK. They have no gun rights, knife bans, no search and seizure rights, and they are under constant government surveillance. They live in a Police State.

Make no mistake, that level of control over your daily life is exactly what anti-rights organizations like the CSGV want, and their manifesto quoted above proves it – you will either voluntarily accept their concept of “progressivism”, or you will be forced to accept it… with the implicit threat still lingering beneath the surface, of course.

I do not abide by that.

This country was not founded on the premise of everyone having to believe a certain way just because a borderline-violent, all-too-small minority believes they should. This country was not founded on the premise of forcibly suppressing opposing opinions simply because you disagree with them. And this country sure as hell was not founded on the premise of harassing, abusing, stalking, “outing”, or otherwise attempting to intimidate those who would dare to question your inherently flawed, specious, and absurdly weak position.

Or, in other words:

…they don’t care one whit about stopping violence or crime or whatever buzzword they use to make the unwitting follow them. It’s merely an excuse to push their progressive agenda of power-grabbing and control. And if you own any guns, well, you are a threat to them even if you haven’t a violent bone in your body.

And that is why I continue to stand up for our rights on a daily basis, even in the face of senseless harassment and persecution. If you think that our country is headed in the wrong direction, you have the hard, concrete facts and evidence to support your position, and you are willing to debate in a rational and logical fashion, then sit on down, and let us see what we can work out. But if all you have to bring to the table is irrational fear, blatant lies, a complete and utter lack of respect for individual rights, and a willingness to threaten, harass, and attack those who disagree with you… well, yes, we are going to fight you.

And we are going to win.

(* – Amusing aside: take a look at the 14 five-star reviews for that particular book. Four reviewers have only written one review (this one), one reviewer has written two (his only other review is for “Lethal Logic” and he self-identifies as a State Chapter President for the “Million” Mom March), four reviewers have written three, one reviewer has written ten, and four reviewers are known anti-rights cultists (specifically Dennis A. Henigan, Ladd Everitt, David Hemenway, and Andrew L. Goddard, who do not identify their affiliation with the book’s author or supporting organization). Why, if I did not know better (and I do not), I would assume that almost 2/3s of the reviews for that book were straight-up astroturf trying to raise its star count. Given the anti-rights cultists’ continued castigation of John Lott for his “Mary Rosh” debacle, one would think they would know better…)

5 comments to know them by their words

  • Cormac

    As I recall, Dr Lott responded to that criticism with a number of examples of how people have been doing the same thing for years…

    I read a report in high school about people as far back as the 1600’s wrote under pen-names to attract attention and increase business (didn’t Ben Franklin use this kind of “propaganda” to encourage the people to resist Britain?

    I have no problem with anybody doing this…as long as they’re willing to be consistent in their criticism when somebody else does. If they got pissed at Dr. Lott for ghost-reviewing his own work (though it was ALL peer-reviewed and still hasn’t been disproven in any peer-reviewed work that I know of), then they had better keep their grubby little fingers off the review pages for anything with which they may have a conflict of interests (wikipedia? anybody? …Bueller?)

  • Personally, I am of the mindset that sockpuppeting to pimp your own work is a pretty shady thing indeed… it is absolutely no reflection on that actual work (though it does raise the question of whether or not third parties would actually support it, given that you are having to resort to sockpuppets), but it does raise a disturbing series of questions about the folks perpetrating it.

    Sure, in some cases, it can definitely be used as a force for good, but I am not even sure that Ben himself was pimping his specific work through his pen-names, but rather just writing about the Founding Fathers’ overall goals and aspirations from another angle (a bit different, but still sockpuppeting).

    But, regardless, I have no proof in this particular instance, though I do question why so many of the positive reviewers only have one review to their credit, and why the obvious anti-rights cultists did not proclaim themselves as such in their profiles.

    Oh, and the CSGV debacle with their Wikipedia entry was priceless!

  • A large portion of Dennis Henigan’s book reviews were by professional gun control advocates as well.

  • If I’m an insurrectionist for only owning a few guns, this is going to be the easiest revolution ever…

  • @ Thirdpower: I guess they have to do something to earn their paychecks, and they sure as hell are not getting laws passed these days…

    @ bluesun: Insurrectionist or not, their grasp of reality is about as strong as their grasp on the English language…