False States’ Rights

False States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, left-wingers wanted State officials to enforce federal anti-gun laws — even using force if necessary to coerce the States to enforce federal laws when bribery (federal grants) and extortion (withholding federal grants) failed. On the other hand, right-wingers strongly objected to States enforcing federal gun-control laws and claimed that States were not obliged to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court agreed with the right-wingers.

Now, the left-wingers and right-wingers have switched positions. Under the Trump administration, right-wingers want State and, by extension, local officials to enforce federal immigration laws or at least be required to aid federal officials in enforcing federal immigration laws. They approve of the federal government using bribery or extortion to reward or punish States for enforcing and aiding in the enforcement of federal laws. Left-wingers object and assert that State and local officials do not have to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Although both sides give lip service to States’ rights, neither believes in nor supports States’ rights. Both reject the notion that the United States is a federation of independent sovereign republican States. Both support the notion that the United States is a consolidated national empire with the States serving as administrative districts.

If they believed in and supported States’ rights, they would support States refusing to enforce federal laws, regardless of the law. Moreover, they would object to coercing States to enforce federal laws, even with bribery or extortion. (Extortion, i.e., withholding federal grants if a State fails to enforce a federal law, is a favorite weapon to compel a State to enforce a federal law.) 

Moreover, if they believed in States’ rights, they would support the right of “we the people” of each State to declare through their legislature or special convention, whether a federal law is constitutional. If a State (“we the people”) finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it could and should nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State and even jail federal agents who tried to enforce the nullified law. (Governors and city and county officials do not have the right to nullify federal laws; however, they may refuse to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws unless a State law requires them to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws.)

People who oppose a State’s right to nullify a federal law that they support oppose States having a republican form of government as guaranteed under the Constitution.[1] (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they oppose sovereignty residing in “we the people” of each State. Consequently, they support sovereignty residing in the oligarchs who control the federal government.

Endnote

1.  As explained in “Returning Republican Governments to the States,” for a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Who Is the Militia and What Is its Purpose

Who Is the Militia and What Is its Purpose

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was written in 1995.]

    The short answer to who is the militia is every able-bodied man except for a few political leaders. The short answer to the purpose of the militia is to protect the people from their own government and foreign governments.
    The militia is not the National Guard. Congress established the National Guard to serve as a reserve force for the armed forces. The National Guard is akin to the Army Reserve except that it is under the control of the governors of the several states during times of peace (unless the President wants to use the National Guard to enforce federal edicts in a State). Because the federal government can require National Guardsmen to serve overseas, it cannot be the true militia because the Constitution does not allow the federal government to send the militia overseas. Furthermore, federal law recognizes the National Guard, in times of peace and war, as a component of the United States Army.
    The militia is not a collective right. It is an individual right. Historically and legally, the militia is the whole body of the people as individuals.
    That the right to bear arms belonged to the people individually can be easily substantiated by the comments made by the founding fathers:

        Fisher Ames: “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing government, are declared to be inherent in the people.”
        Zachariah Johnson: “[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. . . . The government will depend on the assistance of the people in the day of distress.”
        Thomas Jefferson: “[N]o free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
        Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
        Patrick Henry: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. . . . The great object is that every man be armed. . . . [E]veryone who is able may have a gun.”

Other founding fathers made similar statements proclaiming the right — nay, the duty — of every able-bodied man to be armed. When these men said “the people,” they meant, in the words of George Mason, “the whole people, except a few public officers.”
    The reason for possessing arms is not for hunting or sport. The reason is for self-protection, self-protection not so much from criminals and foreign governments, but from their own government. A well-armed citizenry is needed to prevent a constitutional government from degenerating into a tyrannical government.
    Noah Webster summed up the purposed of an armed citizenry:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

    Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong central government, stated the necessity of an armed citizenry:

This [a well-armed and trained militia] will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

   Obviously, these statements were made in the early days of the country. The people need to become much more heavily armed if they want to begin to match the firepower of the standing army and nullify the corrupt and despotic power of the United States government.
    Justice Joseph Story summed up the necessity of the militia in his Commentaries on the Constitution (1833):

The militia is the natural defense of a free country against foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample the rights of the people. The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

If there was ever a time for a well-armed militia, it is now.

Copyright © 1995 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues

Some Random Thoughts on Political Issues

Thomas Allen

An explanation of how we got to where we are is summarized. Also, discussed are the beginnings of progressivism, compromise, socialist compassion, discrimination, education, forced vaccination, sanctuary cities, mental health and guns, and protective tariffs and piety.

How We Got to Where We Are
Augustine of Hippo, who was a father of Roman Catholicism, begot Calvin and Calvinism, who begot the Puritans of England. From the Puritans of England  came the Puritans of New England .

     In A History of the Christian Church (1870), Dr. Charles Hase describes the Puritans of England as follows: “In their morals and manners they were eminently pious, they looked upon all earthly pleasures as sinful, their own fancies were regarded as divine inspirations, and they thought that the state itself should be subject to their democratic hierarchy.” This description fits the Liberal Democrat of today, except what was considered pleasures then differs some from what is considered pleasures today.
The Puritan of New England begot the Yankee, who begot the abolitionist, who begot the Radical Republican, who begot the Progressive, who begot the Liberal Democrat. Augustine and all his philosophical and religious descendants to this day know how people ought to live, and they are determined to do everything in their power to make them live that way. Their god may differ, but their religiosity is the same. These are the people who have been controlling the country since 1860.

Progressivism: Its Beginnings
Progressivism began in the Washington administration with the struggle between the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians. The Hamiltonians captured the Federalist party and imposed its version of progressivism with the First Bank of the United States being one of its gems. The Jeffersonians eventually drove the Hamiltonians from power, and the Federalist party died. Later, the Hamiltonians organized the Whig party whose version of progressivism included a central bank, high protective tariffs, and federally financed internal improvements. Finally, the Whigs amalgamated with several smaller parties to form the Republican party. Afterward, the Republican party put that great progressive Abraham Lincoln in office. Lincoln’s version of progressivism included driving the Southern States out of the union with the highest protective tariffs that the United States had endured to that time. Then, he denied the Southern States their right to secede and warred against them. To do this, he destroyed the Constitution. His war against the Constitution was so successful that the country has never recovered from it. When Woodrow Wilson entered office, he implemented his version of progressivism. Since then both the Democratic and Republican parties have been advocates of the Hamiltonian philosophy and progressivism.

Compromise Washington Style
The following is an example of what passes for compromise in Washington. Politicians who want to remove the people’s ability to defend themselves from despotic government propose to limit the capacity of magazines for semiautomatic rifles, which they erroneously call assault weapons, to ten rounds. Eventually, a “compromise” is reached with those who wanted no restriction. Finally, a restriction of 15 rounds is adopted. (One of my bosses said that he always asked for more than he wanted so that he could “compromise” back to what he really wanted.) The side that wanted a restriction has won; they gained a restriction. Conversely, the side that wanted no restriction has lost; they gained nothing.
With a true compromise, both sides receive something. For example, in exchange for limiting the size of a magazine, the restriction requiring the purchase of a mail-order firearm through a licensed dealer is removed.
As the above example shows in the first paragraph, O’Sullivan’s Law rules Washington. According to O’Sullivan’s Law, any organization that is not expressly right-wing will become left-wing over time. Thus, the United States government has implemented about 80 percent of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.
O’Sullivan’s Law is also revealed in what now passes as a “moderate.” Since the beginning of the progressive era, moderates have been drifting leftward politically, socially, and economically. Today, what is considered a moderate would have been considered a borderline communist fifty years ago.

Socialist Compassion
Socialists present themselves as compassionate — the ones who truly care about the common man and the little guy. Yet, the socialist president of Venezuela refused to allow food into the country for the starving masses, after he and the previous socialist president had destroyed the country with socialism. He proves that socialists care nothing for the common man and the little guy. Socialists just lust for power and want to control the common people and treat them worse than cattle. (At least they feed the cattle to keep them fat for the slaughter.) Of course, if anyone with a functioning brain cell would look at the best-known socialists of the twentieth century, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler, he would see the real compassion that socialists have for the common man and the little guy.

Discrimination
Today, people are allowed and even obligated to discriminate against two ethnicities. They are the Southerner and the Palestinian. At least, so far, the Southerner has not been dehumanized to the level of the Palestinian. Just as the British hunted and killed Tasmanians with impunity, Israelis can hunt and kill Palestinians with impunity.

Education
All politicians say that they favor education and want to improve public education. If they were honest, they would use the phrase “government schools” instead of “public education.”
How do they want to improve government schools? Do they want to make them better at indoctrinating pupils and teaching them what to think, which is what government schools currently do? Or, do they want to make them educate pupils and teach them how to think?
One can easily tell where a candidate stands. If he wants to spend more money on the current system, he favors indoctrination and the continuation of dumbing down pupils. However, if he proposes prohibiting all the school systems in the State from accepting federal funds and using any material or books offered or recommended by the US Department of Education, he favors educating and teaching pupils how to think critically.
Nevertheless, the public school system cannot be reformed because it is socialistic. Being socialistic, it breeds scarcity and mediocrity. It is the government telling parents where, how, and what their children’s minds are to be fed. Moreover, it is based on the premise that children belong to the government, and parents merely provide for the physical care of the government’s property.
About the governmental (public) school system, which the Puritans originated in the United States, James A. Bayard writes that “the Yankee school system . . . may stimulate the brain but it ignores man’s moral nature and produces discontent with their condition among the masses. God help the country in which the masses are merely stimulated and trained to act in combinations which are always, sooner or later, controlled by demagogues.”

Forced Vaccination
Pro-abortionists should be at the forefront of protesting against forced vaccinations — if they are consistent and not hypocrites. They argue that women should have control of their bodies. Therefore, the government should not tell women what they have to do with their bodies. However, forced vaccination is based on the premise that the government can tell women what they must do with their bodies: receive a vaccine injection, i.e., receive an injection of such toxins as mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde (embalming fluid), propylene glycol (antifreeze), nagalase (prevents the body from killing cancer cells and strongly associated with autism [http://www.thebigriddle.com/2015/12/ murdered-holistic-doctors-discovered.html]), and cells of aborted babies. Of course, they probably do not mind ejecting people with aborted baby cells. Since pro-abortionists grew out of the culture of death and since many pro-abortionists favor forced vaccination, they must expect vaccinations to be more harmful than beneficial.
Most of those who favor forcing all American children to be vaccinated favor open borders. As a result of the mass immigration of illegal aliens, unvaccinated people carrying all sorts of contagious diseases, are flooding the country. One would think that these forced-vaccination people would be at the forefront in demanding that all immigrants be coerced into taking the 36 plus vaccines that they want to force American children to take, before entering the country.
If vaccines are safe and effective, why has Congress prohibited people from suing vaccine manufacturers for injuries caused by vaccines? Moreover, why is information exposing the dangers and the ineffectiveness of vaccines being suppressed? Also, why do people whose children have been vaccinated fear their children playing with children who have not been vaccinated? Should not the vaccine protect their children from unvaccinated children if it is effective?

Sanctuary Cities
Anyone who opposes sanctuary cities would, if he is consistent, have opposed cities and counties of the 1850s refusing to aid the US government in enforcing fugitive slave laws. Both are philosophically the same. Under both, local governments attempt to nullify a federal law.
Unlike their State governments, local governments have no legal or lawful authority to nullify a federal law unless their States have given them that authority. Being the creation of their State, local governments can only do what their State allows and must do as their State directs. Likewise, the States created the U.S. government; therefore, they have the right and duty to judge for themselves, acting independently and individually, whether the U.S. government has exceeded its authority. Thus, a State may nullify a federal law, as it applies in that State, that it decides is unconstitutional. A local government cannot nullify a federal law unless its creator State authorized it to do so.

Mental Health and Guns
On a talk radio show some years ago, the host and his guest were discussing mental health. They wondered why so many people did not seek professional help for their mental problems. While I was listening, they failed to mention one major reason. What was this major reason that they did not mention? Unlike being diagnosed with diabetes or heart problems, when one is diagnosed with mental problems, he is at a high risk of losing his constitutionally guaranteed inalienable right to own firearms — usually, forever.

Protection Tariffs and Piety
Following are some comments on “Protectionism as a Path to Piety” by John Howting that appears in the May 2019 issue of Chronicles. Mr. Howting asserts, or at least appears to assert, that protective tariffs are acts of piety.
Where is the justice in the politically powerful forcing, ultimately under the penalty of death, the politically weak to subsidize the politically powerful, which is what a protective tariff does? Protective tariffs require politicians to pick winners and losers. When have politicians excelled at this job? They will always side with the politically powerful.
How is forcing someone, the weak, to support another, the strong, which is what a protective tariff does, piety? Furthermore, is not forcing someone to pay more for products protected by tariffs somewhat impious?
How does a protective tariff today honor one’s ancestors from 200, 400, or 800 years ago? Moreover, how does a protective tariff today, even honor one’s parents who are dead? How do one’s children honor their parents by paying tribute to the politically powerful?
If protective tariffs promote piety, would not outlawing grocery stores, butcher shops, farmers’ markets, and the like and requiring every family to raise its own food promote piety even more? Would not this be the ultimate in piety as Mr. Howting describes piety?
Would not the piety that Mr. Howting describes be best achieved and can only be achieved when people are convinced to buy locally produced products, even if they cost more and are poorer quality, than to import them from other countries or even other States?
[Editor’s note: Mr. Howting wrote a formal response to this letter. His response was in the July 2019 issue of Chronicles.]

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Think Tanks and Artificial Intelligence

Think Tanks and Artificial Intelligence

Thomas Allen

Under discussion now is how many jobs will artificial intelligence (AI) replace. Among the easiest jobs that AI can do is that of the “intellectuals” at the typical progressive-liberal-Democratic (PLD), neoconservative-establishment conservative-Republican (NECR), and libertarian think tanks. Their jobs are so repetitive and predictable that AI would have no problem duplicating them. A simple algorithm can do their jobs.

Progressive-Liberal-Democratic Think Tanks
PLD think tanks believe that nonwhites are good; Whites are so bad that they must be eradicated. Likewise, with Western Civilization, it must also be eradicated. However, the Southerner is so egregiously vile and evil that he must be terminated through all eternity. Needless to say, Southern culture, heritage, and traditions must be annihilated. Consequently, nothing good can be said about Whites and Western Civilization and especially about Southerners and the South.

As for religion, PLD think tanks believe that Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and all other religions are good or at least acceptable except Christianity, which is abominable. Secularism and atheism are exceedingly good. However, the primary religion of PLD think tanks is the worship of their idol, the state. They continuously feed the state, so it can grow unbounded.

As for economics, PLD think tanks believe that Marxism and statism in all their forms are good. Central planning is desirable: The more regulations, the better. An economy that depends on a free market and free enterprise is bad.

The welfare state and dependency on the government are good; independence is bad. Anything that makes people more dependent on the government, i.e., that enslaves them more, is good. Anything that frees people from the government is detrimental.

Because PLS think tanks distrust the people with weapons, they want to disarm the people. (When the people are disarmed, they offer much weaker resistance to despotism.) However, when these same people become governmental employees, i.e., politicians, bureaucrats, and soldiers, they become saints who can be trusted with weapons. Thus, PLS think tanks trust bureaucrats, soldiers, and politicians with weapons.

PLD think tanks claim that homosexual, interracial, and other illicit sexual acts are admirable while heterosexual sex within marriage is deplorable.

Furthermore, PLD think tanks maintain that integration and amalgamation are good. Segregation and separation are cataclysmic unless nonwhites segregate or separate from Whites, then it is admirable. Diversity is of upmost importance although their policies destroy it.

PLD think tanks are strong proponents of reform and promote change for change’s sake — but always in the direction of more governmental control.

Neoconservative-Establishment Conservative-Republican Think Tank
NECR think tanks are almost identical to PLD think tanks. The primary difference is that NECR think tanks want to implement the programs promoted by PLD think tanks more slowly and make them more efficient, i.e., more despotic and tyrannical. Moreover, whereas PLD think tanks are Zionists, NECR think tanks are staunch Zionists. Also, NECR think tanks are more addicted to war than are PLD think tanks. NECR think tanks never saw a war that they did not like. Thus, they are more enthralled than PLD think tanks with an ever-expanding American Empire. (PLD think tanks are also supporters of an expanding American Empire.)

Like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks also hate Whites. Thus, they are hostile toward Western Civilization, although they usually conceal their hostility. Although they disparage Southerners and the South, they are not as venomous as PLD think tanks.

Though NECR think tanks elevate Christianity more than PLD think tanks, they subordinate it to Islam and especially Judaism.

While they give lip service to free-market economics, NECR think tanks support business-government partnerships and collaboration between businesses and government.

Although NECR think tanks often praise independence, they also seek to enslave the people to the government. Like PLD think tanks, they are proponents of the welfare state; they just want one that is more efficient. Nevertheless, they often attack welfare for individuals, except veterans. However, they are reluctant to criticize welfare in the form of subsidies, trade restrictions, etc. for businesses, especially big businesses.

Being Janus-faced, NECR think tanks defend the right of the people to possess weapons while they eagerly compromise such rights away. Their primary disagreement with PLD think tanks is about how quickly the people are disarmed.

While not as ardent supporter and promoter of homosexual and other illicit sexual acts, except miscegenation, which they fine admirable, they have no real problem with homosexual or most other illicit sexual acts. However, they are not hostile toward heterosexual marriages.

Like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks maintain that integration and amalgamation are good. Segregation and separation are cataclysmic. Whereas PLD think tanks support nonwhites segregating and separating themselves from Whites, NECR think tanks do not.

Also, like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks praise diversity, but not as highly. Moreover, like PLD think tanks, NECR think tanks advocate policies that destroy diversity.

The major difference between NECR think tanks and PLD think tanks is that the PLD think tanks rush forward into Marxist and statism and their concomitant despotism with abandonment while NECR think tanks cautiously move forward into Marxism and statism to make their despotism more efficient.

Libertarian Think Tanks
Like PLD and NECR think tanks, libertarian think tanks support anything that contributes to the destruction of the White man’s Western Civilization, which birthed libertarianism, and to the White man himself.

Libertarian think tanks believe that corporations, especially international corporations, and their leaders are innately good; governments and governmental leaders are innately bad. Political borders are bad.

For libertarian think tanks, homosexual, interracial, and other illicit sex acts are good. However, heterosexual marriages are not necessarily bad.

Religiously, libertarian think tanks are agnostic with a predilection toward human secularism.

Also, they oppose the welfare state and governmental control of the people. However, corporate control of the people is acceptable.

According to libertarian think tanks, the people should be armed and the government should be disarmed. Thus, libertarian think tanks trust the people with weapons, but they distrust governmental employees with weapons.

In agriculture, financial profit per acre and not production per acre is what is important. Moreover, money trumps culture, heritage, traditions, and similar intangibles. However, unlike PLD and NECR think tanks, libertarian think tanks abhor businesses collaborating with governments to gain economic advantage. For libertarian think tanks, free market and free enterprise are always good; governmental intervention in the economy is bad, i.e., Marxism and statism are evil. Consequently, libertarians never worship the state; they condemn it.

Conclusion
All three of these think tanks have several things in common. First, they loathe the White race. Being albusphobes, they look forward with joy to the day when the White race no longer exists. Consequently, they oppose any action, especially by governments, to preserve the White race. Second, these think tanks abominate the Southerner and the South so intensely, that they passionately strive to genocide the Southerner and to erase the South from the memory of mankind, except as the example of unadulterated evil — something so evil that it even makes Satan look holy. Third, all three advocate policies that will destroy Western Civilization. Fourth, these think tanks adore globalism and cosmopolitanism and abhor localism and provincialism. They favor open borders and unrestricted, unlimited immigration because such action is highly detrimental to the White race and its Western Civilization. (NECR, libertarian, and some PLD think tanks deny that they have such hatred of the White Race, the Southerner, the South, and Western Civilization and seek their destruction. Nevertheless, destruction is the result of the policies that they advocate whatever their motives, and, furthermore, that is how they act.)

One of the easiest jobs for AI to take over is that of the “intellectuals” of the typical PLD, NECR, and libertarian think tanks. Their thought patterns are so routine and predictable that even a mediocre programmer could write the program.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Thoughts on Gun Control

Some Thoughts on Gun Control

Thomas Allen

    The following appeared as a letter-to-the-editor:
    A friend of mine told me that when he was in school, the boys carried their rifles and shotguns to school so that they could hunt after school. Also, he said that a girl in his class brought her pistol to school for him to repair and gave it to him in the classroom. Several days later, he returned it to her in the classroom. There were no shootings in the school. Thus, the problem is not guns; it is people.
    Could prescribed psychiatric drugs be behind most of these mass shootings? Nearly all, if not all, the mass shooters were or had recently been taking these drugs. These drugs are known to cause violent behavior. However, since big pharma controls the old media (look at how the old media pimps vaccines), the old media ignores the drug issue. Besides, drugs do not fix the antigun agenda of the old media.
    Because of previous gun control laws, most schools are now gun-free zones. Gun controllers promised that no one would carry a gun into a gun-free zone. However, gun-free zones are safe places for killers to hunt because no one can shoot back.
    Many antigun progressives believe that President Trump is Hitler incarnated. Still, they want him to disarm them. Disarmed Jews did not fare well under Hitler. Why do disarmed progressives believe that they will do any better under Trump? If every Jew were heavily armed, Hitler would not and could not have sent them to concentration camps. To protect themselves from Trump, progressives should be demanding that gun laws be relaxed so that they can more easily arm themselves to defend themselves from Trump.
    There was a time when mass shootings were unheard of. What has changed between then and now? We need to find out and eliminate the change. The difference is not the availability of guns. Guns were much easier to obtain then than they are now.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following is a summary of “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2, pages 649-694) by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser. They show that the antigun, gun-controller dogma of “fewer guns, fewer homicides, suicides, and violent crimes” is false — a propaganda lie. Fewer guns are associated with more homicides and violent crimes.
    According to Kates and Mauser, the murder rate in the 1960s and 1970s of the gunless Soviet Union equal or exceeded that of the gun-ridden United States. While the murder rate in the United States declined, the murder rate in the Soviet Union rose. By 1998-2004, the murder rate in Russia was nearly four times higher than it was in the United States. Furthermore, the suicide rate in Russia was about four times higher than in the United States.
    In Europe, countries with relatively high gun ownership have relatively low murder rates. Generally, where guns are more concentrated, violent crime rates are lower.
    Studies done by the U.S. National Academy of Science and the U.S. Center for Disease Control show that gun control laws did not reduce violent crimes, suicides, or gun accidents. If anything, the strict gun control laws may have contributed to the rising crime rate.
    Before gun control laws were enacted in Great Britain, little violent crime occurred there. Now with extremely strict gun control laws, violent crime have grown. Even violence using firearms has increased. Although handguns are banned, criminals have no problem in obtaining them and are more willing to use them. With handguns and many types of long guns banned, violent crime in England and Wales is the highest in Europe and even exceeds that of the United States.
    Since 1990, in the United States, as gun ownership has risen, violent crimes have declined. In Great Britain, gun ownership declined drastically and violent crimes soared. Thus, overall, more guns equal less crime. (Other contributors to the decline in the United States are the large number of Black babies aborted, more executions, and a drastically growing prison population.)
    Criminologist Hans Toch, who once favored the prohibition of handguns, but later recanted, notes that “it is hard to explain that where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p. 675).
    As for demographics, Kates and Mauser write:

Contrary to what should be the case if more guns equal more death, there are no “consistent indications of a link between gun ownership and criminal or violent behavior by owners;” in fact, gun ownership is “higher among whites than among blacks, higher among middle-aged people than among young people, higher among married than among unmarried people, higher among richer people than poor” — all “patterns that are the reverse of the way in which criminal behavior is distributed” (p. 676).

    Historically, in England, as firearms became more efficient and more widely owned, the murder rate seemed to have fallen sharply until gun control laws began restricting ownership. Then gun violence began to rise.
    In colonial America, nearly every household was required to own guns. During this time, murders were few. The homicide rate only began to rise when the universal ownership of guns disappeared. In the decades following the War for Southern Independence, guns glutted the market, and homicides fell sharply.
    Areas in the United States, Canada, England, and Switzerland where gun ownership is the highest have the lowest rate of violence. Thus, fewer guns in private hands equal more violent crime and more violent deaths.

✽✽✽✽✽✽✽

    The following are some random thoughts, in no particular order, about gun controllers and anti gunners.
    – Alcohol is responsible for more deaths than guns, even among school children. If saving lives is the real objective, then outlawing alcohol will save more lives — assuming that prohibition works this time.
    – One should beware of the mental health issue in the gun control debate. President Obama wanted to declare all veterans de facto mentally ill and by that deny them of their inalienable, God-given right to own the means of defending themselves. Nevertheless, he did succeed in declaring everyone on social security mentally ill if he had someone else manage his money and, therefore, ineligible to own a gun. Fortunately, for liberty, President Trump revoked this order. For this action, liberals, progressives, and other gun controllers and anti gunners accused him of allowing all mentally ill people to own guns.
    – One should always remember cui bono. Who ultimately benefits from a disarmed America? The beneficiaries are the statists: The Puritans who want to micromanage everyone’s life. The losers are those who love and cherish liberty.
    – Chicago proves the idiocy of gun-free zones. In Chicago, only people with the political influence can legally possess a firearm. Yet, Chicago has the highest murder rate in the country.
    – If eighteen-year-olds are old enough to vote for their enslavement and to go to war and kill people, they are old enough to buy and own handguns, rifles, and  other firearms, including real assault weapons.
    – Gun control is nothing more than people control, which is why liberals and progressives adore it. Liberals and progressives are Puritans who have an uncontrollable, nay, a necessity, to micromanage the lives of others. Naturally, they believe that such control is for the benefit of the enslaved victim.
    – Why do celebrities who preach disarming the American people surround themselves with armed bodyguards? Obviously, they are hypocrites who know that firearms save lives. When in the hands of civilians, firearms save more lives by orders of magnitude than they take.
    – Gun control is really people control. Inanimate objects that cannot move unless someone moves them cannot be controlled. However, people can be controlled and denied their God-given inalienable right of possessing the means of defending themselves.
    – Before people start their irrational ranting to ban assault rifles, which are extremely difficult to acquire legally, they should know what an assault rifle is. The Free Dictionary by Farles defines “assault rifle” as “a rifle that has a detachable magazine and is capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, designed for individual use in combat” (emphasis added).
    – Why do the old matrix media only present one side of the gun debate — the antigun side? If they do have anyone to speak for the other side, the speaker is usually a stereotypical, inarticulate red neck who speaks like he has marbles in his mouth with tobacco juice dripping down his chin and who has difficulty in speaking in sentences of more than three words. Moreover, why do the old matrix media hate liberty, including freedom of the press, so much that they lead the charge to destroy the only liberty that can guarantee freedom of the press and all other freedoms?
    – If people really want to reduce death by firearms in the broadest sense, they would disarm governments. Since 1900 governmentally owned or controlled firearms have killed around a half billion people — probably more. Stalin and Mao Zedong account for about a fourth of this number by themselves.
    – When a policeman shoots someone, the policeman is blamed — not the gun. However, when someone else shoots several people, the gun is blamed — not the shooter. Why the difference? Should not the blame be placed on the shooter in both incidents?
    – Why do liberals and progressives want to give young, strong males a decisive advantage over women, old men, children, and the handicap? Outlawing firearms, or even restricting their availability, gives the criminal a great advantage.
    – Liberals and progressives claim that they are for the little man. Yet, they do the bidding of billionaires like Soros and Bloomberg by pushing their disarmament agenda. Why do these billionaires want to disarm the American people? Is it because armed Americans thwart the agenda of these billionaires to establish a one world government that they plan to control and use to transfer ever more wealth and power to themselves?
    – These few notables have favored gun control and a disarmed citizenry: King George III, V.I. Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Gorbachev, and Castro. They are the philosophical brethren of the anti gunners and other who clamor for gun control. They all agree with the criminal who said, “Any gun in the hands of citizens is a menace as far as I am concerned.” All of them agree with this criminal because they themselves are criminals in their heart. They want to steal, and the gun owner and the presence of guns hinder their theft. Otherwise, they are dupes, stooges, ignoramuses, useful idiots, lackeys, and the likes.
    – According to Jesus, peace and safety exists in a household of a fully armed man (Luke 11:21-22). Jesus also notes that the first thing an enemy seeks to do is to disarm the household. Furthermore, Jesus commanded his followers to arm themselves with military weapons (Luke 22:36).
    – Whenever the communists take over a country, the first order of business is to disarm the people so that they cannot resist the tyranny, theft, and slaughter that follow.
    – Anti gunners imply that guns kill people and, therefore, people do not kill people. Thus, they imply that if people did not have guns, they would not kill others or themselves. The first murder recorded in the Bible was done without a gun. Moreover, of all the killings recorded in the Bible, a firearm was used in none of them. Until a few hundred years ago, no one ever used a gun to kill another. Therefore, people kill people.
    – Progressivism is a mental disorder and, therefore, progressives should be denied the ownership and use of firearms. Progressivism is merely a political version of Puritanism. Progressives have an uncontrollable desire to force other people under the penalty of death to live the way that progressives want them to live.
    – More guns are in the United States than are cars, yet cars kill more people than guns. Moreover, drivers are required to have a license, and cars are required to be registered.
    – If the objective is to save lives, then beaches, pools, streams, lakes, and bathtubs should be outlawed. Outside war zones, more people die of drowning than of gunshots. Moreover, if it will save one life, vaccines should be outlawed,using the gun controllers reasoning.
    – Gun controllers should disown and condemn the Clintons. Even with the elimination of Bill’s killing of thousands in Serbia and Hillary’s killings of thousands in Lybia and the Middle East, the number of people whom they have murdered may well exceed several dozen.
    – Why do not the anti gunners disarm themselves and then post a sign in their yards that their home is not defended by firearms?
    – Those who advocate banning guns need to reflect on how well prohibition worked and how well the war on drugs has worked. The prohibition of guns will fare no better.
    – Nearly all murders have a history of violent crime. Why do liberals and progressives believe that these people will obey gun laws when they are already disobeying laws against violent crimes?
    – If no one less than 21 is allowed to own or use a firearm, then on one less than 21 should be allowed in the armed forces. Moreover, no one less than 21 should be allowed to drive because one hundred times more teenagers die of automobiles than of gun. Further, no child should be allowed in a motor vehicle of any kind — if it will save one life. Such are the logic and reasoning of progressives, anti gunners, and gun controllers.
    – Nothing exceeds a firearm as an equalizer.
    – A government that cannot trust a heavily armed citizenry is a government that cannot be trusted.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social articles.