Time To Cut the Crap On Guns



Guest Post by Karl Denninger



This gets more than a little hot, and brutally frank. But I make no apologies for the author’s righteous anger. He wove a lot more into his exposition which I’ve eliminated for sake of brevity. You can read it in full at the link. I won’t comment further other than in the Comments.




I’m going to make this quite-clear — just in case you haven’t figured it out yet. The US Military failed to adhere to the law and did not report a disqualifying conviction to the FBI, which would have prevented the Texas Church Shooter from buying firearms through legal channels. That man cracked open the skull of his infant child and beat his wife severely enough that he was tried by court martial, sentenced to military prison, and then expelled from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge.


Under the UCMJ the failure to report this to the FBI as required by military regulations and thus cause it to be entered into the NICS databases so civilian agencies have proper notice of a disqualifying criminal conviction is a clear breach of a duty, and that is an offense. Every single person involved in that failure must stand for Courts Martial or equivalent military tribunal for said dereliction of duty and effectively be made to answer as accessories before the fact to the murders that man committed, and be punished as provided under the UCMJ, including imprisonment for same.

That’s justice folks. . .


Now let me point out something else, since those on the left are again screaming about “gun control” and “gun safety.”


A civilian, not a police officer, stopped this attack. He did so by grabbing his rifle, an “evil” AR-15 the left wishes to ban, engaging the shooter. He hit him twice and forced him to flee. He then chased the shooter down at nearly 100mph in a car driven by a second civilian until the shooter crashed at which point the shooter committed suicide (to prevent apprehension, obviously.)


If we had no Second Amendment said civilian would not have had his rifle, which quite-clearly was not an “evil” gun, because only law-abiding people obey the law. The shooter would still have had his guns because despite knowing he was a prohibited person he walked into gun stores and bought them anyway, committing federal criminal offenses by the mere act of purchasing them. It is thus a fact that said shooter would have murdered more people before being stopped.


To those on the left who think the answer is more “gun restrictions” and “gun laws” you must answer to the above facts, including that the very gun most-desired to be banned was in fact the weapon an ordinary civilian used to stop the shooter.


To those facts I wish to add one more which nobody from the NRA will point out . . . but I will.


There are well over 100 million lawful gun owners in America who have never been convicted of a crime more-serious than a speeding ticket. It is without question that at least 1% of them will not be dispossessed of those firearms through any means while they are alive.


Those individuals view the Second Amendment as not just the highest law of the land but factually nothing more than recognition of a right that no government can grant because it never had it in the first place. That is, they view the Second Amendment as the right to defend their own lives which exists by virtue of the fact that they’re human and whether you believe God created humans or they evolved, the fact remains that as a human they claim a right to life and self-defense of that life against all who would unlawfully commit aggression toward them.


This is the very principle of unalienable rights that the Declaration of Independence put forward — not a claim of rights from a government, not a grant of privilege, but as the very title states a declaration of facts that predate government in all of its forms and cannot be arrogated away by anyone. . . (R)ights do not flow from but may only be recognized by a government because no government can grant that which it does not first have.


So let me be clear and reduce all of the above to one sentence:


The only way you’re going to get those people’s firearms is to murder them first.


The question thus becomes very simple: Are you, on the left, willing to murder at least 1 million Americans? . . .


If you answer Yes then we know exactly what and who you are. You are murderous terrorists, each and every one of you. . . You intend to bring down death upon those who claim a right to life and defense of same, supported by facts that predate any government. You are not interested in “gun safety” and you most-certainly are not interested in “reducing” gun violence (or any other form of violence for that matter) because you have clearly stated your intent and willingness to commit at least one million acts of murder to obtain your political goals. . .


Notwithstanding the repeated and outrageous gross negligence of those with a duty to serve the good and decent people of this nation have proved through multiple incidents that they will rise to the occasion when it is necessary, even at the cost of their own lives. We do not need so-called “cops” to do so as was demonstrated both here and in the skies over Pennsylvania. Cops still serve a useful purpose in cleaning up the mess, documenting what happened and, if perpetrators remain alive at the end of their crime sprees, delivering them to jails. They, along with the rest of government, are arguably more like janitors than defenders of the peace.


For this reason I’m quite sure that at least 1% of those who lawfully own firearms in this nation, which means at least one million Americans, take their responsibility to defend life seriously enough, and understand the outrageous and repeated acts of gross negligence by our government well enough, that there’s only one way anyone is going to get them to give up their firearms.


You’re going to have to murder them all first.





Categories: Political

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 replies

  1. I agree that the left (and that includes the government) wants control; control over everything, including guns and people. That’s the only way that their agenda can progress. People with freedom will most often refuse the left’s agenda and that’s the rub. Our freedoms of speech, of worship, of owning guns, and of just about everything else would be limited by our overlords if the leftists ever gain complete control – our ability to protect against that is exactly the reason that our founders included the 2nd Amendment.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Great read and I enjoyed the rant and the words placing blame where it belongs.

    Did you know the police have no duty to protect? Forget all those cute mottos: Protect and Serve. Supreme Court found twice that they have no duty except to round up criminals.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. As someone who has been immensely frustrated by the absence of any announcement about identifying the individuals responsible for failing to report this man to the FBI, I applaud Mr. Denninger for being one of the first I’ve seen to make this vital point. WE MUST HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR INACTIONS, but holding people accountable is something we don’t do well in the U.S. which is precisely why we have this kind or repeated sloppiness This should be treated as a serious dereliction of duty; however, I think Denninger is getting a bit hysterical to suggest they should be prosecuted as accessories to murder. Unless the derelict person was in cahoots with the church shooter when he failed to report his conviction to the FBI I think something on the order of being fired is more appropriate.

    Liked by 1 person

    • CW, I agree he may have gotten hyperbolic in taking it that far. But there are clearly intermediary steps that can be taken to demonstrate actual accountability beyond putting a letter in a personnel file. Now if the DoD clerk who failed to make the report was some how paid or otherwise cajoled by the Shooter, then that person is indeed an Accessory.


  4. A good piece, and you’re correct in that he is full of righteous anger. It was gross negligence to allow this guy to slip through the cracks, but as we just saw in the Bergdahl desertion case, the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, and it won’t in this case either.

    It seems Mr. Denninger and I disagree on the government’s intent in regard to gun control. It sound like he thinks they want to control the guns, where I think they want to control the people and the guns are just the means to do it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Kathy,

      Actually both! Government doesn’t like any person who is beyond its control. Since possession of a gun demonstrates resistance to said control, the gun becomes a symbol for that resistance. And it follows that control of guns will proceed logically to control of the people most willing to resist.

      Without guns, Christians and other individual liberty lovers would be increasingly subject to harsh treatment if not incarceration or even death. The Stalinist pogroms would be mild compared to that which our technologically advanced elites could conjure if given the lassitude.



  1. The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: