I caught this on the interwebs today:  “Let’s send our gun-packing watercooler warriors to fight ISIS.

How about not.

It is a turd sandwich of an article.  It starts with an obnoxious title and ends with a statically inaccurate character defamation of gun owners, with a big, deliberate constitutional misinterpretation turd right in the middle.   Of course it went all the way, with the usual condiments of ignorance, contempt, and anti-gun hogwash.

Let’s take a bite, shall we.

The author opens by referring to gun owners as “watercooler warriors.”  It’s a snide insult to gun owners, especially to those who have served in the military.

Skipping to the end, the author states:

Many of America’s most aggressive hawks are presumably already armed, and have spent years practicing their marksmanship against doves, deer, ducks and other domestic enemies. This is a magnificent chance for them to put it into action against foreign enemies too.

Meanwhile, many of our gun owners have a surplus of aggression that needs an outlet. They manage to shoot and kill about 30 U.S. citizens every day, meaning we suffer our own “Paris attacks” every few days at the hands of a few of our own citizens. 

Again, it’s the same anti-gun BS that gun owners are aggressive and trigger happy, just waiting for the first chance to shoot someone.

As Mark Twain famously wrote:  “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”  I don’t know if the “shoot and kill about 30 U.S. citizens every day” statement is accurate, but the way he approaches it is not.  Assuming the number is accurate, those shootings are not evenly distributed across all law abiding gun owners.  It’s not as though 30 random law abiding gun owners a day decide to kill someone.  The overwhelming majority of shootings are concentrated in certain areas and socioeconomic groups (criminals be committing crimes).  This video breaks the numbers down much better than I can do a write up here.  The point is, the vast majority of law abiding gun owners will never shoot anybody, ever.

Alone, these insults to law abiding gun owners are the same thing that we see all the time posted on the CSGV Facebook feed.  But what really makes this article is the total lack Constitutional accuracy.

Most gun owners know they have a constitutional right to “keep and bear arms,” but they may not realize the government also has a constitutional right to draft them to serve in the country’s defense.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep arms to maintain a “well-regulated militia” for the security of the state, meaning a force of citizen-soldiers that the federal government can send into battle. Anyone availing themselves of the right to keep and bear arms is thereby making themselves available for the militia.

While the author is accurate in that the US Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to “raise and support Armies” that is not part of the 2A.  It is Article 1, Section 8, to be specific.  The “well regulated militia” has nothing to do with the Selective Service system, which was founded in 1917.  The US Supreme Court made it clear that the “right to keep and bear arms” was an individual right and that “a well regulated militia” does not mean a military force.  At best “a well regulated militia” is just the pool of potential conscripts in the US.

SCOTUS looked at the 2A twice in recent memory, Heller and McDonald, and at no time came to the conclusion that the right to possess guns was had in exchange for military service.  The right to keep and bear arms was affirmed to exist for the purpose of defending oneself.

Going to the heart of the issue, our Founding Fathers made it crystal clear why they believed in the right of the people to keep and bear arms: TO DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

The idea of drafting gun owners and sending them to war might sound controversial today, but it would not be to the Founding Fathers. It’s exactly what they recommended. They believed in citizen-soldiers rather than a professional army.

At the very least, [Obama] could require registration from everyone who owns a semi-automatic assault weapon such as an AK-47. Why not? What sort of patriotic American owns an AK-47 and high-capacity clips and yet refuses to answer his country’s call when asked?

No, wrong again.  The national defense and power to raise an army and navy is established in the Constitution.  This nation was born because of a Government trained and equipped military.  It was lead by General George Washington.  It was equipped and trained, largely by the help of France.  Its soldiers were paid and its officers commissioned by the Continental Congress.  Remember, the Minuetmen were not part of the Continental Army.

The United States Government has never sent Americans, armed with their personal firearms, into war.  Not even when war occurred on US soil, e.g. the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Mexican-American War, etc.  The idea of citizen soldiers did/does not exist as a means to fight wars overseas.  It existed/exists to defend the American people from their own government if the normal process of a redress of grievances has failed.

Oh, and thanks for questioning our patriotism and implying that we are cowards, asshole.

But in the author’s tongue-in-cheek suggestion, he seems to overlook the fact that selectively drafting people based on political ideology and sending them, untrained, and inappropriately equipped to fight and die halfway around the world, is EXACTLY why the 2A exists.  To stop the government from pulling that type of bullshit where it targets citizens for death or exile for disagreeing with the government.

Even with his last sentence, the author has proven he wrote the article while self-administering a naked eye colonoscopy.

Why not deploy them against ISIS?

That’s what gun owners have been asking, in reference to attacks on US soil.  If Paris (twice), Mali, Israel, or Kenya has shown us anything, it’s that between the first cries of “allahu akbar” and when the police end the killing, terrorist can rack up quite a body count.  Concealed carriers have  cut short mass shootings in the past.  But why do I believe that this idiot is fan of gun free zones.  Sure, he wants to send gun owners to Syria to defend America, but I doubt would want CCW permit holders to defend him or themselves in his local shopping mall.

In the end, this is nothing more than the same anti-gunner fantasy to wipe out American gun owners that Miguel has been chronicling for years.  The only difference is, rather than suggest that the US military do the killing, he wants ISIS to do it.  It’s clear from his obvious distaste for gun owners.  All 727 words of this digital poop-spear boil down to “just send those fat, gun owning, knuckle-draggers to Syria to get wiped out by ISIS.”


Spread the love

By J. Kb

31 thoughts on “New Look, Same Great Hate!”
  1. For all we’re the ones called violent, I’d like someone to find an anti-gun activist, ANY anti-gun activist, who if given a gun and told “Behind that door is an unmonitored room and a gun owner, do whatever you want, no consequences,” wouldn’t beat the person behind the door to death and brag about it afterwards.

  2. F’er better be careful. America’s gun owners just might go to the Middle East to end the insane crazy fascist threat…..and then come back to the States and do the same here…..a mass grave with the dead Muslims and dead progressives sad by sad has a certain appeal.

  3. It is highly unlikely that the linked article in question is not de facto racist in that would have a disparate impact on the racial mix of our armed forces. The author should check his privilege and atone, possibly by joining up or the fight himself, though what the military would do with that sad sack is not immediately clear.

    I’m new here so I hope that satire is appreciated in these precincts.

  4. “Well-regulated militia” means “kept in check”. The Founders didn’t want a standing army, but knew we might need one. This is the meaning of “regulated”.

  5. “The government also has a constitutional right to draft them to serve in the country’s defense”

    This is in fact the case and was true at the founding and is true unto this day. See 10 U.S. Code § 311 (last amended in 1956). “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

    “The United States Government has never sent Americans, armed with their personal firearms, into war. Not even when war occurred on US soil, e.g. the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Mexican-American War, etc.”

    That is just false. Specifically, I know via my own family’s history that they used their own weapons in 3 of the 4 conflicts you have called out (and a couple of others) as militia members.

    You might just read up on the terms of the Militia Act of 1792 – “To enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted)… That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service…”

    And yes the Founder’s did not trust “standing armies.” And yes, part of the balance of power in the United States is to have armed citizens as Alexander Hamilton wrote “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29).

    With respect to the comment about 30 murders per day with a gun, the 2014 number from the FBI UCR crime reports is a bit over 22 murders per day with a gun in the US. Is there some reason you could not have looked this up? Google is your friend. And yes there are more suicides by gun per day than that in the US. Turns out that countries like Japan which have no private firearms have a higher suicide rate than we do so you can’t really count suicides (if you are being rational, which our opponents are not).

    1. As you were reading the article, you must have noticed the author conceded this, “the US Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to “raise and support Armies”” The U.S. Code is not the Constitution, your example is irrelevant.

      Second, I think you need to read “sent” as “required them to provide.” No, the Army didn’t supply Patton’s pearl handled revolvers, but neither did they send him with those, or require him to use them. It makes little logistical sense, in any case, for the military to provide ammo in dozens of different calibers. Your example is valid, but not germane to today’s military.

    2. There have been several militia acts, drafted in times of emergency. The Act of 1792 was quickly replaced by the act of 1795 and so on.

      The militias served more as a state guard than an army. The militia acts stating “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe” can the be activated. The authority of the President to activate them was very limited, the President had to ask the state to activate the militia, like the National Guard today.

      But more importantly, the Militias were abject failures. The best they did was during the Whiskey Rebellion, where they killed two. That was because it was a “war” of farmer on farmer. The Militias fought one battle in the beginning of the War of 1812 against the Iroquois and lost… badly. The remainder of the War of 1812 was fought by the US Army/Navy/Marines.

      For all our Founding Father’s idealism about government, they were realists in practice. They learned quickly that militias were not very effective fighting forces because they were poorly trained and under equipped. We love the story of the Minutemen but the Revolution was won by the Continental Army, drilled and equipped by France.

      The Military Academy at West Point was founded in 1802 after the Whiskey Rebellion. The government realized that farmers with their deer rifles weren’t enough.

      There have been volunteer militias that fought in various American wars, some even managed to get paid a bit. But there has never been a conscript military force in the US.

      I love Texas and the story of its independence, but remember that the Texas Militia lost the battle of the Alamo.

      1. Tactics isn’t your strong suit; neither is history.

        The Texas militia at the Alamo were a “forlorn hope” that deliberately chose to sacrifice themselves so that the rest of the militia could organize behind them. The term is “strategic victory”.

        1. I minored in military history. I know the history of the Battle of the Alamo. It was the Texas equivalent of the Battle of Thermopylae (the Stand of the 300 Spartans). I used it as an example because it is perhaps the most culturally well known example of a militia army vs. regular forces in American history, as well as being heavily romanticized – to the point were most people forget that Texas lost at the Alamo.

          Americans love the idea of the citizen soldier militia. That regular citizens armed with their rifles defeated the British and can save the union from any enemy, foreign invader or domestic.

          It’s right and wrong at the same time. Militias are irregular forces. As such, they can be a nuance to, and may even defeat a regular military. BUT… there is a catch. Militia casualty rates are very, very high.

          The Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down), US Rangers vs. Somali warlord militias. 18 US killed to ~1,000 Somalis.

          The Second Battle of Fallujah (Nov, 2004). USMC vs. Iraqi insurgents. 95 Marines killed to ~1,500 insurgents killed.

          Militias going up against regular forces generally suffer 10:1 in casualties and losses. Where irregular forces make up for this is in inconveniencing regular armies logistics. Say, delaying a convoy or breaking communications. Or, with sheer overwhelming numbers. Where the Vietnamese irregulars or Korean Conscripts managed to defeat US troops, they usually did so with overwhelming force and absorbing high casualties. it was a rope-a-dope, where the Americans expended all their ammo against waves of attacking forces and then got overrun.

          This is exactly what the Founding Fathers and early US presidents discovered in the Revolution, Whiskey Rebellion, Indian Wars, and the War of 1812. That’s why America developed a professional Army with Academies and all.

          If the US was ever invaded, could American gun owners defeat an invading Army with our deer rifles. Yes, because there are 150,000,000 gun owners. We would suffer huge loses though (statistically speaking). Same if there was a rebellion against the US government. The whole of the Federal Government (every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, LEO, and bureaucrat) is 4.5 million people. Gun owners outnumber them 33:1. We’d win, by sheer numbers, but suffer heavy losses.

          Armed citizens rising up are heroic and romantic but generally get their asses kicked by professional armies.

          The above is not an excuse to take away our guns, BTW. See above about there being 150 million of us.

          1. in trolling through internet comment boards one sometimes finds something worth reading. this post was worth reading. thanks.

          2. If we are doing interesting things about the Alamo, it’s worth remembering that Travis was disobeying orders by staying and defending. They had orders to retreat and multiple chances to do so (Santa Anna in fact left a gap in his investment in the HOPES that they wouldn’t force him to take the fortifications.)

            It was sort of a poser why Houston wouldn’t want Travis to defend this spot and slow Santa Anna down, until letters between Houston and Jackson were found a few years ago. It turns out that Houston (Jackson’s protegee) had a secret deal with Jackson and the US. Jackson had two Armies waiting in Louisiana for Houston to draw Santa Anna’s troops into the Neutral Zone in north Texas. When that happened, the US was going to take the treaty violation and casus belli, and invade Mexico, taking Texas for the US.

            The problem is, well, Jackson taught Houston to be like him too well. The siege of the Alamo started the Runaway Scrape, where the majority of Texas was fleeing north with whatever they could carry, leaving Santa Anna leisure time, and at the same time, Houston is bleeding support as his militia sees the refugees passing them. To top it all off, Ms Pamela Mann, who owned the oxen pulling the Texian’s only artillery, the Twin Sisters from Cincinnati, had stolen her oxen back in broad daylight.

            Houston is left with the option of abandoning his artillery, losing more of his militia, and joining the Runaway Scrape and hope Jackson’s generals were ready, or… he could take advantage of Santa Anna splitting his forces, drawing to the edge of the Texian army and still not making a proper camp, and the top it all off, allowing his men a siesta so they would be well rested when they overtook the Texian rabble.

            Houston did what Jackson would have done, had his men drag the Twin Sisters up to the ridge, send his marauders over to maraud, and took Santa Anna by surprise. The rest is Texas History.

    3. Let me say something: I do not believe that the unregulated Militia Clause is necessary to affirm our Second Amendment rights. We have those rights spite of the militia may it be regular or regular or extra crispy.

  6. Considering 10-20 gang-bangers kill each other in Chi-town every weekend, then multiply this to every urban area across the nation, it is not hard to imagine 30 people per day are shot and killed. Now consider personal self defense and police simply doing their jobs and you see who’s doing most of the dying and I’m not so sure this is a bad thing 🙂 Bad people need to be removed from civilized society, sometimes it takes a firearm to service that need.
    The problem with Progressives is that they don’t live in reality; bad things happen every day. If good people are to come out on top, they need an equalizer.
    If Progressives get their panties in a twist over firearms, no one is making them own one, but don’t they dare come after my right to defend myself, bad things will happen. Guaranteed.

  7. Cops kill 3 people a day in America. (I don’t know if they counted that in their 30 or not.) They are only about .2% of the population, but they are 10% of the killing.

    So, if the liberals really wanted to cut down on killings, we should disarm the cops and arm the population.

  8. There is almost always an exception to any blanket statement about American history. The article specifies the Revolutionary War. There is an exception when the United States did send men into war with their own arms. One of Congress’ early acts was to recruit five thousand riflemen from Virginia for the Continental Army, and these men were required to have their own rifles. Congress had no arms to provide them. This is probably the exception that proves the rule, although there might be other exceptions.

  9. Militia has, on occasion, been effective in battle. At the Alamo, as mentioned, militia delayed the Mexican army for a significant time, and caused more Mexican casualties than Texian – the numbers seem to be quite variable, but most count two or three times as many Mexican deaths as Texian. Also, in the Revolutionary war, at the battle of Cowpens, the known weaknesses of militia (their usual inability to stand up against direct attacks by Regular troops) was used to sucker the British attackers into a trap, where they were defeated by American regulars and the supposedly routed militia.

  10. You are correct, and these are rare and limited circumstances. The Alamo was a heavily defended and fortified position. US Army doctrine says it takes 3 times as many soldiers to capture a fortification as are in the fortification. The Alamo shows why that is true.

    Copwens was an appropriate use of an irregular force. It was a distraction, a trap, a nuisance. It was not a matched battle between irregulars and a professional army. This is similar to the dropping of liberators in WWII or the works of the French resistance. These forces didn’t win battles. They were an annoyance for the the Nazis that the Nazis had to deal with which distracted them giving the allied forces a tactical advantage.

    In the Revolution, Colonial Militias were effective in disrupting supplies, slowing troop movement, stopping messengers, and being a bother to the British giving the Continental Army an advantage. When they went head to head with regulars, they broke rank and ran at the first mounting of bayonets.

Comments are closed.