Approximate numbers of people butchered and maimed by Islamic assholes by year.
(by Nov 13 2018)
2018: 10,071/ 10,213

2017: 16,386 / 14,360
2016: 21,413 / 26,730
2015: 27,588 / 26,136
2014: 32,862 / 27,522
2013: 16,774 / 29,577
2012: 11,546 / 20,254
2011: 9,086 / 16,921
2010: 9,233 / 17,461
2009: 9,176/ 18,612
2008: 10,798 / 18,088
2007: 20,478 / 27,317
2006: 15,245 / 19,496
2005: 7,625 / 12,855
2004: 7,166 / 14,574

Carefully gleaned from

Deaths : 0
Injuries : 0



Gathering of Eagles

January 26, 2008
The NC Gathering of Eagles sponsored an Operation to demonstrate support for and celebrate the American Military. April 4, 2009
The NC Gathering of Eagles sponsored a second Operation to demonstrate support for and celebrate the American Military in Jacksonville, NC. May 18, 2007
Recruiter Appreciation 1
May 16, 2008
Recruiter Appreciation 2
June 29 2007
Walter Reed
June 30, 2007
Ft Monmouth, NJ
Little Washington, NC
The Seven-Week
Moonbat Infestation
Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
Charlotte, NC
Code Poink
Moonbats in
Smithfield, NC
Chapel Hill
Moonbats Attack
Recruiters Office
Fort Bragg,NC
Westboro Scarabaeus
Raleigh, NC
F.I.S.T. Hissy Fit
About This Site
Dont Feed the Moonbats
The Works Of ...
You can email me at
bubba @


Site search

WBK Supports


Infidel Brotherhood
Atlas Shrugs
Bare Naked Islam
Creeping Sharia
Gates of Vienna
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Religion of Peace
The Body of Truth

Shall Not Be Infringed
American Rifleman
An NC Gun Blog
Bad Blue Guns
Bearing Arms
Bullets First
Days of Our Trailers
Double Tapper
Extrano's Alley
F. Paul Valone
From The Barrel of a Gun
Girls Just Wanna Have Guns
Grass Roots North Carolina
Gun Free Zone
Keep and Bear Arms
Smallest Minority
The Truth About Guns
The War on Guns
About Our Military
Black Five
Mudville Gazette
This Aint Hell
Global Warming Crap
Climate Depot
No Frakking Consensus
Real Science
TallBloke's Talkshop
Watts Up With That?
N.C. Bloggers
An NC Gun Blog
Cold Fury
Free North Carolina
From The Barrel of a Gun
Hillbilly White Trash
Jane Q. Public
Katy's Conservative Corner
Lady Liberty 1885
Lorie Byrd
No Feet Required!
Red State
Silence Do Good
Sister Toldjah
Sweet Tea & Livermush
The Locker Room
American and Proud
American Daily
American Digest
American Power Blog
American Rifleman
American Spectator
American Thinker
Another Black Conservative
Astute Blogger
Atlas Shrugs
Autonomous Mind
Bad Blue Guns
Bill Whittle
Black & Right
Black Five
Black Sphere
Bookworm Room
Carolina Pixel
Cold Fury
Confederate Yankee
Constituting America
Crawfish's Swamp
Debbie Schlussel
Dillard Doctrine
Doug Ross Journal
Earl of Taint
Emerging Corruption
Enter Stage Right
EPA Abuse
Four Right Wing Wackos
Gates of Vienna
Gateway Pundit
Girls Just Wanna Have Guns
Global Warming Hoax
Gun Slingers Journal
Haunting the Library
Infidels Are Cool
Jammie Wearing Fools
Joshua Pundit
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
Macho Sauce Productions
Maggie's Notebook
Mere Rhetoric
Michelle Malkin
National Black Republican Association
Neo Neocon
New Zeal
News Busters
Nice Deb
No Frakking Consensus
Noisy Room
North Shore Journal
On Racism and Republicans
Out of Order
Pat Dollard
Patriot Room
Poor Richard's News
Real Clear Politics
Red Planet Cartoons
Red State
Religion of Peace
Riehl World View
Right Wing News
Screed of Momus
Sipsey Street Irregulars
Sister Toldjah
Slap Stick Politics
Smallest Minority
Street Sweeper Chronicles
Sultan Knish
Sweet Tea & Livermush
Texas Darlin
The Daily Bayonet
Thomas More Law Center
Torch Light
Town Hall
Vocal Minority
Watts Up With That?
Weasel Zippers
Western Center for Journalism
Wolf Howling


January 14, 2013

» Gun Control Shootout at the DC Corral

After years of languishing under the duck boots of gun owners, gun control advocates are dusting off their iPads and heading into the fray. Their renewed excitement has as much to do with the dead kids of Newtown as it does with the prospect of four years of a lame duck leftist who asserts imperial executive authority and uses the Constitution to clean up coffee spills in the Oval Office.

Taking on the NRA with a gun ban, like taking on pro-Israel voters by nominating a Defense Secretary and CIA Director who prefer that Israel not exist, is part of a larger program of wiping out the political influence of the non-left. And the 2nd Amendment haters who were forced to sit at the back of the big government bus so that senators could get elected in the South are now feeling optimistic about their chances of killing another piece of the living Constitution.

Gun Control, the Dick Act of 1902, Bills of Attainder & Ex Post Facto Laws

…. the federal government is nowhere in the Constitution granted authority to restrict, in any fashion whatsoever, guns, ammunition, etc. Thus, ALL laws made by Congress, ALL regulations made by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco (BAFT)[sic], are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers granted to Congress and to the Executive Branch by our Constitution. Regulation of arms and ammunition is NOT one of the “enumerated powers” delegated to Congress or the Executive Branch.

I can read … and I have multiple copies of the Constitution. There’s a point missed in many pro-gun arguments like the one above – the fact that the 2nd amendment forbids infringement by any level of government; not just the feds.
Here’s why. Using the 1st amendment as a guide in the manner of the founder’s writing; free speech, religious freedom and freedom of the press are protected from Congress : “Congress shall make no law ….”. If the founders’ intention was that only the federal government shall not infringe, they would have said so. Maybe “…shall not be infringed by Congress ….” – or “… Congress shall not infringe …”.

But they only wrote shall not be infringed.
Without specifying who shall not infringe, the founders implicitly stated that no one shall infringe.

Furthermore, they didn’t say when or where either.

Infringement is unconstitutional – no matter who wants to do it, or why, or when, or where, or how much.

» ENOUGH! (Guns, Active Shooters And Pharma)

I’m done being nice.

And I’m doubly-done with the damned leftists in this country performing the moral equivalent of ritual human sacrifice of children to advance their gun-control agenda.

That’s what I charge they’re doing.

And I’m going to back it up with mathematics ………


Sen. Ball renews call for immediate removal of maps and unveils legislation
Law enforcement plans rally to hold Journal News Accountable

Today Senator Greg Ball (Patterson – R, C, I) announced that a burglary has been reported on Davis Ave. in White Plains, New York that evidently ties into The Journal News gun maps. It is reported that the burglar used The Journal News’ interactive gun map to target a home included on the map. Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt.

Free-Range Guns
» Neologism – ‘gunfaced’, 4473 stuff

…. the only way your purchase, on a 4473, gets into the ATFE’s hands is if the gun shop you purchased it from has gone out of business OR they are tracing a particular firearm and that firearm never changed hands without going through a dealer. The notion that they just do a couple keystrokes and find you bought a 10/22 last week is a bit far-fetched.

I’ve never felt safe in making plans, purchases or investments based on current laws with the hope that those laws won’t change to my detriment.
Ten or twenty years ago, the 401K and IRA stuff was a beautiful retirement investment – based on the hope that the government would never change the laws and renege on how they would tax the investment in the future. Turns out that trusting the government in that matter may have been a mistake, eh? After all, snatching your 401K is now on (THHO)Obama’s list of things to do.
Same with the ATF and their 4473 forms …. after all, ATF is infamous for making and changing their own regulaws as they deem necessary …. with no input from congress …. or in spite of congress.

Not saying folks should stop buying new guns though …. just chuckin’ my two cents.

» Second Amendment: Do Militias Matter Today?

Armed citizens are able to protect their rights, whether or not their governments acknowledge them.

The Need for ‘assault weapons’.

In 1992 a large portion of the Los Angeles population lost their frikkin’ minds and went on a burning/rioting/murdering/looting rampage:


From tiny liquor stores in South-Central Los Angeles to the upscale boutiques in Mid-Wilshire, Korean store owners have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against the looter’s tide.

For many store owners, the riots have become a watershed in the struggle for the survival of their community.

They have become vigilantes, embracing a new brutal code of order that has inflamed the fragile relationship they had worked hard to forge between themselves and their black and Latino customers.

Jay Rhee estimated that he and others fired 500 shots into the ground and air. “We have lost our faith in the police,” he said. “Where were you when we needed you.”

Note that the possession of evil “assault weapons” did not transform the property owners into blood-thirsty murderers – like our current gun-bigots believe we will? They used their weapons to stall the mobs that would have butchered them otherwise.

The first night they had no problems. But Thursday brought a disastrous round of looting that raged all around them. By late afternoon a fire broke out at a mini-mall a half-block away. They watched for hours from the parking lot as it burned to the ground.

The shooting began as evening fell Thursday. The first carload of rioters was repulsed with a burst of gunfire into the air that littered the parking lot with empty cartridges. They frightened off a second and a third carload of shooters.

One never knows when the need will arise. One can only know that when the need arises and is unfulfilled one may not live to learn.

So the yankee state of Connecticut is full of Southern rednecks ?
» People flood Connecticut gun shop to buy semi-auto sporting rifle with high capacity magazine and ammo
Watching the video, at the end, a quote from gun-bigot Chris Lori is displayed saying “They must want to kill someone. That’s all that gun is for.
Well Chris, you are half right. That is what the gun is for. And it’s high time for pro-gun advocates to stop talking about hunting and target shooting. The AR15, as well as the majority of guns, is designed to kill people. When necessary ….

» NRA President Schools Candy Crowley: Obama and Feinstein Are Driving Gun Sales Not Us!
From the comments:

Candy, the NRA is not the one saying there is an attempt to take our guns. They actually WAITED several days to comment on the Sandy Hook Shooting. Candy, drop the hubris, you know who is saying they want to ban all guns. The people you pitch ideology for, Diane Feinstein, Harry Reid, Godfather Cuomo, Eric “fast & furious” Holder, Godfather of Chicago, and everybody else who you kowtow to. Candy, your network along with MSLSD, ABC, and NBC are a psyop in a way. Just like the time when our military played rock music outside the Vatican Embassy in Panama. Your viewers are waking up candy and one by one will stop watching your garbage. If you were to tell the truth you would bring up how Chairman Barry voted against a bill in the Illinois state legislature that would allow defending your home with a gun. You also would bring up how “great” the Gun Control is working in Chicago. You would also talk about how Eric Holder mentioned in 1995 the need to brainwash the public about guns. No, the typical MO of the leftist is to leave out key information for the public to know.

» White House gun plan: An end run around the NRA

President Barack Obama is trying an end run around the NRA — rallying groups as varied as churches, medical organizations, retailers and the Rotary Club to build support for new gun regulations.
It’s an unusual strategy but one the Obama administration has used before ….

Wait – churches? (THHO)Obama is asking churches to make a statement, take a stand on a political issue?
That ‘separation’ thing that liberals are always screaching about? It appears to have an on/off switch of sorts.

» Sen. Schumer Asks Gun Retailers To Stop Sales As Congress Debates

Schumer says Congress is debating the issue, and if measures get passed that limit these type of weapons, it won’t help if more of them have recently been sold.

I smell fear.

» Democrats Who Opposed Raising Debt Limit for Pres. Bush Urging Obama to Raise Debt Limit By ‘Lawful Means’

In 2006, President George W. Bush asked Congress to raise the debt limit by a smaller amount than President Obama is currently requesting. Four top Democrats were outraged with Bush’s request and called the action to be irresponsible. Instead of raising the debt limit, they insisted on spending cuts. Those Democrats were Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Patty Murray and Chuck Schumer.

Well yea, but that was before opposing a president became an act of overt racism ……

» So Fake It’s Real: Global Warming is Reality TV for the Media Elite

Explain to me why the “settled science” of global warming has to manipulate headlines to make information appear scarier and more threatening than the actual data shows.

If global warming is so settled, why do you and your friends take the opportunity to exaggerate, obfuscate and slant every piece of news that comes out to make it seem relevant to today?

» Rush Limbaugh Is Right: The Academic Pro-Pedophile Movement Is a Real Danger

Rush Limbaugh sparked criticism this week by pointing to an article in the British Guardian newspaper as evidence of “a movement to normalize pedophilia.” Limbaugh’s liberal critics are ridiculing his contention, but the movement he described is very real.

…. A 1998 “meta-analytic” study in an American Psychological Association (APA) journal argued, among other things, that “value-neutral” language such as “adult-child sex” should be used to describe child molestation if it was a “willing encounter.” . . . research about “happy consensual sex among kids under 12,”

Liberals would like the general population to consider 12 year old kids as adults capable of making life-shaping decisions of their own. In other words, you have the mental and emotional maturity to have raw sex with an adult at the age of 12, BUT you can’t be expected to provide your own health insurance until the tender age of 28?

C’mon! What are the limits of stupidity and depravity on the left side of the line?

» How a FOIA Request Brought Down EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson

Horner’s FOIA requests were able to discover that Jackson’s “alias” emails—in particular the one named “Richard Windsor”—came as a result of the creation of a false identity under that name in order to create the fake email accounts. Horner described the reliance on such misdirection in the current Administration as “promiscuous” and “symptomatic of an epidemic” throughout government.
“This is how they roll,” Horner said. He detailed the revelation of secret computers and document destruction in addition to the secret email accounts.


» Your Right-To-Work state is not as safe as you think.
» Did Union Bosses Lie To Their Members About Obama’s Gun Control Ambitions?

» A Proper Prepper’s Pantry….

Today’s Gun-Control Fact
via Gun Control Fact-Sheet 2004 / From Gun Owners Foundation

Eight Common Gun Control Myths

Myth #1: If one has a gun in the home, one is three times more likely to be killed than if there is no gun present.

1. Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns.(146) That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker.(147)

2. Fact: A study claiming “guns more likely to kill you than help you” is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years.(148) Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:

* Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the “home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman’s study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home.” In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”(149)

* In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s “high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group.”(150)

Myth #2: Most homicides are committed by otherwise law-abiding people who end up killing a friend or relative.

1. While most murders do involve the killing of an acquaintance, it is fallacious to assume these are otherwise law-abiding people killing one another. In fact, sixty-one percent of murder victims themselves—and an even greater majority of murderers—have prior criminal records.(151) This indicates that most murders occur between criminals who have already demonstrated a pattern of violence.

2. The problem? The criminal justice system is a revolving door which continues to throw violent offenders back onto the street. Nationwide, 70% of murderers (under sentence of death) have prior felony convictions.(152) This number does not include criminals who have plea-bargained their felonies down to lesser charges.

Myth #3: Gun Control has reduced the crime rates in other countries.

1. The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.(153)

2. Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, “Since Australia’s 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.”(154)

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. “The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic,” says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. “Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted.”(155)

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.(156)

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say “Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low.” (157)

3. British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:

* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.

* “You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States,” stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. “The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America’s.”(158) The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, “the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years.”

* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.(160)

4. British authorities routinely underreport murder statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.

* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for “fiddling” with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: “Crime figures a sham, say police,”(161) “Police are accused of fiddling crime data,”(162) and “Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent.”(163)

* British police have also criticized the system because of the “widespread manipulation” of crime data:

a. “Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to ‘massage’ statistics.”

b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. “The crime figures are meaningless,” he said. “Police everywhere know exactly what is going on.”

c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, “Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed.”

* Underreporting crime data: “One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures ‘a complete sham.’ A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block of flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen.”

* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. “Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. ‘With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,’ [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes.”(168)

5. Violence by any other name is still violent — Many countries with strict gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States.

6. The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.

* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.(169) That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.(170)

* Why hasn’t the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.(171)

Myth #4: Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate.

1. Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed. Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991.(172) Thus, the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law.

2. Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths. The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that, “An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link—the significant rise of murder in the late 1960’s, and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980’s follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population. This age group is the most violent one, as well as the group most likely to be victimized—and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks.”(173) (Emphasis added.)

3. According to the Clinton Justice Department, crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research arm of the Justice Department, reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10% during a recent five-year period, gun-related deaths and woundings dropped(174) 33%.

4. Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%.(175)

Myth #5: The Courts have never overturned a gun control law, and thus, there is no individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

1. U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982)

* Courts have used the Second Amendment to strike down gun control: Nunn v. State and in re Brickey are just two examples where the Courts have struck down gun control laws using the Second Amendment.(176)

* An individual right protected: “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”(177)

2. U.S. Supreme Court
* U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). “‘The people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [and] it suggests that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”(178)

* U.S. v. Lopez (1995). The Court struck down a federal law which prevented the possessing of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court argued that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in no way grants Congress the authority to enact such gun control legislation.(179)

* Printz v. U.S. (1997). The Supreme Court ruled the federal government could not force state authorities to conduct so-called Brady background checks on gun buyers.(180)

* Majority of the Supreme Court cases clearly point to an individual right. In a mammoth work produced January 2004, three authors reprinted and analyzed the dozens of Supreme Court cases that have referenced the Second Amendment. Their conclusion? “These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments.”(181)

3. U.S. Congress:

Fourteenth Amendment (1868):

* The framers of the 14th Amendment intended to protect an individual’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by striking down state laws that denied this right. As stated by a Senate subcommittee in 1982, “[During] the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action.”(182)

Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (1986):

* The 1986 Law affirms individual right to keep and bear arms: “The Congress finds that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution . . . require[s] additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies.”(183) [Emphasis added.]

4. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to pass gun control legislation (see U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). Since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have ruled on both sides of the issue, indicating that judges are just as political as the common man.

Myth #6: The Second Amendment militia is the National Guard.

The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Militia was composed of the populace at large. Both the Congress and Supreme Court have affirmed this definition of the Militia.

1. Founding Fathers

* George Mason: “I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”(184)

* Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776): “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty. . . .”

* 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 . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia [like the National Guard], must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.”(185)

2. U.S. Congress

* The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The Act stated:

“Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . .”(186)

The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard.

* U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). “In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a ‘militia,’ they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard.”(187)

* Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and . . . under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States . . . .”(188)

3. Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller (1939). In this case, the Court stated that, “The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . [and that] when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”(189)

Myth #7: Trigger locks will help save lives.

1. Fact: Locking up firearms can cost lives during a life-threatening situation. Consider two different cases from California.

* Merced. On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce attacked a houseful of kids. Armed with a pitchfork—and without a stitch of clothing on his body—Bruce proceeded to stab the children. Two of them died.

The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was quite proficient with firearms. She had been trained by her father and knew how to use them. There was just one problem: the guns were locked up in compliance with California state law. Unable to use the firearms, Jessica was forced to flee the house to get help. Mr. Bruce’s murderous rampage was finally cut short when officers—carrying guns—arrived on the scene.(190)

* San Francisco. Contrast the Carpenter’s tragic situation to that of A.D. Parker. In February 2000, he was awakened by strange noises outside his bedroom in the middle of the night. The 83-year-old Parker grabbed a handgun he had not even used in several decades, went to his bedroom door, and found himself face-to-face with a thug holding a crowbar.

Thankfully, Mr. Parker didn’t have to fiddle with a trigger lock, remember a combination, or look for a key in the dark room. He simply pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. That is why he survived the attack.(191)

2. Fact: A trigger lock can be very difficult to remove from a firearm in an emergency. Maryland Governor Parris Glendening struggled for at least two whole minutes to remove a trigger lock at a training session in March 2000.(192) If it can take that long to remove such a lock—when there’s only the pressure of being embarrassed in front of the cameras—what will a trigger lock mean for a homeowner who needs to use his or her self-defense gun during an emergency, in the bedroom, in the dark?

3. Fact: The Mafia favors trigger locks—for their victims. Mafia turncoat, Sammy “the Bull” Gravano, expressed his love for gun control in an interview with Vanity Fair: “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”(193)

Myth #8: A majority of Americans favor gun control.

1. Fact: Biases exist in almost any poll. Those who understand how politics work will realize that many surveys get the “desired result” by asking questions in a certain way. In fact, pollsters such as Harris and Gallup have been severely criticized for designing gun-related questions that will reach a preordained conclusion.(194)

2. Fact: The poll that counts takes place on Election Day. Because of the potential for bias among pollsters, it is often helpful to see how voters respond to specific gun laws AFTER they are enacted. Even more to the point, it is helpful to see how anti-gun candidates have reacted to the elections where gun control was a hot button issue.

Gun rights were the number one issue in Bush’s victory over Gore (2000)

a. Gun control views handed Gore a loss in three key Democratic states (Baltimore Sun). “Had Al Gore carried Bill Clinton’s home state [Arkansas], his own home state [Tennessee] or what arguably has been the most reliable Democratic state in the country [West Virginia], he’d had been president. But Mr. Gore lost all three. Professionals in both parties think his position on gun control was the reason why.”(195)

b. Democratic governors faulted Gore for pushing gun control (The Christian Science Monitor). “A group of Southern Democratic governors recently told reporters that they believed the gun-control issue had hurt Gore in their region [in November of 2000]. ‘We like to hunt; we like to fish—and I think there was a perception in the last general election … that [Gore] was out of step with what most of us thought about that issue,’ said Gov. Roy Barnes (D) of Georgia.”(196)

c. Gore officials lament how there is little voter “intensity” for gun control:

* The New Republic Online: Democratic party strategists speak of an “intensity gap.” “Guns are a motivating issue for a sizable number of voters on the right, but that’s not matched elsewhere on the [left],” laments Gore spokesman Doug Hattaway.(197)

* USA Today: “We lost a number of voters who on almost every other issue realized they’d be better off with Al Gore,” Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore’s running mate, says of the gun issue. “They were anxious … about what would happen if Al was elected. This one matters a lot to people who otherwise want to vote for us.”(198)

Gun control caused Democrats to lose their grip on Congress (1994)

a. President Bill Clinton repeatedly blamed gun control (which he supported) as the reason that Democrats lost control of the Congress during the elections of 1994:

* January 14, 1995. “The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress … [and is] the reason the Republicans control the House.”(199)

* January 24, 1995. “I don’t think it’s a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for [the Brady bill and the semi-auto ban] aren’t here tonight because they voted for it. . . . [A] lot of people laid down their seats in Congress.”(200)

* April 27, 1999. “There are some [Democrats] who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban.”(201)

* June 4, 1999. “This Congress came to power after the 1994 elections because in critical races the people who voted for more modest things, like the Brady Bill . . . got beat. They got beat, Charlie.”(202) After the 1994 election, Campaigns & Elections magazine documented how the gun issue was a major factor in 55 races where pro-gun challengers beat sitting incumbents.(203)

Voters often support pro-gun positions on initiatives around the country

a. Washington voters shot down a trigger locks initiative by a whopping 71-29% margin in 1997.(204)

b. Wisconsin voters passed a Right to Keep and Bear Arms Constitutional Amendment by a 74-26% margin in 1998.(205)

c. Also in the state of Wisconsin, Milwaukee voters trounced a city-wide handgun ban in 1994. The initiative lost 67-33%.(206)

d. In 1982, California voters rejected (against heavy odds and a hostile media) Proposition 15, a statewide initiative which would have banned the possession of privately owned handguns. The handgun ban lost by a 63-37% margin.(207)

e. Even in liberal Massachusetts, voters overwhelmingly rejected a ban on handguns in 1976. More than 70 percent of voters cast their ballots against the ban.(208)

3. Fact: Several polls show that Americans are still pro-gun. While affirming that the potential for bias exists in any given poll, there are, nevertheless, several scientific polls indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is revered—and gun control disdained—by a majority of Americans today.

a. In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of “individuals” to own guns.(209)

b. Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing “criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime” over legislation to “ban handguns.”(210)

c. A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use “a gun at school to defend the lives of students” to stop a school massacre.(211)

d. In a Time/CNN poll conducted just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, 61 percent said they favored allowing pilots to carry guns.(212) A subsequent poll conducted by Wilson Research Strategies found support for arming pilots had risen to almost seven in ten people (68 percent).(213)

e. Shortly after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado, a Colorado News poll showed that 65 percent of people surveyed favored a concealed-carry law allowing private citizens to carry firearms.(214)

This finding shocked anti-gun spokesmen who felt that the then-recent tragedy should have suppressed support for gun rights in the state of Colorado. “What really surprises me is we’re at ground zero and I would expect our numbers to be higher,” said Arnie Grossman, co-founder of SAFE, an anti-gun group in Colorado. “I think it means we have a big job ahead of us.”(215)
146 Dr. Edgar A. Suter, “Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review,” The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, vol. 83 (March 1994):136.
147 Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime,” at 173, 185.
148 Don B. Kates, “Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence, or Pandemic of Propaganda?” in Gary Kleck & Kates, Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control (2001), p. 79.
149 Ibid., p. 75.
150 Ibid., p. 76.
151 Criminal histories of murder victims is based on statistics from the city of Chicago: Matt L. Rodriguez, Superintendent of Police for the City of Chicago, 1997 Murder Analysis, at 21; 1996 Murder Analysis, at 21; and 1995 Murder Analysis, at 21. For the city of Chicago, 76% of murderers have prior criminal records. For criminal histories of murderers nationwide, see Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Update (October 1991): 4.
152 Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Update, at 4.
153 Kleck, Point Blank, at 393, 394; Colin Greenwood, Chief Inspector of West Yorkshire Constabulary, Firearms Control: A Study of Armed Crime and Firearms Control in England and Wales (1972):31; David Kopel, The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies (1992):91, 154.
154 Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., “Gun laws don’t reduce crime,” USA Today (May 9, 2002). See also Rhett Watson and Matthew Bayley, “Gun crime up 40pc since Port Arthur,” The Daily Telegraph (April 28, 2002). See also supra note 155.
155 Gary A. Mauser, “The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales,” Public Policy Sources (The Fraser Institute, November 2003), no. 71:4. This study can be accessed at
156 “Handgun crime ‘up’ despite ban,” BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban’s enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 153.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood,
supra note 153 at 159.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 153, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998).
157 “Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low: police,” AFP News (August 3, 2001); “A crime wave alarms Japan, once gun-free,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 11 July 1992.
158 “Most Crime Worse in England Than US, Study Says,” Reuters (October 11, 1998). See also Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96 (October 1998).
160 John van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, “Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Courtries: Key findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey,” (2000). This study can be read at The link is to the ICVS homepage; study data are available for download as Acrobat pdf files.
161 Ian Henry and Tim Reid, “Crime figures a sham, say police,” The Electronic Telegraph (April 1, 1996).
162 Tim Reid, “Police are accused of fiddling crime data,” The Electronic Telegraph (May 4, 1997).
163 John Steele, “Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent,” The Electronic Telegraph (July 13, 2000).
168 Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen, “Britain: From Bad to Worse,” (March 22, 2001).