In fancy words, "Gunwalking? Oh yes,

we did that."


Not Gunwalker related, but the Dutchman has some words on the subject of the CSGV & Co. calling us 'insurrectionists'(from here down is his post):

We are indebted to Robert Farago for the pointing out this tweet from the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence."

"Smoke out the insurrectionists who dominate the pro-gun movement. And call them what they are: Traitors who r preparing 4 war w/ our gov't."

Of course, I figure prominently in the CSGV list of "insurrectionists" and "traitors."

They really do believe, and have enunciated their beliefs many times, that the federal government should retain a monopoly of violence , thus contradicting the Founders' original intent of the Second Amendment.

Souvenir photo of a German Einsatzgruppen advocate of a government monopoly of violence. The hand-written note on the back of the photo says, "Ukraine 1942, Jewish Aktion, Ivangorod".

As Kurt Hofmann has written, "Forget 'gun control'; CSGV represents 'genocide enablement lobby'." And Kurt has their own words to back it up:

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) most starkly exemplifies this way of thinking, with their insistence on a "government monopoly on force," which executive director Josh Horwitz claims is "the fundamental organizing principle of any political entity, including the United States." In support of that assertion, Horwitz cites Max Weber, whose Article 48 was absolutely indispensable in Hitler's rise to power. Interesting choice of influences, CSGV.

Blogger Miguel, of Gun Free Zone, recently caught CSGV taking their twisted philosophy to its logical extreme, and tracked this Twitter exchange, in which gun rights advocate LC Scotty asked CSGV if rounding up a minority group for the concentration camps would not justify armed resistance:

So govt rounding up citizens based on relig/ethnic id would not warrant armd resistance if courts bless as constitutional

CSGV's astounding response:

Correct. As long as the Const. is functioning as our system of gov't, there are peaceful methods for redress.

Keep in mind, by the way, that CSGV would have us take the government's word on whether or not it was complying with the Constitution. In other words, according to CSGV, there can never be any justification for armed resistance, as long as the government makes a token effort to toss a flimsy veneer of Constitutional legitimacy over its excesses.

So these are the people who call US "traitors" to the Constitution. They're from another country, all right -- I just can't figure out if it's Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia.

More advocates of a government monopoly of violence. Warsaw Ghetto, 1943.

End of the his post; he do have a way with words, do he not?



And, last(for now), some words to the UN that they probably wondered what the hell to do about:
BELLEVUE, WA - The Second Amendment Foundation today reminded the United Nations that "if women have the right to be protected against violence, then they have the right to protect themselves against violence."

So spoke SAF's Director of Operations Julianne Versnel, whose remarks to the U.N. Programme of Action conference were unlike anything many delegates had ever heard before(you think maybe?). The conference is seen as the first step toward rekindling discussions about an on-going process to continue development of a small arms and light weapons treaty, which earlier this summer collapsed when several nations opposed it.

Noting that she had reviewed what has already been written and said about the violence against women as it relates to the Programme of Action, Versnel emphasized that, "I am struck by what is not said."

"If there is a basic sanctity of a woman's person," she observed, "if there is a right to not be a victim of sexual or personal violence, then that right involves the right to defend one's self."

Versnel stressed that any new global gun control initiatives must "do nothing to disarm women who legitimately and rightfully want to defend themselves."
Oh yeah, that must've put a weasel in the henhouse: the UN flat hates the idea of the commoners having arms, but they also want to play "We are the Friend of Woman"; how to reconcile "You have no right to use arms for any reason including self-defense" with that?
"The drive for human rights is a force throughout the world," Versnel stated, "and especially here at the U.N. A woman's right to be free from violence is a fundamental human right. That fundamental right is to defend one's self. The report of this conference should state that without reservation."
Fat effing chance. If women have not only the right of self-defense, but the right to the means to do it, why, they don't need the UN to 'protect' them!