Thursday, January 23, 2020


     I was deeply worried about the January 20 pro-gun-rights rally in Richmond, Virginia. I was nearly certain that a planted provocateur would succeed in triggering violence. It was, after all, what the Left wanted above all else. I was relieved when nothing of the sort occurred.

     But provocations are of many kinds:

     Virginia Democrats began to ram through their gun control agenda on Tuesday after tens of thousands of peaceful pro-Second Amendment activists protested in the state’s capital at the start of the week.

     “The day after a massive gathering of gun-rights activists at the Virginia Capitol, the state Senate on Tuesday advanced legislation that would allow authorities to take guns away from people deemed dangerous to themselves or others,” the Associated Press reported, adding that Virginia Democrats also killed GOP-backed measures including “a bill to allow people to carry concealed handguns without a permit and to repeal a limit on carrying weapons in churches and other places of worship.”

     The move by Virginia Democrats comes a day after 22,000 protesters flooded the streets of Richmond to protest Democrats’ extreme anti-freedom agenda, which has included proposals for confiscating legally owned firearms from law-abiding citizens.

     Give that a moment to sink in: One day. One day after the largest pro-gun-rights demonstration any state government has ever faced. One day after an entirely peaceable and orderly demonstration that left the Virginia capitol district cleaner than it was previously. One day.

     As provocations go, that’s a pretty blatant one. Ralph “Kill the babies and give me all your guns” Northam, the purchased creature of little Michael Bloomberg, must be under orders not to back down until he gets his Reichstag fire. Without such an event, Bloomberg’s campaign to gut the Second Amendment will get nowhere. Big Nanny Bloomberg needs “proof that civilians should not have weapons.” Except, of course, for favored civilians such as himself.

     Michael Z. Williamson, author of the Freehold series, had this to say:

     The Reichstag fire was when they proposed a bill to make recall impossible, give the governor an 8 year term, steal most of the guns, violate their own existing law, rig the elections by letting illegals vote (which also means the dead can vote), and the courts did nothing to impede any of it. Then the protesters proved they’d line up for the fences to the boxcars politely and orderly, and even pick up trash on the way.

     While it’s difficult for me to see a peaceful and orderly pro-rights demonstration as a “provocation,” it might have convinced Northam and his myrmidons that they could get away with anything. The legislative aftermath would be consistent with that inference.

     Williamson might have the right slant on it after all.

     Herschel at Captain’s Journal has some thoughts:

     Richmond was a morale-booster for patriots. It showed that they can come together on fairly short notice and focus on and achieve unity of action. Whether it did anything to dissuade the communists from pursuing their goals isn’t the point. I couldn’t care any less about that. “Can a leopard change its spots?” What it did do is give patriots the moral high ground....

     The moral high ground for Virginians was attained on Monday. That’s good for the psyche of patriots, for the planning stages for going forward from here, and for implanting the knowledge that they’ve once again told the planners, “This is the last warning – we won’t live be these edicts.” To be sure, Virginians were asleep at the wheel, like a lot of us, but they are awake now, and they don’t need our bitching, griping, moaning and complaining about what they did or didn’t do. They need ideas.

     I’m not sure ideas are what’s called for at this juncture. The Virginia state legislature has made it plain that it will ignore the expressed desire of the Virginian people. The scrofulous governor, who should really be dressed in tar and feathers, will proceed as planned. And a scenario much like this one:

     Test yourself, as sincerely as you can. Imagine that tomorrow, without warning, a deputy sheriff were to appear at your door with a clipboard and demand that you surrender your guns to him. Imagine that he knows accurately how many guns you have, and what types they are. (It shouldn't be hard to imagine this, since de-facto owner registration of firearms has been in place for some years now. Why else would you be required to show proof of identity when buying a rifle?) How would you react?

     Well? The deputy sheriff is waiting.

     I regret to say that most gun owners would resist with at most a question about the legal basis for the sheriff's demand. If he replied with anything even vaguely plausible, they would comply, even though the right to own weapons is recognized by the U.S. Constitution as an absolute, to be infringed by no one.

     ...becomes ever more likely.

     “But the alternative is violence!” I hear you cry. Believe me, I understand: no one likes the prospect. But when a state government displays an unwillingness to abide by the Constitution’s plain language, what alternatives remain?

     Citizens have deposed state and municipal governments in the past. The method was not always electoral. But how would Virginia’s patriots do so without a bloodbath?

     The one possibility that comes to mind would require a lot of organization. Moreover, it would probably fail unless the big national gun-rights organizations – the NRA, the GOA, the CCRKBA, and so forth – were to take the helm. Their captaincy would make it possible to rally Second Amendment defenders in nearby states:

  • West Virginia
  • Tennessee
  • Kentucky
  • The Carolinas converge on Richmond, Virginia, join with Virginian firearms owners, and lay siege to the capitol. If twenty-two thousand Virginians haven’t impressed Northam and his cronies that their game is up, perhaps a hundred thousand Second Amendment defenders could do so, by sheer pressure of the mass of human flesh.

     The first urgent question is whether those hundred thousand people could be persuaded to leave their guns at home. The presence of even one weapon would provide the Virginia state troopers a pretext for firing on the crowd. Should they do so, there would be no prospect for averting mass bloodshed.

     The second urgent question is, of course, whether an unarmed mass of citizens could force the Virginia state legislature and its contemptible governor off their anti-Constitutional horse. The implied threat – “We’re unarmed today, but we can be back tomorrow with our guns and plenty of rope” – seems sufficient to comply acquiescence, but there’s no guarantee.

     The third urgent question is what degree of citizen action (or what reaction to it) would evoke a federal response. Whether such a response would be desirable, I leave for my Gentle Readers to discuss in the comment section.



Live Free or Die said...


Some will say that the courts must be tried, as a last resort, before we resort to armed rebellion. However, that outcome is uncertain. The uncertainty for a constitutional right named specifically in the Bill of Rights, adopted by the very first congress seated under our constitution would be hard to believe even a decade ago. However, we've seen a legislative act defining a penalty for not purchasing a service redefined by the Supreme Court as a "tax" simply to provide "cover" for a positive constitutional ruling, so nothing is certain.

A show of force, unarmed, at the Virginia Legislature would have no effect, judging by the egregious example they have set, as you said, ONE day after the tremendous turnout this Monday past.

Perhaps millions gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court as they debate the case, where it will surely go for the final decision, would be effective, perhaps not.

In the meantime, short of some sort of judicial "stay" which seems unlikely given the makeup of the current courts, the citizens of Virginia will be stripped of their arms. It would be unsurprising to see the Virginia Legislature's example followed by some other states, which will in turn disarm the citizens of those states.

Once unarmed, it is difficult to imagine those states returning the confiscated arms to their rightful owners, even should the Supreme Court strike down such a blatantly unconstitutional law.

Decision time is rapidly approaching. Give up your arms, give up your rights, or possibly give up your life - or at least your freedom.

Do Americans still have the intestinal fortitude our forefathers did when the British came for their arms at Lexington and Concord? Our forefathers certainly did not opt for taking the British to court to attempt to get their arms back.

I fear we will have to decide sooner rather than later.

NOVA Shooter said...

I could be wrong I have been in the past. I'm not advocating anything I am simply saying that in my opinion, there is no peaceful solution possible to the current situation. On the left hand, there is a group of politicians (people whose main purpose in life is to get reelected and gather more power) who do not acknowledge any intrinsic right of any human being. The right to life? Abort it if it is inconvenient. The right to liberty? Lock them up and then try them. The right to happiness? Only if those in power get to say what someone is allowed to make themselves happy. Do politicians believe in the constitution? Only if it lets them get away with what they want.

On the other hand you have some individuals (I wish I could say that I knew I was one of them) who understand freedom. Some of these people value it more than anything else. It strikes me that this kind of mindset is likely to be found in a large percentage of the soldiers of a volunteer army. The kind of army we have been fielding for quite some time.

I don’t think it is possible that this republic will die before someone stands up and says, “you can kill me but you can’t take my freedom”. The inevitable response will be bloodshed. The more there is the more people will begin to wonder if they shouldn’t choose a side. Now you have a civil war.

Do I want this? No. Do I think it can be avoided? I believe that less and less each day. Do I think it will be avoided? As I said at the beginning, I believe it is inevitable.