Lion of the Blogosphere

Second Amendment and jihad

When the Second Amendment was written, it was assumed that the gun owners would be white Christian men.

In a country where there are nearly 3 million Muslims (which is greater than the entire population of the United States in 1776), easy access to guns just makes it easier for them to commit jihad.

That’s an argument you will never hear from liberals. Just putting it out there.

* * *

It’s surprising that it took so long for a jihadist incident like this to happen. But I predict they will become commonplace.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

December 3, 2015 at 9:17 am

Posted in News

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Prohibition of guns is likely to be tried by the left. But with more guns than people and recovery rates at 1% when certain guns are banned, the 2nd amendment is essentially permanent.

    There is another huge problem for those who want to ban guns: jury nullification. If guns are eventually banned, convicting people for mere possession will be impossible. People will request a jury and the jury will nullify, every time. One in 12 people will believe in the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, if lawmakers defy the 2nd amendment, they will almost certainly break the jury system in this country.

    Jury nullification is an enormous risk across the spectrum. From Black Lives Matter to whites who feel unbelievably estranged from the modern left, the urge to nullify will be huge. And at that point the legal system will break.


    December 3, 2015 at 10:04 am

    • You vastly overestimate the willingness of juries to ignore the instructions of the judge. Even though it happens sometimes, it’s rare.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 3, 2015 at 10:38 am

      • I have to go with Dan on this one (though to be clear he’s talking about a hung jury, not nullification). It only takes one, and unlike most situations, in this case there would be a concerted, extremely noisy campaign by gun rights groups to make certain jurors know they can vote to acquit if they believe the charge is unconstitutional, probably along with free legal representation if necessary. Also, many judges are elected (or ratified, a practice that should apply to every.single.judge in this country, up to and including the SC), and while I can see the left trying to outlaw guns, for the moment at least judges are aware there is very little public support for the level of gun control that would stop incidents like this.


        December 3, 2015 at 5:51 pm

  2. Be fair, “white Christian men” of sound mind, not the parade of loonies we have been seeing since Richard Speck. Also back in the 18th century everyone knew everyone, and they didn’t have AK-74s. You owned a musket, which might not have even fired half the time.

    Some liberal group put up a bunch of photographs of Adam Lanza, Richard Dear, Dylan Roof, Holmes, etc., and captioned it, “a well-regulated militia.” I believe they omitted Vester Flanagan, because, being liberals, they must lie. But I have to admit it was pretty funny and made a valid point.


    December 3, 2015 at 10:14 am

    • Those muskets were deadly enough. Remember that people relied on them to obtain food… so they got a lot of practice and they were pretty good with them.


      December 3, 2015 at 12:50 pm

      • What about my main point? That the people who wielded those muskets were mature, sane men? Got an answer for that? Or do you just spout inanities?


        December 3, 2015 at 4:35 pm

      • Your “main point” is stupid and false. ANYONE in the 1700s could own and use a musket. There was no assumption or requirement that you had to be a mentally sound adult. Boys with muskets fought in the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and Civil War, and used them for self-defense on the frontier. Boys used muskets to hunt squirrels and birds, and were excellent marksmen.

        The homicide rate was much higher in the 1700s and 1800s than today. Whether or not this says anything about the number of “loonies” on the loose back then, you must decide for yourself. But crazy mass murder was not unknown:

        In one of the most famous crimes of post-Revolution America, Barnett Davenport commits an awful mass murder in rural Connecticut. Caleb Mallory, his wife, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren were killed in their home by their boarder, Davenport.

        Davenport, born in 1760, enlisted in the American army as a teenager and had served at Valley Forge and Fort Ticonderoga. In the waning days of the war with the British, he came to live in the Mallory household. Today, Davenport’s crime might be ascribed to some type of post-war stress syndrome, but at the time it was the source of a different sociological significance.

        On February 3, apparently unprovoked, Davenport beat Caleb Mallory to death. He then beat Mallory’s seven-year-old grandchild with a rifle and killed his daughter-in-law. Davenport looted the home before setting it on fire, killing two others.


        December 4, 2015 at 3:21 pm

  3. What difference does that make? Liberals want to ban gun ownership by everyone, white Christian men and Muslims alike. And of course, if you made this point with them, they’d just say “Timothy McVeigh! Dylan Roof!”


    December 3, 2015 at 10:29 am

  4. The assault on the Mohammad cartoon even in Texas was an attempted Jihadist terrorist attack. The San Bernadino attack is less clear. It could be a Jihadist inspired incident or it could be a mixture of some mental/workplace problems with Jihadist aspirations.

    The important point to understand is that there is considerable similarity between the underlying motivations of Islamic terrorists and other mass causality shooters. They are trying to do something to give there life meaning. It may be by emulating or trying to out do previous mass causality shooters. They may have convince themselves they are on some kind of a religious mission.

    Groups like ISIS have developed a social media campaign to recruit people with these kinds of issues and provide motivation and training for them to engage in suicidal mass causality attacks.

    Some anti-abortion/religious groups use inflammatory language that stops just short of calling for attacks on abortion providers, but they have never organized training camps or explicitly called on their supporters to conduct attacks.


    December 3, 2015 at 11:03 am

  5. If the 2nd Amendment has to be sacrificed to diversity, how long before the rest of the bill of rights follow along?

    Mike Street Station

    December 3, 2015 at 11:52 am

  6. Listening to Obama talk for 8 years, he convinced me to change my mind on one issue.

    He says that why is this the only country in the developed world that has these mass shootings? Occasionally terrorists get guns in Europe like in France or with Breivik. Those people will always get them. But where are the European or Australian Adam Lanzas or Virginia Tech shooter?


    December 3, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    • A guy like Adam Lanza would NEVER have been able to buy guns on his own because he wasn’t competent enough function normally in society which includes just being able to go to a store and buying a gun. His mother gave them to him. In Europe, mothers don’t give their mentally challenged children guns because Europe doesn’t have the gun culture that we have here.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      December 3, 2015 at 2:14 pm

      • Iceland and Switzerland have mote guns then US. It’s the NAMs. Weren’t you yourself saying this all the time?


        December 4, 2015 at 7:53 am

      • Non-Hispanic whites account for less than one-third of murders, so getting rid of the NAMs would cause our murder rate to drop in half. I think in the long run it would drop more than that because there would be more resources available for fighting white crime.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        December 4, 2015 at 8:30 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: