All posts by Chris Knox

What Now?

     I have been involved in a rather loud and largely uncivil clash with a fellow named Mike Vanderboegh over the idea of revolution and being prepared.  Mike took umbrage at some comments I made in a recent Knox Report and launched a full-out assault upon his perception of my position and my character.  I was a bit taken aback by the whole thing because whenever Mike would get away from the name-calling and talk about his actual position on the issues at hand, I tended to agree fully with what he was saying.  Now, in the wake of last night's election results, Vanderboegh has sent out a rather lengthy missive about the immediate and short-term future.  While I could quibble with a couple of the finer points, I won't because on the serious issues – the things that really matter, Mike's assessment and his counsel are spot on.   I think his essay, while lengthy, is worth sharing and encourage everyone to read it. — Jeff

 —————

Resolve
by Mike Vanderboegh
5 November 2008

"Change has come to America." -- Barack Hussein Obama

"Revolution"

If I may, I'd like to begin my first essay of the Obama regime by thanking
U.S. Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, for clarifying matters.
As reported in Michael Calderone's Politico.com blog, there was "an emotional
moment on ABC News, as Georgia Congressman and Civil Rights leader John
Lewis told Charlie Gibson that today's election was 'a nonviolent revolution.'"

Well, yes, thank you. But revolution against what? Overturning what? The
name-calling, nervous-nellie opposition bloggers within the dyspeptic "Second
Amendment community" have been accusing us Three Precenters of seeking a
revolution. My thanks to Rep. Lewis for reminding us that the revolutionists,
Gramscian and otherwise, are on the collectivist side of this argument, thus
proving my point that we are in fact Restorationists. All we seek is the
restoration of the Founder's Republic.

Death Knell: "The masks are going to come off."

Continue reading What Now?

The Election

As I write this, John McCain is giving his concession speech.  No love lost for him here, but I frankly would rather have seen him in than Barack Obama.  But what's done is done.  No literate gun owner should have any illusion that Obama has any respect for the Second Amendment.  What he does respect, however, is the power of the GunVoter bloc.  The Democrats, victims of the wrath of GunVoters from 1994, are wary of the vote of the gun-owning community.  Contrast that to the Republicans, who have so often courted the gun vote, but have so seldom delivered on their promises of support for the Second Amendment.  We have entered a perilous time for the Second Amendment.  We'll know better where we stand when the term starts in January. 

It's certain that a reinstatement of the Clinton "assault weapons" ban will be introduced. What happens after that will tell us a great deal about whether the Democrats believe GunVoters still inspire respect.  If the bill is consigned to a committee, and languishes there, it means they remember.  If, however, the bill comes rolling out of committee and to the floor, we are in for a long hard slog.  

Ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa

So brother Jeff has trod upon the toes of some would-be militia bloggers with his latest Knox Report posting.  Good for him.  He's right.

Some have gone so far as to insinuate that Jeff has betrayed his heritage. That's nonsense.  Jeff's characterization of the militia — the armed populace — as being a deterrent, much like the nuclear deterrrent, comes straight from Dad.  And his view comes from Thomas Jefferson.  Chapter and verse, which also happens to be a book excerpt, follow.

There's no question, America is headed for a rough patch.  The Republicans have for the past eight years presided over an expansion of government that would make LBJ blush, and now they're nationalizing the banks.  This while accusing the Democrats of being socialists.  Both sides like to "spread the wealth around." 

But that doesn't mean that everything has gone down the tubes and the only thing left to do is to start killing people and breaking things.

Here's a piece that Neal Knox wrote in May of 1995.  Historical context:  NRA had lost on the Clinton gun ban, the 1994 so-called "assault weapons" ban.   But they lost honorably.  The ILA leadership, backed by a strong pro-Second Amendment Board, fought the ban tooth and nail, resisting tremendous pressure to "accept a compromise in order to head off worse."  Consequently, the 103rd Congress and especially the Democrats paid dearly at the polls.  A sitting Speaker of the House was turned out of office, something that had not happened since before the Civil War, and the House majority switched to the Republicans for the first time in forty years.  The leading political analyst of the day, William Jefferson Clinton, declared that the NRA had made the difference (Cleveland Plain Dealer). Then, the unthinkable happened.  On April 19, 1995, two years to the day after the Waco horror, a pair of psychopathic misfits blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City.  We are still dealing with the fallout of that bit of political theater a decade and a half later.  Militia is now a dirty word in the media.  So much for hastening the revolution.  

A revolution is by definition a mass movement.  Our militia blogging friends claim three percent of gun owners are with them.  Well if you count loosely, maybe so.  Can they get that three percent to the polls?  Can they bring a fraction of that three percent, maybe a couple thousand of them of them, out on the streets on a hot day?  It's been done.  Can they do it?  Show some mass action — peaceful mass action — and the militia movement will start gaining some credibility.  In other words, let's see some real political action.  Until then the three-percenters owe more to Walter Mitty than to Thomas Jefferson.

 

Continue reading Ta-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa-pocketa

Philosophical Wars

As expected, and intended, my latest Knox Report column has upset some in the, "All is lost; let's start a shooting war" camp.  It is mind boggling to me that intelligent people could be so short sighted and misguided as to think that killing people and blowing things up is somehow going to make things better for our grandchildren.  They seem to think that because only about 5% of the populace supported the idea of seceding from the English Empire back in 1776, that their "magic number" is 3% and they think they have that because some survey suggested that 3% of the population thinks violence against the government is justified or could be justified today.  What they fail to take into account is the "bluster factor" of people who will agree with such a statement, but who don't really mean it, and the radical other side – the people who support the terrorist tactics of the Animal Liberation Front and radical Leftists like Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.

What I want to know is, where are the Washingtons, Jeffersons, Adamses and Hancocks?  Who do these Bozos think is going to lead the new America out of the ashes and back to its Constitutional glory, and why arent these giants running for public office and leading the political revolution?  What do they think China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are going to be doing while their merry little band of terrorists is busy crippling our nation and trying to foment rebellion?  What exactly do they expect the "end" of their rebellion to look like?  How are our children and grandchildren going to be better off?

Revolution is like cannibalism; it can be justified, but only when there is absolutely no other choice for survival.  Anyone who talks revolution but isn't actively and diligently working hard every day to elect quality people to office at every level and to educate the elected officials already in office about their core responsibilities, is just a bag of hot air who would rather talk about sacrificing everything – and possibly act on that talk – than do the hard work and make the sacrifices necessary to solve the problems within the system our founders created. 

When our forefathers revolted against English rule, they were in an untenable situation.  They had no vote in the legislative body.  They had no say in their government.  They had no voice in regulatory matters.  They were mere subjects and had no means of redressing wrongs.  That is not our situation today.  We have a voice.  We have a vote.  We have the means to talk directly to our elected officials and our fellow citizens, and we have the means to fire politicians who don't listen to our council and to replace them with politicians who understand their jobs.

It is not easy and it is often frustrating, but it is not impossible and our situation is not hopeless.  Things might be headed further in the wrong direction with the coming elections, but such swings are part of a pendulum and that pendulum will swing back in our direction again – unless some self-proclaimed freedom fighters screw it all up and convince the majority that liberty is too dangerous and freedom too costly.  That's exactly what happened in 1995 when Timothy McVeigh decided that he was going to get the revolution rolling by blowing up a federal building in Oklahoma City.  The pendulum was already swinging back to the right.  The public was fed up with the federal government's anti-liberty actions and had sent a large crop of, mostly very conservative, mostly firs-time politicians to Washington to start straightening out the mess.  The "far right" was building and growing and, while there was a loud "lunatic fringe" element to the militia movement, the overall motion was in the right direction – until McVeigh took his action.

The destruction of the Murrah Federal Building caused a backlash that continues today.  Where once "unorganized militias" and groups calling themselves "patriots" with a focus on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, suddenly there were empty shells and the name "patriot" became tainted and remains suspect to this day.

Timothy McVeigh – and the gun show philosophers who fueled his misguided sense of patriotism – did more to hurt the cause of liberty than Janet Reno and Bill Clinton could have ever dreamed.  One misguided moron with a rifle can do more harm to the fight to restore our gun rights than a thousand Barack Obamas or Hillary Clintons.

So I say to Mike Vanderboegh and those who believe as he apparently does: If you want to start a violent revolution, go do it in Iran, or Cuba, or Mexico, but don't bring you destructive, self-defeating, chest beating into my fight for the Constitution and liberty.  If the time comes when we must resort to violence to restore our republic, I will be in the vanguard, but until that time comes, I will dedicate my life – as my father dedicated his life – to using the Constitution, and the rights and limits it illuminates, as the most powerful weapon for preserving it and the republic.

—————-

Be sure to read the column by clicking here and Mike Vanderboegh's rebuttal by clicking here.  As America slips into a dark period, it is important to realize exactly who our enemies are on both sides of the political spectrum.

Sportsmen for Obama?

The following is a press release put out by the owner of the web site www.SportsmenforObama.org .

I encourage everyone to read it, pass it on, and visit SportsmenforObama.org for more information. –JAK

Contact Jeff Settle
303-882-1294
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
admin@sportsmenforobama.org
October 30, 2008

Boulder, CO, Oct 30,

Sportsmen for Obama? Rejects Obama's Claim to

Support the Second Amendment.

Objective analysis of Obama's voting record, in the federal and Illinois
Senates has been performed. The record includes fifteen separate votes
against gun owners and manufacturers.

Only a single vote for gun owners has been found. The bill Obama voted for
prohibited the confiscation of firearms in case of an emergency. This bill
came in front of the Senate in 2006, probably after Obama decided to run
for the presidency.

Obama's gun control votes and statements made before his presidential run
also indicate a candidate hostile to the Second Amendment as defined by
the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller. He has publicly declared:

• he was in favor of local law suits against gun manufacturers,
• he supports for prohibiting gun shops within five miles of any school,
• he is against concealed carry by law abiding citizens,
• he favors one gun a month laws,
• he favors ‘assault weapons bans’,
• he has favored a ban on all semiautomatic firearms,
• he favors limits on handgun ammunition,
• he favors limits on 'assault weapon' ammunition,
• he believes that state and local entities should be able to implement
their own gun control,
• and last month stated he would not have enough votes to start gun
confiscations.

“Obama’s supposed gun control position as a presidential candidate are so
counter to his previous words and votes that Obama comes across as someone
who will say whatever his audience wants to hear.” said Jeff Settle, owner
of Sportsmen for Obama?.

A survey by Sportsmen for Obama? indicates that the gun rights issue is a
loser for those that are aware of Obama’s gun rights history.
Specifically, of our readers, 32% of readers will not vote for Obama
because of his gun control position whereas 9% will vote for him because
of his gun control positions.

Sportsmen for Obama? (www.sportsmenforobama.org) is a derivative work of
Gun Law News (www.gunlawnews.org ). Its purpose is to highlight Barack
Obama’s words and actions on gun control in a nonpartisan manner. Federal,
state and media website links are cross referenced to allow readers to
verify information.

###

For more information about the Sportsmen for Obama? project or to schedule
an interview, contact Jeff Settle at 303-882-1294 or by e-mail at
admin@sportsmenforobama.org.
 

Mutual Assured Destruction

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

Mutual Assured Destruction

The power is in the threat, not the execution

 

By Jeff Knox

 

(October 29, 2008)  There are some who are fond of repeating Jefferson’s comment about the tree of liberty needing to be “refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants,” though they often skip the part about patriots and choose to only include the tyrants.  The problem is that in actual practice you couldn’t leave out, “the blood of patriots,” because when the blood of tyrants is spilt, the blood of patriots must also be spilt.  There is simply no way around it. 

The same guys are often fond of bumper sticker slogans like, “…from my cold dead fingers,” and the more erudite, “MOLON LAVE,” and while I can appreciate the sentiment, I also know that in 99.995% of cases it’s simply not true.  The fact is that only those who have nothing to lose (and nothing to live for) are willing to give up everything – including their lives – in a symbolic gesture of defiance.  The rest of us, those with families – kids, grand-kids, vulnerable parents – and homes, jobs, and lives, are not interested in ditching the house, refrigerator, and HD-TV in exchange for a prison cell or a mountain cave.

Continue reading Mutual Assured Destruction

Rifle Maker Backs Obama – RESIGNS!

Dan Cooper was asked to resign his position with the rifle company he founded after the following story broke in the general media and swept through the firearms comunity.

Cooper has stepped down as CEO and is no longer associated with Cooper Arms.

Somethimes you've just got to wonder what the Hell some people are thinking – if they're thinking at all.

Maybe Cooper drank the Kool-aid from the National Hunters and Shooters Association, the Democrat/Brady front group posing as a gun and hunters rights organization.  Whatever the reason for his decision, it has cost him and could destroy the company he built just because his name is still on it.

Here's the original story:

WASHINGTON — Dan Cooper, a proud member of the National Rifle Association, has backed Republicans for most of his life. He's the chief executive of Cooper Arms, a small Montana company that makes hunting rifles.
Cooper said he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, having voted in past elections for every Republican presidential nominee back to Richard Nixon. In October 1992, he presented a specially made rifle to the first President. Bush during a Billings campaign event.
This year, Cooper has given $3,300 to the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama. That's on top of the $1,000 check he wrote to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, after he was dazzled by Obama's speech at that year's Democratic National Convention.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-27-prez-money_N.htm

The “Mandate”

The election news this year is looking grimmer for the Republicans every day.  McCain is described in headlines as "on the ropes" (Arizona Republic), his campaign riven by internal conflict, and now, he gets an endorsement from a web site associated with Al Qaeda.  Conventianal wisdom holds that Obama is on his way to a landslide.  As I've said in this space previously, I am not excited at the prospect of a McCain presidency.  On gun rights he's slightly better than Obama despite his NRA endorsement. 

I'm not calling the election for Obama, but if the growing clamor of conventional wisdom is correct and Obama does win an electoral landslide he will have a friendly Congress and he will claim a mandate. Trouble is, he will have no mandate.  Rejection of the Republican Party, and even defections of prominent members, does not equate to an embrace of the Democrats.  

But that doesn't mean tht the Democrats won't claim a mandate.

So, will the Democrats have enough confidence in their coming "mandate" to really test it?  The test will be what is now known as H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007.  If the so-called "assault weapons" ban is re-introduced and if it has legs, it means that the Democrats are confident in their "mandate."  Here's hoping that they have not forgotten the lesson of 1994 when Bill Clinton himself credited the Democrats' historic loss of the House to the Gun Lobby.  If they press forward with the bill, we need to be alert for an NRA that is willing to make a deal accept bad in order to avoid worse.