The Knox Update

Ignorance is Bliss-tering

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

Ignorance is Bliss — Until the Pain Begins

 

By Jeff Knox

 

(November 20, 2008) The reality of the November 4 elections is beginning to settle in and the more people learn about the choices they’ve made, the more concerned they become.  It turns out that the McCain campaign’s “Celebrity” commercial was spot-on; Barack Obama was famous for being famous and the masses failed to look behind the curtain or into the promises.  What Alan Korwin calls the “lame-stream media” was complicit in the charade as they fawned over Obama and the Democrats while trashing McCain, Palin, the Republicans in Congress, and George W. Bush.  The two major parties were also complicit as they have locked up the election process and locked out many highly qualified and worthwhile candidates and ideas.  But in the end, it all comes down to the American people and how much attention and consideration they are giving to the health of The Republic. 

The simple fact is that the vast majority of citizens pay absolutely no attention to matters of politics and a good percentage of the rest pay only superficial attention.  Gunowners turn out for elections at about the same rate as non-gunowners and often have little or no idea about the candidates’ positions on firearms issues.  While millions of serious “gun-people” buy Shotgun News and other gun publications almost religiously, many of them never even look at the “political columns” like this one and choose to remain oblivious to the erosion of their rights and the threats certain political philosophies represent.

Continue reading Ignorance is Bliss-tering →

Jeff's Blog

Parks Rules at Risk

    The new regulations regarding firearms in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges are in serious jeopardy with the pending new administration.  Congressional Democrats and Obama surrogates are talking about taking advantage of little used rules to repeal regulations enacted in the last year of an administration.  Regulations which have not been finalized can be frozen by the new President as soon as he enters office.  Other regulations enacted as far back as May of this year can be overturned by Congress.
    While the primary targets of such regulatory reversion are environmental and industry related, it is likely that the foot-dragging by the Interior Department in finalizing the new firearms regulations could result in either presidential or congressional nullification – as the Firearms Coalition warned back in June.
    At this point it is doubtful that a legislative solution to the park disarmament problem could be pushed through, but it is important that GunVoters let legislators and regulators know that a betrayal on this issue will be remembered and answered at the ballot box.

Information about the Democrat plans to nix Bush administration regulatory changes can be found here in this AP wire story:

 

Additional Note:

Obama has named Ken Salazar of Colorado as his pick to head the Department of Interior which oversees National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.  While there were other names being floated for the position who would have been worse for gunowners, such as AZ  Representative Raúl Grijalva, Salazar is no friend to gunowners or to gun rights.  Heis on record in support of backgroun checks for private sales at gun shows and for band on "ban on specific automatic weapons and assault weapons," whatever that actually means. 

 

The Knox Update

Impending Doom

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

Impending Doom

Is the sky really falling?

 

By Jeff Knox

 

(November 11, 2008) Two years ago I wrote a couple of articles describing the composition of the Congress after the mid-term elections and explaining that I didn’t expect to see the new Democrat majority making any kind of serious run at gun rights.  I caught a lot of flak for those predictions.  A few people publicly declared me to be naïve, misguided, or just too stupid to understand the “nature of politics,” which they described as an adversarial system of winners reaping rewards and exacting revenge by pillaging their enemies and ramming through their radical agendas.  According to my critics, the “supposedly pro-gun Democrats” would jump when Nancy Pelosi cracked her whip and that said whip cracking would commence at any moment.  They said that “assault weapons”, .50 caliber rifles, and private sales at gun shows – the “gun show loophole” – would all be history within a year and that if I couldn’t see all of this writing on the wall, I was much too myopic to be a professional gun rights activist, and so on.

Some might have noticed the fact that none of those things has come to pass.  As both brother Chris and I have said, the Democrats remember 1994 and are loath to jeopardize their majorities chasing what has clearly become a failed social policy.  The usual suspects put forward their standard fare of anti-rights legislation and it all languished in committees, never to be seriously debated nor brought to vote.  The Tiahrt Amendment was reauthorized against the strenuous objections of Mike Bloomberg and Sarah Brady, a NICS “improvement” bill passed only because NRA supported it, and a last-minute D.C. relief bill was allowed to pass out of the House (with the understanding that it would die in the Senate) so Democrats could claim they had voted pro-rights before the election.  Even a major firearms-related tragedy – the Virginia Tech massacre – generated no serious moves toward new restrictions.

Continue reading Impending Doom →

Chris's Blog

Get Ready to Party Like It’s 1989

Remember the mass demonstrations of the late 1980's up to the time that Bill Clinton signed his (and Joe Biden's) infamous "assault weapon" ban?  The largest demonstration was in Columbus, Ohio on May 20, 1989.  Police estimated the crowd at 22,000.  In Phoenix crowds were estimated at above 10,000 (wishful recolleciton on my part – Chris) nearly 3,000, this on a mid-June day when the temperature would eventually rise to well above 105.  It occurred to me that it would be a good idea to start gearing up for such demonstrations again.  Hoping to provide some inspiration, I started digging around the Web for pictures.  I am appalled to report that I could find no pictures of any pro-gun demonstration of the late 1980's.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  Google couldn't find an image, neither could Yahoo!  It's as if Winston of 1984 fame made it all go away.  That's just paranoia on my part, but we're looking at paranoid times.

It's time to get ready for a reprise.  

I well remember how uncomfortable gun people seemed to be coming out and marching with signs.  They were strangely quiet, for a demonstration.  Certainly they were well-mannered.  Parks where the demonstrations occurred tended to be cleaner after the demonstration than before.  Frankly, demonstrating in the street is not something that gun people take to easily.  So let's start preparing the ground.

If you have pictures from one of those demonstrations from the late 1980's and early 1990's, put them on the scanner.  Don't have a scanner?  Go to the nearest copy store or even to a drug store.  Then post those photos to Flickr, Shutterfly, Picasa, PhotoBucket, or wherever you store your pictures, and send me a link.  Send a link to every gun blogger you know.  Send a link to me.  Post it on your favorite forum.  Spread 'em around.  It's time to kick off the Great Virtual March for Gun Rights of 2008.

The Knox Update

Drawing Lines

The Knox Report

From the Firearms Coalition

 

Where’s Your Line?

It’s hard to draw in shifting sand.

 

By Jeff Knox

 

(November 4, 2008)  Last week in this space I painted with a broad brush and general terms on the topic of armed revolt.  The trouble with speaking in broad, general terms is that the author’s general intent and the reader’s general perception can turn out to be pretty far apart – generally speaking.  That causes unnecessary conflict and is just sloppy writing.  I’ll try to do better.  In this installment I’d like to try to clear up a few things and hopefully get you thinking about what matters to you.

First, about last week’s column:

In no way did I intend to suggest that anyone who quotes Jefferson or wears a “MOLON LAVE” T-shirt is just guff and bluster.  I quote Jefferson and wear a “MOLON LAVE” T-shirt and I’m absolutely serious about them.  I know I’m not alone in that.  I think that sending that message loud and clear to the powers that be is very important and useful.

My suggestion that 99.995% of the time the slogan will be removed before it is lived up to was intended as hyperbole, but when you consider the thousands of people whose gun rights are temporarily or permanently revoked each week by traffic cops, divorce courts, and criminal indictments, that figure might not really be that far off.

Continue reading Drawing Lines →

Jeff's Blog

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? →

Chris's Blog

The Election

1 Comment

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.  

Chris's Blog

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 →

Jeff's Blog

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.

Ammunition for the grassroots gun rights movement