Another Reason for the Second Amendment

October 18th, 2017 16 Comments

Two recent atrocities came together in an unlikely nexus.

The first was the horror in Las Vegas. The second was the horror in Hollywood with disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein.

The unlikely nexus is Dana Loesch (pronounced “lash”), the very beautiful conservative talk-radio host and NRA spokesperson. Since the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Ms. Loesch has received so many threats that she has been compelled to sell her home and move. The context of the nexus is that these threats are not just the usual death threats of the extremist looney-tunes on the far left to shoot her (no irony there), though there were plenty of those, but that there were apparently also many sexual threats, primarily to rape her to death.

Sexual abuse such as Harvey Weinstein’s, whether groping, masturbation, or rape, is not about sex. It’s about power, and I find it fascinating that the very sickest of the sick peaceful anti-gun types would use sexual threats in an attempt to intimidate Ms. Loesch.

Rape has been used by men as domination device since the dawn of time. It makes no difference whether it’s by sick and sleazy individuals like Harvey Weinstein, or by armies as a weapon of war, or by male convicts against other male convicts: it’s not about sex; it’s about power. And with that in mind, to find that the radical far-left would be so completely blatant is very revealing.

Radical progressive college professors and students have said, and proven, they consider violence acceptable if it prevents other people from saying things and presenting ideas the professors and students do not want to hear or see presented, First Amendment be damned. But to add the threat of such a crude and disgusting form of dominance, in an attempt to silence ideas and beliefs anti-gunners do not agree with, provides very effective proof of precisely why we need the right to keep and bear arms.

Share Button
Follow me at:
  1. Anonymous says:

    Oh boy do I agree with you JP…such sick people trying to control…it’s just getting worse.

    Nancy Gallinger

    • Anonymous says:

      I don’t know if it’s getting worst, but it’s come out into the light more. However, the fact that people know about it could turn the tide. Remember your rights and don’t ever let them go or take them for granted.

  2. Anonymous says:

    i absolutely agree. The world has had these sort of issues forever. That is why we have rights so that we can protect ourselves. Domination of power has always been an issue and it causes problems. But people don’t need to back down. I mean push for your rights while you have them. Despite its flaws America is a good country but it’s up to us to make sure that it stays that way.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Ironically the anti-gun types will sometimes justify the need to ban guns because they admit if they have access to guns they will lose control and start shooting people!

  4. Anonymous says:

    “Radical progressive college professors and students have said, and proven, they consider violence acceptable if it prevents other people from saying things and presenting ideas the professors and students do not want to hear or see presented, First Amendment be damned. ”

    The same first Amendment you spent a whole bunch of words telling people how to try to silence by boycotting the NFL? Oh wait, guns = good. Black people for societal change = bad. Nazi/Confederate = Free Speech. Black NFL Players = anti-American.

    • Dear Anonymous,
      I think you are confused. I am condemning the use of violence to stifle freedom of speech on college campuses and the freedom of speech and personal safety of radio hosts, just as I would condemn violence to stifle freedom of speech by NFL football players, but there are critical differences you have chosen to ignore.
      Ms. Loesch’s views are her job; she is paid to express those views, and you have a perfect right to boycott her show if you feel her views are wrong or bad. You do not have the right to threaten her with violence. Invited speakers on college campuses, conservative or progressive, are presenting ideas in a forum intended for the free exchange of ideas, where they have been invited to appear. NFL players are protesting in their workplace where the First Amendment does not apply. (Look it up: the First Amendment only denies the government the ability to suppress free speech. It does not apply to private-sector employers.)
      Black people for societal change is highly desirable; look at some of the things Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan have quietly done to help communities that desperately need help. Showing contempt for our national symbols is hardly as productive.
      You appear to equate Nazism and the Confederacy. Let me start with the Confederacy and the tearing down of statues. Rewriting history has only ever been done by despots and totalitarian dictatorships, and it has never succeeded in achieving anything other than a loss of identity and an association with failed regimes. In the case of tearing down statues and changing the names of towns and colleges, is it better to erase the records of men for actions that were the product of their times, or to remember their mistakes and learn from them? And in the case of some of the demands made by radical progressives, we would have to erase the histories of some men who did far more good than ill (e.g. Washington, Jefferson, etc.). Using that logic, should we forget all the good Dr. Martin Luther King did just because he had extramarital affairs? I don’t think so.
      I have never equated Nazism or white supremacy with anything other than ignorance and hate, and for you to imply otherwise indicates either complete unfamiliarity with my writing, or malicious disregard. For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you imply such ugly falsehoods again, I will block you from this blog.

  5. Anonymous says:

    My prayers are with Ms. Loesch and her family. The Left Is supposed to be “peaceful” and “tolerant.” They have proven time and time again they are not tolerant or peaceful! They’re the bullies on the playground, threatening anyone who doesn’t give in to their way of thinking. I pray these vile excuses for human beings who threatened Ms Loesch will be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent. I would also hope that someone on the Left has the grace and dignity to denounce this kind of criminal behavior. I won’t hold my breath.


  6. Anonymous says:

    I am appalled that there are people who claim to be peace-loving and yet threaten violence to those who have opposing views on something as important as the 2nd amendment. Unreal.

    I pray that Elohim Shomri (the Lord thy Shield) will protect Dana Loesch and her loved ones. May God blind the eyes of those evil ones who want to harm her so they’ll never find her and her loved ones. May no weapon formed against her prosper ever. Voices of the Just cannot be silent during times like these.

    Thanks for the information JP.

    Carla In California

  7. Anonymous says:

    Hello Jameson,
    I find it disgusting that some people have to voice their opinions with threats. With social media that seems to be more and more the case. Would most of these people say these things to a person’s face? I also want to say that being a Canadian I am more liberal in my views although I would never put someone down because of more conservative views. I would never, nor do I know of any other Canadian, who would vote Republican. Republicans are far too much to the right for most Canadians. What I am wondering is why a lot of Americans feel so strongly about the right to bear arms. I realize that it is a right in your Constitution and that we should fight not to have rights taken from us. I hear many Americans say that they need to protect themselves. From what? As a Canadian I am not given the right to have a concealed weapon in my purse and I am 100 per cent okay with that. I feel, just as you do, that I live in a free country. I hear that it is to empower yourselves in case there is an uprising with the government. Really? I have never feared my government nor the head of state of Canada, the Queen. Whenever I am on holiday in Florida I also think in the back of my mind “many of these people could have guns on them”. This is not a reassuring feeling. I do also realize that the majority of you are carrying guns for protection and peace of mind and are not about to shoot me while I’m shopping at Target. As a Canadian I actually feel safer at home. I guess I just want you, or your readers, to explain to me why you feel so passionately about guns and the right to carry one?
    Nancy Ontario Canada

  8. Anonymous says:

    I have never felt the need to carry a weapon until I began listening to what former President Obama was saying and being supported by those on the Left. He scared me. I felt the same way x 100 when Mrs. Clinton began running for President…even more so when the body count was on the rise during her campaign. We are demonized for wanting to keep our right to carry.

    I applaud Ms. Loesch for speaking up and standing firm. I pray for her and her family’s safety. These are definitely times that calls for strength and courage.

    Mary Ellen

  9. Anonymous says:

    I am passionate about the right to carry a gun because it could save an innocent person/persons or even myself some day. It can’t just be the “bad guys” that have the guns, and that is what would happen if the “good guys” didn’t have theirs. And the bad guys not having guns will NEVER happen here. At least not in my lifetime. To me this does not apply to automatic weapons. Perhaps that doesn’t make sense. I’ll turn you over to JP now. He always makes more sense than I do.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hi Nancy,

      Are you saying you don’t believe anyone should be able to own an “automatic” weapon?

      To be clear on terms an “automatic” weapon is one in which multiple bullets (more than one) are fired as long as the trigger is pulled without releasing. Pulling the trigger three times in rapid succession to fire three bullets (shots) is not automatic fire and thus the reason a bump stock is not making a gun into an automatic weapon.

      In any case automatic weapons were never in very large circulation because even in 1934 when they were put under regulation they were expensive even for the time and during the depression not many were likely to be firing lots of shots except maybe Al Capone.

      Then in 1986 the laws governing them was updated to say no more of them could be added to the public circulation if they were made after 1985. So the supply is now very scarce relative to other firearms and thus extremely expensive. One can probably expect to pay at least around $10,000 and could easily look at spending $25,000 to $50,000 for the HK’s and the bigger stuff. So it is now a hobby for rich guys. That has made the bump stock desirable for at least some (poor man’s imitation).

      So automatic guns are perfectly legal, but their high cost makes them impractical for carry or risking to use in personal defense. And of course the high rate of fire would only be practical if a mob of a large number of people were trying to kill you. Those I know who own such guns don’t just carry them around because they are a major financial investment. Don’t make the mistake of having one and not also having the paperwork with it at all times! That is a very quick way to room and board in a federal prison for many years.


Top of Page