A Strategy for Destroying Gun Control in the United States

Cuirassier, or armored cavalryman: the "iron fist" of the 18th and 19th century

A Strategy for Defeating Gun Control in the United States

     But let me put an end unto my theme:
          There was an end of Ismail -- hapless town!
     Far flash'd her burning towers o'er Danube's stream,
          And redly ran his blushing waters down.
     The horrid war-whoop and the shriller scream
          Rose still; but fainter were the thunders grown:
     Of forty thousand who had mann'd the wall,
     Some hundreds breathed -- the rest were silent all!

Suwarrow now was conqueror.

-George Gordon, Lord Byron, Don Juan, 8th Canto

Scottish infantryman: "Give 'em the cold steel!"

Images are from IMSI Master Clips 500,000. Classic images (probably from the 19th century) Image credits and copyright information

Introduction: Similarity of war, politics, team sports, and business.
Overview of a strategy for the total political destruction of the gun control movement
Discrediting the gun control movement
Converting or at least neutralizing the gun control movement's rank-and-file
Jury nullification of existing gun control laws
Miscellaneous Thoughts

And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

King Henry V, Act IV, Scene III

War is a science
With rules to be applied
Which good soldiers appreciate
Recall and recapitulate
Before they go to decimate the other side

"War is a Science," from Roger Hirson's and Stephen Schwartz' musical comedy Pippin

Introduction: Similarity of War, Politics, Team Sports, and Business

The conduct of war is "the free use of the given means, appropriate to each individual occasion." General Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Book 2, chapter 2

The "given means" depends on what you are allowed to do in the conflict. In football, you are allowed to knock the ball out of the opposing player's hands or tackle him. In business, you can try to persuade customers that your product is better than the competitor's. In war, you can (subject to the limitations of the Geneva and Hague conventions) kill the competitor. This page's goal is to take the "given means" in political controversies to their utmost.

"Running a football team is no different than running any other kind of organization-- an army, a political party, or a business. The object is to win-- to beat the other guy."
-Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi

This page is not about defending Second Amendment rights. The National Rifle Association and its allies have done enough defending, enough trying to hold on to the rights that belong to the American people, while the liberal elitists and collectivists have picked away at those rights a piece at a time. It is time to follow the advice of General George S. Patton: "We are not interested in holding on to anything except the enemy. We're going to hold on to him by the nose, and we're going to kick him in the [pants]." This page is not only about keeping the elitists and collectivists from taking more, it is about destroying much of what they have already won. It is about leaving their movement in the same condition that the Russian field marshal Alexander V. Suvorov (1729-1800) left the Turkish fortress of Ismail.

Suwarrow now was conqueror -- a match
          For Timour or for Zinghis in his trade.         [Tamerlane, Genghis Khan]
     While mosques and streets, beneath his eyes, like thatch
          Blazed, and the cannon's roar was scarce allay'd,
     With bloody hands he wrote his first despatch;
          And here exactly follows what he said: --
     "Glory to God and to the Empress!" (Powers                   [Catherine II, "The Great"]
     Eternal! such names mingled!) "Ismail's ours."

Overview: Principal Features of a Strategy for Total Political Defeat of the Gun Control Movement

The first portion of this strategy- the public discrediting of the gun control movement- supports the others. Jurors who may hesitate to nullify a law by refusing to enforce it will be more likely to do so if the people who enacted and supported it can be proven to be dishonest and lacking in character. It is therefore vital to promote contempt and disrespect for individuals like Feinstein, Rowan, Kennedy, and the like. These individuals then become the "soft underbelly" of the antigun movement, just as Italy was the soft underbelly of the Axis during the Second World War. See my principal Second Amendment page for more details, and the Stentorian home page for information about propaganda.

The public discrediting of the gun control movement, not only by rational arguments, but by the delivery of political traumatic shock against the persons who comprise its weak points: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan, and people like them. The overriding principle is, "Get in the enemy's face"- the same decisive principle behind the Western way of war that originated with the Greeks and the Romans.

I recommend against arguing for "our" Second Amendment rights. People who do not own firearms or plan to buy them do not care about "our" rights; they care about being safe from attack by criminals. We need to show them why the gun control party's agenda will not make them any safer, and may even make them less safe. (Even if someone doesn't own a firearm, living in a community that is known to have law-abiding gun owners increases their security because the violent criminal knows only that someone is armed; he doesn't know who.)

Jury nullification of existing gun control laws, such as those in Washington, DC, Chicago, and New York City

Jurors can and should negate, or nullify, gun control laws by simply refusing to enforce them. Discrediting the gun control movement shows them why they should do this.

Converting the gun control movement's rank-and-file, or at least making them into "nonfirers." Making more pro-Second Amendment people into "firers."

"Firers" and "nonfirers" refer to the portions of people in any conflict (war, politics) who take an active part (in war, those who fire at the enemy) and those who remain passive.

Discrediting the Gun Control Movement

Glory began to dawn with due sublimity
While Souvaroff, determined to obtain it
Was teaching his recruits to use the bayonet
-Byron, Don Juan, Canto 7

"Very few people have ever been killed with the bayonet or the sabre, but the fear of having their guts explored with cold steel in the hands of battle-maddened men has won many a fight." - General George S. Patton, Jr.
"Stab once and throw the Turk off the bayonet. Bayonet another, bayonet a third; a real warrior will bayonet half a dozen and more." -Field Marshal Alexander V. Suvorov
"The bullet's an idiot, the bayonet's a fine chap." - Field Marshal Alexander V. Suvorov

The above quotations should give you an idea of the principle behind the Western way of war, the Greco-Roman way of war: "Get in the enemy's face." In politics, it's hard, brutal, pull-no-punches dialogue. It's telling gun-toting Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in public, and even to her face, that she has as much right to talk about gun control as a "madam" has to talk about chastity. It's dragging antigun Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan's shooting of a trespasser with an unregistered pistol through every media channel we can. It's about reminding Ted Kennedy (D-MA) about his machinegun-toting bodyguard again and again, over and over again. It's about hitting them hard, hitting them more than once, and hitting them until they run away yelling "Sauve qui peut!" ("Save yourself if you can!"). Suvorov again: "Pursue the last man to the [river] Adda and throw the remains into the river!" We stop only when they squeal "Quarter!" "Je me rends!" "Kamerad!" or the face-saving, "I cease resistance!" In Feinstein's case, this would involve publicly apologizing for her hypocrisy in carrying a firearm while arguing that ordinary citizens don't need guns, and agreeing to abandon the gun control cause.

Back to the analogy of "using the bayonet." In the 18th and 19th century, a charge with cold arms- the bayonet, lance, or sabre- could be carried home only against demoralized, poorly-trained, or cowardly troops. No commander in his right mind would order a rush, for example, against a steady line or square of Wellington's Redcoats. But we can imagine Marshal Suvorov looking at an equivocating, evading, doubletalking mass and yelling with delight, "Cossack bait!" or "Give 'em the cold steel!" In the political arena, we are of course talking about people in weak, indefensible, or intellectually dishonest positions: the Feinsteins, Kennedys, Rowans, and Clintons. In such a case, there is no need to be polite, respectful, or even circumspect; one can and should roll right over them.

Rational Discourse: the Gentlemanly Volley Application: opponents of character such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan with whom we disgree, but whom we recognize as people of character who "walk their talk."

The Political Equivalent of the Bayonet

When confronted with an unsteady, evading, dodging, equivocating, doubletalking, and hypocritical Feinstein, Kennedy, Rowan, Moseley-Braun, or Clinton, for example...
When "shock value" is appropriate, e.g. when engaged in a debate, to shake the opponent (and get the audience's attention) with unpleasant facts, as opposed to an ad hominem attack

"With regard to the inexpensive handguns you want to ban, don't you feel that a working-class person who wants to protect his or her family, but who can't afford $500 for a top-of-the-line firearm, should be able to buy what you call a 'Saturday Night Special?'"
"How do you feel about your colleagues like Dianne Feinstein and Carol Moseley-Braun, who vote to disarm ordinary citizens but who own or owned handguns themselves?"

"Oh, you mean 'N****RTOWN Saturday Night Specials?' That's the full term for them, you know... the white supremacists who wanted to keep inexpensive handguns out of the hands of Black people in the late 19th century- and also out of the hands of immigrant Jews, Italians, Poles, Irish, and so on- coined this term for those handguns."

Imagine the traumatic shock that this surprise inflicts on the most stalwart of antigun people. He or she probably didn't realize that he was using a term that was invented by white supremacists, and that bans on "Saturday Night Specials" were intended to disarm Black people.

"Senator Feinstein, your response to a bomb threat was to get a permit to carry a concealed pistol-- an action with which we agree. However, since you decided you needed a gun to protect your life, you have as much right to talk about gun control as a "madam" has to talk about chastity and marital fidelity.
(Referring to the alleged Juanita Broaddrick rape): "President Clinton, do you support gun control because you feel the pain of all the would-be rapists who have been shot, driven off, or held for the police by their intended victims?"
Political cartoons:

e.g. The Crown Heights riots, in which Jews' frantic calls to 911 were ignored by New York police, side by side with a rendition of the "Night of the Broken Glass" in Nazi Germany.

Hey- the above are every bit as "fair" as the other side's portrayal of NRA members as beer-swilling redneck pickup truck-driving yahoos or worse, e.g. blaming the NRA for the Columbine murders. See my page on political cartoons and propaganda. Antigunners- don't dish it out if you can't take it. If I have my way, you will get a bellyfull of your own tactics, and more.

The Western Way of War triumphant:
"The Fore and Aft held their fire till one bullet could drive through five or six men, and the front of the Afghan force gave on the volley. They then selected their men and slew them with deep gasps and short hacking coughs..." "The Gurkhas' stall at the bazaar was the noisiest, for the men were engaged- to a nasty noise as of beef being cut on the block- with the kukri [Gurkha knife], which they preferred to the bayonet; well knowing how the Afghan hates the half-moon blade." And, once the enemy had broken, the pursuit: "The red lances dipped by twos and threes, and, with a shriek, up rose the lance-butt, as the trooper cantering forward cleared his point." -Rudyard Kipling, Drums of the Fore and Aft While in later clearer vision I can sense the coppery sweat Feel the pikes grow wet and slippery When our phalanx Cyrus met. Hear the rattle on the harness [armor] Where the Persian darts bounced clear, See their chariots wheel in panic From the hoplite's leveled spear. Still more clearly as a Roman, Can I see the legion close, As our third rank moved in forward And the short sword found our foes. -George S. Patton, Jr. (27 May, 1922), Through a Glass, Darkly. These three passages describe the Greco-Roman way of war perfectly: "Get in the enemy's face." Note how those with a more tentative fighting style- the Persians- are unwilling to face "the hoplite's leveled spear."	The bayonet, lance, and sabre were absolutely terrifying to troops who were unused to facing them. It was one thing to take one's chances with a musketry volley, where one's chances of survival were pure luck, an impersonal lottery. A bayonet, on the other hand, has a sharp point on one end, a determined soldier on the other, and he wants you. That's how it should be with the Feinsteins, Kennedys, Rowans, and Clintons: "I know you are in not only a weak and indefensible position, but in a dishonest and hypocrital one. I want your sorry backside; I am coming, not merely to debate with you, but to destroy you, to leave your political credibility, if not your sorry excuse for a career, in the ash heap of history." Again, if you use this technique against a person of character with whom you happen to disagree, you will lose; you will only discredit yourself. It's the political equivalent of charging Wellington's Redcoats, for example; they will not break and run, they will shoot you down with steady volleys. On the other hand, someone who lacks character can be overrun by frontal assault- with the political equivalent of the bayonet.

Jury Nullification of Existing Gun Control Laws

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. However, places like Washington DC and New York City have no gun laws that any citizen has any moral duty to obey. This sounds academic, because one can be arrested and prosecuted for disobeying them. But this brings up the next point. Jurors have no legal duty to enforce these laws and, in fact, they have a moral duty to refuse to enforce them.

Here is why many municipalities and even states have forfeited their right to enact gun control legislation. The writings of John Locke (1632-1704) lie behind the origin of the United States and the United States Constitution. Locke defines clearly the reason for a government's existence and authority.

"Men in the 'state of nature' were reasonable and well-disposed, willing to get along with each other though handicapped by the absence of public authority. Men likewise had a moral sense, quite independent of government; and they also possessed by nature certain rights, quite apart from the state. These rights were the rights to life, liberty, and property."
"They cannot by their own efforts protect what is 'proper' to them, i.e. their property. They agree to set up government to enforce observance of the rights of all. Government is thus created by a contract, but the contract is not unconditional. It imposes mutual obligations. The people must be reasonable; only rational beings can be politically free. ... On government, also, certain conditions and obligations are imposed. If a government breaks the contract, if it threatens the natural rights which it is the sole purpose of government to protect, if, for example, it takes away a man's property without his consent, then the governed have a right to reconsider what they have done in creating the government and may even in the last extremity rebel against it."
(Source: Colton and Palmer, 1971, A History of the Modern World. New York: Alfred Knopf. Page 320)

The Declaration of Independence was almost paraphrased from Locke:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

We are looking straight at the reason the United States of America was created, at considerable cost in life and treasure: to protect its citizens' natural rights. A government that goes against, or refuses to enforce, these rights must be altered or abolished... not necessarily by the armed revolutions suggested by various lunatic fringe organizations and "militia" groups, but by peaceful, respectable, and legal methods such as jury nullification.

The next step is to understand why, if you are called for jury duty, you should refuse to enforce gun control laws against otherwise law-abiding citizens

. (Individuals who violate gun laws for the purpose of committing crimes against other persons should, of course, go straight to prison!) The following (indented portions) is from "Dial 911 and Die," from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, one of the most effective (member for member) pro-Second Amendment organizations in existence.

THE LAW: THE POLICE ARE NOT THERE FOR YOU
State and city governments -- rather than the Federal authorities -- are responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have Federal Courts ruled on the matter of police protection. However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)]. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you no right to police protection. In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:.. there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. ...
In 1959, Linda Riss, a New Yorker, was terrorized by an ex-boyfriend, who had a criminal record. Over several months, he repeatedly threatened her: "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you." She repeatedly sought police protection, explaining her request in detail. Nothing was done to help her. When he threatened her with immediate attack, she again urgently begged the New York City Police Department for help: "Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused." The next day, she was attacked: a "thug" hired by her persecutor threw lye (sodium hydroxide) in her face, She was blinded in one eye and her face was permanently scarred. The Court of Appeals of New York ruled that Linda Riss had no right to protection. The Court refused to create such a right because that would impose a crushing economic burden on the government. ...
Judge Keating dissented, bitterly noting that Linda Riss was victimized not only because she had relied upon the police to protect her, but because she obeyed New York laws that forbid her to own a weapon. Judge Keating wrote: "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." [Riss v. City of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

This is exactly where New York City and New York State blew their right to tell any citizen whether he or she can own (or carry) a weapon for self-defense. New York's own Court of Appeals tore up the State's half of the Social Contract that is the foundation of its authority. This relieves citizens of their contractual obligation to obey the State's authority. More recently, Mayor David Dinkins' police force ignored frantic calls to 911 by Crown Heights Jews, and allowed rioters to trash the neighborhood in an incident similar to the Night of the Broken Glass in Nazi Germany. Antigun governor Mario Cuomo did not send the National Guard to restore order. Can anyone argue that New York has not kissed its authority to tell its citizens whether they can own or carry firearms goodbye? (If you want to argue on New York's behalf, read Locke and the Declaration of Independence again- carefully.)

On 4 September 1972 Ruth Bunnell called the San Jose (California) police department to report that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had telephoned her to tell her that he was coming to her house to kill her. In the previous year, the San Jose police, "had made at least 20 calls and responses to Mrs. Bunnell's home ...allegedly related to complaints of violent acts committed by Mack Bunnell on Mrs. Bunnell and her two daughters." Even so, Ruth Bunnell was told to call back only when Mack Bunnell arrived. Some 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived and stabbed Ruth Bunnell to death. A neighbor called the police, who then came to the murder scene. The California Court of Appeal held that any claim against the police department: "is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly section 845, which states: Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection.'" [Hartzer v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 (1975)].

And don't forget the Los Angeles riots, in which police told frantic citizens, "You're on your own." California, kiss your right to enforce your latest "assault gun" legislation goodbye. California jurors should treat this legislation- along with California's other gun laws- with the disrespect and contempt they deserve.

If you live in Washington, DC, don't forget that influential Washington Post columnist Carl Rowan was not punished for violating the city's strict gun laws. If the law doesn't apply to him, it applies to no one.

To learn more about your rights and responsibilities as a juror, contact the Fully Informed Jury Association, and read my column on this subject. Then tell your friends and neighbors.

Converting, or at least neutralizing, the gun control movement's rank-and-file.

"Firers" and "nonfirers" refer to the portions of people in any conflict (war, politics) who take an active part (in war, those who fire at the enemy) and those who remain passive. During the Second World War, for example, Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall found that only 15 to 20 percent of soldiers who were in contact with the enemy actually fired at the enemy, even when faced, for example, with banzai charges by the Japanese. Of these, some did not aim, but only fired in the enemy's general direction. (The others did not run away, but they performed other tasks like tending the wounded, carrying ammunition, and so on.) From Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, On Killing (1996).

Studies on the shoulder-to-shoulder formations that 18th and 19th century armies used showed that opposing infantry formations would have destroyed each other very quickly had all the soldiers fired at their opponents.
Marshall's study is cited by Adrian Keith Goldsworthy in The Roman Army at War (100 BC-AD 200) in Chapter 5, "The Unit's Battle." In ancient warfare, of course, soldiers did not have the option of standing passively next to the enemy and doing nothing. However, Goldsworthy suggests that three quarters of the Romans dealt only tentative blows from behind the protection of their shields, while only a quarter fought aggressively by using both the short sword (gladius) and the tower shield (scutum) offensively. These soldiers were more likely to kill their opponents and step into the openings in the enemy line, which was likely to cause the enemy to rout.

Not firing at the enemy, or firing without aiming, is due to a soldier's natural reluctance to kill another human being. In politics, however, "firing" or "not firing"- that is, participating actively or merely giving passive lip service to one's cause- is a function of commitment to the issue in question.

People whose commitment is only marginal- the nonfirers- will say, "I'm for (or against) so-and-so," or even, "Well, I guess I'm for so-and-so," but that's about it. They may or may not bother to vote for politicians who support their stated position.
People with high commitment- the firers- will vote, write letters to the editor, put up Web sites, donate money, and so on.

Psychological conditioning of American soldiers led to firing rates of 55 percent during the Korean War, and 90 to 95 percent during the Vietnam War. If 90 percent of the soldiers in a unit fire at the enemy, the unit is 350 percent more effective than one in which only 20 percent do so.

Discrediting the gun control movement's leaders might not convert its rank and file into NRA members, but it could easily turn them into "nonfirers." A person who, for example, dislikes guns and favors gun control, could easily be disgusted by prominent gun control supporters like Dianne Feinstein and Carl Rowan who own guns themselves, and by the dishonesty of Handgun Control Incorporated and the Violence Policy Center. He or she will then become a passive (lip service level) gun control supporter instead of an active supporter.
We also, of course, want to turn more gun rights supporters into "firers": people who will write letters to their local papers, pass out leaflets at gun control meetings, vote for pro-Second Amendment candidates, and join pro-Second Amendment organizations. Promotion of justifiable hatred and contempt for Handgun Control Inc. and its fellow travelers will help achieve this.

Do not direct "hatred and contempt" at HCI's rank-and-file, or at friends or associates who support gun control. Our quarrel is not with ordinary citizens who have been deceived and swindled by HCI's and the Violence Policy Center's dishonest propaganda. We must not antagonize the people whose goodwill we want to win. They are not bad guys, enemies, or villains; they are victims of opportunistic politicians like Dianne Feinstein.
If you're an active shooter, inviting such people to your local range- where they can handle firearms safely under the supervision of a qualified firearms instructor- may be helpful. They don't have to shoot unless they want to. Alternately, they don't have to handle firearms at all, they can see how they're used by responsible gun owners.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership uses the words, "destroy gun control," not "defend gun rights," and talks about being proactive and not reactive. JPFO also offers "Intellectual Ammunition to Destroy Gun Control"

"We should stop swatting flies and go after the manure pile."

-Air Force General Curtis LeMay

"There are three kinds of people: those who make it happen, those who watch it happen, and those who wonder what happened." Proactivity is making it happen, reacting is (at best) watching it happen.

Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke warned against conforming to "the law of the opponent," i.e. letting the opponent dictate the conditions of the contest.
General Custer's last words at the Little Big Horn were reputedly, "Where did all the Indians come from?" Custer was obviously not proactive.

NRA and Gun Rights Supporters:
Pay attention, these two quotations describe the techniques the bad guys are using against you.
"All propaganda has to be popular and has to adapt its spiritual level to the perception of the least intelligent of those towards whom it intends to direct itself." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf ("My Struggle"), Vol. I	"...there was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, 'and this will always be the man in the street.' Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology... Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals." -H. Trevor-Roper (ed), The Goebbels Diaries, p. XX, cited in Regan, Geoffrey. 1987. Great Military Disasters. New York: M. Evans and Company.

I am not holding Goebbels and Hitler up as desirable role models. On the other hand, if you are going to tell the truth, you had better use the same techniques, or the other side will run over you.

"Hatred and contempt must be directed at particular individuals." The antigun groups are doing this, for example, to NRA President Charlton Heston. They are demonizing the firearm industry and the National Rifle Association. They stereotype NRA members as beer-swilling semiliterate rednecks and closet white supremacists... go back 40 years and you'll see a stereotyped Black person with big lips and a bestial expression, or 60 years (to Nazi Germany) to see a Jew with a hooked nose and exaggerated Semitic features. Same technique, different issue.
"Hatred and contempt" must be directed only at antigun figures who are obvious hypocrites or liars. No gentleman or lady of character directs personal attacks at another person of character.

Second Amendment Rights page