Remember these numbers: 120 Million Gun Owners and 600 Million guns.

One of the perennial tropes of the gun grabbers of the national Socialist left is that gun ownership is declining and seemingly after years and years of record gun sales the number of guns remains at 300 Million. Basic scientific logic tells us that positive flow into a control space will result in an accumulation, and yet we’re supposed to believe this isn’t the case. Recent analysis and polling has dispensed with these mythical notions.


120 Million Gun Owners

A recent poll by Wall Street Journal has only confirmed what we’ve known all along, that gun ownership is expanding at an incredible rate. While the folks who avail themselves armed protection have tried to disdain this for the ‘commoners’, the people have instead stocked up on firearms, ammunition and other supplies. Anyone who has compared the crowds at gun shows at present with only a few months ago can attest to this phenomena.

QF10 Do you, or does anyone in your household, own a gun of any kind?

                                             9/17 6/16+ 10/15 2/13
Yes, gun in household      48     45        41     42
No, no gun in household 50      50       54     54

The question was one of the last in the survey and asked ‘for statistical purposes only’, but it puts the lie to the gun grabber narrative of declining gun ownership. This falsehood made no sense given recent events and trends. People generally want to be able to protect themselves from Islamic Terrorism, and don’t trust the gun grabbers with their next incremental abrogation of everyone’s common sense civil rights. The people know that as is typical of the national Socialist Left, they are never honest about their true intentions and their ultimate goals. The gun grabbers will never openly admit that the obvious end game to their incessant attacks against the people’s common sense civil rights is to extinguish them in their entirety. Thus more and more people are following the advice of ‘getting your guns while you still can’. As well as having a few ‘extra’ for emergencies.
Keep in mind that many people won’t actually divulge their gun ownership to some random person chatting them up on the phone, so it’s most likely that that number is a bit low.

The Washington Free Beacon  ran the numbers from the United States Census Bureau and determined that there are (at least) 120 Million Gun Owners:

The United States Census Bureau estimates there are 249,454,440 adults currently living in America. If the Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey is accurate, that equates to 119,738,131 Americans with a gun in their home.

The odds are that those numbers are a bit low given the reticence of people to divulge this information, but it’s a good starting point.

600 Million guns

The gun grabbers also like to play the game of disinformation with regard to the number of firearms in circulation. The number commonly bandied about is 300 Million or expressed in terms of one gun for every man, woman and child in the nation or some variation thereof. The problem is that this factoid has remained unchanged through many years of tribulation. Recently the weaponsman took a hard look at the issue and ran the numbers:

We believe that the correct number is much higher — somewhere between 412 and 660 million. You may wonder how we came to that number, so buckle up (and cringe, if you’re a math-phobe, although it never gets too theoretical): unlike most of the academics and reporters we linked above, we’re going to use publicly available data, and show our work.

What if we told you that one ATF computer system logged, by serial number, 252,000,000 unique firearms, and represented only those firearms manufactured, imported or sold by a relatively small number of the nation’s tens of thousands of Federal Firearms Licensees?

One other way of looking at this would be to compare this to the recent polling data. If 48% or 120 Million people now have a gun in the house, how can it be that the 300 Million factoid remains the same?

As in every other endeavour, the national Socialist Left has to lie about their agenda and intentions. Their attempts at reaching their ultimate goal of confiscation are not different. They want people to believe that people are agreeing with them on the issue of ‘gun safety’. That one’s best means of protection is one not having a means of protection. That the buying back of something they never owned is somehow decreasing the number of guns and gun owners.

These are clearly lies of the part of the national Socialist Left, but that has never stopped them before.

So whenever the subject guns crops up, keep these facts in mind.

Excerpt: The Pen that Toppled an Empire: Solzhenitsyn and The Gulag Archipelago

There are millions of reasons why the immoral and parasitic ideology of socialism needs to be eradicated from the list of viable governmental and economic systems, in this instance we look at the work of one man in toppling the evil empire of the ‘Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik’.

The blog of the victims of recently posted and article.  The Pen that Toppled an Empire: Solzhenitsyn and The Gulag Archipelago.

We will attempt to do it justice with some excerpts on the main points of the piece.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was one of the giants in opposing the evil that is socialism and like many he was initially taken in by it’s grandiose and flowery promises of equality in a “Worker’s Paradise”. Like many he realized that these promises were a chimera. He spent years in the system of oppression that is all too endemic to Socialism and he was able to bring retribution to the regime that perpetuated these and monstrous crimes by bringing it down. It’s is our contention that this could be considered to be the beginning of the end of the very idea of Socialism.

The article details his journey from being an enthusiastic adherent of this new and wondrous system to his realisation of the brutal truths of it’s organized evil. Solzhenitsyn learned during his time in the camps that it was Vladimir Lenin that began the state security apparatus the Cheka.

Solzhenitsyn abandoned his youthful idealism the hard way. While serving as an artillery officer in World War II, he was arrested, convicted, and sent to the Gulag (the Soviet forced labor camps) for criticizing Joseph Stalin. It was only in the camps that he realized that nothing had worked out as Marx predicted. In conversations with fellow prisoners, he learned that Lenin had initiated a ruthless security state, suppressing any opposition to Bolshevik rule. After Lenin’s death, the paranoid and sadistic Stalin gained power and began an effort to remake human beings in the communist mold. Property was confiscated, businesses nationalized, churches closed, farmers forcibly relocated to agricultural communes, and so-called “class enemies,” people from the upper or middle classes, whose only crime was being born into the wrong family, sent to the Gulag. It impossible to estimate how many people were executed by Stalin, but we know that working conditions in the camps were so poor that tens of millions died of starvation, disease, and exhaustion.

The article points out the problems of Marx’s bait and switch scheme whereby the all powerful state is supposed to ‘wither away’ by some unspecified and miraculous means. The author concludes that the lack of limitation on the government because of this provision was part of the problem. However, this is a situation all too common in history, as the quote from Lord Acton made clear: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

The nation’s Socialist Left is all too repetitive in issuing the same excuses for the systemic failures of it’s base ideology. One of these is to assert that the state becoming authoritarian is somehow contrary to the teachings of Marx, that the ideal is a stateless society with cooperation being the watchword. History has shown this never takes place and that this miraculous transformation is all but just one of the frauds perpetrated by the Left in these instances. The excuse “That wasn’t real Socialism” or some variation thereof ignores human nature and how the same circumstances will always end in the same results.

One of the fundamental problems of Socialism is that it runs contrary to the basic precepts of human nature. The psychological principle of operant conditioning informs us that punishing a behaviour tends to diminish the repetition of that behaviour. While rewarding a behaviour tends to encourage that behaviour. Taking someone’s hard earned money tends to discourage them from working, handing them other people’s money also tends to discourage them from exerting themselves.

Socialism cannot abide this ‘imperfection’ in human nature and thus must try the impossible and perfect that which cannot be perfected. The article points out this as the fundamental crime of Socialism.

The Gulag reveals that the monstrous evil of the Soviet Union was not caused by the misapplication of Marx’s ideals, by Stalin’s pathology, or by Russian nationalism. The world’s most heinous tyranny was not an apparition or a deviation from Marxist ideals, Solzhenitsyn demonstrates; it was, rather, the inevitable consequence of expecting perfection from imperfect human beings. Wherever communism has existed or will exist, there will be victims.

This one of the primary reasons the immoral, parasitic organized evil that is socialism must be banished from the realm of viable governmental and economic systems. It is an ideology built upon the use of force and fraud that has never worked and can never work and has resulted in the deliberate mass murder of millions of people and the oppression of untold billions more.

Normalizing the Fascist Left

Sometimes the Nation’s Socialist media let’s the mask slip and in other cases, it drops it to the floor. We are witness to the latter instance here. Instead of properly condemning violent extremist groups of any stripe, the NSM has begun whitewashing the reputation of the Fascist ‘Antifa’, as well as doing the same for the immoral and parasitic collectivist ideologies.

The ‘newspaper of record’ just published an opinion piece entitled: Who’s Afraid of Antifa?

Antifa is the backlash to the backlash, a defensive response to the growing presence of right-wing extremism.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry. Because antifa groups are willing to use force when needed, provoking them can trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization; most organized groups are local, concentrated in Texas and the Northwest. There’s not even a consensus among adherents as to whether to pronounce the term AN-tee-fah or an-TEE-fah.

Now, is it that advisable to have a major newspaper profiling and justifying the actions of violent groups such as this? The ‘News paper or record’ is not alone in this regard, others of the NSM such as CNN have made the absurd claim that it’s goals are “peace through violence.”

Bear in mind that these are groups who are opening chanting “No Trump, no wall, no USA at all!”

Question: When have major Conservative newspaper and media outlets profiled and praised groups that fashion themselves after the National Socialist German Worker’s Party or any of affiliates thereof?

The only way to stop the Left’s cultural revolution insanity is to go after it’s base ideology.

“The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.” Ayn Rand

It has always been a goal of the left to erase the past and replace it with their version of reality to usher in their vision of a socialist Utopia of unicorns prancing about under rainbow skies. Even now they are letting the mask slip even further with attacks against the constitution and the founding fathers.

These attacks against fixed locations not only serve to erase history, but force the right into defending that which we fought against in the first go around.

Just to set the record straight, the Republican party’s original raison d’état had been the abolition of slavery. It was the Democratic party that favoured appeasement and later on revived the KKK. The left would like to call anyone who opposes their little revolution with the epithet Nazi, ignoring the historical fact that they were a National Socialist Worker’s party and Leftists like them. These facts should be known by those with the least bit familiar with history.

It should be obvious that the current strategy of trying to stop their erasure of history has not been effective. The nation’s Socialist left garners too much of an advantage for them to halt their efforts, and they will always have new targets for their cultural revolution. Merely trying to stop them will not work, and any victories they attain only fuels their efforts, neither will trying to embarrass them in their Orwellian actions.

They are very much like an army of ideological terminators, they can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with and they will not stop… ever

Army tactical doctrine has it that the best defense is a counter attack against the enemy’s most Assailable Flank. It should be clear that when a static defense is not working, one must go after the enemy’s weakest flank. In the case of the nation’s Socialist left, this would be their immoral and parasitic collectivist base ideology.

An article recently published outlined the long term goals of a socialist party being the elimination of economic liberty in the free market. So why not have a have a discussion about the elimination of the Left’s economic slavery with Socialism?

Is there any reason it should even be considered a valid form of government any more? It’s been a disastrous failure everywhere it’s ever been tried. It’s resulted in the deliberate mass murder of millions of innocents, why should rational people consider it’s failure ever again?

The nation’s left would like to keep the focus on the past, so why not indulge them in their efforts? If it’s a discussion of the history they want, let’s bring it on. We can start by talking about the deliberate mass murder by acolytes of their base ideology.

They want to talk about symbols and statues, fine we can debate them on that front as well. Let’s start with their idolization of a mass murderer Che Guevara.

More than likely they will parrot the tired old lines that “Socialism has yet to be tried” or that “Socialist regimes weren’t really Socialist.” Let them explain all the facts of history to everyone listening, it should be a fascinating discussion.

Or perhaps they will deny being Socialists, in which case they should have no objection to it’s eradication.

If people are given a choice between economic liberty of the free market or the economic slavery of socialism we can be very confident in the outcome. The odds are the nation’s socialist left won’t want to take up the challenge of this debate, for they cannot abide a frank discussion of their base ideology. And perhaps they may go back to their echo chamber and leave everyone else alone. We can only hope.


It was never just about flags and statues, but the tearing down of the nation’s founding itself.

Anyone familiar with the vestiges of cultural Marxism and critical theory should have seen this coming from a mile away. It was only a matter of time before the nation’s Socialist left went after the Confederate battle flag and various sundry statuary that may or may not have associated with the US Civil war. At present, their cultural revolution is growing beyond that point already with their rapacious fervour now directed at the founding fathers. Most assuredly their success in erasing history will turn to attacking the very documents authored by those founding fathers.

Mob rule is akin to a brush fire raging out of control, feeding on itself and creating it’s own weather patterns. Social media only further inflames this tendency with a mob in one locale being inspired by another somewhere else. Governmental bodies trying to proactively keep the conflagration at bay only serves to encourage the rabble to set it’s sights on new targets

Mobs are generally opportunistic in nature when seeking new fuel for it’s rapacious needs to grow and expand. As predicted, this insanity didn’t stop at the mere removal of a few flags and Civil war statuary. Cultural Marxism is the guiding principle in all of this madness. For once they garner some success at the easy targets in the public square, they will soon go after that which has forestalled their authoritarian bent.

One can only implement a Marxist system of total government control and collective rights with the destruction of the old system of limited government and the protection of individual rights. This can only be accomplished with the discrediting the documents that have restrained the government and enshrined the civil rights of the individual. What better way to have a society rhetorically throw away the old than to attack the very individuals that penned and installed it’s founding principles?

We are told the founding fathers were flawed individuals, and thus we’re supposed to ignore their genius in setting up the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The plain fact is that everyone is flawed in some way, but that has no bearing on what they did. They rose above their faults and created a system that has worked for over 200 years and is still going strong. But there are those who wish to rule over their fellow man, and they would prefer to see this swept away and they feel that any means to do so justifies their ends.

Here’s were we disagree with Glenn Beck on the characterization of the Nazi’s as ‘Far-Right’

Having viewpoint grounded in historic fact has it’s advantages and Glenn Beck uses this to good effect. However, there is one contention that he needs to address to keep with logical reality. Many a time he has asserted that certain Nazi groups are a vestige of the Far-Right with allusions to it being some sort of European model. With all due respect, the measurement of any logical construct has to be vested with a consistent metric to make sense and this metric cannot change by geographic location.

It should be axiomatic that the constructs of our life have a basis in logic and reality. Confusion reigns when these elements are missing. The subject at hand is a very good example, there are those that prefer to characterize certain political groups as ‘on the Far-Right’ under various rationales that seem to be rather arbitrary.

In order to have an understandable metric, one must have it based upon a certain logical factor endemic to that measurement. This is why governments maintain weight and measurement standards in controlled environments, since each of these metrics have to be clearly defined for everyone. Such is the case with the political spectrum. One cannot arbitrary place a particular ideology at some point with a rational basis for doing so.

The origins of Left and Right began under the auspices of support for a monarchy during the time of the French revolution. Clearly this is no longer the case and it only makes sense to set the metric to a standard of modern times. This metric should have a basis in the dictionary definitions of the various mainstream ideologies of the day.

In general terms, the Right is considered to be the Conservative imbued with the principles of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property ownership and limited government while the Left is considered to be Socialistic in nature, vested in the principles of Collective or Groups rights and unlimited government.

It should be obvious that the political spectrum should measure governmental power, with the Right favouring the limitation of this power while the left favours the opposite viewpoint. The Far-Right would thus be characterized as minimal or zero governance. While the Far-Left would be characterized by complete or total government control. Thus one would logically place anarchy on the Far-Right and Totalitarianism on the Far-Left.

The mere placement of certain groups arbitrarily or by past characterizations or only sows confusion and discord. The spectrum is meaningless without a logical basis in fact. This is why it makes no logical sense to place an ideology that would require expansive governance on the Far-Right. Moreover it doesn’t make any sense to have this metric magically change depending on which side of the pond one is on.