Jungle Drums

Written by Michael Badnarik

When I was a boy, Tarzan movies were very popular. As always, European explorers in the jungle would panic when they heard jungle drums, a precursor to an inevitable attack by the local natives. Very similar to Pavlov’s dogs hearing the dinner bell. The Lame Stream Media would have you believe that a sudden, unexplainable increase in mass shootings across the country requires additional draconian gun laws to keep us safe and alive. “I’ll huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll BLOOOOOOW your house down!” We are a nation of frightened little piggys. If you’ve built your house out of straw you have every reason to be afraid.

269 shootings have been recorded across the country through the end of May. If this rate continues, there would be 646 by the end of the year. There were 698 mass shootings reported in 2021. Is it remotely possible that it isn’t mass shootings that have increased this year, but rather an increase of sensational media reporting intended to increase panic among the population? According to Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies. “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

There are at least five definitions of mass shootings that are used by various agencies. Typically, four or more people are injured – not killed – in a given location. Of course, in the minds of most people watching the news, every time the phrase “mass shooting” is used, it suggests another Columbine or Sandy Hook incident. In a vast majority of the shootings on record, there were no fatalities at all.

Let’s examine the recommended “solution” to this problem. More gun control. “Make all of those dangerous weapons illegal and take them off our streets.” We spend billions of dollars on the war of drugs, yet prisoners have no problem obtaining drugs, in spite of prison guards and 24 hour camera surveillance. Could we prevent teenagers from having sex if we made condoms illegal? If we make cars illegal, we could completely eliminate drunk driving – but I’m guessing there would be some public push-back on that solution. It IS a solution, but it would not be a popular one.

Imagine that you are Gary Cooper, the Sheriff in the movie High Noon. You are walking down the center of the street, getting ready to confront the “bad guys” who want to kill you. Tell me honestly. Would you feel better about the situation with a gun, or without one? Guns get used to prevent about 100 crimes for every one that they’re used to perpetrate. Any time evil confronts a gun owner, the crime either never happens (the bad guy runs away), or the gun owner stops the crime by shooting the crook. There are anywhere from half-million to a quarter-million defensive gun uses every year in the US alone. That’s a half-million to a quarter-million potential and actual crimes stopped. Why doesn’t the media report those incidents? Because it’s not “news”. Thousands of commercial aircraft land safely every day. It’s only “news” when the plane crashes.

Less than a year ago, Texas became a “Constitutional Carry” state. It is now legal to carry openly or concealed without a government issued permit. It seems that I am the ONLY Texan who exercises this inherent right. At least, I’m the only person I’ve noticed who carries openly. Perhaps Texans are very good about concealing their handgun. Who knows?

Subscribers to my newsletter have undoubtedly noticed fewer and fewer submissions to the list in the last two years. That’s because I’ve consciously chosen to stop complaining about politics. People haven’t listened to me for thirty years, so there’s no reason for me to suspect they’ll pay attention to anything I have to say now. But this violation of logic and the Second Amendment has got to stop! Therefore, I’ve decided to host an open carry picnic for Independence Day this year. I will supply the hot dogs, chips, and beer, but you won’t eat anything if you’re not armed. (And .22 caliber doesn’t count, you sissy.) Send me a text message to RSVP. I’ll need to know if I’m eating alone.

2021 statistics
2022 statistics
Learn to shoot accurately from Michael

You May Also Like…

Bond. James Bond.

I recently went to the theater to watch No Time to Die, the most recent James Bond action movie. It is not my favorite, but it reveals plans for a new 007 agent in the future. You can search the Internet for speculation on who will replace Daniel Craig, if you're...

Texas Open Carry

There is a semi-famous (notorious?) restaurant in Rifle, Colorado where the waitresses carry guns, and patrons are encouraged to wear their guns when they come to eat. Lauren Boebert, owner of the SHOOTER'S GRILL, has gained national attention for her decision to...

Constitutional Carry

My birthday is August 1st, however my birthday wish will not come true until September 1st, when "Constitutional Carry" is no longer against the law in Texas. I plan to wear my shoulder holster every day after that without fail. What IS "Constitutional Carry"? It is...


  1. Todd

    I would pay more attention to what you said about politics if instead of complaining about how your Second Amendment rights are going to be infringed by everyone doing a knee-jerk reaction you actually gave potential solutions to the situation of having children killed indiscriminately when someone goes off the deep end. You complain about the recommended “solution” yet have nothing to offer in response. At least someone is offering up something as a solution, where is yours?

    In your fifth paragraph, you talk about so many defensive gun uses are happening across the United States every year. Great! It’s the classic ‘good guy with a gun stops the bad guy with a gun’ trope. What happens when the ‘good guys with the guns’ won’t even confront the ‘bad guy with the gun’ and also prevent anyone else from doing so? A “nation of frightened little piggys [sic]” is an apt description.

    Before you jump immediately into claiming I want to ban guns or add to our gun laws, I suggest you stop and think long and hard. Personally, I have no problem with guns and understand and appreciate the inclusion of the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights, but we certainly have an issue that needs addressed. This isn’t just about how many guns I own or you own and where you or I are allowed or not allowed to have them. To function as a society, there must be rules that we follow to maintain order.

    There are a lot of places that our society has failed with standardized responses. The “War on Drugs” has spent billions of dollars and drugs are just as rampant (and now deadlier than ever) on our streets. We’ve locked up a higher number of people per capita than any other country in the world. Maybe decriminalizing personal usage and instead directing those people found with amounts for personal use into programs meant to help them? Spend all the money feeding and housing them and making it difficult to reintegrate into society and be productive, or maybe get them outside help?

    Our country has become one where police are the standard response unit for any situation. Our schools now have police on site almost constantly and there are accounts of how kids are dealt with as criminals for behavior issues instead of being taught how their behavior is a problem. We have police responding to mental health issues and it is treated like any other criminal interaction. Pilot programs are in place in several locales that use dedicated mental health teams to respond to appropriate crises that arise and are successful. Our police have an absolute minimum of training, I would harbor that you or I have more time (likely orders of magnitude more) either in training or actually using our education than police have before they are let loose on the streets.

    We have an issue with mental health in our country. and our government is responding by slashing funding for mental health services and vetoing attempts to try to work on it. Governor Abbott there in Texas is one of those doing this. Do you want someone who has serious mental health issues to have free access to firearms? We can’t even know who the people with these serious issues are because the programs that would have found and helped them aren’t there.

    So, what are your solutions? Please, keep in mind that not everyone is going to agree with you, so find some common ground and compromises you are willing to make. After all, that is part of being in a society. We ALL have to make it work together. Don’t make solutions just about YOU and YOUR RIGHTS, but make them something that WE can live with.

    [mjb: Thank you for your comments. First of all, there is no compromise when it comes to my rights. “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Americans gave up their ability to defend themselves long ago in lieu of a police force that is incapable of defending everyone. Or anyone. My solution is for everyone to carry a gun to protect themselves. If you’re uncomfortable with that, I don’t really care. My rights and my safety are not subject to a vote. I challenge your assertion that the solution must be “something that WE can live with.” Carry a gun. Don’t carry a gun. That is your choice. You already know mine.]

    • Todd

      Again, you fail to offer a reasonable solution to the issue at hand. I’m not asking you to give up your rights, but instead to discuss openly solutions to what we are seeing. It has already been long established that the rights guaranteed in our Constitution are not unlimited (yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is not covered under the right to Free Speech.

      You apparently don’t want to be part of our society as you don’t want to work with others in this society to come up with a workable solution. I agree that our police force is incapable of defending people. I agree that we do not want to give up essential Liberty to get temporary Safety. However, the status quo is apparently not working and not a reasonable solution.

      [mjb: I have offered a solution, which is that everyone take personal responsibility for their own safety and protection. I am openly discussing (and recommending) that. You apparently do not find that a reasonable approach, and you imply that I am unwilling to discuss solutions openly. You agree that the police force is incapable of defending people, and you agree that we are not required to give up our rights. However, if you reject the idea that we EXERCISE that right, then someone I’M the one being unreasonable? If you have a benevolent solution that does not require killing the bad guys, I am willing to take my finger off the trigger long enough to hear it. What say you, Solomon?]

      • Todd

        Everyone take personal responsibility for their own safety and protection. Sounds great. Now how do the infants in a daycare protect themselves? They can’t even hold a gun. Children at the local elementary school–they don’t have the maturity to understand and respond to such a threat and I wouldn’t trust most of them to be constantly armed. We arm the teachers? These are people who already spend their own money to procure basic supplies for their classrooms, now you require they purchase a firearm and give up the time to get appropriately trained (funny, many teachers have more training for their profession than our law enforcement does for theirs…). More police in schools? We already agreed that police aren’t the answer. So what is the answer?

        There are times and places where firearms are appropriate, handled with responsibility and reasonable care they are simply a tool. I have NO issue with that. I have no problem with you being able to EXERCISE your Second Amendment right. I am out here trying to actually defend gun rights, believe it or not. The problem is that the issue as a whole is one of huge complexity, and nobody wants to go beyond the quick sound bites that you can get on the news or in a tweet. Even you paraphrased the ‘recommended solution’ as “Make all of those dangerous weapons illegal and take them off our streets.” You’ve gone to the extreme end of the response spectrum, putting it forward as a bogeyman when the truth is that the overwhelming majority of people don’t want to go that far.

        A “benevolent solution that does not require killing the bad guys”? Is there maybe something we can do to prevent the bad guys from getting a firearm in the first place? Maybe there is something that can be done to help those who have mental issues BEFORE they go on a killing spree? I want you to be able to own and carry a firearm as a responsible gun owner, believe it or not. I don’t want to bury the innocent just to make you happy, however.

        If we want to be able to have our guns, we need to respond in a reasonable fashion. Again, we are part of the society at large and need to work with our neighbors. We cannot sit here and scream “NO!” like a petulant toddler who is afraid our favorite toy is about to be taken away. There’s a lot to think about with this overall. There’s a lot to cover in how we protect those who are unable to defend themselves (or prevent there from being a need for them to defend themselves).

        I hate to say it, but we MUST engage others in how to reasonably and responsibly address the issue at hand. We cannot simply stamp our feet and demand that we get things our way. If we don’t work together with others, the world will eventually come and override us and those rights will be stripped away. There is a provision in our Constitution to amend it, that has been used twenty-seven times in our history. Amendments have been repealed via other amendments. The Second Amendment can be repealed the same way. Do I want it repealed? No. So how do we go about making sure that doesn’t happen? By stepping up to help solve these issues as a responsible citizen of our society.

        Therein lies another question that needs answered: with the fact there are existing limitations to our Second Amendment rights (how many fully automatic weapons can the average Joe purchase legally?) and we respect the Constitution, how would you respond if, through the existing process supplied in the Constitution, the Second Amendment were repealed?

        [mjb: Really?! Really?! How would school children defend themselves? The same way they feed themselves. The same way they shelter themselves. The same way they earn a disposable income. THEY DON’T! Their parents are responsible for everything about them until they’ve learned to take care of themselves. (Did I really need to answer that, or were you just being difficult?)]

        [mjb: Is there something we can do to prevent the bad guys from getting a firearm in the first place? No. Sadly, there isn’t. We can’t keep drugs out of prisons, and we’ll never prevent bad guys from getting guns. Making guns illegal removes them from the hands of good people, making good people more vulnerable. Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control in the nation. The cities with the highest murder and assault rates are… (wait for it…) Washington D.C., New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Some level of gun control is the only answer that you will agree is “rational”. You are very much like my ex-girlfriend… continuing to ask the same question over and over until she gets the answer she wants.]

        [mjb: The Second Amendment CANNOT be repealed the same way!! The Bill of Rights is a list of some basic INDIVIDUAL rights which existed prior to the document. If think you can repeal the 2nd Amendment, then someone else may think they can repeal the 1st Amendment and prohibit your exercise of religion.]

        [mjb: I *AM* stepping up to solve this problem that others have allowed to fester for so long. I – and other gun owners – are willing to kill the evil and crazy among us. Something that would not be necessary if our ancestors hadn’t allowed the government to take control in the first place. Almost everything the federal government does is unconstitutional! You’d know that if you had ever taken my eight-hour class on the Constitution.]

        [mjb: You people make my head hurt.]

        • Todd

          Paragraph 1: Really? Yes, really. Their parents are responsible for their safety? Great, that means I don’t have to worry about sending kids to school, because I can’t provide for their safety while I am working to provide for their needs. How many kids do you have and have you provided safety for while working to pay the bills and also educate said children? Or do you suggest we ask teachers to arm themselves? They already have to provide supplies for the classroom, what makes you think the school districts are going to provide the weapons or training? Get a realistic clue here about what a large majority of the working class of our country deals with on a daily basis–both parents have to work just to provide for the family on a paycheck to paycheck basis (and that doesn’t even consider single-parent households). There isn’t one of them free to constantly oversee safety of their children.

          Paragraph 2: No way to stop bad guys or mentally ill from getting guns at all. That’s all fine and dandy, but what if we actually addressed the root causes that drives people to commit crimes or mentally break and start killing indiscriminately? Hey, if we actually solve the root problem, we can get rid of ALL gun control laws. I’m all for that, believe it or not. This is the ‘rational’ approach. Make it such that the gun control laws are not necessary. But you’ve not shown any willingness to address those issues. If you’re unwilling to discuss this at a deeper and more complex level, then why are you so surprised when your opponents go where you don’t want them to? I’M NOT FOR MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS. Let me say that again. I’M NOT FOR MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS. What I am for is for addressing the issues that lead to gun violence, and it’s a long and tough road to head down. You’ve declared that I will only accept some level of gun control, you obviously don’t know me. So far, everything I have seen you put forward is framed entirely about your right to carry whatever weapon you like wherever you like. When you aren’t willing to actually have a discussion beyond that, why are so surprised when people dismiss your arguments?

          Paragraph 3: Please highlight in the Constitution where it says that we cannot amend or repeal any of the first ten amendments. The Second Amendment is fully on the table for repeal at any time as is the First Amendment. As long as the proper procedures are followed, it can be done. We have amendments repealed before, the eighteenth was repealed by the twenty-first. I am fully aware of this, having read through the Constitution many times.

          Paragraph 4: You and other gun owners are willing to kill the evil and crazy among us. Who is the one determining who is evil and/or crazy? You? Or do we just wait until killing starts and then point our fingers to say someone is evil and crazy (letting the innocent die just to make that determination)? Or maybe we find a way to make the determination beforehand and try to set that person on a different path. You suggest I should take your class on the Constitution? Why should I when you can’t even read and understand Article V for yourself? Or are you just in it for the money?

          Please, look back through and re-read what I have posited on so many different subjects. Gun violence in and of itself is rooted in a number of complex societal ills, and so far all I have seen from you is a willingness to kill those who partake in gun violence rather than prevent it in the first place. Drug usage is another such societal problem. Throw racism (systemic and otherwise) in that mix as well. All of them are intertwined much the way a complex ecosystem is, and I haven’t even touched on the economic aspects that contribute to it all. I’m saying there is no easy solution, whether it is adding to gun control laws or getting rid of them and arming more of our populace. We need to be willing to have open and honest discussions on these matters to solve gun violence, and we need to work together to address it. I’m not gung-ho to kill the evil and crazy among us, I want to help them before they hurt others. Where do your priorities lie on those matters?

          I make your head hurt? Am I asking you to think too much about deeper and more complex ideas than you are willing or capable of? Sorry for doing so, but you really really have missed the mark on a lot of what I put forward.

  2. Arthur Danu

    While I agree with everything you said, Michael, there is also the possibility that media hysteria and hype around the mass shootings / gun control issue is actually used successfully to DRIVE UP GUN AND AMMUNITION SALES.

    Just like when weather reports create hype around a big storm on the way, people run to the stores to empty the shelves, or in the case of Covid, grab toilet paper, it seems that we are being constantly driven by fear to arm ourselves against this threat or that.

    The same people staging these mass shooting events are motivated by the same thing gun manufacturers are….MONEY, plain and simple.

    And BUSINESS is good on all sides, Mass Media included, regardless of inflation, because FEAR ALWAYS SELLS.

    Maybe one day the masses will wake up to this manipulation, but like you, I’m not counting on it anymore.

  3. Mette

    Seeing the increase in first time gun owners shows that people are starting to wake up.

  4. Don Bender

    Michael, you’ve done more than anyone else in my life in making me aware of the need to understand and protect my rights not given to me but pointed out to me in the Bill of Rights. And I tend to agree with you when you said your rights end where my rights begin. So now in looking at this huge problem in our society, what about the rights of those being killed in mass shootings typically by obsessed or mentally ill people? Especially children who cannot carry weapons.

    I have to pile on with Todd’s comments above. We need to find a solution to a societal problem. Do we arm teachers? Is that what they signed on for? Do we add more police to schools? You already said the police are not what people should rely on for protection. So how do we protect a target that’s increasingly being copycatted?

    I had to re-read the 2nd Amendment to really start figuring out where our rights might be infringed if we were to say ban assault style weapons. Obviously not for your benefit but for others who might be reading this, the text says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The whole context of that amendment is around the idea of a well-regulated militia. It does not say in order for people to protect their life and property… You might extrapolate that idea from the text but it would be exactly that, an extrapolation.

    If you just read the second half of that amendment you have an argument. But clearly the founding fathers intended the context of a well-regulated militia. Mostly because at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights we didn’t have a big enough militia to defend our country or state and we had to call upon the armed citizenry to create that militia. But now we have a full-on military. One that is armed to the teeth. Way more than any citizen army could duplicate.

    As you know I certainly don’t stand for the removal of guns from our society. I’ve enjoyed the shooting lessons you’ve given me and would like to own a weapon. But should military grade weapons be allowed in our society? If people were simply responsible we wouldn’t need laws. But as we know people are not. Therefore laws and restrictions are needed to protect society in general. Will the removal of AR15s stop mass killings? No. But if they were made illegal to own, the average mass shooter would not have access to those types of weapons. They could still take a standard gun or rifle and shoot some kids. But their killing capacity would be greatly reduced.

    As Todd pointed out, we’re looking for solutions here within the scope of the Constitution. I read the Constitution to say in order to form a well-regulated militia. To me, limiting the types of guns allowed in our society does not put this country in more danger. Our military will protect us just fine. And if you want guns to protect your property, fine. But do you need a high-powered high capacity weapon to do that? You may say yes. I say the trade-off is too great putting our society in more danger.

    [mjb: I will do my best to respond to your comments in the sequence that you raise them.

    Do we arm teachers? Yes! I realize that not what they signed up for, but our culture has changed and they need to step up if they want to stay teachers. They cannot protect our children if the only thing they’re going to do is dial 911.

    Do we add more police to schools? It doesn’t have to be police. Armed parents could stand guard outside the school… if they really care about their children. The police are ineffective because there are too few of them, and that’s because they must be paid. Unpaid parents would not hesitate to rush the building waiting for approval from a higher authority.

    Your argument about “a well regulated militia” is flawed. The Second Amendment was not talking about the National Guard, which is the “organized militia”. It was talking about “a well-regulated” militia, which in 1791 meant “well prepared”. The National Guard wasn’t formed until 1903. Your argument implies that the Founding Fathers were able to predict the future, and that the Second Amendment was meaningless for over 100 years. I am not extrapolating anything.

    “We have a full-on military.” Yes, we do. And the Declaration of Independence complains that King George “has kept among us a standing army without the consent of our legislature.” They understood that soldiers trained to protect our property could very easily decide to take that property away from us. The Second Amendment was intended to give us recourse “if” the federal government got out of control. I’m willing to argue that it was out of control decades ago.

    Making AR-15s illegal would not reduce the number of them on the streets. Furthermore, AR-15s are used in very few crimes. Far fewer than the media would lead you to believe.

    Call me if you wish to discuss this further and I will attempt to explain this issue to your satisfaction… assuming that is possible.]

  5. Kent McManigal

    If you were a lot closer, or if gasoline were a lot cheaper, I’d love to come to your picnic.

    And, in reference to the comments of the anti-gun bigot above, the solution isn’t to violate all the people who didn’t become evil losers who mass murder. It’s to make it easier for good people to defend the innocent. (and, obviously, gov-schools should be abolished if education is valuable.) Any restrictions only affect those who aren’t inclined to violate others (which is why government employees are never held back by “laws”).

    Plus, I am pro-liberty. Liberty is more important than even life. Without life, there is no liberty… but you won’t miss it and won’t care. Without liberty, life is a hellscape. It’s non-negotiable.

    But you can’t convince anti-gun bigots with reason, reality, and logic because that’s not how they became anti-gun in the first place. Their feelings rule them. “For the children” is always a lie. Selling them into slavery doesn’t help them.

    • Todd

      I’m not certain that you are commenting on my post or the one from Don Bender, but it is interesting just how many people fail to actually read what gets put forward. The comments I have made say outright that I am not for banning guns or more gun control laws. Just because someone does not agree with Michael’s stance does not mean they are anti-gun. I enjoy shooting, but I also understand we have a problem in this country that is not easily solved.

      When the solution proposed is to put more armed people out there to protect the innocent, the issue becomes that the solution is reactive instead of proactive. When everybody walks around with a gun on their hip, which one is the bad guy? Nobody knows until shots are fired and the innocent are hurt or dying.

      There are already more guns in this country than people. That genie is out of the bottle, we can’t put it back in. So how do we become proactive to confront this issue and make it such that the innocent don’t need such levels of protection?

      What needs to happen first and foremost is to understand WHY we have this problem. Why does someone feel a need to pick up a gun and go on a killing spree? Why does someone feel they have no choice but to grab a gun and rob someone else? Once we understand the why, we can work on solutions to those issues where nobody has a desire to commit such acts. Is that by better mental health services? Putting an end to systematic racism and some of our economic woes would more than likely go a long way as well.

      Michael claims to have lots of answers about our Constitution and republic. He declares that almost everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. The thing to remember is that our Constitution is written with specificity about who will be the arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional, and Michael Badnarik is not named there. He tries to say that the Second Amendment cannot be repealed the same way the eighteenth was. I have yet to see anywhere in the Constitution or our laws where it is said this cannot be done.

      I am not necessarily enamored with how things are being done in our country, but I am willing to work with my fellow citizens to solve these issues in a sensible fashion. We are only one of three countries on this planet where the right to bear arms is enshrined in our Constitution, and the other two have severe restrictions on that right compared to us.

      I’m willing to debate back and forth with people here, but want to ensure that people understand my position fully. Unfortunately, my refusal to kowtow to someone like Michael gets me labeled as anti-gun or has me accused of only accepting some level of gun control as “rational”. I want this debate out in the open for as many people as possible to view and think about, Michael wanted to take it private. I was told he was in the hospital for some serious surgery, though he has apparently been back replying to comments here since, I hope he is doing well. I hope to continue the discussion further at some point.

      • Richard

        Todd, as one of Michael’s best friends I can say he was NEVER going to be the guy to advocate for “Free mental healthcare” or some other lefty, socialist, touchy-feely taxpayer funded solution which was probably what you were pushing for. He was a Constitutionalist teacher, not a therapist and that was just fine with us. The guardians of our rights don’t have to be touchy-feely sensitive types nor would we want them to be, because those government programs would probably assume funding of money stolen from us to fund them, thus violating other Constitutional rights not to be robbed by anyone including the government. Your childish taunt of advanced mental therapy programs was NOT something Michael would have ever proposed or agreed to, except you frequently use a tactic of proposing straw men solutions not proposed or agreed to; a cheap tactic indeed. Your statement: “More police in schools? We already agreed that police aren’t the answer. So what is the answer?” You’ve mixed your statements to corrupt “police” as a solution, which is disingenuous and cheating really in a “fair discussion” which is not what you want. You want to win by any means, however cheap. Police DO work and WOULD be the answer in certain circumstances and one of those would be WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY THERE AT THE ASSAULT VENUE at the schools (or movie theaters or any where else “Gun free zones” are designated) where kids are being targeted, which is WHY the cowardly mass shooters go there to massacre totally vulnerable innocents with government enforced targets on their backs. Your cheap tactic started when it was acknowledged cops can never get somewhere quickly enough to prevent a crime/shooting so you appLIEd that false equivalency to a different scenario. Good guys with guns need to be EVERYWHERE or at least the POSSIBILITY that there are gun owners all around which functions as the deterrent to keep wackos from trying “to become famous” as a mass murderer which in their (probably) pathetic lives is what they are seeking. Ever wonder why you never saw mass shootings in Beirut? Because anyone who tried to shoot a group of people there would be obliterated by the armed crowd obviously, which in reality would happen. That same deterrent is achieved even IF it was accepted that anyone might have a gun nearby. It’s most important that ANYONE could have a gun, especially the weak or elderly IF there were ZERO government deterrents from them owning a small handgun in their pocket. My solution to your question? Allow NO obstacles to gun ownership and possession at ANY time, get RID of so-called the moronic “Gun free zones” (probably implemented to INCREASE shootings to damage gun rights), work on tort reform to eliminate criminal or civil dangers to good-guys-with-guns defending themselves or others, by killing the bad guy, and add security guards at schools with full “lethal force” rights. I noticed you ignored my previous reply from June so I suspected you either didn’t see it or didn’t want to “lose your argument” by acknowledging it. It touches on other topics as well but certainly one item certainly increasing these mass shootings is depression caused by living in a prisons as slaves like we are right now. With totalitarianism increasing and venues for prosperity closing down to steer young people into the military where the globalists want them as pawns in eternal wars for profit/control it’s a wonder everyone isn’t acting-out with violent episodes of pseudo suicides. Also our pathetic government schools limit prosperous futures for the young leaving them depressed and leave their still clueless minds vulnerable to idiotic action movies or other bad influences. The moral to the story is, there ARE solutions such as charitably funded mental health facilities but if you expect a simple Sheriff of the Constitution to propose a taxpayer-funded government solution you’re just wasting everyone’s time.

  6. Chicodoodoo

    Oh, come on. A .22 pistol works well, is easy to rack, doesn’t make your ears ring, is easy to carry and conceal, is cheap to feed bullets, won’t injure a weak wrist, and can still give an attacker something serious to worry about.

    [mjb: No, it really can’t. Not unless you can walk up and put it behind his ear. 9mm, maybe. 380 is a maybe if you’ve got 15 rounds and can place them all. .22? Sorry. No. But I’d have loaned you a real gun if you came all that way.]

    Can’t I please come to your picnic? Actually, I can’t afford the gasoline to make the trip anyway, so I guess you are off the hook. But thank you for the invitation and the wise words.

    • Bart

      I actually am a crack shot with my .22 target pistol. I can literally hit a target the size of a penny at 20 yards. I have to deal with varmints trying to eat my chickens so I get practice that way.

  7. Richard

    Well I read most of the comments down to this point and have to point out the obvious which is that without the waste they are prone to government schools should be able to afford security guards with the complete authority to guard the children. Simple enough right? Don’t need the police, don’t need the parents there. In fact as far as I’m concerned we can get rid of the police and businesses and everybody should be able to use security guard companies they only have to pay when they do something and we could do the same thing for the fire departments who could function as the trash companies who get paid for doing their jobs rather than sitting around waiting for something to happen or inventing excuses to justify their existence. In fact most of what the police do is enforcing civil codes invented to justify their existence as well as the courts and the prisons who come up with new fines for violating victimless crime laws all day long. As far as trying to keep mental inferiors from having guns it’s not possible and it’s quite likely they are being aided, funded and supplied by ominous forces who want to overthrow this country initially by defeating the amendments that guarantee our right to weapons to defend against them. This is all the more reason to guarantee that every single person has a right to a firearm including those indicted for any of the number of victimless crimes now being used to steal the rights of citizens everyday and entrap them in the criminal so-called “Justice system”. If you don’t think that’s true you haven’t noticed the deluge of assaults on this country against our rights in the last 2 years on a multitude of levels all based on lies and hoaxes. You should go to http://www.Flemingmethod.com to see what’s really going on and how those who are paying attention are attempting to do something about it.

  8. rob jacobs

    Here are a couple recent examples of the proper response to unhinged individuals who choose [insert tool(s) chemical(s) biological(s) of your choice here]:

    monday july 18th, 2022 in indiana:

    saturday may 28th, 2022 in west virginia:

    also see:


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *