The War of the States

16 Jan
The War of the States

With the 23 executive actions that Obama has set forth on top of his desire to reinstate the assault weapons ban one can see the federal fight shaping up for the future of the 2nd Amendment.  But I wonder if that is where the real fight is going to take place.

I think that for every New York State, that pushes senseless and ineffective measures under the auspices of reducing gun violence, you will have a half dozen states like Texas and Wyoming who seek to strengthen their gun rights.  States that are going so far as arresting federal agents who try and enforce federally backed infringements to the 2nd Amendment.

There will be a divide in the States over gun rights but it is far from evenly split and oddly enough does not necessarily follow the traditional red/blue dichotomy.

Sure, when someone thinks of New England and the West Coast they think of a bloc of gun grabbing zealot states who will stop at nothing to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens but that is not always the case.

For instance, think of Vermont.  Pretty blue when it votes, but it has one of the best understandings of what the 2nd Amendment means and holds almost no restrictions therein.  They are not going to follow New York’s lead. Also, I don’t see New Hampshire, the live free or die state, lining up to follow the Empire State.

So while the exploitation of dead children and the media driven sensationalism and hysteria might draw some New England states away from liberty, it is not as clearly defined as our national elections would have one believe.

The same can be said for the Pacific Northwest.  While the machinations of Californian politicians look to further hamstring the 2nd Amendment in Sacramento, the gun grabbing fever looks to be quarantined there and unlikely to spread.  Though Washington and Oregon have streaks of blue come national election time, on a state level they tend to lean Libertarian and their gun laws reflect it.

If the North East and the West Coast are where gun control support is supposed to be at its greatest then I feel a little better about the whole thing.  Because it is plain to see that in truth, only a few radical rogue politicians are pushing for it.  Outside of those regimes, you have neighboring states that will either do nothing and enjoy the 2nd Amendment freedoms their currently have, or you will get states that will actively move to defend the right to keep and bear arms such as the entire Midwest.

South Dakota, Idaho, Arizona, Texas, Wyoming, and Tennessee all have legislation being put forth to strengthen gun rights for its citizens in order to protect them from both criminals and an overreaching infringing federal government.

Not to mention that Utah, Montana and Alaska have all ready passed the Firearm Freedom Act with AZ, ID, WY and SD and doesn’t include the 25 other states that have introduced the Act.

My prediction is as follows.  As some states in decline begin to seize more and more personal liberties through abusive taxes and infringing upon rights, people will begin to emigrate from them to places that are more free.

Is it a coincidence that states that value the 2nd Amendment rights also have the lowest personal income taxes and the most freedom overall?  Whereas California and New York crush not only the rights of the people but also their livelihood.

Obama and his collaborators like to make it appear as if there is a wave of gun control fever sweeping the nation when in fact there are only a few radical and opportunistic puppets that have followed his lead.

In the elections that come in the next few years, be they state or federal, we must remind them that indeed a wave is coming, it will be carrying freedom and liberty with such force that it will drown the ambition of tyrants.


Posted by on January 16, 2013 in Uncategorized


35 responses to “The War of the States

  1. ME

    January 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm


  2. Mark Lawson

    January 16, 2013 at 12:54 pm

    I live in Tennessee and I have heard many police and firemen say they will not in any way infringe on gun owner’s weapons or their freedoms ! They stand against the Tyrant and his rogue minions who wish nothing more than to make this country a dictatorship. I hope the TN Legislature also will pass the Firearms Freedom Acts!

  3. deadeye

    January 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    great article! kudos

  4. Bryan

    January 16, 2013 at 12:58 pm

    The biggest issue with the so-called Liberal states like California is that their elected officials do not represent anyone but themselves. They behave as if they’re the new wave of nobility, making laws in their name without approval from their population, and demonizing those they dislike for various reasons.

    The Brady campaign likens gun owners to psychopaths awaiting an opportunity to commit murder, while Diane Flintstone and Yee forcefeed the public drivel such as the concept that the Ruger 10/22 is somehow an assault rifle.

    We broke away from Britain specifically to AVOID situations like these! Why do people ignore history?

  5. msalzbrenner

    January 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm

    I sincerely hope that more state and local law enforcement remember that even though their duty is to the law, their obligation is to the people. Here is a site that has made a good start :

  6. Rick

    January 16, 2013 at 1:01 pm

    Oh hells yes! I did not realize my state was one of those STRENGTHENING our rights… I’ll hold off on my move to TX for a while, yet 🙂

  7. paradox

    January 16, 2013 at 1:12 pm

    Perfect… gun ownership is NOT a left vs right issue. It is a patriot vs statist issue.

  8. Garrett

    January 16, 2013 at 1:30 pm

    Just a quick correction. Arizona has a Firearms Freedom Act that passed in 2010. Great article though!

    • Tony Oliva

      January 16, 2013 at 1:32 pm


      You misread it. That’s what it says. 🙂

  9. j forbes

    January 16, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    We already have a Firearms Freedon Act. It’s called the Constitution. Why do we need more paper?

  10. J

    January 16, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Looks like 1860 again. What happened their? Oh that’s right the states Seceded from the Union. Then we had a Civil War. Who says history doesn’t repeat itself. 1775 we got tired of the abuses from a Tyrant trampling us with Taxes and Their rights. What happened then? That’s right the American revolution. The President has violated his oath of Office how many times?


    January 16, 2013 at 6:51 pm

    obama is has violated his oath and is tramplng on the bill of right and the constitution.and we have to get him out of office.this man think he god and he need to go. god help us in this time need. call your reps in your we can stop this mad man . god helps us in this time of need, obama is a putpet of the new world order. for more in go to god bless you all. we dont need this putpet in office he gone to far this time, and in the words of george washington 1790 AD A FREE PEOPLE OUTGHT…TO BE ARMED,,, it,s a right… not a privilege! for more info go to

  12. John F. Wozniak

    January 16, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    Let’s be honest: even in New York, there’s a heavy defense of gun ownership. Up where the football is sub-par yet promising, somehow for four years running now, Mario Williams signed with the Bills … after Jim Kelly told him about the hunting in the area.

    Having said that, these executive orders will do nothing by themselves, by my estimate. Except maybe give the public stats the NRA won’t like to hear about gun owners causing more problems than they fix in the home. (Seriously, if they really DID kill that study rather than ramp up gun safety programs, I’m not happy. From what I can tell, they did both, but it might not have been related…) On the other hand, as I’ve said elsewhere, the FFA laws will just end up STRENGTHENING the federal government when they hit the Supreme Court, at least those that include the provision to arrest ATF, FBI, and other federal employees. (Do you really think any Court would let that stand? Maybe this one would knock out some federal gun laws at the same time, though. If they really think that’s worth the tradeoff, go ahead, but…)

    • Bryan

      January 16, 2013 at 8:15 pm

      As an apprentice gunsmith, I’d love to hear about these stats about guns causing problems in the home. Aside from misinformed (and illegal) purchases in Blue States by women being advised to buy a gun and then being murdered by husbands or boyfriends that didn’t just back down, most gun owning homes contain more responsible and less violent citizens than non-gun owning homes. Maybe it’s being raised to recognize life is precious? Maybe it’s the fact that a father with a handgun will often discipline a kid for fucking off with a tool that can seriously hurt someone? Or maybe it’s the fact that in the long run, gun owners continue to obey laws not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because it’s their legal responsibility above and beyond just being good people?

      • John F. Wozniak

        January 16, 2013 at 8:48 pm

        Here’s one, though it’s kind of narrowly focused.

        Oddly it hits the direct problem more aptly than the so-called gun-control problem. Though it’s not exactly surprising that illicit drugs and guns don’t mix. I’ll look for others and see if I can find more.

        That’s the problem, though. Some people just should not own guns, yet it’s considered a natural law to be allowed to own them without restrictions. (I consider MYSELF as one of those people just on the basis of a) my horrible eyesight without my glasses and b) my home. It’s a multi-family condo. Those walls, they certainly _sound_ like they’re tissue-thin. Besides, my waraxe is much more intimidating-looking…) If we’re not allowed to use ANY common sense on that (the mentally ill, drug addicts, convicted felons) by fighting the universal background check, where exactly are we?

      • Bryan

        January 16, 2013 at 9:08 pm

        I’m not entirely sure that actually fits. That strikes me as similar to the study done by Berkley or whatever hippy college it was that stated concealed carry permit holders are on the whole paranoid violent twits. I can’t back such research, knowing that both my brother in law AND my father are veterans that regularly exercise their right to carry concealed within the law. Most of these so-called studies either pull non-gun owners off the streets and use fallacious arguments, or worse survey areas where NONE of the gun owners are legal and simply using criminals as a way to slander legal gun owners.

      • John F. Wozniak

        January 16, 2013 at 9:43 pm

        And you clearly read the entire study … okay, I didn’t either. All I was doing was finding one that existed, just in case someone was going to make the extraordinary claim that none did. It was apparently done in Atlanta, by a federal agency over what appears to be three administrations, two of which were Republican, and no idea if anyone was a hippie or not.

        This was the text NBC News gave:

        ” From the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)

        But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, [Dr. Mark Rosenberg, president of the Task Force for Global Health and director of the CDC’s Center for Injury Prevention and Control from 1994 to 1999] said.”

        … Having said that, I note the date on the New England Journal of Medicine link I gave, 1993… I really DID find the study. I’m going to read it thoroughly now. And I’m going to tell you if I like what I see or not., but … you can’t back such research because you know your brother-in-law and father are responsible gun owners? I’m not saying they’re not. But they’re only two gun owners out of millions. If you haven’t met an irresponsible gun owner, that doesn’t mean that they don’t EXIST. By that logic I would have thought black people don’t exist when I was growing up. (I exaggerate oh, so very slightly.) There was a shooting in Flint, Michigan, wherein some idiot left his gun unattended and Dedrick Owens, his nephew, shot Kayla Rollins to death. (I stopped paying attention to “Bowling for Columbine” shortly after that when Michael Moore tried to get an interview from Dick Clark… with nearly pure Insane Troll Logic. So I didn’t see him verbally smacking a man with Alzheimer’s around at the end of the movie. But I digress.)

        I want an actual study done where they look at statistics of gun deaths. I want the NRA and the Brady Center to both give explanations on those numbers. I want the fact that the most notorious high school shooting in history took place during the supposed ban via the Brady Bill, explained by both sides. Then I want people to talk about how to solve this problem. (And I kind of want the Vice President to shut the hell up about video games, by the way. I’m a frigging expert at FPS’s and that means crap about my ability to shoot a gun. My veteran Marine brother-in-law doesn’t seem to do so well at those either, so I suspect the reverse is true.) I even want people to talk about how much of a problem it really is! But I don’t like people dismissing arguments out of hand because of perceived bias.

      • Bryan

        January 17, 2013 at 10:43 am

        Coming from a gamer, there’s certainly a link there. Never mind the newer shooter titles using realistic sighting systems and bullet drop/wind deviation, or that you visibly see them reload step by step in mere seconds…

        Parents of my generation doped their kids up with drugs -just for being kids-. Adderol and Ritalin were passed out by unqualified schoolteachers, drugs that if you -don’t- have a chemical imbalance requiring the use of these medications, will damage the portions of your brain that control the emotions we attribute to morality.

        When you take a child that has grown up as a state-sponsored addict, with nothing to guide his development of degraded morality on but films such as Wanted (where the average guy suddenly gets to lash out against life) and video games such as Grand Theft Auto (whatever any pundits say, it truly does become a murder simulator, because the only use anyone has for that game is blowing off steam after work by mowing down pedestrians with a jumbo jet), they’re going to think that it’s either acceptable, or worse yet cool to do so.

        Then you take into account the wide connection of media these days–monsters that once would have been forgotten are now being glorified for being monsters, setting a tone that says “You too can be remembered for more than abysmal poetry and cutting yourself”.

        Sure, my uncle is a twat and irresponsible, but even he resorted to fists when he got out of line instead of shooting someone.

        I think both sides are utterly moronic placing the blame solely in an inanimate object, though. Again, coming from a gamer, I grew up with access to the first truly violent games (Quake, Doom, Wolfenstien), and I’ve never shot anyone; even after my parents retired and we moved to a place where guns were in the home again. I was taught right from wrong, and to take responsibility for my actions. The few times I continued to emulate the attitudes (Duke Nukem, I’m looking at you), my PC (which I’d helped build) was taken away and I had to write a little paper about why it’s wrong to behave that way in the real world.

        Parents have forgotten that. Games, movies, guns, they’re all crutches when it comes to the criminal and mentally ill. Nothing will stop a criminal or a McVeigh except intervention by the Law or a doctor.

        Maybe beating your kids now and then instead of letting daytime TV and the 360 raise them is a good idea (don’t let any capital L liberals read that, they’ll blow a gasket).

      • John F. Wozniak

        January 17, 2013 at 12:46 pm

        Now this… is kind of interesting. I didn’t know how accurate games’ shooting was getting because I tend to still play the games that are so-called hit-scan games, effectively giving the character a laser that’ll hit the cross hairs. Even in New Vegas with their scoped rifles I rarely have to adjust for distance. Then again, that’s because I get close enough to switch to the ‘Assault Carbine’ (the fictitious 5mm version of the M4, horrible at range, but it fires pretty much the definition of armor piercing bullets) if anyone or anything charges.

        GTA, I don’t use to blow off steam, I actually try (since San Andreas) to roleplay CJ or Niko as an outright anti-hero. Probably because to me, the story’s compelling. _Saint’s Row_ on the other hand is a steam-blower, but it’s absolutely ridiculous. That helps. I don’t drive on the sidewalk in GTA:SA, I willfully bowl for pedestrians in SR the 3rd. I don’t consider either series a ‘murder simulator’ though.

        The thing is, there are studies done left and right about this subject. (I’m not sure which is Left or Right, politically; Democrats tend to be the big anti-game activists, but that’s just a tendency, not a clear-cut fact.) The statistical one the ESA likes to use points out violent crimes among youths are actually at a low when gaming is at an all-time high in popularity. There have also been studies that suggest no correlation between gaming and violent crimes. But there HAVE been studies that note that people’s aggression levels tend to be elevated after playing these games, which feels like a risk factor, to an indeterminable degree, for violent behavior.

        Then again, talking about studies, that NJM-published study I mentioned earlier… it does seem to be talking about statistics and violent crimes in the home, and it does seem to have an even split of demographics. But it’s a sample of four hundred twenty cases, it seems. That’s the real problem with studies. You need to read behind them to see if they did enough work. (I swear, if they can do a full-on statistical analysis of every single gun death in America in 2012, I’ll read it and I’ll accept they did their work. From what I can tell that was one-tenth of one percent of the total crimes over the time period.)

        And finally, I do agree how much of this boils down to parenting. From the grandmother of that fifteen year old who objected to San Andreas because of Hot Freaking Coffee, when the storyline-mandated killings, graphically comic and graphically tragic violence, and thoroughly irresponsible usage of a hovercraft in a high speed chase didn’t deter her from buying the game, to the parents of those two idiots at Columbine for not paying the slightest bit of attention to their sons while they were stockpiling weaponry, parents have got to BE parents and do what they can to raise their children right. And the fun fact is that I don’t think I’m a capital Liberal any more (thank Moore, Maher and Olberman for that), not sure if I ever was, but on this subject I actually know, and am related to two or three, Liberals who agree one hundred percent.

      • Bryan

        January 17, 2013 at 1:09 pm

        The Call of Duty and Medal of Honor franchises are mostly responsible for the introduction of realistic bullet physics in gaming, mostly due to the developers needing to be able to back up their commercial claims that they’re as realistic as it gets (the fact that their depiction of a shotgun is nowhere near reality notwithstanding). They’ve taken great pains to ensure that sight picture both with optics and iron sights are as close to the real thing as they can wrap their brains around, introduced bullet deviation as the round goes further downrange, and though it’s widely assumed they’re both hitscan titles is incorrect when you’re shooting at several hundred yards. A couple of my recent converts were able to figure out how to load and fire my 1911 just from the fact that they saw it happen so many times in the modern shooters that it just was already there.

        Unfortunately, like most other games, these titles are rated M for a reason; which parents are ignoring.

      • John F. Wozniak

        January 17, 2013 at 3:07 pm

        For some reason, I need to just say first, I have heard that Reality is Unrealistic/The Cocoanut Effect (relevant TvTropes pages) is the reason for the depiction of shotguns almost without fail being instant death in a few feet and ‘harmless cotton candy’ at, say, ten feet. People expect it because of the media, and that’s what we get. Also, possibly balance of weapons. Still been told I should get one of those for the house if I ever do take the plunge. Or a Ruger Mark II, believe it or not, but I don’t have much arm strength, that was the reason. I digress, as usual.

        And secondly, preach it, brother. M-rated games contain MORE violence than an R-rated game at maximum, though less sexual content (one of the few things I consider Germans to do better, but not to the _extent_ they do it; the other things are pretty much bratwurst and beer), and people can read that fact right on the box. Maybe some fifteen year old children can handle M-rated games; I knew an M-rated game my then twelve-year-old sister could handle, but Perfect Dark was a mild one _and_ it had content filtering anyway. But nobody just presumes their kid can see an R-rated movie and nobody should think that of M-rated games.

  13. Tom

    January 16, 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Great article. We need to start strengthening up our state and local government in order to keep the federation in check. It truly is the Republic against the federation now.

    • John F. Wozniak

      January 16, 2013 at 8:58 pm

      It worries me how side vs. side this is getting. We have people shouting about how we need to stop the government from taking our guns. We have people shouting how we need to stop people from shooting up our classrooms every day. Neither of those sides are right to be worried. NEITHER.

      It’s kind of funny, though, because I’m a strong proponent of state’s rights. I strongly support New York, Vermont and Massachusetts’ right to define marriage as between two adult individuals, for example. *beat* But I think this is getting unnecessarily confrontational a bit early. I see a few executive orders that should get knocked out (or otherwise become toothless), and I see the FFA laws as similarly overreaching… okay, just the part about arresting feds, really. I’ll let the Supreme Court decide on the other parts of it without judgment but that’s just asking for a Wyoming state trooper to shoot an agent of the ATF while ‘resisting arrest’ and it’s GOING to hit the fan and splatter all over the place. There’s got to be a better way to assert state’s rights than risk that.

  14. msalzbrenner

    January 16, 2013 at 9:23 pm

    There is no denying that we would have like to come to some peaceful understanding. Gun enthusiasts were willing the government was not. They started this battle. And as responsible law abiding gun owners, we did what we always end up having to do. We are defending ourselves. Again mind you. This isn’t the first time the gun-grabbers have attacked our rights. And WE are not the ones being Anti-American. We are supporting the constitution. We are supporting an inherently American tradition of enforcing freedom. The most peaceful way to eliminate this fight? They need to quit starting it. Its in the constitution. It shouldn’t even be an argument. Believe me I would much rather have this argument either, but some people find it necessary to force their opinion onto everyone else, and thereby stir up trouble. Tell you what get them to leave us the hell alone, and we’ll gladly not argue about that.

    • John F. Wozniak

      January 16, 2013 at 10:14 pm

      It’s so funny, I’m reading a lot of conservatives speaking about enforcing freedom in this debate. I cannot recall that many enforcing freedom when DADT or the Defense of Marriage Act came out. But fine, I actually do accept that, and the state’s rights aspect actually fits my growing libertarianism. But it’s the _language_ that’s making this a battle in the first place. You say ‘they started this battle’ and ‘they need to quit starting it’. That’s a six-year-old’s rationalization. Make your point on the merits of your position, and if it stands up, it stands up.

      And I’m still a liberal at heart. And the VAST majority of your position stands up in my eyes. I love that I’m in a country so free, that its second revision to its Constitution guaranteed the right to let citizens make the government remember ‘you can be replaced, you know. Watch it’. It’s probably unique in the entire world, you know? But the political system in this country is winner-take-all, adversarial bullshit, and I think THAT is what needs to be fixed. The Dems do it, the Republicans do it, I don’t accept it.

      • msalzbrenner

        January 17, 2013 at 10:52 am

        So we can agree that even a 6 year old is smart enough to know that they have a right to defend themselves. Works for me. Now, since you appear to want to take this whole thing all grade school, why don’t you just say something bad about my mother. But then again, I’m positive I can’t dumb myself down enough to compete with that mentality, so I forfeit, you win. 😉

      • John F. Wozniak

        January 17, 2013 at 12:14 pm

        Yes! I did it! I am a winner! … 😛

        Seriously, I didn’t mean it that way, I meant you could present your argument without saying ‘he started it!’; I also have to say this isn’t restricted to this side of the debate, this debate, or pretty much anything that touches politics. The name calling and the blame laying doesn’t move the argument forward. That’s all.

  15. little john

    January 16, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    are you serious? the entire Midwest will defend the 2nd amendment? im pro gun, but did you forget that Illinois is in the Midwest? even if gun control fails in Illinois, i still have to deal with cook county. so im pessimistic to say the least. so anyway, most of the Midwest will defend the 2nd amendment.

    • Tony Oliva

      January 16, 2013 at 11:44 pm

      Not to get geographical on you but the mid west traditionally starts after the Mississippi river. Those states immediately to the east of the river and south of the Maxon dixon line are Southern states and those at the north are great lake states. So, pretty much the entire mid west is for strengthening gun rights. Calling Illinois a mid west state is like calling New York State a part of New England.

      • Dan D

        January 18, 2013 at 10:07 am

        You obviously don’t live there! Those living in the area consider the mid-west starting with the state of OHIO, and so does most of the local media!! And by the way, many also consider New York as part of New England! If you live in Albany, you live only a few hours’ drive from the coast of Massachusetts, so that’s probably why they consider themselves part of that area!

      • msalzbrenner

        January 18, 2013 at 10:27 am

        Wow! Seriously? Is this what we’ve been reduced to? Arguing amongst ourselves about a geographical term that is clearly based on personal perspective, and individual opinion. I’m thinking there are more important issues to discuss than who lives where and what they choose to call it.

  16. Dan D

    January 18, 2013 at 9:56 am

    NY States Gun Control law was ILLEGALLY RAMMED THROUGH AGAINST THE WISHES OF IT’S CITIZENS! Gov. Cuomo put the bill on the desks of the state legislators and only gave them 20 minutes to read & vote on the entire 40 page bill!!! He even went so far as to threaten the legislators if they did not aprove the bill!! This is TOTALLY AGAINST STATE LAW! He did this because all the polls were running 60/40 AGAINST the gun control bill or ANY additional gun control messures!! NY already has some of the worst gun control laws in the nation, but CRIMINALS DO NOT ABIDE BY THE LAW, SO IT DOES NOT EFFECT CEIMES BY GUNS!

    The other reason Gov. Cuomo did this is because he wants to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE DEATHS OF THOSE POOR CHILDREN OF NEWTOWN, AND OF THE SACRIFICES OF THOSE WONDERFUL VOLENTEERS IN WEBSTER to try to boost his ability to run for president in the next election!

  17. Justnotmyviews

    January 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm

    To bad there isn’t a mental fitness test to get published on this site.


    January 22, 2013 at 9:44 am

    i think that yhis so called mayor and the govener need tc be put out .show them the door so tell uderstand its about the pepole will and not theres . this is one of the resons I left n.y.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: