What Happens When the Government Becomes Your Worst Enemy

Fergus Mason
By Fergus Mason December 19, 2019 08:18

What Happens When the Government Becomes Your Worst Enemy

Chile has struggled to become a thriving democracy. Once a dictatorship under Augusto Pinochet, the country has gone through considerable turmoil since his death. Capitalism has not treated everyone fairly in this country, even though Pinochet was once lauded for the dynamic free-market economy he created, once cited as the “model for the developing world.”

By no means has Chile been the only country which has struggled to become a free-market democracy. Russia is still struggling, decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Iraq really hasn’t accepted democracy as a political model, even after enormous amounts of investment by the US government. Other countries have struggled as well, but not with the same results.

Much of the problem that Chile has been experiencing has been due to the vast income inequality that exists in that country. While there are portions of the population which are thriving, many others are still suffering, especially those who are dependent on retirements that were established under the Pinochet regime. Many schoolteachers are still working into their 80’s, because they can’t survive on their $300 a month pension.

For those working in non-skilled jobs, public transit to take them to and from their work costs as much as 21% of their weekly wages. Thus, when the government announced a 30 peso rise in the cost of the metro, it was met with anger. A student-led protest, called evasión swarmed the metro, jumping the turnstiles to avoid paying the increased fare. Workers took advantage of the opportunity to save a little money and joined the protest.

While protests are nothing new in Chile, these seem to have gained traction. A demonstration which started in the capital has now spread to many of the major cities, with continued evasión of fares and widespread protests in the streets.

It appears that socialist organizers and anarchists have joined in the protests, working to turn it to their political ends. As in many such cases, word coming out of Chile is a bit confused, with each side accusing the other of what they themselves are doing. Much of the reporting is tainted by the political leanings of the reporters who are on the scene. But one thing is certain, the government’s response doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

Related: Why Doesn’t The Government Want You To Be More Independent

The Government’s Response

President Sebastián Piñera has declared that his country is “at war.” But if it is, it’s a war between the government and the citizens. While some government response is required to the violent acts of the protesters, that should be a police response, arresting the worst of the offenders and those who are inciting others to commit illegal acts. Protests, as our own government has learned, are not the reason to call out military forces armed and equipped to use deadly force.

What Happens When the Government Becomes Your Worst Enemy

We’ve seen that before in this country; at Kent State University in 1970. National Guard troops were called out in response to a protest. Although the National Guard does receive some training in how to respond to a riot, they are first and foremost soldiers, equipped and trained to kill, not to arrest people. In this case, the results were four dead college students and another nine who were injured.

Related: Will the Liberals or the Conservatives Start a Civil Unrest?

The soldiers on the streets of Chile reminded many of the older citizens of the years of Chilean dictatorship, when such sights were common; a parallel that was lost on the students who started the protest. For the older citizens, that sight struck fear in their hearts.

The government has admitted to eight people being killed in the protests, but information leaking out of the country claims over 20 killed. There are also widespread reports of police and military brutality against the population, including against people who were not protesting, but merely in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Martial law was declared by the President, early on in the protests, allowing for the use of military forces and imposing ever more restrictive curfews on the people. Interestingly enough, whenever the protesters have gotten the upper hand, troops have retreated to wealthy areas of the cities, focusing on protecting the wealth centers. It seems clear from that action alone, that the leadership of the country is only interested in protecting their financial standing, not protecting the people.

Under martial law, police and military forces have beaten hundreds or perhaps even thousands of innocent people, often plucking them off the streets in civilian clothes, in an attempt to hide their identity. Civil rights are being trampled daily, as the government attempts to regain control.

Related: Do You Know Your Rights Under Martial Law?

Could that Happen Here?

Regardless of where you stand politically, Americans have grown afraid of politicians on the other side, especially as the political divide has grown. Each side assumes that the other is likely to declare martial law, on the thinnest of pretexts, imprisoning those who have declared themselves aligned with the other side. Yet that sort of thing has never happened in this country. For that matter, we haven’t seen people rounded up and put in any sort of detention camps since World War II.

Those on the left decry the “oligarchy” regularly, declaring that this country is actually run by them. But I’d like to propose a different viewpoint on that. That is, every government that has ever existed has been an oligarchy of one sort or another. Even monarchies are oligarchies, as the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the royalty.

Successful merchants could buy themselves titles under such a regime, gaining political respectability. But that’s not all they bought; they bought access to the throne, the seat of power. That’s what their titles and their money did for them, just like the oligarchy we have today.

Why is this important? Because in reality it has always been the oligarchy, the elite, who have been in control. I don’t care if you’re talking about the Rothchilds, the Bilderberg group, George Soros or our own political parties, they have kept the power to themselves. Much of the reason why they hate President Trump, is that he has defied their rule and has been working to do whatever he can to overthrow it.

What Happens When the Government Becomes Your Worst Enemy

As we’ve seen in the last few years, these power-brokers will do whatever they have to, in order to keep their power. Rumors have existed for years about how the Clintons have done away with anyone who could be a whistleblower on their nefarious actions. The same sort of rumors existed about Obama when he was in office. I’m sure if we searched around the world, we would find many more examples.

The accumulation of power and money is the central focus of these people’s lives. As such, they will do whatever it takes to retain that money and power. They don’t mind if we “little people” accumulate wealth or even some local power; but they aren’t sharing theirs with us. They will use whatever they have to, in order to keep control. Whatever they have to includes military forces.

These power brokers have control of large portions of our government, just like they do in other countries. As long as things go their way, they will allow us the illusion of our freedom. But if things don’t go their way, you can be sure they will take the necessary action to retain power.

Related: How The State Will Strip You Of Your Rights When SHTF

What that Means for Us

One big difference between the United States and Chile is the Second Amendment. Even though there are those who are constantly chipping away, trying to take that right, the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. There is no such equivalent in Chile.

That’s not to say that the Chilean people can’t own firearms. They can; but there are huge hurdles to overcome in order to get a permit to own one. Even bigger hurdles exist to having a permit to carry that gun outside your home. On top of that, private ownership of semi-automatic arms is prohibited.

Should martial law ever be declared in the United States, you can almost guarantee that it will be accompanied by widespread gun confiscation. This happened in New Orleans, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Probably the only thing that kept that from turning ugly and kept armed citizens from defending their right to keep and bear arms, was that there were so few of them still in the city; government forces had them outnumbered.

Many have declared that widespread gun confiscations would result in civil war. I tend to agree with that. While there are many gun owners who would give up their guns, albeit reluctantly, rather than fight government troops, there are enough of us who would stand up for our rights. How that war would end is anyone’s guess.

Recently, the new Democrat majority in Virginia’s state legislature passed a number of very restrictive gun control laws, without taking into account public opinion. They ended up being forced to retract those laws, when citizens got up in arms about it and law enforcement officers declared that they would not enforce those laws.

The same thing has happened in other parts of the country, as Democrat controlled state legislatures have tried over and over again to tamper with our Second Amendment rights. But in each and every case, while there have been some who have complied like good little sheeple, the majority refused.

This means that any protests against government overreach here in the United States have the potential of becoming much more violent than they do in other countries. While those of us on the right, who own most of the guns, are not the kind to take violent action, there are always a few who don’t see it that way. All it takes is one or two of them to start the ball rolling, and things could turn ugly, real quickly.

A second American Civil War would be even bloodier than the first. Not only are there more privately owned guns in the hands of citizens, than there are citizens, but the level of military technology has increased by several orders of magnitude. Hunters alone have our military grossly outnumbered. On the other side, the military has all the tanks, planes and artillery. As I said, it would be bloody.

This is probably why there are those in government service who are so bent on disarming the population. It also explains why the AR-15 is the main target of these people. You can’t win a war with pistols and even trying to win it without semi-automatic rifles would be difficult. Those who want to control us don’t want us to be able to fight back.

Throughout the last century, there have been numerous examples of what happens when the government disarms the civilian population. What we’re seeing in Chile today is nothing new; it has been done time and time again. Those who want to be despotic dictators (regardless of what political name they hide behind) know they must disarm the people first. It’s much easier to get sheep to submit, than it is to get sheep dogs too. The sheep dogs have teeth.

If anything, Chile serves as one more reminder as to why we need to defend our Second Amendment rights. Otherwise, it’s much too easy for those who would take away what remains of our liberty, the freedom to do so.

You might also like:

Is It Legal To Go Off The Grid In Your State?

How To Make The Invisible Root Cellar (Video)

Best States for Homesteading

Is America Turning Into a Communist Country?

Why Do Government Officials Want To Ban Ham Radio? It’s Already Begun In California

Fergus Mason
By Fergus Mason December 19, 2019 08:18
Write a comment


  1. pj December 19, 16:17

    it does not matter if the people are armed, our military, and don’t forget the police would take down any fighting from the people, they have a couple things going for them right off the bat, they are organized, they people are not, and you did mention the fire power they posses, would they

    Reply to this comment
    • Timbucktoo December 19, 17:35

      Now factor in those in law enforcement and military also have families, civilian families.. would you turn against your family?

      Reply to this comment
    • JustMe December 20, 16:01

      pj. If people living here in the 1770s shared your attitude we would all be bowing to the Queen of England today. England had an Army. And Navy, we didn’t. They had centuries of experience conducting warfare. We didn’t. They had accurate rifles, we had muskets. We were outnumbered, outmanned, outclassed and outspent. In spite of that we won the war. We fought for freedom and our lives. The English fought because their government ordered them to fight. They lost because they had no underlying principles to fall back on. We had a reason to fight and win. They didn’t. In the next war between an oppressive government and those fighting for their freedom, my money will be on the freedom fighters.

      Reply to this comment
      • left coast chuck December 21, 18:25

        Actually, Just Me, you have it backwards. The patriots had rifles, the British had muskets. Muskets were the state of the art for the massed forces of the late 18th century. Muskets followed by the bayonet were the weapons of choice for organized armies. Rifles took too long to load in the face of a bayonet charge.

        It is possible that more Germans fought on the British side than actual British subjects. The Germans were mercenaries hired out by the leaders of the province that they lived in. Germany as an organized state did not yet exist. The British government was not so sure of their own citizenry firing on what they considered their fellow British subjects. The Hessians, being hired mercenaries fired on whomever they were paid to fire upon, thus were considered probably more reliable than British subjects.

        Your over all theme is correct, just some of the details are inaccurate. Asymmetric warfare will eventually defeat organized armed force if the opponents of the organized armed forces have the will to maintain the conflict.

        Reply to this comment
        • Southern reb. December 21, 23:12

          Over the years I have heard about how the military would stand.Let me tell you from the mouth of a Bird Co. who’s a life long friend he would shoot me if so ordered.We had this talk some time back.He stands with the government not with the people.Officers will stand with the government. I know without a doubt he would kill me if orders came down.He also knows I would kill him.When SHTF all out they better understand we are on own. Our military will hold ground for the government.They will hang the ones that stand at odds with them.So you better understand you may have to hurt friends to stay out of a FEMA camp when SHTF

          Reply to this comment
        • Justme June 5, 22:38

          Hate to burst your bubble Chuck but a simple internet search supports my statement about the Brits and rifles:


          Please explain why a bayonet could not be attached to a long gun with a rifled barrel. This is one piece of history that I am not familiar with.

          Yes, Hessians fought for the British as Soldiers of Fortune because the Brits had more gold than the Colonists. They would have fought for us if we had the gold to pay them . And the Hessians were Germanic people and their state, Prussia
          Was incorporated in what is present day Germany. You’re argument about my use of the word German is akin to saying that Virginians aren’t really Americans because they were originally just Virginians. Nit pick much?. You must be a real pik nik to live with. Or very bored with not much else to do with yourself.

          Otherwise the rest of your post is meaningful. I can give backhanded compliments also Leftie.

          I’m an Historian and I know what I’m talking about when it comes to details of the past.


          Reply to this comment
        • red June 7, 00:47

          chuck: Against the brits, we had a large number of things going for us. The colonies were mostly rural, but most mercs and conscripts were town people. We used gorilla warfare as taught by Indians, and terrified the brits. Most of us had no qualms over night maneuvers, where the brits couldn’t. The closest the brits came to us was a few Royalist forces that took up guerrilla warface, but too late. The brists were forced to use slash and burn, and that forced neutrals and even their allies into the war against them. niio

          Reply to this comment
    • MTNMAN December 21, 05:29

      A bunch of goat herders in Afganistan have beaten the most powerful military power in the world to a stalemate.

      “The Guerrilla Fighter must swim in a sea of peasants.” Mao

      Reply to this comment
    • LaqrryFrom10EC June 2, 19:06

      Your argument depends on the great fallacy that the military and police would obey unconstitutional laws to fire on their own citizens. In the event of a Civil War in this country, it would not be necessary for the armed citizens to kill thousands of soldiers, only a few hundred politicians.

      Reply to this comment
  2. pj December 19, 16:20

    would they use the fire power against us, yes if push came to shove, the people would live in an underground state of defiance, with gorilla style attacks, that is all we would be able to do, and the elite would be protected here also, that’s the way it would wash out.

    Reply to this comment
    • Mic December 19, 19:29

      You are confused.
      The military would split down the middle, sending those weapons to both sides.
      Now even the military knows when they are outnumbered, that the the thing to do is surrender and they would very quickly.
      Because 1/2 the military and 130 million or so gun owners, would be an insurmountable number.

      Which would make it Tar and Feathers time for the Elite.
      Which is why they are fighting so hard to keep control and the Political status quo.

      Reply to this comment
      • Ginny June 2, 23:50

        Yes Yes Yes. Thank you, Mic. Southern reb has a point the there are a few in the Army that would do as ordered. The problem with that is that they also know they can get prosecuted for doing something against the constitution. Police officers are allowed to use force in a judgement call. Soldiers have to be given parameters to use force. Ultimately it is the politicians that need to be taight they are not in charge.

        Reply to this comment
  3. FPV02 December 19, 16:28

    I agree with most of the article, but it has one thing wrong: Although the Democrats did indeed take over the Virginia legislature, they have not yet actually passed any gun control. In fact, they do not convene until January. What Virginians are up in arms about are *proposals* they plan to introduce. That said, if threats to deploy the National Guard to enforce laws which both the citizenry and sheriffs refuse to enforce, all bets are off and the possibilities raised by the article could occur.

    Reply to this comment
    • Wannabe December 20, 04:03

      There are many Virginians up in arms about the prewritten legislation they want to vote on. Over a dozen counties have voted to be second amendment refugee counties if this crap passes and signed into law. It can get really ugly really quick

      Reply to this comment
  4. sum1has2 December 19, 16:38

    Unfortunately we in the U.S. better think in these terms. We have a duly elected (albeit an abrasive braggart) president that has had a 3 year coup against him and the people that elected him. When the MSM are also involved you have a historically dangerous situation. He’s now been impeached with no hard evidence and an open admission that it’s being done to stop his re-election. Add the fact that oppositional voices are being silenced on the internet, you truly have a treasonous section of our government that is fast becoming just what this article is talking about.

    Reply to this comment
  5. ProgPrepper December 19, 17:57

    I am a progressive, former military, 2nd Amendment advocate for these very reasons. (While a minority in the prepper movement, we do exist) While I do not agree with the direction you veered in the latter half of the piece, I think we can all agree that this scenario is not only plausible, but increasingly likely. We must stand together to hold our government accountable for their increased indifference to the will of the people. Hopefully being successful before personal defense of rights is the only remaining option.

    Reply to this comment
  6. jamesm December 19, 18:32

    The vast majority of police and the military won’t take part in action against the populace here in the states, at least the ones who remember the oath they took. Part of the military oath requires them to disobey any unlawful orders, meaning anything that goes against the Constitution. Having been in the US Marine Corps, I can tell you that I, and those I served with took our oath very seriously. You also have to remember that they themselves have family who they would have to go against. I know over 3/4s of my local police dept, a total of almost 500 officers, and all of them have told their superiors, just as the ones in Virginia have, that they would refuse to confiscate firearms, and would walk off the job and go home to their families rather than risk almost certain death at the hands of friends. We are definitely living in dangerous times, and the most important thing we can do is to train with like minded individuals.

    Reply to this comment
    • Jabba December 19, 19:30


      Reply to this comment
    • Miss Kitty December 22, 03:21

      What concerns me is that if our military refuses to fire on their fellow citizens is that certain parties who are trying to gain full control of our government might try to drag the UN “peace keeping forces” into it. They would NOT have the same concerns about firing upon their families, friends, neighbors. They would also be on board (on paper, anyway) with the Agenda 2030 rollout.

      If the US has erupted into a bloody civil war, what’s to prevent other countries from invading us to “stabilize the region”? After all, it’s happened all over the world – Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Afghanistan, etc, etc.

      Reply to this comment
  7. Odin Indaway December 19, 20:04

    A Country Boy Can Survive….

    Reply to this comment
  8. IvyMike December 20, 01:15

    Good article for thinking, hundreds of comments coming I bet.
    No matter what you think of Trump he has been badly treated by the Dems and the Media. Has there ever been a greater lunatic fool in government than Schiff? But please, the article says Trump has opposed the Oligarchy? Back up and see who got trillions from the tax cuts (I got about 600.00 from them last year).
    On civil war, comment that the soldiers will be true to their oath of office, what about Davis, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet and the other hundreds of Officers sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution. And someone else said the troops would divide between left and right, not a chance, the overwhelming majority of our army is fundamentalist Christian right wing and white male.
    And all you bad boys with your tactical gear and semi auto weapons won’t survive 10 minutes when an infantry squad using basic fire and maneuver develops your position and their buddies neutralize you with mortar fire.
    I appreciate the article’s insight that the collapse of most of these countries is not from Socialism or Fascism but just sheer corruption and chaos.

    Reply to this comment
    • left coast chuck December 20, 04:26

      Well, Mike, all I can say is Viet Nam and Afghanistan. Sure, on a one on one fire fight between amateurs and professional soldiers, in most cases the professional soldier will win. That is not the way to take on an organized army and it leads to defeat. The way to defeat is an organized army is with the new modern term asymmetric warfare. It’s a big country with lots of rugged country. Just driving to our local gun club when I look at the terrain, I think to myself, “I would sure hate to have to try to battle my way through this countryside and that is just ten miles outside my town. For approximately 100 miles there is a single road through the area. Can you say “Rue Sans Joie?” That’s what the French called Route 1. I think we called it Blood Alley. Even with heavy applications of Agent Orange to kill the roadside vegetation, which then can be set afire to make travel along it more fun, that leaves thousands of acres with direct line of sight on the route. The mountains around Los Angeles abound in such terrain. Urban warfare is always the bloodiest of warfare. Sure, you can bomb the living hell out of it, but you don’t control it until you have a soldier with a rifle on it. We had an old Gunny who used that refrain. “I don’t care what kind of fire you put on a square of real estate, you don’t own it until you have a Marine with a rifle standing on it.”

      The history of WWII proved that over and over again. I just finished reading another account of the battle of Peleliu. There were no discernible targets that hadn’t been hit by naval gunfire or aerial bombing or both. That was repeated over and over again on every island the Marines took. The enemy wasn’t defeated until the individual Marine with individual weaponry killed or incapacitated him. When I was on Okinawa ten years after the end of WWII there were Japanese soldier hold-outs on the mainly uninhabited northern part of the island. Look how long that single Japanese solder held out in the Philippines where everybody was an enemy.

      Bombing of the cities of the world did nothing to discourage the enemy. If anything, the bombing of civilian cities encouraged the bombed citizens to greater war efforts.

      Even though one of the candidates for the democratic (sic) nomination stated that the government had atomic weapons such a move would indeed be a pyrrhic victory. What use would any major city be if it were an atomic wasteland?

      So, yes, an organized military unit going against an untrained group who stand and fight will prevail. The NVA used the tactic called “grab them by the belt buckle.” In other words, they closed with U.S. forces to the extent that the U.S. forces couldn’t call in air strikes nor artillery backup. It was individual weapons vs. individual weapons and as soon as it seemed that the U.S. forces would prevail, the NVA faded back into the jungle.

      During our Viet Nam follies I read somewhere how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in munitions were expended to kill each individual NVA soldier. My solution was we offer each defector $50,000 U.S. cash or gold and first class air line tickets for him and his family to any destination in the world he desired. We would have saved a bundle and probably have depleted the NVA army. Instead we offered them resettlement in South Viet Nam. Big deal. They were going to get it anyway. Now $50,000 grand (which at that time was a lot more than it is today with the monopoly money we are printing) and first class air travel to Paris, that was something to think about.

      Don’t discount the raggedy-assed patriot with a single shot rifle. The British did and look what it got them. The British Army was considered the finest land army in the world at the time and a bunch of raggedy-assed farmers defeated them. That would have happened even without French intervention. The Frenchies just hastened the inevitable.

      Why do you think the pols and bureaucrats are so anxious to disarm the citizens of the U.S.? They don’t have the real power as long as so many of us are armed.

      Reply to this comment
    • justMe December 20, 16:14

      Yo Mikey. Let me refresh your memory a bitcoin a significant number of “Bad boys with tactical military gear” are former military we know the tactics that the military would deploy. We know how to deploy military tactics also. If you think that the military is just going to waltz in and shut down the resistance in a couple of hours you are in for a very rude awakening. In 1861 citizens from DC took picnic baskets to watch the Union Clobber the Confederates In the first battle of Bull Run. Just a simple one day war they thought. Until the retreating yankee troops and advancing revel troops rained on their picnic. History repeats itself because too many people like you do not understand the relevance of history in today’s world.

      Reply to this comment
    • DBoy December 21, 14:21

      IvyMike, things were different prior to the Civil War. States were sovereign like separate countries and naturally these men you mentioned would stand for their state rather than the federal government. Their states were being financially attacked for years by the northern states before the shooting began.

      Reply to this comment
      • left coast chuck January 5, 02:32

        Some reading I have done indicates that when the original 13 states joined together to form “these United States” it was with the understanding that they would be free to “u n j o i n” (Sorry, had to do that to overcome my friendly rather unimaginative predictive which would not let me correctly type the word I wanted to coin.) the other states. That is one of the reasons that various military leaders left “these United States” to fight for the right to leave the Union which they understood they had retained. I am sure each had reasons that were personal to themselves solely and each had reasons that were held jointly. They were all thoughtful, intelligent men and I am sure each agonized over his decision many a sleepless night.

        Reply to this comment
        • D Boy January 5, 10:56

          Left Coast Chuck,
          I agree. Even when Thomas Jefferson was president, Massachusetts threatened to leave the Union (unjoin). He said, fine, go ahead. It was understood that this was not unconstitutional to do. I don’t know what it is today.

          Reply to this comment
  9. Silgerbullet December 20, 03:24

    Though not a constitutional right, personal firearm ownership is permitted in Chile for any resident over the age of 18. The extensive procedure for acquiring a weapon includes registering a home address with the national firearm authority (Directorate General of National Mobilization, DGMN), receiving psychiatric approval, and passing an official exam on the proper use and maintenance of firearms. A standard permit allows ownership of up to two weapons. An individual must apply for an additional license and provide justification in order to own more than two guns.

    Furthermore, it is illegal to carry a gun out of a registered home address unless the person has a carry permit—another complicated document to acquire that includes additional psychiatric approval. All licenses need regular recertification. It is illegal for civilians to own semiautomatic weapons in Chile.

    The national firearm authority conducted a public campaign in 2012 on the importance of the “responsible ownership of firearms,” asking Chileans to voluntarily register their weapons if they hadn’t done so and asking them to hand guns over, registered or not, to the police to be destroyed. By the end of the year 5,554 guns were destroyed, 47 percent of which had not been legally registered with the authorities.

    In February 2015, then-President Michelle Bachelet signed a gun control bill into law, including new restrictions on gun sales, increased sentences for gun violations, and changes to gun registration. At that time, there were around 750,000 registered guns in the country. Under the law, carrying a defaced, sawed off, or otherwise illegally modified gun carries a penalty of between three to 10 years in prison, and a minimum of three years for those who provide guns to minors. Carrying an unregistered gun is punishable by a three- to five-year prison sentence. The law prohibits gun ownership for anyone with a criminal history. The law also made psychological evaluations and gun knowledge tests more stringent and also encourages citizens to turn in and destroy their guns.
    Only 12 people out of 100 own guns there.

    Reply to this comment
    • Ed December 20, 10:33

      Interestingly enough, the statistics I could find indicate gun owners in the US is only around 25% of the population. Accurate numbers hard to obtain since registration isn’t wide spread.

      Yes, there ARE a lot of firearms out here (I own well over a dozen personally), the number of people that actually own one doesn’t come close to the total number in private hands. Total number in private hands is likely a more accurate figure due to sales records, background check numbers and so on.

      So while the potential for folks in this country to have access to a lot more firearms is there, it also means a whole lot of people are not familiar with their use. Just food for thought.

      Reply to this comment
      • Miss Kitty December 23, 12:47

        Don’t forget to count all of the ILLEGAL guns that people own. While the owners may not have any qualms about using them for nefarious purposes, they also might use them against the government as part of a civilian militia. I wouldn’t discount them just because they’re criminals…in certain circumstances they would have more to lose than the average citizen.

        Reply to this comment
      • left coast chuck June 2, 21:30

        In my opinion, anyone who posits a number for firearms ownership in the U.S. is just guessing and your guess is as good as his. One of the great advantages of not having universal gun registration for so many years is that no one, absolutely no one has any idea how many guns are in how many households.

        Many folks who do not consider themselves “gun owners” have a handgun for self protection. They don’t see owning a gun that they may have only fired once to see how it works as making them a “gun owner,” who must be one of those nut jobs who have an “arsenal” of a couple of rifles, a couple of shotguns and a couple of handguns with (gasp) a thousand rounds of ammunition.

        Reply to this comment
  10. Dennis December 20, 12:34

    Having recently immigrated from California to the United States, I was able to see a significant change in the spirit of law enforcement in the Bay Area over the last 20 years. They now start police officers out at $80-$100,000 per year. That’s a 23-24 year old kid starting off making that much. And, they all work loads of overtime. Many make upwards of $200K a year. With this kind or income, they quickly move into the top 5-10% of U.S. wage earners. This accomplishes 2 important things: It draws people into field because of the pay, not because they want to protect and to serve, and it affords them the upward mobility to leave the often undesirable places they work, and move next door to the other elites of society like doctors, lawyers and politicians. This has created a major disconnect between the serving and the served. The police now view the people where they work as the people who want to kill them and deprive them of their wealth. As a result, as any group with a lot to lose, they now have very little patience with the people and will follow to-the-letter the directions given by those government forces that provide them with their big pay checks. I’m not making this up. I coached little kids in junior high football who got an A.A. and at 25 make 2x what I do with 2 B.A.’s and a 3 year Master’s degree! In CA, the socialists have won, and the police will do what their handlers tell them. The more like CA your state becomes, the higher the politically dependable public employee unions wages will grow, and the more loyal they will be to the state government. This will include all the intelligence sources they will rely on to snitch, such as teachers and doctors. That being said, I agree with the assessment about guerilla warfare and keeping a low profile. In the coming totalitarian state, as was said in the movie “The Killing Fields”, “Only the silent survive”. Keep your preps, your weapons, and your organizing to yourself. When the time comes, turn in your Hi Points and Mosin Nagants, but hide the AR’s, AK’s and Glocks. Smile and nod alot but keep your opinion to yourself in public, and make a former soldier part of your prepper group. Finally, teach kids that our rights come from God, not the state, and that there are things more important than money. God bless us, every one.

    Reply to this comment
    • left coast chuck December 21, 18:39

      I ave not been able to flee over the wall into the United States but an still a reluctant denizen of the PDRK.

      What Dennis says is absolutely the truth. In the town in which I live and to a lesser degree the county, the police and firefighters union controls the politics in the town. If you want to be elected in my town you have to cozy up to the police and fire union. You kiss their posteriors and you are elected. Grey Davis, a poor excuse for a politician sold his soul to the prison guard union which is a state wide union. That is what got him elected.

      Being a “safety member” of the PDRK retirement system is the gravy train to retirement at age 50 taking home more money than when you actually worked. It is a long complicated scheme that the “safety” unions have sold to the legislature through contributions to political campaigns, but it is possible in the last years of your employment to bolster your retirement income to more than the base pay for your active employment job.

      The PDRK is a police state. Not quite as bad as some of the more severe police states, but law enforcement dictates what policy they want to the pols who listen because it is the “safety” unions who elect the pols. It burns the dems no end to have to osculate the rectal opening of the”safety” unions, but they do because that is the path to winning elections. The government employees unions are a close second behind them. They work hand in glove with the “safety” unions because they use each other to bootstrap additional bennies to their remuneration package.

      Reply to this comment
  11. Socialist2ndAmendmentSupporter December 23, 11:41

    “…Much of the reason why they hate President Trump, is that he has defied their rule and has been working to do whatever he can to overthrow it…” Delusional!! I’ve lived in the NYC area for the vast majority of my life, Donald Trump only cares about ONE thing…DONALD TRUMP. Don’t continue to delude yourself that he’s “working” for anything but that.

    Reply to this comment
    • Miss Kitty December 23, 13:00

      Your username says it all.
      ALL of the Democratic party and most of the Republicans are interested only in maintaining the status quo, with them holding all of the status and the commoners and deplorables scrambling for their table scraps.

      I honestly don’t think Trump is playing that game, though. He may not want to have dinner with us, but I don’t think he’s going to snatch the food from our hands and give it to a third party like some of the politicians want to

      However, Soc2Amd, if you have a viable alternative, I’m all ears. Who’s your choice and why?

      Reply to this comment
  12. red December 24, 03:31

    Very good reading! Chile had it good for a while. Everything that Pinochet wanted done or forced thru worked. Then his enemies destroyed him and set to work destroying his legacy. their asinine hate has put the nation back in Civil War, and perhaps that’s what they wanted all along.

    Kent State was an anomaly for its day. the peaceniks were throwing bricks and pieces of concrete. Sadly, some did die for the mistake of a few.

    Again, I go back to Native America to protest. We are the silent majority. When we speak, we roar, not whine like liberals. Prepare in silence, act in secret. In the end, the bitter end, all that we’ll have left is Native Americans of all races. niio

    Reply to this comment
  13. TheMadMan December 24, 06:26

    This is exactually why we have the 2nd Amendment

    Reply to this comment
  14. rick June 4, 14:32



    Reply to this comment
    • red June 5, 05:57

      When Gen. Grant saw rioters burn down the colored orphanage in Brooklyn, NY, he said 3 words of wisdom: Fire at will.
      He knew dems were starting backfires and acted in the best interest of the country. Survivors were rounded up and inducted into the military. niio

      Reply to this comment
View comments

Write a comment