Splattergate II: Machine Gun Shopping Mall massacre promoted as an expression of Green Conscience

santa-must-die1Eric Worrall writes: James Delingpole has today written about the latest PR disaster from deep greens trying to pretend they are normal people – an award winning graphic novel which associates a terrorist with a machine gun in a shopping mall, with a positive message about environmental activism.

The headline picture of Delingpole’s piece depicts a green holding a machine gun in a shop, along with the caption “Today, choice about energy issues has been stolen from the people. The decisions are all in the hands of politicians and big multinationals. Economic motivations prevail over environmental needs”.


You can’t stop people from creating such trash, but the people who celebrate it, and reward the authors with praise and recognition – are these really the kind of people you want influencing your children’s future? This isn’t the first time deep greens have embarrassed themselves by exposing their warped values in public. Who can forget the infamous “no pressure” video, which featured exploding school children.

The creators of the video, who included prominent members of the British media industry, apparently thought the general public would laugh at their little “comedy”, because the kids were identified as climate skeptics before their school teacher blew them up.

This was the original “Splattergate”:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 22, 2014 12:20 am

These people should seek urgent medical care. Thy are NOT well, not at all well.

Reply to  cnxtim
October 22, 2014 2:59 am

For a small significant subset of them, criminal investigations are more in order.

Reply to  cnxtim
October 22, 2014 10:40 am

Not to mention they’ve got it exactly backwards. The quote is: “Choice about energy issues has been stolen from the people”, but that is EXACTLY what the global warmists wish to do to us.
Greens are perfectly at liberty not to buy electric power or gasoline from “giant multi-national corporations”. They could install solar cells or home generators or walk or ride horses, but that is not enough for them. They insist on denying purchasing choices for the rest of us.
It is they who are the agents of coercion, not the skeptics.

enviro mental
October 22, 2014 12:40 am

put a black face on the cartoon, you’d be arrested under hate laws.
put an arab face on the cartoon you’d be arrested under terrorist laws.
put a green face on the cartoon, you win an award.

Reply to  enviro mental
October 22, 2014 3:01 am

Having said that, there is a muslim ‘spoof’ on this ‘splattergate’ video. Unfortunately, you need to watch the original above in order to enjoy Delingpole’s spoof.

Don Perry
Reply to  MikeB
October 22, 2014 5:48 am

That is really offensive!

Reply to  MikeB
October 22, 2014 9:23 am

funny how truth is offensive to some isn’t it…..

Pamela Gray
Reply to  MikeB
October 22, 2014 11:02 am

What is offensive is the targeting of women and girls in those faiths who view them as property. The video spoof, as offensive as it is, can’t hold a candle to reality.

Reply to  MikeB
October 22, 2014 12:31 pm

Brilliant spoof. However, the real worrying thing is that this is exactly what ISIS is doing in Iraq today.
Spoofs only work if they contain an element of truth, but here we have a whole truckload of it.

Reply to  MikeB
October 23, 2014 2:56 am

Interesting to see how a simple substitution is still so appropriate.

October 22, 2014 12:45 am

Maybe they can go to Kenya to get some mall practice in? A Kenyan friend of mine lost two friends that day. Why aren’t these people arrested for promoting death?

Ian W
Reply to  Patrick
October 22, 2014 3:20 am

They are Malthusians. They consider the human race a disease of the planet (except them and their families of course). These extreme ‘greens’ appear to be unable to see that their attitudes are almost identical to those of ISIS who are currently killing anyone of whatever age that they feel does not agree with them.

October 22, 2014 12:57 am

Disgusting – its about as funny as a heart attack! They really are a bunch of sick people.

October 22, 2014 1:13 am

These folk are very, very, very sick indeed!

October 22, 2014 1:13 am

It is because they care so very very much.

Reply to  jones
October 23, 2014 12:02 am

and a relegion of peace.

Björn from Sweden
October 22, 2014 1:20 am

Democracy today is weak, yes. But I dont see what that has to do with shooting automatic weapons in shopping-malls??? The logic escapes me. Oh, wait, no global warming for 18 years means that global warming is accelerating. Logic has no place in the minds of extreme greens, its all about promoting socialist revolution, possibly by armed conflict… or jokingly blowing people up.

October 22, 2014 1:20 am

Wow…a comic offends a bunch of people who believe in God, resist any form of gun regulation, and do nothing to prevent the acidification of the oceans, dislocation of people from their homes and cultures and threats to their own food and water security just because they don’t like what they hear…impressive!

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 2:42 am

The high energy prices YOU demand as a requirement for controlling CO2 – which will not affect, and has not affected the stagnant (not warming) global average temperatures for the past 18 years – was directly responsible for an extra 24,000 deaths in the UK alone in one winter season.
Are YOU satisfied with those real deaths? Do they bother you – Ron – at all?

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 2:50 am

WOW! So uninformed Ron!

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 2:57 am

Fair bit of mindless stereotyping in that comment Ron. For the record, I’m an atheist – not that its anyone’s business but mine.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 3:00 am

Thanks for playing. Try again after you get your meds and let’s see how you do

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 3:30 am

Ron- Precisely in response to the mindset of people like you, free US citizens own guns.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 4:55 am

October 22, 2014 at 1:20 am
“Wow…a comic offends a bunch of people who believe in God”
It indeed does, Ron, no need for the “Wow”; maybe it would be appropriate to answer, Wow, there are atheists who are not offended by it, probably because for them, consciousness is an illusion and every human being is just a lump of meat that may be killed at will.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  DirkH
October 22, 2014 7:35 am

You’re as wrong as Ron is. Wow indeed.

Reply to  DirkH
October 22, 2014 8:06 am

You upped the ante on Ron’s asinine comment with your own hare-brained assertions about people that don’t share your beliefs.

Reply to  DirkH
October 22, 2014 9:36 am

I think DirkH is referring to the intended audience for the graphic novel. Obviously, the creators and publishers of this violent work did not expect any one to be offended by it.
So who is the intended audience? I would suggest they are people who are adolescent and who are being heavily bombarded by sustainability messaging. They do not have developed principles yet and are being prepared to be used as fodder for the international radical environmentalist/sustainability movement.
Also, there has in the past been censorship of comic books, so now that there is evidently no more censorship, it is important to look at the results. There are also very violent occultists who put sexual and occult content into the comics. It is an important issue.

Reply to  DirkH
October 22, 2014 1:24 pm

October 22, 2014 at 8:06 am
You upped the ante on Ron’s asinine comment with your own hare-brained assertions about people that don’t share your beliefs.”

Reply to  DirkH
October 22, 2014 9:17 pm

You say “Why?”
I assume you mean to ask why I think that, rather than why do you think what you think.
Ron’s comment is obviously childish and inane, but it’s also pretty anodyne and devoid of detail.
It seems to me that, although Ron alluded to gun-toters and ocean-acidifiers and people-delocators, it was the aspersions cast on god-believers that prompted you to respond. Ironically, Ron even deigned to give this god upper case status; an apparent respect that belies his scorn.
In your zeal to reprove Ron, you wound up slinging your own splatter of crude imputation in considerably more imaginative detail than was contained in the original facile comment; which, probably, represents Ron’s best work!
That’s why I said you upped the ante.
It may be that your words were a satirically absurd exaggeration, which I failed to grasp. I’ll concede that it’s not always inappropriate to raise the stakes.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 5:03 am

The difference between God-fearing gun-lovers is they only want guns only for use in defense whereas these individuals use guns to offense. Do you see the difference?

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 5:46 am

Notice how the troll completely misses the point.
To it, killing people is funny, especially if they are the wrong type of people.
Regardless, none of the things you whine about are even happening, so why should we do anything to prevent it?

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 6:16 am

Ron. Some of us are scientists and we care more about real empirical science than what loonies say. Observations have not pointed to any anthropogenic causation or influence to climate other than ground use practices.
Maybe if you understood science a little better………

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 6:32 am

October 22, 2014 at 1:20 am
,,, and do nothing to prevent the acidification of the oceans,

Guilty as charged:
I pee’d in the ocean more than once.

Reply to  JohnWho
October 22, 2014 7:06 am

You vandal – now we know the real reason why all those walruses jumped out of the water 🙂

Reply to  JohnWho
October 22, 2014 10:15 am

Not really Eric.
If you look closely at the photo, you will see there is one walrus still in the water. While research evidence is still sparse, it is believed that walrus farts are among the stinkiest in the natural world. I think we can safely conclude the poor fellow still in the water was the cause of the mass rush for the beach.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 7:23 am

“…offends a bunch of people who believe in God…” These religious wars between deists and CAGW worshippers can get quite nasty.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 7:45 am

Ron, you are slipping. You forgot to mention Wall Street. I think you maybe want all those people shot as well. And probably all rich people too, except for George Clooney, Leonadro DiCaprio and George Soros.
Hey, sometimes anger is all you got.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 8:04 am

Ron, I see your education has completed you. You won’t have to be sent back for re-education in the future. They could safely put you in charge of that department.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 10:09 am

You might have had a point – if only the oceans were acidifying, people actually were or have been displaced or if food supplies were really being threatened. Problem is none of those things are happening. If you think otherwise, please provide factual evidence. To date the facts say that the predicted 50 million climate change refugees expected by 2010 have yet to put in an appearance – don’t you dislike folks who are late – and instead are moving into the very coastal regions they are supposed to be fleeing from. The facts also show agricultural production at record levels for much of the primary cereal crops and in various parts of the world. The amazing thing is that this is happening while total land under cultivation is decreasing. No islands have disappeared (the Maldives are busy building new airports to handle the predicted increase in tourists over the next 30 years) and the oceans are still alkaline.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 12:48 pm

Ron, you have no clue about what visitors to this site believe in. (I’m an atheist who believes gun control laws are beneficial.) But I also believe, with good reason, that the comic book is hate speech and I believe there are crazy people who will use the global warming scam as an excuse to kill. The mass shooter at Virginia Tech left a manifesto that had passages about how people deserved to die because of man-caused global warming. There is zero compelling scientific evidence that global warming will be any worse over the next hundred years than it was over the pervious hundred years, i.e. mild and mostly beneficial for use and he biosphere that we are inextricably linked to. The experiment is complete and the results are in–nothing to worry about, move along. This sort of propaganda reminds me of a certain political party that took control of Germany back in the 1930’s.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 12:50 pm

Ron, you should be glad a “bunch of people who believe in God, resist any form of gun regulation” stepped up to the plate to save your freedom to speak boldly without consequence from Nazis, Stalinists, and Japan’s expansion. That being just one example.
By the way, as for your gun regulation fantasy: states with the most strict gun control laws like Illinois and New York have the worst gun crimes simply because criminals can easily do what they want, areas with the least gun control have some of the lowest gun crimes since individuals can protect themselves against criminals and more importantly the tyrannical governments that share your same idea of gun regulation.
Suggestion: Put your iPad/Droid down and read more history books. The ones printed on paper.

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 2:06 pm

Ron, really, just what “ocean acidification” are you suggesting we prevent? The oceans are alkaline and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Take some real, field oriented science, read a lot, especially about the history of science, and most importantly do some reading on the catastrophic consequences of implementing unneeded precautions. As far as “believe in God,” yes there are a few who do, but you then ignore that huge number of comenters who take evolution for the empirical fact that it is. The WuWT readership is a very eclectic lot who care that science comes before policy.

David Smith
Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 4:23 pm

Sorry Ron,
I’m an atheist and I don’t own a gun.
You need to realise that us sceptics are an eclectic bunch. About the only thing we have in common is a belief that AGW is not CAGW (not that we’ve had any measurable GW at all over the past 18 years.)
Oh BTW: the oceans are still alkaline, nobody’s been ‘dislocated’ from their homes because of a rise of only a few tenths of a degree over the last hundred years, and food production levels are increasing. Ain’t life grand Ron?

Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 5:11 pm

So what your saying is if I or someone else made a graphic novel about a bunch of “climate change denying rednecks” running around shooting “greenies” with “assault weapons”, you and the rest of the “greenie world” wouldn’t get your panties in a wad?

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  Ron
October 22, 2014 7:27 pm

Ron, what oceans in particular are becoming acidic? Notably, depending on where you measure ocean PH it differs between 7.9 and 8.3 – which is ALKALINE, dummy.
Dislocation of people from homes and threats to their food and water security have more to do with biofuels than the warming which has NOT occurred in the last 18 years.
Look at the proposed cause for the Little Ice Age and the meaning of “Maunder Minimum”, though I doubt you will or have any understanding of the subject matter.

Reply to  Ron
October 24, 2014 10:53 am

Given the venue, I’m amused to see that you were coy about including “cause Global Warming” in your list of indiscretions.
But if you’re popping off in this fashion, why not throw it in as well?

Anarchist Hate Machine
October 22, 2014 1:20 am

Consider: The warmunist side is likely to have far more anti-gun, bedwetting hippies who have never even touched a gun, let alone own or even fired one. I think some of them…the higher-ups, the ones leading the charge know this deep down, and know the only way they’re going to be able to force people back to the stone age is with the cooperation of an armed coercive State. When they don’t get the cooperation…all they can do is fantasize.
I certainly could be wrong.

Reply to  Anarchist Hate Machine
October 22, 2014 1:44 am

The Unabomber was a green.
Osama Bin Laden once denounced global warming, which he blamed for the Pakistan floods, and called on greens to join his global jihad.
Not all greens with violent tendencies are harmless.

Anarchist Hate Machine
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 22, 2014 2:18 am

Another whoops. I didn’t mean to portray them as harmless or not a threat. Certainly green terrorism could be even more of a problem as time goes on and their efforts keep failing.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 22, 2014 2:14 pm

Eric, No one with “violent tendencies” is harmless.

Reply to  Anarchist Hate Machine
October 22, 2014 12:51 pm

I bet they have never killed anyone with one either eh! The only statistic that matters is that deaths from guns are hundreds of times higher in gun toting’ states than they are in places like the UK with strict gun laws. If you think those deaths are a worthwhile sacrifice in the struggle to keep guns freely available, we just have to agree to differ on that. I’d rather be a bedwetting hippie than some short tempered and angry man with a fondness for firearms. To be honest, as someone who has spent many years working in forensic mental health I can assure you that co-operation is much less likely when you are negotiating with armed individuals.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 1:20 pm

Gareth Phillips, I haven’t analyzed the homicide statistics of the UK, but the ones of Germany, and our real homicide rate is not the 0.7 per 100,000 per year but more like 4.2, very similar to the USA’s 5; only that our murderers mostly use knifes and boots instead of guns.
At least for Germany I can assure you that the official homicide rate is a bold fat lie. Looking at your demographics, I fathom the same for the UK.
Entire classes of killings are removed before the number gets reported.

Joel K
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 1:34 pm

Only if you include deaths from suicides in that number, Gareth. If you drop suicides from the statistic then gun toting states have lower deaths than from non-gun toting ones.
An armed society is a polite society. Tell me again about all those hooligans in london who beat up the elderly for fun, because they know the old lady won’t pull out a gun and shoot them.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 5:23 pm

Sigmund Freud said it best, “Fear of a weapon is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
Every person on this Earth was BORN with a weapon more powerful than any man made weapon you could ever imagine. And this is the very reason people like you will fail in your quest to make the world a “kinder, gentler place. You simply choose to ignore the sheer animalistic nature we have. Most of us can control it and live in normal society because we choose to live in a “better” place. But some, well, there is just no helping them no matter what you do.
Yet you continue to blame an inanimate object for your failings because you just cannot not accept that some will never accept the “programming” that society chooses to put out.
So tell me, can you guess what that weapon is?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 23, 2014 4:46 pm

Hi Gareth, I guess it’s politically correct these days to rule out honor killings, after all it’s really a traditional cultural thing and the cops have all been through sensitivity training.

Reply to  Anarchist Hate Machine
October 22, 2014 2:19 pm

AHM, yep, you are. I happen to know quite a few otherwise politically conservative folks who “believe” in AGW. Engaging them in a conversation is impossible since there is only one view point for them. The present reality is that AGW has become a social meme. It has no scientific support to speak of once the literature is studied with a critical eye, yet people who should know better continue in their faith,

James Wood
October 22, 2014 1:26 am

During the civil war in the U.S. Thaddeus Stevens, Radical Republican, member of Congress from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, a firebrand of the second American Revolution expressed his convictions:
There can be no fanatics in the cause of genuine liberty. Fanaticism is excessive zeal. There may be, and have been fanatics in false religion – in the bloody religions of the heathen. There are fanatics in superstition. But there can be no fanatic, however warm their zeal, in the true religion, …
There is nothing wrong with conviction, is there?

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  James Wood
October 22, 2014 3:13 am

I would have no problems convicting these people.

October 22, 2014 1:53 am

Spot on. Anyone wandering around with a semi automatic should be jailed. Making a joke out of gun ownership is indeed sick.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 5:50 am

A semi-automatic is a gun that fires once with each pull of the trigger.
You want us to go back to flintlocks?

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 9:28 am

Maybe that would be a good idea. When the idea of the right to bear arms was written into the constitution, this was the type of firearm they considered. Currently some gun nut can shoot dozens without ever having to reload. If the founding fathers had been dealing with such weaponry they may well have thought differently.

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 9:54 am

Gareth Phillips,
Maybe that would be a good idea? When the idea of Freedom of the Press was written into the constitution, publishers used hand operated presses with lead type. Currently some green nut can publish to dozens without ever having to print a page by using the internet. If the founding fathers had been dealing with such communications, they may well have thought differently.
Oh and by the way, the Second Amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government to prevent its interference with citizens from having arms. It says nothing about flintlocks or even guns for that matter.
Let the red herrings run free and thread creep into oblivion.

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 10:27 am

You fail US history. And apparently have little understanding of firearms.
For the record, the 2nd amendment was derived from the belief that rulers and government should not be granted a monopoly on the means of force. They believed that so long as citizens possessed equal access to the means of force, the ability of a minority to enforce their will by the mechanisms available to a government would be held in check. In the 18th century muzzle loading flintlocks were state of the art.

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 1:04 pm

Fair cop, I am not American so my knowledge of US constitutions is limited probably as good as yours on mediaeval Welsh politics. I gain my knowledge from US news and commentaries, as well as the utterance of the gun lobby who think that 10 year olds are ok to own guns etc.However, the question remains the same, would the founding fathers have felt the same way about the right to bear arms if they had known where it would lead? Freedom of speech or expression is somewhat different. The message remains as potent or poor whatever the means of delivery. The problem with the cartoon is that if one side is depicted as a brave fighter tackling the opposition, some crazed right wing gun nut is going to let his fantasies get the better of him and really believe he has to go out and start killing or blowing up federal buildings. If that happened in the UK they very unlikely to have the guns, and there is only so much damage you can do with a cricket bat. However, in the US we seen what happens with the easy availability of firearms. It’s far too late to change things, but I don’t think such dysfunctional situations should ever be glorified by Ecologists, mad left wing revolutionaries or right wing bozos. That is why this cartoon is so bad.

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 2:15 pm

Fair point on comparative knowledge. My knowledge of medieval Wales is pretty much limited to reading about Alfred prior to the Norman conquest. At some point I intend to correct that, as my undergrad degree is in histroy and it is still my first love.
I would like to offer some corrections. There really isn’t much of a “gun lobby”. Firearms manufacturers have very little clout. A few years ago there was an attempt in the US by some to sue manufacturers for the harm their products purportedly caused, basically applying the model used against tobacco companies. It died a quick death. The reason? Once trial lawyers saw the gross revenues generated by gun makers, they lost all interest. There is a gun owners lobby. The NRA gets the most ink, but while the biggest, they are one of many. The difference is significant. References to a “gun lobby” are often an attempt to frame the debate in the tried and true “Big _____ vs the people” model. The fact is there is no “Big Firearms or Big Gun” corporation. The proper framing is the people verses the people, with one side wanting government to step in and take charge of the debate. If people want an honest debate, then the issue should be framed as an amendment to the Constitution. Yet you never see that.
On the point that the “lobby” pushes gun ownership by 10 year olds – that’s something I’ve never heard before. The closest position I’ve seen to that is that of advocating education in safe and responsible gun ownership and handling, regardless of age. Offering educational material which teaches kids not to handle or play with firearms without adult supervision is bad how?
Regarding the opinion of the Founders under today’s realities – an answer involves a certain amount of conjecture, however i believe I basically answered that question above. The 2nd amendment was not introduced to protect the right of individuals to hunt deer and duck. It is entirely about access to the means of force. But don’t take my word for it. Hear what those founders actually said.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”.
George Washington
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”.
– Patrick Henry –
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … “
– Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”
–John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”
–Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”
–Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country …”
– James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
– Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
” … but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights …”
– Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
– Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
“The great object is, that every man be armed … Every one who is able may have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone …”
– Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
– Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
“Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms … The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”
– Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
“The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally … enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
” … most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved.”
– James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
“The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon…. [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
– Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
Upon reflection, I take back the part about an answer requiring conjecture. It requires none at all, as the framers were extremely clear on why they believed in the right to bear arms.

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 3:12 pm

Gareth, your knowledge of firearms history needs some serious work, as does your knowledge of the constitution. The fire arms in use at the time the constitution was written were single shot, muzzle loading weapons regardless of size. Even up to the time of the American Revolution every free Englishman was accorded an absolute right to own a weapon that could be employed in defense. If you carefully follow the history of British weapons laws, you will find that from the early 20th Century on, the sole social class protected by weapons laws are criminals. No ifs, no ands, no buts. The law abiding British citizen, following the trend of modern court decisions is expected to do a Monty Python and run away in the face of a threat, even in one’s own home.
Yep, it is a Libertarian site, but British mark you, and the history presented is sound, factual and verifiable (using primary sources BTW, not mass media or op. eds.). One of the odder historical aspects is that British opinion and following that, law on weapons seems to a degree to be driven by American innovations (the revolver, the semiautomatic pistol, etc.), while American law seems to track British law. This is doubly odd since similar innovations were being made on the continent and in Britain, which scarcely disturbed the tenor of British thought. Apparently us Americans are at some level in the British legislatural psyche a “bad lot.”
Regarding the constitution, the 2nd Amendment states that the right to “keep and bear” firearms is necessary to a “well regulated militia.” Lest you become confused, everyone who signed the constitution knew the difference between an “army” and a “militia” and the words are never confounded by them, not even in the constitution. Armed forces are governmental forces (Army, Navy, etc.). The militia is social and, while it apparently needs to be well regulated, there is no prescription in the constitution for how that should be done. So the debate then centers, or should, on what the founders thought the function of a militia was, because plainly they were not protecting the rights of lunatics to head for the wilds of Idaho (they didn’t even know about Idaho) to set up their own weird interpretations of Utopia. They clearly considered weapons and a militia a necessary right of the common folks who weren’t nuts, otherwise Jefferson would not have enshrined it in the Bill of Rights.

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 9:29 pm

A flintlock only fires once with each squeeze of the trigger. The original semi-automatic!

Theo Barker
Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 6:56 am

Wow! Have you ever been out of your own neighborhood? Have you ever lived in a rural area? Your assertion would put ~1/3 of the population west of the Mississippi and east of the coastal ranges in jail. Why do you think the Heartland is known for low crime?

Reply to  Theo Barker
October 22, 2014 9:40 am

Theo, I’m not sure where you get your stats,they do not agree with anything else I’ve seen.The flyover states have comparitivley high levels of gun crime and deaths from shooting. Google it, lots of evidence there. Quick bit of data for you, the first column is deaths from guns.
Northeast 100.0 68.0 15.4 12.9 3.7
Midwest 100.0 73.7 8.9 12.2 5.2
South 100.0 69.9 11.6 12.4 6.1
West 100.0 65.3 15.1 14.3 5.3

Reply to  Theo Barker
October 22, 2014 2:12 pm

I have visited the US on many occasions Theo, as well as most large countries around the world. What surprised me was that so many US citizens did not travel outside the US, I had always thought they were great travellers.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 8:51 am

Duh. The handguns well over 100 yrs ago were “semi-automatic”. The meaning of semi-automatic has been transformed by the popular media thru the Orwellian “doublespeak” machine.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 11:52 am

Gareth, your self-diagnosis is spot on!

October 22, 2014 2:04 am

As if that cartoon was not enough, guns and rifles seem to be put in the hands of anyone and anything to make a political point. I despair. http://eveningharold.com/2014/10/21/badgers-demand-human-cull-to-prevent-spread-of-ebola/

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 5:51 am

Have you always been afraid of guns?
They can cure that these days, if you have the courage to let go of your fear.

Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 1:39 pm

He’s british. He’s been raised to fear an armed populace.

Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 2:10 am

Is it my imagination or is WUWT carrying more political trash and less science? Please don’t let that happen. We rely on the website for scientific content. There are plenty of others that carry this other stuff.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 2:47 am

I doubt that it’s your “imagination”; however, my guess would be that the so-called “scientific” journals are choosing to publish what you apparently deem to be “political trash”, rather than material that is worthy of the designation of “scientific content”.
Consequently, I don’t think it’s fair to fault WUWT for this.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
October 22, 2014 10:41 am

I believe WUWT has complete control over what it publishes so I do fault it. I read this site daily and admire it for its relative adherence to science over inflammatory material. Hate to see it change. That’s all.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
October 23, 2014 2:35 pm

Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 at 10:41 am
I believe WUWT has complete control over what it publishes so I do fault it. I read this site daily and admire it for its relative adherence to science over inflammatory material. Hate to see it change. That’s all.

It’s an election year here in the US. Vote out those who fund the scientific trash or use it as a lever for their political agenda. Take out the enablers of the scientific trash and what would be left?
Perhaps you complain because you don’t want to see the political aspect change?

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 3:00 am

WUWT is a WordPress site, which means you can filter content by category – e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/climate-news/

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Eric Worrall
October 22, 2014 10:43 am

I guess I could also filter it by not reading it. My comment is a more broad one in that, as I said above, “I read this site daily and admire it for its relative adherence to science over inflammatory material. Hate to see it change. That’s all.”

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 3:02 am

Noticing the vile work of green fanatics and commenting on it is never trash.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  hunter
October 22, 2014 10:44 am

There are lots of sites out there that devote themselves to that. I just hold this one in high esteem and hope that it doesn’t start going the easy route.

Reply to  hunter
October 23, 2014 3:01 am

Your answer is confusing, but let’s move on.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 3:15 am

May you never have the misfortune of being the next Martin Neimoller.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
October 22, 2014 10:48 am

Missing the point. It is a difficult thing to continue doing the hard work of refuting the “settled” climate science with science. Taking the road of following commentators like Delingpole (whom I read and often enjoy) is the easy one.
I urge Anthony Watts to do everything he can to protect his credentials as a true adherent to science.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 3:23 am

“Proud Skeptic” ?
Hmmm, sounds a bit like “ScepticalScience”….
Who is this “we” you speak of? It is well accepted that herding sceptics would be like herding cats. Sceptics are not collectivists. There is no central control and any attempt to establish such as been shot down. Instantly. This is the first genuine grass roots movement of the Internet age. A “proud sceptic” would understand this. You may stand with others, but you stand on your own two feet.
[Reply: He used to comment as ‘Proud Denier’, so this is an improvement. ~mod.]

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Konrad.
October 22, 2014 10:55 am

I stand by myself in most things…and yes, I used to be called Proud Denier until the definitions of Skeptic and Denier morphed to the point where I decided that Skeptic was more appropriate. By current definitions I guess “Lukewarmer” is the right word but I don’t like the sound of “Proud Lukewarmer” so I won’t be changing it again.
And, yes, I understand this very well. My caution, as I have stated in my responses above is to not let this site go the easy route and start concentrating on cheap political commentary and petty fights with unworthy opponents.
As for the reference to the Skeptical Science website…I may have read it once or twice but find this one to be far superior to all others and would like to keep it that way.

Reply to  Konrad.
October 22, 2014 1:12 pm

“I may have read it once or twice but find this one to be far superior to all others and would like to keep it that way.”
By censoring any mention of the moral corruption of the warmists?

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 3:40 am

PS- Have you not noticed? The entire climate debate is political. There is precious little “science” in climate science.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 22, 2014 10:59 am

There is good science in climate science, though I have come to the opinion that the science as it now stands is very much in its infancy.
I rely very heavily on this website to help me understand what I can about the science. As an engineer and not a scientist, it has required a lot of work on my part but I have pieced together enough information over the years to think I have a good sense of what is going on.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 22, 2014 1:11 pm

“There is good science in climate science, though I have come to the opinion that the science as it now stands is very much in its infancy.”
And that is? Averaging model runs, pretending it has a meaning? Averaging temperatures, pretending it has a physical meaning? Not even attempting to simulate the QBE? Conjecturing heat is hidden in the oceans without having an idea how it got there?
Climate “science” has one lasting value; it is a great tale of the political corruption of an entire scientific field, and one of the biggest heists in history.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 5:04 am

Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 at 2:10 am
“Is it my imagination or is WUWT carrying more political trash and less science? Please don’t let that happen. We rely on the website for scientific content. There are plenty of others that carry this other stuff.”
Funny, Proud Skeptic, no other blog carried this post. So you want these posts to vanish.
Why didn’t you just ignore it if you’re so interested in something else?
My guess is that you are a Deep Green yourself and you don’t particularly like it when your kind is exposed.

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  DirkH
October 22, 2014 11:04 am

Developing rampant paranoia is one of the dangers of becoming involved in an issue like this.
You know nothing about me and your assertion that I am some Deep Green troll says a lot about you.
My “kind” as you say, is the kind of person who relies heavily on WUWT, finds himself defending opinions based on the content of this site (and defending people like Anthony Watts, whom I admire) and, like many of the people who contribute to this site, searches of the truth of the science.

Reply to  DirkH
October 22, 2014 1:07 pm

Well I’ve never seen your nickname here so I assume you’re a freshly minted sockpuppet.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 22, 2014 5:52 am

You prefer to have the worst aspects of your brethren hidden?

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  MarkW
October 22, 2014 11:07 am

Best response of the bunch! LOL!
No, I just prefer that they not be the focus of an otherwise superior website!
Delingpole can be found on Lucianne, Ricochet (radio free Delingpole), Instapundit and many others. Funny guy. Clever wit. Not a scientist by any means.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 23, 2014 5:20 pm

Even the climastrologists were more scientific 10 years ago. It only went occult when the hated ‘pause’ set in and sceptics started deconstructing the nonsense that was the result of research done with little resistance, nay, boundless support in the Golden Age of climate science in the 1990s. Now, in tatters, the green lefty types are turning to ever more violent fantasies, a crescendo of smears and academic bullying. Hey, tell me what science we should be reporting now? Where should we look for it? If Physics died, wouldn’t it be worth a report on how it happened? Didn’t you notice WUWT reported on a new bug found the bogs in northern Sweden by a University of Arizona researcher (!!!) that is going to destroy the environment and magnify the damage done by humans? Look, I agree with you but that is an example of the new science we are faced with in post normal times.

Justa Joe
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
October 24, 2014 11:18 am

It seems like you’re classicly concern trolling. WUMT has never shied away from politcs of AGW, which is what it’s all about really.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
October 22, 2014 2:23 am

Just for the record (and well worth reading in full), Delingpole/Climate Depot’s original source is Australia’s Tony Thomas via his latest piece in Quadrant: Shooting Santa to Save the World.
It is also worth noting that – what Delingpole did not mention, but Thomas did – long-time IPCC-honcho and dedicated very public fan of Squarzoni’s abomination (masquerading as something or other), Dr. Jean Jouzel, a “climate hero“, has landed himself a place of “honour” in Donna Laframboise’s ever-growing list of members in the Fake Nobel Laureates Hall of Shame.

Grey Lensman
October 22, 2014 2:35 am

On a similar note, have you seen this.
Nastiest bit of so called writing that i have seen in a long time.

M Courtney
Reply to  Grey Lensman
October 22, 2014 4:54 am

I almost got dragged into commenting on that but then I realised, the same as you, that the tone of the article is so warped that there’s no interest in the truth on display.
Nasty and another sad nail in the coffin of the Guardian’s historical influence.

Reply to  M Courtney
October 22, 2014 4:58 am

Ah, you’re finally overcoming your Guardian affliction. Now that took a while.

M Courtney
Reply to  M Courtney
October 22, 2014 5:49 am

Nope, I still post there and read it.
But Dana’s blog always deletes and edits comments so it isn’t actually helpful. And I’m busy, of course.
Carrington is nuts as well but at least he is open to debate. I debate there often.

Reply to  Grey Lensman
October 22, 2014 8:06 am

I started reading the guardian when Glenn Greenwald went there. Even if you disagree with his conclusions or views his commentary was well reasoned, researched, and with a fine-tuned intelligence behind it.
Sadly I stopped reading the Guardian due to articles like this that display levels of purposeful ignorance and course intellect; delusionary with unsupported or bizarrely reasoned assertions of such magnitude that editors should be ashamed. They do this with both climate and race. I believe racism remains an issue, and requires a forum to keep this dark side of human nature in check, however the commentary in the Guardian is ignorant to the point of dishonesty and in pretending to help humanity with racisim is nothing more than race baiting and an appeal to continuing ignorance.

Reply to  Grey Lensman
October 22, 2014 10:32 am

I don’t have to follow the link to guess that the author is Scooter Nuccitelli. The boy is growing up before our eyes. From John Cook’s little attack puppy to a full grown angry chihuahua with his own column.

Reply to  timg56
October 23, 2014 12:35 am

Now that is funny, ” full grown angry chihuahua” . That’s what I need my “semi automatic for, those yappy little pests!

AJ Virgo
October 22, 2014 2:50 am

The UN (unelected by the public) must be a natural catchall of these types and all they have to do is convince the public that Democracy is not working.
From what I see they are definitely succeeding.

Reply to  AJ Virgo
October 22, 2014 3:04 am

AJ Virgo,
You raise an important point: The rise of the UN *is* a sign of the failure of democracy and civil society.

October 22, 2014 2:51 am

Didn’t notice that when it was published in France in 2012. Shame on our French Academy for having awarded it.
From these excerpts that are available on the internet (in French)
this comics seems particularly boring. Apart from some violent parts, it seems that there is nothing more to see than the same pictures of climate scientists and climate activists, again and again, talking, talking, talking, talking… My only compliment to the author is that Jean Jouzel and Hervé le Treut are well-formed.

Reply to  Benoît Rittaud
October 22, 2014 1:02 pm

Also, the art looks crappy. France has much better artists.

October 22, 2014 3:16 am

It is their religion that the earth needs saving from the horror of mankind. The greens have been saying for decades that the earth will die if we have more that a Billion people maximum and half that is much better. Well friends, we have about 7 Billion people so they think it would be a good thing if 6 Billion people were disposed of.
With that mindset, one can understand that they love this book.

Bloke down the pub
October 22, 2014 3:20 am

“Today, choice about energy issues has been stolen from the people. The decisions are all in the hands of politicians and big multinationals. Economic motivations prevail over environmental needs”
Well they got that bit right. You can choose a tariff that gets electricity from green sources, but you can’t get one from just fossil fuels. The big multinationals that rake in the subsidies from wind and solar must be economically motivated as they do b*gger all to help our environmental needs.

October 22, 2014 4:06 am

I am already writing the sequel.
A lone commenter goes on a killing spree killing eco- terrorists dressed as Santa Clause.
Chapter 3
As Santa , blood dripping onto his boots, raises his Smith & Wesson Model 500 , two eco- terrorists appear from behind the Cornflakes, he takes aim and calmly dispatches them, cornflakes shower over the floor…….
Part two tomorrow – Can Santa take on the busload of eco- warriors arriving at the Supermarket.

October 22, 2014 4:09 am

Correction, hasn’t reached the editor yet!!
A lone commenter dressed as Santa Clause
goes on a killing spree killing eco- terrorists

October 22, 2014 5:44 am

“the choice has been stolen from the people”
Is that what they are calling it when individuals make decisions that you disagree with, these days?
The fact remains that the vast majority of people don’t agree with these idiots, and that drives them to murderous rage.

October 22, 2014 5:55 am

Scientific propaganda has been discredited. Fear propaganda has failed. As a last ditch stand they can only exhort the uneducated masses to violence. This is the desperate stuff of a failed agenda.

Anarchist Hate Machine
October 22, 2014 6:17 am

I sometimes forget that the whole world isn’t the US. Although in the US, I’m pretty confident that any violent uprising or any kind of ‘socialist green revolution’ would be met with a rifle behind every blade of grass, I tend to forget about the other countries who are without the same freedoms to own firearms. What of they, if the greens decide to take to violence there? hmmm…

October 22, 2014 6:35 am

“…deep greens trying to pretend they are normal people…”
“It ain’t easy being green.” – Kermit the frog

Ralph Kramden
October 22, 2014 7:17 am

As the absence of global warming continues the Alarmists become more and more desperate. I think it’s very possible some of them will resort to terrorist measures.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Ralph Kramden
October 22, 2014 12:03 pm

In addition to examples already given, readers may remember Green eco- terrorist James Lee’s attack on the Discovery Channel headquarters. Just as we see with this thread’s dreadful cartoon, Lee had no lack of supporters who tried to rationalize and justify his actions.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 22, 2014 1:00 pm

Look for the manifesto of Joe Stack and Noam Chomsky’s giddiness about it as well.

October 22, 2014 7:36 am

This is a guy who should be watched very closely. It is not a big stretch to see him or his ilk start shooting up a mall when his fantasies get the best of him.

Jeff Alberts
October 22, 2014 7:38 am

Is it me, or are all of the casualties in the No Pressure video white?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 22, 2014 8:37 am

I guess political correctness of the all-white splatter movie makes it okay to not hire other races for the film. They get two birds with one stone. It underscores the PC thesis that white people only are guilty of everything. The irony is that such an idea is racism of the most insidious kind, the kind that makes all other races being innocently manipulated by the clever, diabolic whites. This kind of racism can be seen in much of the NGO activity in Africa – the condescending “teach a man to fish” philosophy. I wonder if they know that Hausaland in West Africa had an embassy in Constantinople in the 11th Century and that the Gold Coast supplied nearly all the gold minted in Europe during the Middle Ages by trade across the Sahara, or that Timbuktu had a major library when Europeans were largely illiterate. I’ll leave those who are interested to find the links.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 22, 2014 5:12 pm

Well said Gary.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 22, 2014 8:46 pm

There were other races in the film, but as far as I could tell, none of them were “pressured” to explode.

more soylent green!
October 22, 2014 8:43 am

I’ve always believed that nutjobs have always been nutjobs, they just need to find something that really grabs them and brings out their inner psycho. If not the environment, it would be Marxism, or some sort of anarchist populism, or some other radical cause.
As for the creators and promoters of this stuff — Don’t the environmentalists care that these things are published by corporations?

Reply to  more soylent green!
October 22, 2014 2:21 pm

After working in forensic psychiatry I can assure you that you have hit the nail on the head. Psychopaths are just as likely to inflict pain and suffering on others while in the guise of everything from Islam to fascism, Socialism to Environmentalism, from nationalism to anarchy. It is generally not the belief, it is the person. The only other governing factor on how much harm they inflict is whether they have access to arms.The person pictured with the semi automatic could be from any philosophical background, their actions as a disordered personality are the same.

Reply to  Gareth Phillips
October 22, 2014 7:24 pm

Governments, by definition, will always have access to arms. The proportion of psychopaths in government is at least as high as in the general population, and arguably much higher. Draw your own conclusions.

Reply to  more soylent green!
October 23, 2014 3:03 am

Agreed: The predilection towards obsession and social madness predates so-called global warming.

October 22, 2014 8:47 am

That weapon depicted in the drawing is not a machine gun; it is a semi-automatic rifle. The feature that makes it lethal is not its rate of fire; it is the fact that those smallish bullets tumbler when they hit flesh.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  GP Hanner
October 22, 2014 11:51 am

GP Hanner says:”The feature that makes it lethal is not its rate of fire; it is the fact that those smallish bullets tumbler when they hit flesh.”
That statement falls under the heading of myth, rather than actual bullet performance. Small diameter projectiles (5.56mm in the case of the AR- style rifle in the drawing,) behave exactly as do larger diameter projectiles traveling at supersonic speeds. What can and does often happen, is that the bullet will begin to fragment and/or expand within a target medium, creating a larger wound channel. The greater factor in small caliber lethality, other than direct penetration of vital organs, is vital damage caused by hydrostatic shock of the supersonic projectile.

Reply to  Alan Robertson
October 23, 2014 5:52 am

Actually, the vital factor is the amount of “twist” in the grooves or “rifles.” Less twist means a less stable bullet that will tumble more on impact. James Fallows wrote an article for the Atlantic long ago (not yet online) about the army’s adding more twist (for the sake of accuracy) and thereby decreasing lethality.

October 22, 2014 8:59 am

These creeps sabotage democracy. Then complain democracy doesn’t work. Then try to force state control at the micro level. Go figure.

October 22, 2014 8:59 am

Dawn of the Dead.

October 22, 2014 9:38 am

So the same people who want to do away with guns don’t mind using guns on skeptics to get their point across?

Reply to  pinroot
October 22, 2014 12:56 pm

They are also currently air-dropping automatic rifles to anyone who can grab them, in Kobani.

October 22, 2014 11:32 am

When you judge people strictly by what they do rather than what they say, it makes it easy to evaluate the people who would produce and support such efforts as the above.

October 22, 2014 1:28 pm

That’s rich! As if the greens have no “economic motivation”. Al Gore anyone?

October 22, 2014 3:23 pm

CommunIST, terrorIST, FascIST, IslamIST, environmentalIST.
What do all these dangerous losers have in common?
And why can’t we prosecute the deranged b******s who made this snuff movie for “hate crimes”?

Jim South london
October 22, 2014 4:08 pm

A wise idea after what happened in the Westgate Shopping Mall in Kenya and [now] the Canadian Parliment building.

October 22, 2014 7:55 pm

“Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto
It is said the above statement was never uttered.
Said or not, the truth is not diminished.

Nigel S
October 22, 2014 11:03 pm

You may want to delet this since it’s from hotwhopper but I think it’s relevant. I was objecting, politely I thought, to her ‘tagging’ of ‘Eric “eugenics” Worral’ (very sic.). My response pointing out that I have a good engineering degree from Isaac Newton’s alma mater (although not claiming a share in its 32 Nobel Prizes) was deleted of course. Do you think the “feeble intellects” jibe was a death threat? Given the history of eugenics it might well be.
‘AnonymousOctober 19, 2014 at 8:07 PM
Are you denying eugenics was a serious mainstream theory amongst the Fabians and others of that ilk?
Nigel S (only slightly anonymous)
SouOctober 19, 2014 at 8:30 PM
Huh? How did you get to that from what I wrote, Nigel S? Were you reading Eric “eugenics” Worrall’s stream of misplaced allegations that climate science is like Nazi eugenics?
Of course, it wasn’t just the Fabian Society. Earlier last century, people who wandered around the edge of that sort of thinking reportedly included Winston Churchill and John Maynard Keynes. Compulsory sterilisation until relatively recently was carried out in the USA (see here too), and elsewhere. But Eric wasn’t so much talking about the more general political eugenics movements worldwide. He was more specific, likening climate science to the eugenics as applied by the Nazis leading up to and including WWII. He behaved like a rather nasty nutcase.
SouOctober 19, 2014 at 8:46 PM
Speaking of “feeble intellects”, maybe NigelS can’t tell the difference between 21st century climate science and the UK Fabian Society of the early 20th century :(‘

Reply to  Nigel S
October 23, 2014 3:11 am

The similarities between the social madness of eugenics and the social madness of cliamte obsession are clear for anyone who pays attention. Read Chesterton’s excellent work against eugenics and substitute “climate change” for “eugenics” and it is deeply chilling.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  hunter
October 23, 2014 9:58 am

Indeed, spot on. And just as that pseudoscience was a mass killer, the climate change pseudoscience will turn out to be too.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights