Counter-Currents
1,398 words
White advocates should consider gun control. Now before the gentle reader sees red, blows his top, or goes about losing his religion, hear me out. Remember, by reading a “white supremacist” website one is already prone to broadmindedness in addressing social problems. Also remember that Counter-Currents writers have endorsed prohibition and paternalism and the world didn’t end. Furthermore, fulfilling the idea of the 14 Words should include a raft of progressive ideas like safe schools, a clean environment, good public infrastructure, and universal healthcare.
Before proceeding further I must first point out that the proposals below are, for the most part, goals with no associated strategy for achieving them. It’s all for after the revolution. However, with clear goals, the details of the practical methods by which to attain them often appear.
Get Guns Out of the Hands of Non-Whites
The reason for the 2nd Amendment and the unique American private arms race is that whites with property and wealth live among large non-white populations that are resentful, violent, and have a history of theft and attack. It’s always been this way. For further reading regarding this idea, I suggest the story of Mayflower passenger John Alden’s Italian-made Wheelock carbine.[1] By non-whites I mean all of them, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Jews, and any other tribe of cannibals and swindlers that I missed. Perhaps there can be an exception for Amerindians, but most tribes don’t need guns and they don’t need them off-reservation.
Question: What about the Asians protecting their stores in the ghetto from chimpouts?
Answer: Why should you care about Asians and their stores in the ghetto?
Question: There are guns everywhere and they are the ultimate durable good, is this practical?
Answer: There doesn’t need to be battalions of cops rounding up guns in every Little Haiti. Not allowing sales to non-whites will do a great deal of good. Also, the guns can be confiscated through the slow cleanse concept. This also works with Greg Johnson’s “Slow Cleanse” to attain the white ethnostate: should Tyrone or Jamal get caught with a gun, he gets a one-way ticket to Mauritania or Senegal.
Getting guns out of the hands of non-whites will greatly reduce the need for whites to spend a great deal of money arming themselves. After the disarming of the coloreds, a squirrel gun will do for home defense. Additionally, “gun violence” is mostly a phenomenon fueled by non-whites. Even many of the spectacular spree killings are done by non-whites. The Virginia Tech shooting and the Pulse Night Club shootings were all done by post-Hart-Celler people.[2] One suspects that the recent Parkland, Florida School shooting was also the same, but the info is still forthcoming. Other spree killings tend to be those of “mystery-meat” ancestry. This situation also reduces events like shootouts between the welfare-Africans of the Cabrini–Green housing project and the Illinois National Guard in the 1960s.
Don’t Let the Insane Get Guns
In this hypothetical situation, non-whites don’t get guns at all, so “insane” means insane white people. Yes, there are plenty of conditions and details around the term “insane” and who gets to label someone else insane. Furthermore, I suspect that most spree killers are on some sort of behavioral adjusting medicine. The question is, does the medicine make the shooter want to shoot or did the medicine get prescribed because the shooter was already on the edge? A great deal of study needs to be done regarding this situation and a system aimed at prevention created. In short, pills don’t always work, we need to bring back the mental health institution.
It is important to note that there are two spree shootings involving people with mental health issues that were almost prevented: The 2017 Sutherland Springs Church shooting in Texas and the 2018 Parkland, Florida Shooting. In both cases the shooter was known to law enforcement and known to mental health professionals. Just one more hurdle in the two shooters’ path could have prevented the disasters. We need a national study on why the authorities came close, but failed, to prevent them.
Bomb Threats at Airports
In the same way that jokes about bomb threats at airports are a crime, so too should be false statements about school shootings by school-age or school-attending people.
Don’t Let Felons Get Guns
People who spent more than six months in prison make bad choices in every other aspect of life. While some see the light and turn their life around, most don’t. Those people are a danger to themselves and others. The rights of citizenship come with responsibilities.
Get the M-16[3] Out of the System
It’s not guns in general that is the problem, it is usually one type of gun – the civilian variant of the M-16. Military rifles have always been available to the public. Indeed, the Civilian Marksmanship Program that got 20th-century military rifles to the public started in 1903. Spree shooters just don’t use the Krag-Jørgensen rifles, American Enfields, Springfield M1903s, M1 Garands, M1 carbines, or even M-14s. They’re too heavy and kick too much. Furthermore, most people don’t really know how to clean them or use them.
On the other hand, the M-16 and its many variants have been used by the US Military for longer than any other type of service rifle. The next longest serving rifle used by the US Military is the .69 caliber flintlock. Generations of Americans have learned how to assemble and dissemble the rifle while blindfolded. The M-16 is easy to aim and highly accurate. Its 5.56 NATO round is specially designed to kill humans. The rifle is light and doesn’t kick when fired. It’s the perfect tool for any lunatic to knock off screaming co-eds and cowering cubicle co-workers having a really bad Monday.
My suggestion – make the civilian M-16 rifle go the way of the TEC-9, the weapon of choice during the “Crack Wars” of the early 1990s. Impose a big tax on firms that produce them. Encourage a big licensing fee. Slap an additional sales tax on the consumers. Ban the use of the 5.56 NATO round for hunting. Ban civilian versions with detachable magazines. Keep your guns, but not the M-16 or its variants. It’s the limited, drink but DON’T drive concept. The M1 Garand is a perfect military-grade weapon for the discerning enthusiast. Once that’s done the value of the existing M-16s will increase and they’ll wind up in the hands of collectors who talk about “their rights” while their expensive shooting irons are hid away in safes and closets.
Question: Won’t spree shooters switch to different types of guns?
Answer: Yes, that’s always possible. However, as mentioned above, the M-16 is easy and lethal. Other firearms are just as lethal, but harder. The M1 Garand weighs “a ton.” Hits on a target with a pistol get hard around 25 feet, and harder father out. A Krag-Jørgensen is impossible to conceal. Every little bit helps.
Metapolitics
Metapolitics works. Yul Brynner’s Public Service Advertisement[4] about the dangers of smoking killed what once was a universal smoking culture. Civic-minded virtuous people should change the culture. Get a ripped, highly masculine movie star to say that only “nuts” buy an M-16 and one should look at a Grade AAA hickory stock, bolt-action…whatever made by the fine gunsmiths from…wherever. Encourage a film where the hero blasts the criminal mastermind with the old Lee-Enfield rifle while saying a memorable one-liner. Dirty Harry made the Smith & Wesson .44, the world’s most cumbersome pistol into a best seller that sits in gun safes, decorates holsters, and isn’t used by spree killers.
Alienation
The major root cause of spree shootings is that the M-16 is widely available in a civilian variant, but the other minor factor is the ease with which American society produces atomized, alienated individuals. The racial displacement of whites is a central pillar of the latter phenomenon. The roots of white displacement probably started in 1916, when President Wilson appointed the first Jew to the Supreme Court, and by the 1960s the problem was clear but had no name. It should be noted that the first mass shooting occurred not long after the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Immigration Act. This was in 1966, when Charles Whitman shot from the tower at the University of Texas in Austin.
Adna Bertrand Rockwell is a distant cousin of George Lincoln Rockwell and a veteran who can assemble and disassemble an M-16 while blindfolded. He is a friend of Greg Johnson and often works out at a Seattle gym with his trainer Kyle.
Notes
[1] https://www.range365.com/mayflower-gun
[2] https://cis.org/Report/HartCeller-Immigration-Act-1965
[3] Nobody get stupid about my calling the rifle in question an M-16 rather than an AR-15 or an M4A1, blah, blah, blah. You know what I’m talking about.
23 comments
You want gun control because you to make sure whites don’t have the option to resist their own extermination.
After all, you and many others in the alt-right oppose violence action because you think it makes your internet-based “movement” look bad or something.
All you want to do is spend the next 30 years writing in your internet echo chambers and “raising awareness”.
Gun control would remove any alternative to your stupid internet blogs that white have.
Your guns have not prevented you from slipping into a racial minority.
If the age to buy guns were raised to 21 and underage possession was punishable then we could round up more blacks and incarcerate them. School shootings would also drop away if such a law were really followed up on. Additionally it doesn’t violate the second amendment.
Are you sure that denying a constitutional right to people of majority age (18 to 20 years old) is constitutional? I’m not a scholar or a lawyer, but it seems to me that a reasonable understanding of the Bill of Rights is that it applies to all who carry the burden of citizenship. You can be drafted at 18, yet legally denied rights explicitly enumerated in The Constitution? That sounds suspect to me.
this complete non understanding of exsisting laws AND how the left works.
From reading this I can tell you have never bought a gun and filled out the ATF purchase form.
Much of what you want is Already law. The rest is ignorance of guns and how regulation works.
the deadliest shooter was UVA , used regular glock 9mm pistols, not an AR 15.
” We need a national study on why the authorities came close, but failed, to prevent” because bureaucrats didn’t report the mental health issues into existing system , so it would show up in the
background check system . Time after time , especially the parkland church shooter .
CURRENT prohibited persons now are :
anyone ever convicted of any felony, ever in their life.
anyone whe was EVER convicted of a domestic abuse crime , no matter how minor of how long ago. yelled at your girlfriend once , In most states that is a minor DV infraction and you get a ticket , pay the fine , and then are barred for the rest of your life frowning a firearm.
any misdemeanor that could be punished by 1 year in jail. unemployed and get behind on your child support? judge sentences you to 4 weekends in jail, but the official crime has a sentence range of for that crime is 0 to 4 years in jail ,
dishonorably discharged from the military ? lifelong ban .
any law that is proposed will be expanded to capture the maximum number of guns/ gun owners .
The left knows all this , and then when your ” reasomable ” proposals don’t fix ALL shootings , they will demand More.
60,000 people a year die of drug overdoses EVERY YEAR!!! almost All the deaths are from fetenayl. IT comes straight across Mexican border. How about a wall or something ? But no, you fall for this ” look, Squirrel ! ” gun control argument that will only divide anyone to the right of chuck schumer. Got your head arround that!?!?! 60,ooo, 60,000, 60, 000
It is incredibly naive to believe the Left would deal honestly with you on ANYTHING. ever .
now, lets rip each other to shreds because we have let CNN make us cry. lets make on the schumer side laugh with glee at our folly .
Some arguments against it.
Metapolitics. Gun control is a historical battle flag of the left. Any gun control will be perceived as a metapolitical victory for the left. It will give leftists a morale boost, and prompt them to push further.
It’s anti white. The majority of gun owners are white. Any gun control will target mostly whites. It will be demoralizing to whites.
Our current system. In an anti white system, every good intention is used against whites. So you could even fathom that a gun free society would be fine in whitopya. But in an anti white system it is detrimental to whites. See England.
” It’s all for after the revolution.”
I must disagree with everything that you have said. Take your above copied statement; if it was after the revolution we wouldn’t need gun control. A healthy white society would not have the problems we have today. Your knowledge of guns, and human motivation is minimal
I’m all for going back to swords, but:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article50685560.html
The easy availability of guns has eventuated in a disportionate number of dead negroes. Therefore I support the easy availability of guns. Indeed, I recommend they be distributed free of charge in certain neighborhoods.
Always interesting articles that push ones thoughts, especially for those of us coming out of the libertarian mindset. The paternalism and prohibition essays were particularly challenging and convincing. However I think this one falls flat.
The martial aryan spirit within our people needs to be regained. Gun ownership and culture help to achieve this and maintain it. While sensible gun regulation are needed I think every person in the state should be in permanent military reserve for as long as they are physically and mentally fit for service.
Martial sports could also replace sport ball and help individual memebers of the tribe strive to be the best in a competition that is statewide. Thus providing a fun healthy platform that promotes our people bonding, staying in shape, and being prepared to defend.
Criminals, gangs, revolutionaries, anti-White minorities with agendas, and a totalitarian government will ALL have guns no matter what the laws.
It is law abiding and conscientious Whites who will mainly be left weaponless and defenseless.
As well as encouraging any enemy to be less afraid, this is completely backwards thinking.
YOU are ultimately responsible, individually or in organized form, for your security.
Never abrogate that right and responsibility. Not even implicitly.
Do you honestly think gun restrictions will reduce the guns in the hands of the negroes? Who will mostly likely give up their guns and be the first to be disarmed.
You didn’t think this through.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to prevent non-whites from having guns. It was not meant to protect the right to self-defense or to allow hunting.
In the 1780s when the Constitution was written, I doubt any of the men writing it even considered you would need to guarantee the right to defend yourself or to hunt. I’m pretty sure that was taken for granted. Of course you could defend yourself and of course you could hunt. Just like we didn’t need an amendment to guarantee our right to breathe or to have children.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee that the population would be armed and able to overthrow another tyrannical government like the one the Founding Fathers had just overthrown. That is what we cannot allow to be taken away. We have to be able to pull together a well-armed militia, composed of the men of the country, to overthrow tyrants when necessary.
And yes, men armed with small arms can resist tyrants. Look at how the Afghans drove the Soviet Union out of their country. Guerillas with small arms, fighting on home turf, are a formidable force.
Amen Pastor Bill,
The 2nd Amendment”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Yes, exactly. It seems with White Nationalists, we’re going to have to reinvent the wheel or something. And what some of them want has absolutely nothing to do with America or even the English speaking Western Civilization of the last eight hundred years. Absolutely trusting our Government – just because it’s White? Really? Is there a Soviet wing to our Movement now?
Yes. I’ve tried to make this argument for years. Even Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Center Right Establishment Man, has said many times that the purpose of the second amendment is defense against tyranny in the form of a totalitarian government.
I’ve gotten the argument that militia armed with rifles are doomed to slaughter. Yes, but with guerilla tactics properly followed, militias can defeat a powerful enemy. Militias armed with rifles will not always be so, since they can overrun poorly guarded ammo and arms dumps to quickly ramp up.
The center cities are now ungovernable black ghettos only held in check by militarized police. But as we saw in Ferguson, the police and Guard stood by and let blacks destroy valuable property and businesses and terrorize their own people.
Would the police and NG acted had the rioters pushed into white suburbs? Since there is doubt they would, citizens armed with military rifles must be available as a backup.
Much has been said about the Koreans defending their property with firearms during the LA riots. Often missed is that whites in nearby areas threw up barriers on access points and armed themselves with rifles and pistols. Since Californicate has now taken away scary looking misnamed ‘assault rifles’, could such a defense be mustered in the same areas today assuming they are still white?
We have very serious socio-cultural problems. That is why the school shootings and other similar problems.
These types of problems only remind us why we have and need the Second Amendment not the contrary.
>The 2nd Amendment was drafted for collectors and hunters
This meme needs to die.
Same goes for the AR boogeyman. It’s one of the most common rifles in America now with something like 20 million floating around. While I appreciate hypothetical regulation that would really appreciate my investments, banning them because they are used in a couple hundred murders annually in a country with over 300 million people is dumb. Banning 5.56/.223 is just pants on head retarded though, seeing as how it is used in wide variety of firearms and all you need is a quick barrel change and your AR is now chambered in 300 AAC…
In Switzerland, men sometimes go to vote with their military rifles slung over their shoulders – a potent display of civic pride, power, and freedom. Their system is the epitome of the Citizen Soldier – what America was supposed to be. This article, the work of a demonic mind, endorses going in the opposite direction towards collectivism and slavery.
We’re not doing that.
“Get Guns Out of the Hands of Non-Whites”
Good idea. It’s the opposite of current policy, and we’ll need to be most of the way to White Nationalism before that can become the law. So why even talk about it when we can’t even lock up DeAndre Harris for committing assault and feloniously carrying a firearm while in posession of illegal narcotics?
“Don’t Let the Insane Get Guns”
It is illegal for people who have been institutionalized to own firearms. This is a dishonest proposition, just like “make background checks mandatory,” because in both cases this is already the law. The only aim this dishonest framing could have is to expand the definition of insanity for the purpose of gun prohibition. Like if you ever were put on antidepressants or tranquilizers during or after a deployment to the desert in a ZOG war. That’s a wonderful idea: disarm all the veterans who are enraged at the betrayal by the (((neocons))) that took years of their life, limbs, friends’ lives, etc. Only bugmen and boomers will have guns. Hillary Clinton couldn’t ask for a better policy. Oh, and just wait for when they add racism to the DSM, making gun ownership by any of us officially illegal.
“It’s not guns in general that is the problem, it is usually one type of gun – the civilian variant of the M-16”
ROFL.
OK, who let the soccer mom write a guest column? The majority of mass shootings are done with handguns, and the AR-15 is used in the minority of mass shootings that are done with rifles. You just became less credible than Mother Jones.
“the TEC-9, the weapon of choice during the “Crack Wars” of the early 1990s.”
Right. Let’s see some numbers on that. You’re talking about “Falling Down” and “Menace II Society.” Did I accedently stumble into the Huffington Post? Movies aren’t real life. The weapons of choice by criminals in the 90s were cheap handguns. That’s always the weapon of choice for the habitual criminal class. Read some statistics, you ignorance ponce.
“the Smith & Wesson .44, the world’s most cumbersome pistol into a best seller that sits in gun safes, decorates holsters, and isn’t used by spree killers.”
Since 1984, 23 mass-homicides have been carried out with revolvers. Stop getting your ideas about gun crime from TV movies.
And of course, the reason to ban semiauto rifles is because they are much more effective in battler than pistols. The entire point of the Second Amendment was to give the people more ability to resist the state. We need that ability now more than ever. Gun control is a codeword for White Genocide.
An M1 Carbine is “too heavy and kick[s] too much”. Ha!
I guess my comment from the comment field from this article: https://counter-currents.com/2018/01/libertarian-fake-psychology-other-thoughts-on-recent-youtube-debates/ would fit in here even better.
“Thanks for your answer Aedon.
I do not like the argument because there are criminals who commit crimes and shoot people, is it really a motive to ban weapons for the public, especially for honorable and law-abiding citizens? Would it not be a better idea to prohibit criminals from buying weapons in such a case, wherever they live? I do not know if you mean so, but you want to ban it in some places and allow it to others, I understand.
Lawy white people should be able to own weapons wherever they live in white countries, even in New York etc, perhaps especially in places like that where they are surrounded by non-white.
It would maybe make it more difficult for some criminals to get guns, but on the other hand if criminals who really want guns, can buy them illegal, and this seems impossible to stop.
So if guns are banned or become more difficult to get hold of in general, it will only make it difficult for honorable citizens to defend themselves from criminals who, surely, will have guns in any case, no matter what the guns laws look like. I think that the only difference gun control laws would imply is that the strengths of the criminals would be better, in comparison to the honorable ones. This gives more power to criminal people and less to the good and honest people. Why would we like this?
Think about it. Especially in areas where white is in a minority, and where black, mexican and other gangs rage around with their illegal guns, do we really want to disarm whites even more?
“guns probably cause more crimes than they prevent.”
But guns don’t really cause any crimes at all, people do. Knives don’t cause crimes neither, nor trucks, people do. And if people realy want to hurt other people, they will do so no matter what the guns laws looks like. Take my country for example, Sweden. In Sweden we have extremely strict gun laws, and it’s very hard to get a weapon license. Basically, only police officers, and hunters may have guns, and some who are in shooting clubs. Getting a license for a pistol/revolver is virtually impossible. No firearms can be owned for self-defense for themselves and their family! And you really have to be able to justify carefully what you are going to use the gun for and to prove it.
So it’s very hard for ethnic Swedes to own guns and to get them. It is very different for the racial foreigners which overflows our country. Their gangs has access to a lot of illegal weapons. Automatic weapons even. There are shootings all the time, while Swedes are defenseless.
I only remember a few years ago when there was an immigrant gang that shot with automatic weapons in the suburbs and murdered people. The Swedish politicians wanted to show manpower. What did they do? They even introduced more firearms restrictions, for shooting clubs! Shooting clubs, where most older law abiding Swedish men are doing sports shooting, who has nothing to do with the killings. It was for “the public’s best and the common good” we are told. Yeah right.
It’s really absurd. And that does not solve any problems. Even if immigrants do not get firearms, they can use knives. Knives are forbidden to wear in Sweden, but those laws do not stop immigrants from wearing them or using them, just with the firearms. Some year ago, an immigrant ran into an Ikea store in Sweden, took a knife and murdered a Swedish mother and son. Why? Because he would not want to be expelled from Sweden. Ikea responded to removing all knives for sale for a while, because it really stops the problem of murder, removing the kitchenware, just ban them, for the sake of the common good, and security! A few years ago, a Muslim terrorist performed a terrorist attack in Sweden, Stockholm. He drove into a human mass , with a truck and killed swedes, one little girl! The swedish politicians’ response to this in order to demonstrate their ability to act? Emergency stopp the immigration? Intern Criminals Foreigners? Expel criminal aliens? The start of the decommissioning of multicultural and multiracial society as the basis for the problems from the beginning?
No! Their solution, put out some lead sows at the city of Stockholm, so no more trucks can enter!
But is it the kitchen knives, and trucks that kills people and that’s the problem in our countries? And is the solution to ban them or to limit their use? Obviously not! It would be to try to deal with the symptoms, but not the underlie real problem. And the real problem is neither Ikea’s kitchen knives, trucks or firearms for that matter, but mainly the multiracial society’s existence as the basis for these problems.
If these immigrants want to hurt us, there are thousands of ways they can do it, as no laws can change that. The only thing these laws do is to destroy it for our own people. Secondly, to limit our own ability to defend ourselves and our families by prohibiting us from having firearms. Then, exploiting the crimes of immigrants, as a way to justify new draconian laws, to control ordinary people even more, and especially the true political opposition, while restricting the Swedish civil freedom and justice, to purchase, and to be able to introduce one draconian law after the other. But all for “the best of the public and the common good”. Their “solutions” to immigrant problems? More cameras in the cities that monitor people! Their solutions to immigrants robbery of bus drivers, they prohibit people the opportunity to pay with cash! Etc, etc…
Just prohibit, and cut and limit the swedes freedom, instead of get rid of the real problem! Firearms have never been a real problem in Sweden. All homes had rifles before. Even younger children were allowed to learn firearms, etc. No mass shootings, gang criminals etc. Same with other European countries, see switzerland for example, filled with guns, but very low crime, and realy no gun problems.
Swedish men have previously rebelled when tyrannical, both domestic and foreign rulers attempted to take the swedish people’s weapons. The least talk that the people would not be allowed to be armed, people knew they had tyrants to deal with and they lifted “the rebel flag” so to speak, and declared war.
That the proud and free men from our great race, the Northern European Germanic race should be denied the most fundamental and bacis right, the right to defend our homes and familys, is humiliating. Once upon a time, such a strong and proud people would never accept it, but today most Swedes are totally brainwashed like dressed dogs.
Swedes are soon to become an minority in Sweden. White Americans are already a minority in several states in USA, and certainly soon throughout the United States. It’s bad here like in the United States. But at least you have some benefits away in the United States, you have the right to own and carry weapons! Be glad for it, and protect it, for you will need weapons when you become a minority and be deprived of the aggressive peoples of the other races. You have the opportunity to be prepared with weapons, we do not have that opportunity. To advocate that the right to arms should be limited is insane. Now, I think you’re not for a ban off arms, but just want to say that, beware of your advantage. Allt white nationalists should, buy a lot of weapons for the future, and join shooting clubs, militias etc and train shooting. I would have done that if I was an American.
I would like to recommend this documentary about the subject, “Disarmed A History Of Gun Control Documentary Film”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7b4I1HLCsk
For those who understand Swedish, me and my colleagues at Nya Dagbladet, recorded a podcast episode about the right to own and carry a guns: https://nyadagbladet.se/poddradio/nyd-podden-avsnitt-4/
Best regards,
Per Nordin”
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment