Ben Carson’s Brutal and Uncomfortable Truth


This was published Tuesday on Breach Bang Clear


Since Dr. Ben Carson – who I DO NOT support for president, by the way – gave his eminently sensible and reasonable opinion on gun control, he’s been painted as a moron by the left. He said,“I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.” This is such an obvious truth to anyone who understands history that opposition to it is unbelievable rather than simply ridiculous. Disagreeing with his statement makes about as much sense as insisting the earth is flat.

As a police officer, I know for a fact that an armed suspect is far more dangerous to take into custody than an unarmed suspect. As a combat veteran, I know for a fact that an armed population is far more difficult to control than an unarmed population. The insurgents in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan didn’t simply roll over and submit to our control. They took up weapons and fought back.

But many voices on the left, GQ and Funny Or Die prominent among them, now insist people are actually safer being unarmed when an armed murderer is trying to kill them. And the people who believe that nonsense, despite generally having zero understanding of weapons, lethal force encounters, combat or anything else remotely related to the subject, refuse to listen to cops, combat vets or others with actual experience. So I’m going to share an account of genocide that even the most ardent critic of Ben Carson shouldn’t be able to argue with.

The following is a passage from the book Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning. The story can be found on pages 93 and 94. It is an account of German Reserve Police Battalion 101 (not a military unit, but regular police), which was part of the “Final Solution”, and its operation to clear Jews from the Polish town of Miedzyrzec. It’s worth noting that this operation was witnessed by one police captain’s pregnant wife, who had come to visit her new husband.

The usual orders were given to shoot anyone trying to escape, as well as the sick, old, and frail who could not march to the train station just outside town.

While the men waited for [Captain] Wohlauf ‘s return, they encountered a Security Police officer already quite drunk, despite the early hour. It was soon apparent that the Hiwis [Lithuanian, Latvian and Ukrainian volunteers] were also drunk. They shot so often and so wildly that the policemen frequently had to take cover to avoid being hit. The policemen “saw the corpses of Jews who had been shot everywhere in the streets and houses.”

Driven by the Hiwis and policemen, thousands of Jews streamed into the marketplace. Here they had to sit or squat without moving or getting up. As the hours passed on this very hot August day of the late summer heat wave, many Jews fainted and collapsed. Moreover, beating and shooting continued in the marketplace. Having removed her military coat as the temperature rose, Frau Wohlauf [the captain’s pregnant wife] was clearly visible in her dress on the marketplace, watching the events at close range.

About 2:00 p. m. the outer guard was called to the marketplace, and one or two hours later the march to the train station began. 

The entire force of Hiwis and policemen was employed to drive the thousands of Jews along the route. Once again, shooting was common. The “foot sick” who could go no farther were shot and left lying on the side of the road. Corpses lined the street to the train station.

Members of Police Battalion 101 with Jewish victims. Cover photo from the book Ordinary Men.

Members of Police Battalion 101 with Jewish victims. Cover photo from the book Ordinary Men.

One final horror was reserved to the end, for the train cars now had to be loaded. While the Hiwis and Security Police packed 120 to 140 Jews into each car, the reserve policemen stood guard and observed. As one remembered: 

When it didn’t go well, they made use of riding whips and guns. The loading was simply frightful. There was an unearthly cry from these poor people, because ten or twenty cars were being loaded simultaneously. The entire freight train was dreadfully long. One could not see all of it. It may have been fifty to sixty cars, if not more. After a car was loaded, the doors were closed and nailed shut.

Once all the cars were sealed, the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 quickly departed without waiting to see the train pull away.

The clearing of the Miedzyrzec ghetto was the largest deportation operation the battalion would carry out during its entire participation in the Final Solution. Only 1,000 Jews in Miedzyrzec had been given temporary work permits to remain in the ghetto until they could be replaced with Poles. Thus some 11,000 were targeted for deportation. The policemen knew that “many hundreds” of Jews were shot in the course of the operation, but of course they did not know exactly how many. The surviving Jews who collected and buried the bodies did know, however, and their count was 960.

Did you read any mention of resistance in that passage?


Read the rest at

4452_1084593231917_5914735_n (2)
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at or on his Facebook page (



45 Responses to “Ben Carson’s Brutal and Uncomfortable Truth”

  1. 1 Sylvain

    Ben Carson is wrong. In 1943, the armed Jewish population of the Warsaw Ghetto has revolted against the German forces. This uprising lasted one month. It didn’t prevent the Germans to send them to the extermination camps. Be armed is useless if the other one is better armed.

    • Hmmm… lets look at some numbers. The Warsaw Ghetto contained somewhere between 300,000 to 400,000 Jews. Out of that, they managed to put together a 750 man, largely untrained, fighting force.

      They managed to scrape up around a dozen rifles, and around 60 handguns to share among those 750 fighters (yes, possibly more that weren’t found, but not much more).

      Compared to well over 2000 well armed, well trained, German soldiers and police officers, I would call this largely unarmed.

      The Warsaw Ghetto uprising in NO WAY even suggests that ARMED revolt is useless.

      • 3 Sylvain

        I know the numbers but to say that, if Jewish people had been armed they would have prevented the holocaust, is wrong. The balance of power would have been always the same. We also saw it with the French Resistance.

        • 4 Joe in PNG

          The thing is, the various Resistance movements started way too late. Most of the countries conquered in 1939-41 pretty much figured it was best to go along to get along, wait for England to surrender and the war to end. Too late, they found out that passivity would not help them.
          One could even make the point that Barbarossa would have gone differently had the Russians, Ukrainians, et al knew what was in for them, and not greeted the Germans as liberators, but fought from the first.

        • Not sure how you could say that proves your point at all. The statement wasn’t that they could have “prevented” the holocaust (although who knows). The statement was that it would have been HARDER TO ACHIEVE. Simply looking at the idea that an armed person is a harder target than an unarmed one pretty much proves that.

          The Jews in Germany were disarmed in 1938. All the Warsaw Ghetto uprising proves is that a hopelessly disarmed populace is at the mercy of a tyrannical government. If the gun banners get what they really want[1] the American people will be in much the same position as the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto WHEN IT COMES TO ARMS (all caps, because I’m NOT making the argument that the gun banners are, in any way, planning on confining American citizens to a Ghetto).

          Lets look at the numbers AGAIN. 300,000 to 400,000 Jews vs less than 3000 German soldiers and police officers (more like 2200, but rounding up makes it easier.). If gun ownership was even at 5% among the Jewish population they would have out-gunned the German soldiers more than 5 to 1. Had gun ownership been a more realistic 25% to 30%[2] then the odds would have been nearly overwhelming (against those less than 3000). I will agree that even at those odds, the Germans would probably have defeated the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, however, to do so, the German military WOULD have had to devote quite a bit more manpower to prevail. That would be manpower that wouldn’t have been available elsewhere, thus weakening the German war effort. Perhaps not enough to win the war outright on their own, but at very least enough to bring the war to an earlier ending and likely saving Jewish lives[3].

          In America, on the other hand (and let’s face it, that’s what we are REALLY talking about here). Gun ownership rates ARE much higher. While I would say that something like the German Nazi movement is unlikely here, I won’t rule out the possibility. I had some progressive friends who were CONVINCED that Bush was going to cancel the 2008 elections and declare himself god-king. I have heard some conservatives say the same of Obama. I have heard far left progressives talk about wishing they could send “tea baggers” off to re-education camps. History tells us that all it takes is the right personality, saying the right things to gain enough followers, and tyranny ensues (Hitler was a PAINTER for criminies sake).

          [1] as opposed to what they will admit to because what they really want wouldn’t fly with the American people

          [2] in the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that this is just a guess as I have not been able to uncover firearms ownership statistics among pre-Third Reich Jews in Germany. However, 25% to 30% seems a fairly conservative number to me.

          [3] please note that this does not in any way mean that I place any blame upon the Jews for the holocaust. They did what they believed was best for themselves in a world where there where no good choices.

    • This is almost laughable. First, Carson didn’t say armed Jews would have defeated the German army, he said they would have made the Holocaust harder to accomplish. And there have been countless incidents of individuals and groups defeating better-armed forces, or at least preventing those forces from achieving their goals. I’ve faced some of those people myself.

      • 7 Sylvain

        “they would have made the Holocaust harder to accomplish”

        I don’t think so. Anyway, I don’t see the connection between an individual killer’s assault and a state extermination policy. This example of the Holocaust is a little off the subject.

        I know we don’t have the same culture but, in our European point of view, the best way to avoid mass murders is to control and limit the possession of weapons. The best proof is that these mass murders happen almost never in our countries whereas in USA it’s almost daily.

    • 10 RandyGC

      Useless? Compared to? what. Non-resistance led to all the casualties on the part of the victims.

      The uprising at least managed to kill a few of the bastards. And taking out barbarians (be they SS, NKVD, etc) is always useful.

      If you’re going to die anyway, better to make them work for it and take some with you if at all possible.

      • 11 Sylvain

        I take another exemple: the Charly Hebdo massacre in january.

        There was a policeman in the redaction room to protect the editor-in-chief. When the Kouachi brothers arrived with their kalachnikovs, he didn’t even have time to get out his gun…

        • 12 Sylvain

          I made a mistake. I wanted to say “to take out his gun”, not “get out”.

        • 14 RandyGC

          Which is actually an argument for allowing citizens to carry firearms, not just government employees. In this instance, the officer’s death could have given warning and bought time for an armed citizen (or citizens)to get their weapon(s) into play.

          No guarantee, there is no such thing in a fight (“Anything you do in combat, including nothing, can get you killed”), but some chance is better than no chance.

          But the actual discussion here is about the utility of privately owned firearms against a murderous government, not isolated lone wolf attacks. Different problem.

          • 15 Sylvain

            When a man do a surprise attack and fire immediately, I’m not sure that being armed change anything. I would like, I’m not at all an anti-guns, but I’m not sure.

            Seriously, you really think that a murderous or dictatorial government can happen in US? I can understand this argument at the time after the American revolution and in the 19th century but in 2015?

          • 16 RandyGC

            A surprise attack will probably succeed against the first victim (i.e. the policeman in your example), but what about an armed citizen in the next room, or upstairs, or down the hall? My point is the more armed citizens, the better the chance that someone will be around to respond. As I said earlier, no guarantees.

            A murderous or dictatorial government can happen in any country.

            We already have the development of government officials ignoring the Rule of Law, and there are current Presidential candidates of both parties espousing viewpoints that push us further down the path of an overly centralized federal government.

            I’m not saying necessarily that any of the current runners would become dictators, but many of their stated policies set the stage for the president after this, or after that one to gradually acquire that power.

            And once the state has that much power, it only takes few assholes at the top to (at least attempt to) go Khmer Rouge/SS/NKVD during a crisis, real or imagined.

    • 17 A

      Sylvain has an entrenched submissive, compliant, obedient and fatalistic victim mindset. I bet Sylvain has no self defense training nor force on force nor ability to legally articulate his scaling of force under his states law.

      Submissive, compliant, obedient, fatalistiic victim is he.

      • 18 Sylvain

        lol. No I’m only a man who note that countries which control and limit weapons are safer than US.

        I’m not an anti-guns but it is necessary to notice that the proliferation of guns increases the criminality risks.

        • 19 Jeff Gauch

          “No I’m only a man who note that countries which control and limit weapons are safer than US.”

          Some of them are, but they were safer than the US before they implemented gun control. Some countries with heavy gun control are more dangerous than the US, e.g. Mexico. And some countries with lax gun control are safer than the US. Culture matters. So since there isn’t any justification for the idea that gun control increases public safety, who the hell are you to make a claim on my weapons?

          • 20 Sylvain

            Where do you see I make a claim on your weapons? It’s forbidden to have another opinion than yours?

            Your reasoning is: if people is armed, they could neutralize the killers faster and save some lives.

            Mine is: it’s better to prevent the killings and save all lives by disarming the killers.

            That’s all.

          • 21 Jeff Gauch

            And how do you propose to identify the killers in order to disarm them? Minority Report was fiction.

            And if you hold stupid opinions, expect others to call you out on them.

          • 22 Sylvain

            Be quiet. I respect your opinion, respect mine too… Me too I can say your opinion is stupid and backward.

            And I have never watched Minority report…

            The principle of the countries which control and limit strictly guns is precisely that. We can’t know what someone will do with, so no way to leave guns in the hands of anyone.

            Note that control and limit do not mean necessarily forbid. Just that the permits to own guns are severely regulated and granted after police investigation (for example for those registered in shooting clubs or those who make occupations at risks).

          • 23 Jeff Gauch

            No. I have to respect your right to have an opinion. I have no obligation to respect your stupid and borderline tyrannical opinion. Gun permits are nothing more than a first step in confiscation. You may be happy living as a subject to an ultimately unaccountable government. I do not.

          • 24 Sylvain

            Borderline tyrannical now lol.

            And you, you seem to like living in a climate and mentality of civil war.

          • 25 Jeff Gauch

            Simply an awareness that it could happen and I should be prepared for it. Just like when I’m driving I’m aware that there could be an accident, or when I’m working on a nuclear reactor (what, you think the avatar is an affectation?) I’m aware that there could be a meltdown. Neither is likely – I’ve been rear-ended once and no meltdowns in my lifetime – but an adult is ready for even improbable eventualities.

          • 26 Sylvain

            I understand this and I also know it’s an heritage of your history.

            But, about the resistence against a dictatorial government, it remains hypothetical (the times of the independence war and The Civil War are over) whereas crimes by gun are a real problem.

            And about the crimes by gun, there are two logics: be prepared if it happen or to ensure that it does not happen.

          • 27 Jeff Gauch

            Gun crimes are a problem, but they are not a real problem. In the grand scale, the risk of a law-abiding citizen being killed by a gun is, near as makes no difference, zero. Most of the “victims” of gun violence in the US are actually suicides, who will find some way to kill themselves. Almost all of the rest are criminals involved in some form of nefarious activity. And even those bogus numbers are dwarfed – by at least two orders of magnitude – by the number of times a law-abiding citizen uses a gun to defend themselves. But you never hear about those because those stories don’t advance the Progressive agenda.

            You cannot “ensure that it does not happen.” Criminals will always get guns. First off, by definition they don’t care about laws. So a laws preventing criminals from having guns have little effect on armed criminals on the street. What it does do is provide a means to get criminals off the streets and into jails. Of course then Progressive idiots start complaining about too many criminals in jail – see Mayor Dumbass in New York – and the cycle repeats itself. Secondly, a semi-automatic weapon represents state-of-the-art manufacturing technology. For 1880. A modern machine shop – and every town larger than a wide spot in the road has at least one (heck, I’ve got a friend who has one in his garage) – is more than capable of churning out “weapons of war” by the dozen. Ammunition is a bit trickier, but it’s safer and less complex to manufacture than methamphetamine, so don’t expect a ban on that to be particularly effective.

            The upshot is that all the laws in the world will not prevent a criminal from getting his hands on a gun. They will, however, prevent those law-abiding citizens who need one from being properly prepared. Every time there’s a high-profile shooting the Progs claim that Americans (you can’t be a Progressive and an American, just like you cannot be a mammal and have feathers) don’t want to do anything to prevent the violence. That’s a damned lie. We all want to stop the violence, it’s just that those of us on the right recognize that your “solutions” won’t actually do anything and will have multiple harmful consequences.

          • 28 Sylvain

            And of course the permits are limited to the handguns. War weapons are strictly forbidden.

          • That’s funny. Statistically, you could magically remove “War weapons” from American society, and the resulting change to violent crime would be negligible at best. Don’t believe the anti-gun hype, so called “Assault Weapons” are rarely actually used in crime (for the same reason rifles in general are rarely used in crime). The reason the anti-gun fans love love love them some “Assault Weapons Bans” is because at one time, they had reached a dead end politically with the handgun bans that they were pushing hard for (anyone remember Handgun Control International?). So they decided to change tactics. They picked “Assault Weapons” because they look scary, could be mistaken for machine guns[1], and weren’t all that popular, so had less support (divide and conquer).

            [1] The Antis really pushed the “It’s a machine gun” lie a lot until people started to catch on. They still use it occasionally when they think they can get away with it. (Obama himself pulled it out a year or so ago in a speech to a particularly Progressive politically crowd when trying to get gun control done.

          • 30 Sylvain

            If you answer to me, I don’t say that remove war weapons would change many things to violent crime. I don’t claim to know American statistics.

            I just explained how work the gun control in my country.

            Even in shooting club, we can’t own/use M16 rifles or machine guns.

            The most powerful weapons authorized are the hunting rifles.

        • 31 Joe in PNG

          There’s a strange belief that ‘assault rifles’ are somehow more powerful than ‘hunting guns’.

          Yet the typical hunting rifle is by far more powerful than an M-16 or AK-47:
          M-16 (5.56 Nato): velocity 940 m/s; energy 1767 j
          AK-47 (7.62 x 39): velocity 641 m/s; energy 2056 j

          Hunting calibers:
          7mm-08: velocity 850 m/s; energy 3304 j
          .300 win mag: velocity 923 m/s; energy 5548 j
          .30/30 Win: velocity 761 m/s; energy 2439 j- note that this is considered to be a low power, short range round in the hunting world.

        • 32 T.

          You’re wrong in a large sense.

          Switzerland has some of the highest numbers of firearm ownership, only under the United States, Serbia, and Yemen:

          Their gun violence related deaths, however, are on a par with France and Canada, which have 15% fewer firearms, and Serbia, which has a very high rate of firearms ownership, is on par with the United Kingdom in terms of intentional homicide rate.


          The intentional homicide rates in Switzerland and Canada are barely a blip, where in the UK it’s higher:

          What this tells me, using real numbers instead of gut feelings, is that if someone is hellbent on murder, they’ll do it with a candlestick in the library if they have to. It also tells me that homicide is a cultural problem, not a “weapon used” problem. Nowhere is “safe” unless people are determined to keep it safe and civil.

  2. 33 Calvin

    Excellent article. I read “Ordinary Men” last year and was astounded at how we can dehumanize one another–the lessons of history.

    I always look forward to reading your posts. Thanks for writing it.

    Leaning heavily towards Trump/Carson 2016.



  3. If the left believed in evil, Carson would be its poster child. He’s a conservative black man; he’s deeply religious; he is a vocal supporter of the Second Amendment; and, most concerning, he’s beating Hillary in recent polls.

    Like you, I’m not a Carson supporter (I’ve had enough amateurism), but you don’t have to be a fan to recognize the dedicated effort to destroy his credibility. From the reaction to his comments on a Muslim president to this row over fighting back to an even dumber meme that he has no credibility as a doctor, they’re pulling no punches.

    The left portrays conservatives in one of two fashions: As a Dolt or a Vader. Bush was made out to be a dolt while Cheney was a Vader. They seem to be vacillating on Carson but they may eventually split it down the middle as a Dolt-Vader hybrid.

  4. 35 Charles Sands


    Thanks for this. As I read your post this morning, these sentences leaped out of the page:

    “History shows us that killing unarmed, defenseless people is easy. Killing armed and angry people is much harder. Facing men and women who are protecting their children with guns is a nightmare.”

    I have heard the argument that armed resistance by the Jews would have made no difference. No difference at all? I can see that resistance would not have stopped the massacre, since hatred of Jews was a central part of Nazi thinking, such as it was. But simply because it would not have stopped it entirely, would it not have been worthwhile to slow it down? The Nazis’ experience in the Warsaw Ghetto, if replicated all over, would have been the nightmare you talked about.
    All this reminded me of a passage in The Gulag Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn describes the arrival in prison camp of some tough Western Ukrainians who
    “were horrified by the apathy and slavery they saw, and reached for their knives…
    Now, as I write this chapter, rows of humane books frown down at me from the walls, the tarnished gilt on their well-worn spines glinting reproachfully like stars through cloud. Nothing in the world should be sought through violence! By taking up the sword, the knife, the rifle, we quickly put ourselves on the level of our tormentors and persecutors. And there will be no end to it….
    There will be no end…. Here, at my desk, in a warm place, I agree completely.
    If you ever get twenty-five years for nothing, if you find yourself wearing four number patches on your clothes, holding your hands permanently behind your back, submitting to searches morning and evening, working until you are utterly exhausted, dragged into the cooler whenever someone denounces you, trodden deeper and deeper into the ground-from the hole you’re in, the fine words of the great humanists will sound like the chatter of the well-fed and free.” (Vol. 3, Part V, 234-5)

  5. 36 roy in nipomo

    I suppose the question (for me, anyway) is that if the Jews in Europe were armed, would it have made things any worse for them? They still may not have achieved a high survival rate, but Germany would have had to dedicate more troops to their concentration and control. Loss of the use of those troops (even ignoring casualties) might have (probably would have) had an effect on various battle fronts. Also, 100,000 Jews had been in the German army in WWI (just 20 years prior), so a trained cadre existed.

    • The book Ordinary Men mentions one time the police took a Jewish veteran of the WW1 German Army to the woods with everyone else and shot him. It’s hard to imagine men who were veterans of that war simply giving in without resistance. Had they chosen to organize and fight, many things would have changed.

      • 38 Prcek

        GESTAPO and other “police” forces of German side had great tactics how to convince a man to not fight back. Something so nasty as “If you won’t cooperate we are going to kill or torture whole your family and friends, but if you will cooperate they will be just moved to camp”. And family does not mean just wife and children you can try to defend, but siblings, parents, grandparents cousins… So if you are facing this and you do not know what camp means you wouldn’t probably fight back especially in case you have no weapon (you obeyed the law).
        Another sad thing is that those atrocities happened and was completely OK according then valid laws and many people on police side “just did their job” and in case they would refuse it – you know – You refuse to do it? Your family will be in troubles (not killing, but no job, no money, no food, have to move to smaller flat …)

  6. 39 RandyGC

    The 2 quotes that come to mind as this has been discussed in various places the past few days:

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ”

    “A Rifleman’s Prayer

    Oh Lord, I would live my life in freedom, peace and happiness, enjoying the simple pleasures of hearth and home. I would die an old, old man in my own bed, preferably of sexual overexertion.

    But if that is not to be, Lord, if monsters such as this should find their way to my little corner of the world on my watch, then help me to sweep those bastards from the ramparts, because doing that is good, and right, and just.

    And if in this I should fall, let me be found atop a pile of brass, behind the wall I made of their corpses.”

    From the now defunct Geek with a .45 blog

  7. I really like your writing. I really hate getting near the end and finding “read the rest at BreachBangClear”, especially when I’m reading on my phone with a spotty internet connection. So far liking your writing wins…barely, but I wish you’d stop doing that.

  8. 42 Joe in PNG

    I do get annoyed when people say things like in the article above, and then go on to either a) idolize Che, Mao, Castro, or other leftist revolutionaries or b) tell us that wars in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, the former Yugoslavia, or Iraq are hopeless quagmires, because there is no way our bloated, overly equipped forces can deal with these motivated freedom fighters.

    So, NYT… now revolutions are hopeless. Please keep that thought if we get a Republican president dealing with Obama’s mess in Syria, and you pull out the opposite point of view.

  9. Sadly, history and its lessons mean little to those who desperately wish for something else to be true.

  10. 44 Jack

    Thank you Chris for writing another great article that attempts to enlighten the ignorant and educate the novice.

    I am an old man who long ago learned to listen to men of experience and of accomplishment. If I need financial advice I listen to men who are successful in the financial field. If I need welding advice, I seek out the advice of a talented welder.

    I am 64 years old and my old eyes have seen unspeakable carnage. I have witnessed the cruelty of tyranny. I have carried the broken and dead bodies of men who have died serving our Country.

    I take very little stock in people’s opinions concerning gun control who have never experienced tyranny, who have never faced evil, who have never fought an assailant, who have never had to physically protect a family member and who have never fired a weapon. Listening to the opinion of inexperienced individuals is the same as listening to non-combatants who create rules of engagement.

    I find much truth in your writings Chris and it is great that you share the knowledge that you have gained from your years of experience. Please continue writing, the country needs to hear what you have to say.

    PS. Barring all other variables, the better armed the resistance movement; the more effective they are…. Oppressed people will fight when given the means.

  11. 45 Michelle

    Many African-Americans who live in inner city projects own weapons, legal and not. If America went full Nazi and tried to round African Americans up en masse for slaughter or to put them in Concentration Camps, I do not think it would be very easy. Also, Black peace officers and members of the armed forces would be able to shoot non-Blacks closest to them. Ultimately, Blacks would be imprisoned and or annihilated, but there would be many casualties suffered on their enemies before that happened. I say it is better to go out in a blaze of glory than to be starved and sent to the gas chambers. Now if America decided to round up Asian-Americans, who for the most part do not own guns, it would be a walk in the park. Pacifism was not the answer for European Jews.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: