Over and over again I’ve heard that we, The People of the Gun, must compromise with the gun control advocates to ensure and protect the scraps of firearms freedom still protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. No thanks.

Compromise hasn’t gotten us anything. We’ve gone from carrying what we want, from ordering machine guns and suppressors through the mail (shipped to our homes), to begging the government for a permission slip to carry a pistol outside of our homes. To filling forms and paying fees. To “no-carry” states like Hawaii and New Jersey.

Across the country; gun control advocates have been on a never-ending crusade against on our gun rights. They’ve pushed for magazine bans, long gun bans, features bans, pistol bans, carry bans, etcetera. All they give up when compromising with us: time.

We need to adopt the same game plan. We need to defend our firearms freedom with the same mindset: a never-ending push to further expand gun rights, without delay or compromise.

Many ostensibly on our own side disagree. They see “compromises” as the key to protecting our gun rights. .

Folks like Jim Zumbo in 2007 calling AR-15s “terrorist rifles.” Dick Swan of A.R.M.S donating to Democratic Anti-Gun candidates in Massachusetts back in 2010. The despicable actions taken by Springfield Armory and Rock River Arms selling out smaller FFLs for their own benefit.

And now firearms trainer and veteran Pat MacNamara has publicly stated on a Comedy Central video (click here to watch) and social media that he supports Universal Background Checks and mandatory waiting periods.

Without subtitles naming names, CC reporter Jordan Kipper (who “Solves Guns”) uses MacNamara’s support for UBCs and waiting periods to parade a Fudd of gun guys who support the Second Amendment but….

Wrong answer! Second Amendment absolutism is what wins the battle for gun rights restoration.

In Texas, gun rights advocates pushed for Constitutional Carry. They got permitted Open Carry and a license fee reduction. They’ll keep on pushing for Constitutional Carry until they win. Period.

In Florida, we were told to compromise. As a result, the “Gunshine State” a state with a Republican super majority (with a former NRA President as the NRA Rep), only managed to achieve a .71 ¢ reduction in our annual CCW fees.

Don’t support those who don’t support the absolute right to keep and bear arms. No compromises. No surrender. Because those who compromise our rights put us on the slippery slope to complete civilian disarmament. It’s not a question. It’s only a matter of time.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

170 COMMENTS

    • You have morons like NRA’s LaPierre (and his million dollar salary!) saying every classroom should be armed….this is where we LOSE the support of the middle. REASONABLE compromise by BOTH sides is the only answer. Our occasional ridiculous positions have galvanized the other side, resulting in actual loss of gun rights.

      • “Reasonable” gun control is of a kind with:
        * reasonable slavery
        * reasonable Jim Crow law
        * reasonable anti-sodomy laws
        * reasonable Nuremberg laws
        * reasonable sharia law

        Such laws are ALWAYS crafted with malice and intended to harm targeted groups.

        The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a “safe working environment”.

      • NO! I am also very familiar with the origins and continued reason behind ALL gun control. The first gun control laws were enacted to strip minorities—particularly recently freed slaves—of gun rights and ownership in order to safeguard the white power structure in the Southern United States. Northern followed the lead of the Southern states and did the sane. This continues to this day. The cities and states with the strictest gun control laws have the largest populations of minorities—particularly African-Americans! The reality is that those who support gun control are all RACISTS just like you!

        BUT, we are WINNING this war. We have held firm and those who want to control/ban our firearms and support their racist ideals are losing at every turn. Gun control groups are letting their paid staffs go because they are losing their cash cows left and right and cannot support themselves. Why? They have not won a major victory in years. I am a proud member of both the NRA and NAGR because they are fighting this war on my behalf. To support them, I regularly contact my congressional delegation including liberal Democrat Claire McCaskill who has been forced a time or two vote for gun owners!

        I am a pastor who supports concealed carry in places of worship (because I am from Missouri and I always legally carry at church)! I am a former teacher who supports armed teachers and school administrations (which by the way has been legal in Missouri for years thanks to our pressure on lawmakers)! I am a father and a grandfather who has taught my family about firearms and why they are necessary in a free society (because they alone enable us to stand up to those who would oppress and enslave us)! I am an American who believes all people regardless of race, creed, socioeconomic position, etc. have the right to own firearms for protection against those who would harm, oppress, and/or enslave them! It is high time that every racist gun control law in this nation is struck down and gun control advocates exposed as the racists that they truly are!

        • I don’t see us as winning the war.
          At the federal level, the assault has stopped.
          At the state and local levels, the war is really heating up. In some places, yes, some ground is gained. In others, ground is being lost very quickly. And it’s at those levels where we need to be active now.
          With California enacting new anti-gun laws at a truly horrific rate, and New York and New Jersey well on their way to emulating CA, and other states doing their best to emulate them, the war is not yet going our way.
          When most states emulate Arizona, then I think we can say the war is going our way.

      • LaPierre’s claim would be ridiculous if he were advocating a requirement for teachers to carry. He does not.

        He advocates allowing volunteers to receive training and permission to carry. What is ridiculous about that?

        Antis ridiculed his claim that to stop a bad guy with a gun, it takes a good guy with a gun. If that is ridiculous, why call 911? After all, isn’t that just asking for a response by good guys with guns?

      • Rob,

        REASONABLE compromise by BOTH sides is the only answer.

        Before we can consider such a strategy, we must have some assurance that gun-grabbers are willing to compromise. Our side has given up firearms liberty countless times. Please cite five examples where gun-grabbing governments have restored firearm liberty and did not come back later to repeal what they gave up. A representative example would be a state with a Democrat governor and Democrat controlled legislature which decriminalized concealed carry of their own volition. (The United States 7th Circuit Court of Appeals forcing the Illinois legislature to decriminalize concealed carry doesn’t count.)

        • There is no compromise with Liberal Terrorists™, except maybe the exact location of internment camps to house them.

      • Rob, You sound like the Fudd’s of the 80s. They compromised stuff away and we ended up with the Clinton ban etc. Let me explain it to you this way. You have 2 testicles. Compromise and give the gun ban lobby one of them. Of course they will be back next year for the other one. The days of letting the “but” men and Fudd’s negotiate with the gun ban lobby are over.

      • So long as we use THEIR definition of compromise.

        We get part of what we want, they lose part of what they want to keep.

        Repeat until done.

        This is the only “Compromise” I am willing to entertain anymore.

      • Rob,

        Your call for “reasonable compromise” by both sides reflects a thorough misunderstanding of the nature of the issue. You’re framing the matter in terms of compromise, as though the two sides are separated and the to-be-reached, mutual goal lies somewhere in between the parties. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.

        This isn’t like negotiating the purchase of a car where the buyer wants the car and is willing to pay, the dealer wants the money and is willing to provide the car, and all there is to do is go back and forth until you agree on a price. Here, the anti-gun and pro-freedom sides face each other and what each wants doesn’t lie between them, but rather lies beyond them.

        Moreover, a car deal is yet to happen. It won’t happen unless the two sides agree. If they refuse to agree, they each move on and attempt a new deal with someone else. That’s entirely different from firearms laws, as they already exist and there is no option for sides to move on elsewhere if they disagree.

        Imagine we’re both standing in Kansas, but you want us both to stand in New York and I want us both to stand in California. The current situation of where to stand, therefore, is not hypothetical or potential, as with a would-be car deal. It’s actual, because we’re both already standing in Kansas. Any movement we make together eastward automatically means I’m losing ground. Any movement westward means the same for you.

        There is no common ground to compromise over because we’re already in the same place. We all already live under the existing gun laws and there is no option to walk away and go elsewhere on our own. It’s a zero sum game such that one side’s gains necessarily come at the expense of the other side.

        Genuine compromise in this case is impossible. What is possible is phony compromise, whereby you gain less than you actually wanted, but still at the other side’s expense, and come back for more next time.

        When’s the last time you bought a car, signed the papers, paid the money, and drove it home, only to have the dealer show up the following year retroactively trying to increase the sale price? Sounds crazy, but that’s what the fight over firearms freedom is like. We all thought the deal was sealed when the papers were signed and the Constitution was ratified two centuries ago. Instead, the antis have been chiselling away at the seemingly done deal ever since.

      • A compromise is when each side gives something to get something.
        We (the POTG) have rights, enshrined in the constitution).
        The anti-gunners want to take those rights away.
        When we compromise, what do we get in return? We already have the rights. The antis can’t give them to us.
        Where’s the compromise?
        It’s a false compromise for them to say, “You give us this, and we won’t take that.” That, quite simply, is not a compromise, it’s simply giving something away.
        Compromise has a meaning; we should understand what it is.

      • Gun control, always has been and always will be discrimination founded upon racism and bigotry. Those who seek it, support it, defend it, are no friend of Liberty.

      • We need a law requiring all mental cases, disgruntled current and former employees and terrorists to give an exact, to the minute, 7 day notice, a waiting period, before any violent attack, assault or protest.
        Then the authorities can decide whether to dispatch an appropriate number of First Responders, or armed guards to protect the children and teachers.
        Of course, mental cases, criminals and terrorists are not stupid, they would ignore such a law or more likely report “planned attacks” every day and every location. Then the government authorities would have to decide which, if any, was a valid threat appointment. Or the government would have to hire ten million additional “first responders” to guard every possible point of potential danger.
        Or, as Wayne LaPierrier has suggested, teachers and staff should be armed because they are there anyway.

      • We send our kids out into the world to be cared for and looked after by people with no way to defend their lives other than hiding or sacrificing their own lives by tackling, kicking, or hitting would-be murderers all while within the confines of an area where no one is allowed to bring in an effective defense tool and this moronic Fudd thinks we haven’t compromised enough.
        You couldn’t possibly compromise on that any more without shooting your own kids before sending them to school… It’s panty-waisted compromisers like him that got us here in the first place. People like Rob is why your children’s safety depends on pure chance and hide-n-seek skills rather than on responsible and well-prepared adults…
        Pathetic…

    • You rang?

      All of you are correct, unfortunately that’s not current reality. We need to keep up the fight, and take it to the enemy – both foreign and domestic. Molon Labe!

  2. Wow…that is seriously disappointing. Would not have expected that from him.

    But then, I wouldn’t have expected firearm manufacturers to sell our rights off, either.

    • There are people that train others in self defense because they believe in the 2nd Amendment, autonomy, and freedom.

      And there are people who use their experience to teach self defense for money, personal gain, and politics.

      The latter tends to betray the former the more focused you are on it.

      • There are some trainers out there who advocate training requirements. Not surprisingly, they might profit by same.

        The trainers I like advocate voluntary training to the max, but oppose legislated training for personal carry.

    • He’s nothing but a statist tool, doing exactly what his masters have brainwashed him to do for decades. Do what he’s told. .

      Solider? Sure, I guess. Patriot? Not by a mile.

    • Evil (D) is only bone deep because there’s no place left to go after that.

      If you live in a blue state, you MAY be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, progressive, communist, globalist greener, or rino, FLAME DELETED

  3. “Billy Cobin Pat MacNamara lost it all
    We knew he would eventually
    Some wonder why he took the fall
    Others just ask who the hell is he
    And why should we care for him?”

    I’m in the latter group. Never heard of him before and don’t much care about his opinion.

  5. To hell with this traitor. Not just for his treason, but for doing so on comedy central. Further, why do some of these people want to compromise NOW? We’re winning. Only losers compromise.

    • Comedy Central seems appropriate since he has turned himself and his opinions into a joke.

      Additionally, this is funnier than most things you find on Comedy Central.

  6. I will make sure 1 penny of my money never goes to Pat McNamara. Total disappointment.

      • Fwiw, his service record is on par with Larry Vickers. Very disappointed in him.

        • Well, as others have said…I appreciate his service, but he’s dishonored the constitution and sold out his fellow Americans in his post-service life. Sad, but his choice, not mine.

  7. Texans need to come out hard against Joe Straus and if he doesn’t lose his next primary, we need to make sure the house doesn’t vote him speaker again.

  9. I didn’t know that about Springfield or Rock River Arms. I guess I can cross two suppliers off my list.

    But MacNamara’s mindset can be explained. As a subject of a Commonwealth nation, he’s been indoctrinated from birth to be subservient to the Crown. HRH knows best, HRH will make all the decisions for you, and HRH will tell you what you need to know. Just trust the government. It’s the nanny state mindset that liberals have (and love) and want to instill in us and our kids.

    We just have to do our best to limit its spread.

  10. I’m very familiar with Pat. This is heartbreaking. Oh well. EXPLETIVE DELETED Thank you for you service. Now, EXPLETIVE DELETED right off.

  12. In-fighting in the gun community? No.
    3 day wait? Fine. (Not Concealed Weapons Licensee’s in Florida)
    Shall issue? Okeydoke.
    National reciprocity? Yeah! Now I might go to Yosemite.
    Keep these motherfuckers in jail that commit crimes with firearms, ESPECIALLY with prior firearm/felony convictions, for a long, long, long time.
    I’m tired of the catch and release judicial system that plagues this country.
    There’s plenty of reasons under Title 18 USC to motivate your local prosecutor/criminal Court judges, especially if elected.

    • I’d also like to see NICS either abolished or opened up to the general public. If there is going to be a list, everyone should be able to easily utilize that list. We should also be able to see if and why we somehow end up on that list while having legal recourse if wrongly added.

      • “NICS” is a silly target for us to choose.

        Imagine that NICS disappeared. Nothing substantive would change. Every street cop would still have access to a substantially parallel system that lists most (but not quite all) the NICS databases. We would still have a “Prohibited Persons” law and it would be enforced by discovering felons-in-posession.

        What NICS represents is:

        1) a nuisance at FFLs that is arguably a complete waste of effort and money; and,
        2) an invitation to be expanded to UBC.

        UBC is a threat because it will invite a national registration scheme and make us felons merely for loaning a gun to a buddy.

        A frontal-assault on NICS is a poor tactic. The fair-minded voter will ask: ‘So do you want any criminal or crazy to walk in to a gun shop and buy a gun without a BC?’ Such a voter will not be amused by our response: ‘Why should he bother to pay retail at a gun shop a mile away when he can buy a stolen gun at a discount in his own neighborhood?’

        We would be better of if we pretended to acquiesce to NICS in FFLs while explaining how it is that BCs are mere “security-theater”. They waste money without doing much of anything to impede criminals and crazies from getting guns. No matter how many tax dollars we spend, NICS can’t be made to be effective.

        Our objective ought to be to undermine a false-blind-faith in the notion of BCs; and, thereby, undermine the superficially-appealing argument for UBC.

        You are right to argue for opening access to NICS. After all, suppose I want to lend you my gun; but, before doing so, I’d like to make sure you aren’t a prohibited-person. If this is a desirable goal then why not make NICS available to the public? Why should a “public good” remain a secret? This is a hard question to answer. It should be a very effective argument for undermining UBC.

        • The trouble is this push for UC is to create a de facto registry which would make it easy for confiscations. Couple that with a low bar restraining order system and its game over.

  13. McNamara is one of the “only ones” dontcha know. They’re all the same — supercilious bastards.

  15. So, we have a sell out. I suspect his business has been running into trouble and he thinks this will help open some doors. He may even feel that if his business goes under Bloomberg will give him a job.

  16. Background checks is the new normal; we should horse trade this for as much as possible, like nationwide CCW or evil features.
    Waiting or “cooling-off” periods make no sense if you already own one or more guns.

    • There is no ‘horse-trade’ with these people. They’re not interested in trading anything with us…they will not stop until they have us disarmed. They are playing momentum ball…once they can get the ball rolling it goes all the way down the hill…period.

      • If you horse-trade with these people they wind up with the horse and you get the road apples. Every time.

        “…shall not be infringed.” Means exactly that and it was specifically directed to the government and enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

        NO COMPROMISE!

        • I agree, believe it or not. Its just that universal background checks aren’t going away. They are going to happen. You can pretend that this isn’t so, but that’s just pretend. Best to get something for it.

        • Thankfully people with better sense know that “zero compromise” will eventually get 2A repealed. The common ground that we should hold with the anti gunners is that violent felons don’t get guns. If we argue the opposite, we lose the political war.

          • LMAO. Get the 2A repealed? There will be 50 million dead democrats before that EVER happens. OMG. You’ve outed yourself as a troll. The Republic will fall before the 2A is “repealed”. Clown.

        • “Get the 2A repealed?”

          You don’t think CA and HI would do it NOW if presented the chance? Now what about after a couple of more “mass shootings” and IS attacks with guns? Now how much would you pay?

    • Yes… let’s horse trade with people who have no interest in honoring any agreements they make. Hell, I bet your can get a great deal for the Sudetenland. FLAME DELETED

      • It’s not whether it’s happening, it’s when. We’re going to lose this one, I’m afraid.
        The country has already limited 2A rights to “good guys.” That’s not going to change.

        • You go ahead and run up your white flag. I think I’ll keep telling the UBC crowd to eat a bag of dicks. And if they ever do get it passed, I will ignore it. As long as they know most of us will tell them to get bent, they can’t afford to pass it.

  17. Until I can walk into a gun store and purchase a newly manufactured full-auto, short barreled, suppressed belt fed machine gun with under mounted 203 and live HE ordinance for said 203 without waiting period, background check or tax my Constitutional rights as laid out in the Second Amendment are being infringed………. period!

  18. “Git ya’ some”, MacNamara. You just won’t be getting any of my cash. Sounds like he’s getting ready to run for office of something.

  19. Benidict Arnold was a war hero and a partiot until he sold out to the British . Once a traitor always a traitor.

  21. Well, there goes another former firearms celebrity. Hope he enjoys watching the civilian side of his business go down in flame.

  22. Credit him for at least being honest, and not lying about his stance.
    Very disappointed with this.

  24. Shall not be infringed…..period! No compromises! The US Constitution is the US Constitution. It says what it means, and means what it says!

    • Paragraph 2nd of the Declaration of Independence says you may have to assume the powers if the earth (a/k/a: “arms”) and throw off the “old guard” (you know, your FING a-hole neighbors who needed a job that ganged up on you and called themselves gov’t, but intead of serving you chose tyranny) and establish a new guard.
      That takes arms at the ready, not “by your leave” from the same a-holes you’d need to get rid of.
      BASIC FING LOGIC.

  25. What a bunch of FLAME DELETED. None of you would say that to patmac’s face

    I guess none of you buy guns from ffls. If you do youre a FLAME DELETED for supporting gun control

    See how that works?

    FLAME DELETED

    • Staying away from stupid people in stupid places doing stupid things.

      This guy trades on his reputation for being dangerous.

      To call such a person out to his face on this issue would qualify as you being stupid, the place you chose being stupid and the thing you did being stupid.

      Let the court of public opinion deal with him. Much safer for all involved.

    • patmac? Your lovers pet name? And what’s patmac going to do if I call him bad names to his face? Shoot me? What fantasy world you living in?

      Stupid fan bois.

  26. I swear (or affirm) to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic and i will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

        • Unfortunately, there is no shortage of service members who feel that way. Either that, or they are unfamiliar with the document they are swearing to support and defend.

  27. Comedy central edited this…P&S has already reached him for comment and clarified that.

    • I would say it to his face, because the facts back me up. 3 day waiting periods offer no significant reduction in crimes of passion. A knife is just as handy. Pics checks are already done on the majority of sales. He has always been a bit of a self promoting media whore anyway. Whether instagram or Facebook, or his YouTube stuff he is marketing his training. I am sure he has the skill set and the means still at 52 but he has certainly shot himself in the foot with the people of the gun; his bread and butter.

      • I think I should have been even more clear. Comedy Central edited this to misrepresent his stance incorrectly.
        Primary & Secondary (a community where many know Pat) already spoke with him on this and clarified that he was misrepresented and portrayed by Comedy Central in the wrong light

        • okay, yet he is well versed in personal marketing, has he gotten a statement out yet?

        • This is potentially very harmful to his business. If he doesn’t sue them for misrepresenting his words, that pretty much says they didn’t.

  28. I respect his opinion, something I can not say regarding some of the moronic comments I have read. He NEVER claimed to represent anyone other than himself. There is no sense of righteousness. Only his opinion. He has betrayed no one, not even himself.

    • I agree. I’ve never met a sheepdog threeper that can effectively critically think.

      Argue against Pat’s argument, rather than strawman him and ad hominem. I disagree with Pat, but I still respect him.

      “Everyone that doesn’t hold 100% the same views as I, is an enemy” – Post Modernists and SJWs, and apparently sheep dog threepers.

  30. Where is the data to back up his comment? I try not to form strong opinions of subjects until I have gathered facts and evidence, and use reason to come to a conclusion.

    • Good for you. I don’t agree with him, but I’ll give Pat the benefit of the doubt that he’s just misinformed. No one is perfect, people are fallible and can be wrong. If you don’t realize this and crucify someone who “steps out line”, well then you’re no different than a SJW.

  31. I’m willing to ‘compromise’ insofar as things like waiting periods and background checks are already considered constitutional. But my ‘compromise’ would be unlike those we’ve seen so far and I have a feeling no anti-gun people would be willing to take it.

    • The only compromises I’m willing to make might be on the exact location of internment camps for Liberal Terrorists™ and those that attempt to infringe on my God given, Constitutional and inalienable rights. I hear Alaska has lots of open space.

  32. As a soldier, no.As a politician, probably yes.

    BTW, does anyone know what happens to an elected official if when it comes down to it he refuses to take this oath?

  33. I took a class from this tool a couple years ago. Absolutely the worst class ever. I could have learned all the crap that he was teaching from his shitty book. This proclamation from him just reinforces what I already knew, he’s a complete tool.

  34. “In Florida, we were told to compromise. As a result, the “Gunshine State” a state with a Republican super majority (with a former NRA President as the NRA Rep), only managed to achieve a .71 ¢ reduction in our annual CCW fees.”

    Sorry, is that reduction 71 cents ($.71) or 7 tenths of a cent as written?

    • He means 71 cents, but it doesn’t matter, the statement is wrong. The amount is double that, and the NRA didn’t cause the rates to be reduced.

      Florida Concealed Weapons Permit fees are $60 for an initial permit, plus $42 for fingerprint processing, for a total of $102. Good for seven years. Renewals for in-state are $50. Out of state renewals require new fingerprint processing, so a total of $92. The base fees were reduced in March 2016 to $60/50 from $70/60. A ten dollar reduction over a seven year period amounts to a $1.43/year drop, not $0.71 as the author stated.

      The base fees were reduced because the initial setup of the fees stated that they were there simply to cover the costs of administering the concealed permit system. After several years of operation, the system was running a surplus to such a degree that it became clear that a reduction in the fee would still allow the costs to be covered on both an immediate and ongoing basis. Literally, it cost the state less than they originally thought, so they passed the savings on. The NRA may have helped get the language inserted in the bill, because that’s what lobbyists do, but don’t think that the reduction was the result of some massive lobbying effort that took massive time and force of will. It was more or less a statutory obligation of the original law.

      • Regardless, the situation in Fl and other places is fubar as a result of the statist GOP having us over a barrel. Governor’s mansion and both chambers fo how many decades since shall issue? And almost nothing to show for it.

  35. Fudds and “only ones” like P-Mac here are like the Flat Earthers of the 2A world. Just fucking die off already. Nobody needs you. Nobody wants you. Nobody likes you.

  36. Just because someone is an operator or an instructor doesn’t absolve them of being a tier-one douchebag. It’s not that he’s uneducated, he just doesn’t trust American citizens to buy and sell firearms at will. This attitude is not uncommon among uniformed personnel.

    MacNamara is the kind of guy who would approve mandated firearms training because it would line his own pocket.

  37. Waiting periods are good for crimes of passion and spurr of the moment acts? That is pure unadulterated horse shit. No one, in a fit of passion or spurr of the moment anger, runs to the gun store. They pick up whatever is at hand and react instantly. Real life people do not act like you see in the movies. They dont drive to the gun store, making plans over an instantaneous fit of rage. Besides, all a waiting period would do is allow them time to perfect their plans. Waiting / cool down periods are the most useless, feel good measure, I have seen.

    • I don’t know why you’re surprised or disappointed. There are many active and former military who believe “civilians” should not be armed. PMAC is one of many. Others are wise enough to keep their mouths shut.

      Don’t believe the .mil would refuse orders to disarm us. Make examples of a few and the rest will fall in line.

      • Where did Pat say that civilians should not be armed? Where did he specifically say “Civilians should not be armed. Full stop.” Prove it, or are you just going to believe your own straw man argument? Pathetic.

      • I’m surprised becasue I’ve met, hung out with and trained with him. He’s always been extremely supportive of the 2nd amendment, encouraging people to carry and encouraging new shooters. I’ve never heard anything like this from him.
        As far as the rest of your comments about the military supporting confiscation, there are some officers that would, but in my experience in the military, they are the minority. The reality is that such an order, delivered on a large scale, would mean civil war, with tens of thousands of troops loyal to the constitution with access to heavy weaponry, to include aircraft.

    • I withheld my thoughts till I could get more facts. I just saw the Primary and Secondary interview with PatMac. I’ll have to say I understand and accept his explanations. I know it’s not easy to talk to the media. I feel he tried his best to be a good steward and supporter of the Second Amendment. He stated he made some mistakes, I know I do every day. So, if he comes and holds a class locally by me and I have the time off scheduled and finances I’ll take his class. I think I would learn a lot from him.

  39. Well, well. Pat MacNamara’s classes won’t be so crowded anytime soon.

    He sure as hell won’t get my money to offer his perspective on things.

    Shame on you, Pat. With friends like you, we don’t need Shannon Watts.

    John

    • Until we fail to realize that not everyone thinks exactly the same as each other and Mike makes a comment that doesn’t line up with the Ideology.

  41. “Second Amendment absolutism is what wins the battle for gun rights restoration.”

    “[A]bsolutism” is a poor tactic. Incrementalism is what works. How did we lose our rights? How are we getting them back? Incrementalism, in both cases.

    SCOTUS, judges, legislators all dismiss absolutism out-of-hand. Is that what we want? To be dismissed out-of-hand? To not have our arguments heard?

    I think that the most important goal today is to achieve Right-to-Carry in all 50 States, DC and the territories. Shall-Issue to 21-year-olds is just enough. (That’s NOT the end-game; just the next goal.)

    How can the Anti’s defend NO-RtC in the last remaining ~10 jurisdictions? Can you see that this is their most conspicuous weak-point? Why shouldn’t we concentrate all our effort on this single weakest point where they are most vulnerable?

    NJ won’t issue a CWP to a senior Army officer stationed at Picatinny Arsenal, notwithstanding that he is in charge of the Army’s small weapons program and is targeted by Jihadists. Does this make any sense? NJ consistently refuses to issue CWPs to applicants who can demonstrate that they are threatened. NJ abuses peaceable carriers such as Shaneen Allen.

    NYC issues only to the wealthy, influential, and politically-connected; and, by the way, those who can afford a $15,000 bribe.

    Fair-minded voters will be open to a targeted assault on these 10 jurisdictions’ practices; particularly as they adversely affect vulnerable members of society (e.g., women, elderly, disabled and anyone with a history of being targeted.) How will the Anti’s defend a policy of denying a RTC to a truck driver with a hazerdous materials license who transports propane?

    Once we achieve RtC throughout the US we will have created a fissure in the gun-politics of these 10 high-population jurisdictions. After living with fellow-citizens concealed-carrying for 10 years among them on the streets of DC, NYC, Newark, . . . LA, guns will become de-stigmatized in the minds of fair-minded voters. Thereafter, they will not be inclined to faint when we propose removing SBSs and SBRs from the NFA, etc. Nor will they faint when we propose carry in Post Offices.

    Why do so many of us concentrate on absolutism when we could be making greater inroads through incrementalism?

    Suppose – for the sake of discussion – that “absolutism” were a valid argument. We are deluded if we think that our faith alone in absolutism enables us to prevail at the ballot-box. To prevail where it counts – in the hearts and minds of a strong majority of voters – we have to persuade them to subscribe to OUR belief system.

    The Anti’s know that absolutism is our worst move; and so, they bait us into this logical trap. ‘Does every citizen have a right to a nuclear bomb?’ they ask? And we cheerfully take the bait, notwithstanding that this is a question that doesn’t need to be answered. Just as soon as an open-minded voter hears our line-of-reasoning – absolutism – s/he thinks about whether s/he wants to live in an country where a citizen might have a nuke. S/he decides that she would rather not live in such a country; and so, our conclusion is unacceptable to her/him. If our conclusion is unacceptable then there must be a flaw – somewhere – in our argument for absolutism. S/he need not trouble her/himself to think-through and find that flaw; it suffices – in her/his mind – that the flaw must be there. We’ve struck-out.

    Why do we insist on concentrating our efforts just exactly where the Anti’s bait us to target?

    The fatal flaw in the absolutism argument is that if the listener believes s/he has found one exception then the “right” is proven NOT to be “absolute”.

    Our tactics ought to be to find a 1’st, 2’nd, 3’rd . . . issue where we can most easily persuade fair-minded voters that a right IS being “infringed”. On each such issue, in turn, we persuade voters that particular right deserves to be honored.

    The debate is mostly on emotional terms, not logical terms.

      • Really, I think the founders would disagree as many of the cannons and warships in the Revolution were privately owned. Not that I’m saying I should own a nuke, but an Arleigh Burke cruiser would be nice.

        • Do you really think that someone could use a nuclear weapon and have 0 ill effect towards others that do not deserve it?

          The ability to critically think has left the minds of so many people these days.

        • “Do you really think that someone could use a nuclear weapon and have 0 ill effect towards others that do not deserve it?”

          Do you really believe that anyone here believes that?

          You’re right about critical thinking, but you’re wrong to think you’re one of those who have retained it.

        • I didn’t say that people here do.

          I was posting that rhetorical question to show how stupid some anti-2a people’s straw man argument “so we should be able to use nukes?” is.

          I’m not saying that you, or John E believe that, but when I read my comment I can see why you think I am. I should’ve prefaced it with “A good response to that is…”

  42. I live in florida , what is this “annual ccw fee” bullshit you’re trying to spread?? you pay each time it’s renewed every 8 years , not every year’

      • There seems to be an awful lot of people around here who are bad at math. A ten dollar drop over a seven year renewal equals $1.43 per year less money, not $0.71 as several have repeated.

  45. Longtime government employee implicitly trusts government to dole out natural rights.
    Fail.

  46. Yes! This article says what needs to be said. Please send copies to the NRA Executive Board so they can see what 2A advocacy is.
    A “militia” is a military unit. Therefore, “the right to keep and bear arms” means military arms, e.g., automatic rifles. Switzerland is the model.

  47. Looking for any company that pays Pat McNamara. So far, it’s Panteao Productions for the video tutorials and NeoMag, a magnetic magazine carrier. I’ve already contacted them. Not sure if he still does anything for Bravo Company. If anyone knows of any other sponsors, please post.

    It’s up to these companies to properly vet their spokesmen before hiring them. We can at least make it known that we will not support anyone who favors gun control with our money.

  48. Sad to say that many of these ‘firearms training’ guys seem more interested in protecting their income stream by opposing attempts to issue carry permits without mandatory training requirements and ‘constitutional carry’. They’ve become vultures who thrive on carry restrictions.

  49. The majority of people in here jumping to conclusions without getting a statement from Pat himself.

    Imagine taking comedy central’s editing of what he said as face value. Imagine being a “right winger sheep dog threeper” who hates SJW but doesn’t realize they’re the opposite side of the same coin. Imagine doing exactly what Post Modernists do; self cannibalize because someone steps out of line.

    The only restriction I’d like to see to the Bill of Rights is to the 1st. I submit there be mandatory IQ testing before someone can be licensed to speak in a public forum, minimum of 90. Sorry to the majority of posters in here.

    • Well, if we are going to require permits and prerequisites to exercise constitutional rights- then we MUST have literacy and basic civics understanding to vote. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

      • That last comment of mine (about the IQ test) is a joke, I don’t really believe that it should be required. I don’t agree with what Pat has said (at face value), but reading Pat’s replies to comments on his instagram, his intentions were good. I’ll wait to see if he makes an official statement. I’ll likely continue to support him either way. Oh no! Guess I’m a statist?! Now the sheep dog threepers are coming for me (they’re unknowingly the same as Post Modernists).

        ETA: The problem with most of the idiots commenting on this is that the best argument they can surmise is essentially either: A) Ad Hominem, B) straw man, C) both. “Derp me threeper sheep dog patriot, derp I don’t want to hear out and discuss opposing views, derp!”

        Re: your comment about voting. I actually would like to see the “right” to vote removed. Voting should be a privilege, not a right. You should be required to earn the ability to vote before you can vote.

        I like the ideas from Starship Troopers (the book) promoted by Heinlein. Basically, through public service you can earn your franchise (e.g.: military, volunteer firefighter/emt, volunteer etc). The different means to earn your franchise are accessible to anyone who gives a damn. You wouldn’t need your franchise to enjoy the actual rights of being a citizen, you’d just need it if you wanted to vote. This makes it to where only people who care enough to contribute to society have a say in any change (voting).

    • He posted the exact thing on his instagram page – clear evidence of his position.

  51. I’m not totally opposed to compromise: for example, universal background checks in exchange for nationwide constitutional carry. But only giving an inch when they really want a mile isn’t compromise.

  52. Bravo Company (BCM) has McNamara as one of its “Gunfighters”. I have emailed BCM that I no longer feel comfortable buying their products with some of my money going to someone who would chip away at our rights.

    • I emailed BCM and told them that I will no longer support them if they fall for the same bull shit tactics that SJWs do to companies that sponsor someone they have a disagreement with.

      Imagine being the thing that you despise. Imagine being a sheep dog threeper who hates SJWs and “statists” but doesn’t realize that you’re the other side of the exact same coin. Bunch of kids in this comment thread.

      • It’s not a mild disagreement. The position on gun control is both substantive and fundamental. There is no way for Paul at BCM to reconcile keeping Pat if/when he confirms what’s been alleged. And if you know Paul, you’d know that.

        • I respect your comment because it’s neither ad hominem nor straw man; and I agree with you to an extent.

          I agree that one’s position on gun control is “substantive”. I personally am an absolutist with the Bill of Rights (in its entirety), however; I won’t crucify someone that is not. Even if Pat’s comments are exactly as comedy central has presented (shame on you if you really take their word with more than a grain of salt), I don’t really think they’re egregious. He’s not saying “We need to repeal the 2nd.” or the other strawman arguments people have commented and attributing to Pat.

          So that’s where I might disagree with you (not sure if you think this or not): a slight wavering away from the “true ideology” doesn’t warrant a man’s crucifixion. Simply address Pat’s stance, argue why the stance is wrong (rather than why Pat is bad/evil/”the other”) and move on. Pat still has value.

          Otherwise, this is exactly what Post Modernists do (not exclusive to the modern day politically “Left”): they’re ideologues that self cannibalize those that step out of line.

          I’m not jerking my knee. I’m going to wait and see.

      • A boycott is, like a gun, a tool. It implies nothing about the motives of the user. If it works for the SJWs, it’ll work for me, too. That said, I am not inclined to wait for any “clarification” from McNamara. It’s 2017. After the last 5 years of very public battles over gun rights, a man like McNamara who is so involved in the industry should have his ideas pretty well thought through. And Comedy Central didn’t pick him randomly. Producers would have screened him before filming to make sure his comments fit the narrative. You are free to spend your money as you see fit, as I am mine.

  54. Excuse me?

    No, I absolutely will NOT compromise my RIGHTS. Period. This isn’t a discussion. We’re not having a debate. “The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS…

    SHALL

    NOT

    BE

    INFRINGED!”

    And if that is confusing to you in some way then you have zero business writing on any firearm related subject.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

  56. So as long as he makes his money (and as both a perpetual student and certified firearms instructor, I wonder at the content of his courses), he doesn’t mind universal registration…which in case after case has led to confiscation and extermination. That implies severely impaired judgment, and I’ve never found a responsible individual – firearm owner or not – who would willingly and knowingly take instruction from a teacher with that handicap.

  57. I couldn’t agree more. “Shall not be infringed” there is no room for compromise. Compromise in this situation always has been and always will be a defeat for our Liberty.

  58. The freedom hating statists will not stop with UBCs. They have an end goal and UBCs aren’t it. They will use the registration portion of UBCs to not at once but over time take the guns they don’t like away. MacNamara is naive.

  59. “Compromise” – n, deceptive, in a negotiation the result where give me half of what I want vs. all, while you get none of what you want. See also: “victory.”

    Compromise is a lovely idea. What are the anti’s offering to give up, in the compromise they propose?

  60. Firearms Instructor Dan says: “Waiting periods get people killed.”
    Dan says: “What part of the “Right to keep and bear arms.” Says anything about waiting periods? ”
    “What part about restricting our rights makes any of us “safer”?”
    “People intent on bad WILL FIND ANY WAY to do what they intend. ”

    This isn’t rocket science folks. It is common sense.

  61. “Firearms Instructor Dan says: “Waiting periods get people killed.”
    Dan says: “What part of the “Right to keep and bear arms.” Says anything about waiting periods? ”
    “What part about restricting our rights makes any of us “safer”?””

    …as he fills out a form 4473 and waits for his single shot 22 rifle.

  62. “We need to defend our firearms freedom with the same mindset: a never-ending push to further expand gun rights, without delay or compromise.”

    That works for me.

  63. We need to put an end to the non-stop misinformation that is being spread by most of the media. Nonsense about buying guns via the internet with no background check. I have purchased several firearms on line and just like the purchases I have made in person at gun shows or retailers, I have had my background checked by the FFL dealer who arranged the actual transfer.

    That being said, it would be nice to find a way to prevent some drug dealing gangbanger or radical Islamic douche bag from walking into a gun show and walking out with some one’s used Glock. That is my idea of common sense.

    • Your last paragraph is moot. Any criminal or terrorist doesn’t need a gun show given the plethora of weapons that will always be available on the black market. I hear in France, guns are plenty and guns are cheap.

  64. I live in NY. I have compromised and I had no say in the matter so it’s not exactly like a compromise, more like a punishment for crimes I never committed and crimes I will never commit.

    ” Assault” weapon ban
    “Assault” weapon registration
    Evil features ban
    Magazine limits
    Hundreds of dollars and a one year wait for pistol license
    Hundreds of dollars to renew pistol license every 5 years
    Medical record review to renew pistol license
    Gun free zones
    No stops to and from trip to range
    Not allowed to take family pistol shooting
    All pistols registered with police
    Gun owners and gun shops subject to politically motivated random raids
    No pistol license reciprocity with any other state
    Out of state licensed pistol owners arrested at airport every week
    Already have background check for all gun purchases
    Background check for ammo purchases
    Gun rights revoked anytime by any medical professional
    Btw- the state has about 5 murders a year from rifles of all types but we needed the assault weapon ban? And registration??????????

    But if only we had a waiting period then everything would be perfect???????????????
    And the antis would not add any more restrictions ever again?????????????

    Pat knows all this.

    I have to assume he was taken out of context and or ambushed and or that the video tape was edited to change the meaning of his words. And actually, all of the above infringements should be done away with except for the nics check which is perhaps what he was trying to say? Who knows? Never trust a far left ideologue reporter bent on a ratings agenda.

  65. I was the guy who said he should eat a bullet in traffic. Not a death threat. And I said that AFTER his comment that has been screenshotted and passed around so many times since, so his comments were NOT a reaction to “death threats” and if he tries to push that narrative then he’s a liar.

    Does anyone else besides me have a screenshot of him replying to me and saying I confirmed his position? I would post it but I’m a biased source, I want to see it come from a neutral party.. or for him to deny making that comment and then have the screenshot come out.

  67. First, there needs to be a realization this has nothing to do with guns. The fact is it has everything to do with BEARING ARMS of any kind and self-defense from any and all institutions, including government itself. Guns are merely one single aspect that is just being attacked because they provide an easy target.

    Secondly, people need to realize that the right to bear arms is exactly that: a right. This means two things: that firstly, every single individual is treated with the respect of bearing arms; and more importantly, it demands the obligation to arm yourself by any means necessary. Nothing is a “right”, whatsoever, unless it is practiced in the first place and reciprocal to all. If it’s not practiced, it is lost; if someone cannot practice it, it is lost.

Comments are closed.