Reader’s Links for Nov. 20, 2024

Posted on by

Each day at just after midnight Eastern, a post like this one is created for contributors and readers of this site to upload news links and video links on the issues that concern this site. Most notably, Islam and its effects on Classical Civilization, and various forms of leftism from Soviet era communism, to postmodernism and all the flavours of galloping statism and totalitarianism such as Nazism and Fascism which are increasingly snuffing out the classical liberalism which created our near, miraculous civilization the West has been building since the time of Socrates.

This document was written around the time this site was created, for those who wish to understand what this site is about. And while our understanding of the world and events has grown since then, the basic ideas remain sound and true to the purpose.

So please post all links, thoughts and ideas that you feel will benefit the readers of this site to the comments under this post each day. And thank you all for your contributions.

This is the new Samizdat. We must use it while we can.

For those interested, please check out https://vladtepesblog.substack.com/ as an another avenue of expression. The Substack is a different project in a sense. It is older videos that in the light of subsequent events, look different or of increased importance, Check it out now and again if you like.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

14 Replies to “Reader’s Links for Nov. 20, 2024”

  7. Matt Gaetz for U.S. Attorney General!? ~ You Had me at Political Retribution!
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on November 20, 2024 by Tred Law

    Opinion

    Matt Gaetz as U.S. Attorney General? It’s the gift that keeps on giving—for the memes, the mainstream media meltdowns, and most importantly, the Second Amendment enthusiasts.

    If you thought the swamp was draining slowly, Trump just turned on the industrial pump with Gaetz at the helm. Critics are howling, the Justice Department is shaking, and honestly, isn’t that the point?

    The Man, The Myth, The Meme Generator

    Gaetz doesn’t just scare the Democrats—he terrifies them. Why? Because he’s unapologetically pro-gun, razor-sharp, and—dare we say it—vindictive in all the right ways. He’s the type of guy who looks at political retribution not as a consequence, but as a perk of the job. While others cower at the thought of Twitter storms or media hit pieces, Gaetz thrives on them. He’s not just playing 4D chess; he’s flipping the board and taking a victory lap while the pieces are still mid-air.
    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    “Abolish the ATF”—Three Words That Speak Volumes

    Let’s not forget the legendary “Abolish the ATF Act.” Sure, it didn’t pass, but it wasn’t about passing. It was about sending a message. Gaetz doesn’t waste time with half-measures. Whether he’s grilling the ATF for losing thousands of guns or calling out the DOJ for its “rules for thee but not for me” antics, he’s a bulldog with a mission. And now, he’s poised to be the top law enforcement officer in the nation. Imagine the possibilities.

    The Mainstream Media Freakout: A Badge of Honor

    The louder the left screams, the more we know Gaetz is the right choice. John Bolton called it “the worst nomination for a cabinet position in American history.” Senator Lisa Murkowski said, “This wasn’t on my bingo card.” Well, Lisa, welcome to the Gaetz era, where bingo cards don’t matter, but results do.

    Enemies on All Sides: A Feature, Not a Bug

    It’s not just the Democrats who fear Gaetz—plenty of Republicans do, too. That’s because Gaetz doesn’t play the establishment’s game. He ousted Kevin McCarthy, took on the ATF, and didn’t blink. For a guy with a track record like that, being labeled “divisive” is practically a compliment.

    Political Retribution: Why We Love Him

    Let’s be real—when Gaetz promises political retribution, we’re here for it. The Justice Department has been weaponized for too long against conservatives, gun owners, and anyone who doesn’t toe the progressive line. If Gaetz is promising to level the playing field, sign us up. Retribution isn’t just fair—it’s overdue.

    America’s Next AG: A Second Amendment Warrior

    Ultimately, Gaetz represents what many of us want: a fighter. Someone who’s not afraid to throw punches, call out hypocrisy, and defend our God-given rights. Whether it’s abolishing the ATF or holding government agencies accountable, Gaetz is ready to shake the system to its core.

    Gaetz for AG is just an excellent choice. Pair him with Brandon Herrera as head of ATF, and we could see incredible rollbacks of rules infringing on our RKBA. And to everyone clutching their pearls about his past? Save it. We don’t need a saint; we need a warrior. So grab your popcorn, folks, because the Gaetz era is about to begin, and it’s going to be glorious.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2024/11/matt-gaetz-for-us-attorney-general-you-had-me-at-political-retribution/

  8. Fact Check: The Founding Fathers *DID* Know About Repeating Rifles
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on July 19, 2024 by Logan Metesh

    Many people try to claim that the Founding Fathers couldn’t have conceived of repeating rifles when they drafted the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. However, the story of Joseph Belton and his correspondence with the Continental Congress proves otherwise.

    If you’d prefer to watch and learn, the video I made above details the entire event. If you’d prefer to read about it, the story unfolds below.

    Belton, an inventor and gunsmith from Philadelphia, claimed to have devised a new flintlock musket capable of firing as many as sixteen consecutive shots in as little as twenty seconds. After the gun had fired its consecutive loads, it could then be reloaded individually like all other traditional firearms of that era. He first wrote to Congress about his new invention on April 11, 1777, letting them know he could demonstrate it to them at any time.

    Intrigued by Belton’s claim, Congress ordered 100 examples of his “new improved gun.” They authorized him to oversee the construction of new guns, or alteration of existing guns, so that they were capable of discharging eight rounds with one loading and that he “receive a reasonable compensation for his trouble, and be allowed all just and necessary expences [sic].”
    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    On May 7, Belton replied to Congress with his terms regarding what he felt to be “reasonable compensation.” In order to determine his fee, Belton wanted to arm 100 soldiers with his invention and demonstrate the capabilities of such armed men to a panel of four military officers – two of Congress’ choosing and two of Belton’s choosing. The officers then determined how many men they felt Belton’s 100 men were equivalent to when carrying a standard firearm. (For example, 100 specially-armed men were equivalent to 200 regularly-armed men, or more.)

    For his ability to double the manpower, Belton felt that he was entitled to £1,000 for every 100 men he armed from a given state. Belton justified his price by claiming that a state could not raise, equip, and clothe 100 men for £1,000, making his 100 men armed as though they were 200 men a bargain. (For reference, £1,000 in 1777 is the equivalent of £150,000 today. If all 13 states outfitted 100 men, Belton would receive £13,000 – or £1,900,000 today.)
    Joseph Belton
    Belton felt his rate of compensation was “vastly reasonable.” Congress disagreed.

    Belton argued that arming 3,000 men or more with his invention created enumerable advantages beyond description on the battlefield, making his compensation “vastly reasonable.” As such, his terms were non-negotiable. If Congress refused or attempted to haggle in any way, he would withdraw his offer completely. (For those doing the math, 3,000 men armed with Belton’s repeater would mean that he’d collect more than £4,500,000 in today’s currency.)

    Belton must have realized immediately that his demands were more than outlandish because the next day, on May 8, he wrote a letter to John Hancock lowering his fee to £500 for doubling, £1,500 for tripling, £2,000 for quadrupling, and so forth.

    On May 15, Congress read Belton’s letter to the body. They quickly dismissed it because of his “extraordinary allowance.” (No one saw that coming, right?) Congress considered the matter dropped and didn’t reply to Belton, likely assuming he would take their lack of reply as a refusal.
    They assumed wrong.

    Having heard nothing from Congress for over a month, Belton wrote them again on Saturday, June 14. This time, he claimed he could accurately hit targets with his rifle out to 100 yards and possibly even out to 200 yards. He offered to demonstrate this feat to Congress on the following Monday at 10:00 am in the State House Yard.

    The same day Belton wrote this letter, Congress was involved with something that would prove far more important. On June 14, 1777, the Continental Congress approved the design for a national flag.

    With Congress engaged in more pressing matters, Belton’s letter went unanswered for almost a month when he decided to write again.

    His letter from July 10 was not nearly as polite as his previous ones. This time, he tried to rile members of the body by claiming that Great Britain regularly pays £500 for lesser services. If, he mused, the “little Island” could afford such payments, surely this “extensive continent” could do the same.
    Rittenhouse, Arnold, and Gates all signed a letter endorsing Belton.

    He also enclosed a letter signed by General Horatio Gates, Major General Benedict Arnold (before he became a turncoat), well-known scientist David Rittenhouse, and others, all claiming that his invention would be of “great Service, in the Defense of lives, Redoubts, Ships &c, & even in the Field,” and that they felt Belton was entitled to “a handsome [sic] reward from the Publick [sic].”

    Having received the letter immediately, Congress resolved that same day to refer Belton’s petition to the Board of War, made up of five delegates. Among these five delegates were the future 2nd President of the United States, John Adams, and Benjamin Harrison V, father and great-grandfather of the 9th and 23rd Presidents of the United States, respectively.

    Nine days later, on July 19, Congress got word from the Board of War. Much to Belton’s dismay, they dismissed his petition altogether. At this point, he must have finally gotten the hint that Congress wouldn’t authorize such exorbitant payment for his services. The historic record turns up no more correspondence between Belton and Congress.

    Despite the fact that Joseph Belton failed to convince the Continental Congress to outfit colonial soldiers with his repeating rifle, it’s still a very important story. Belton invented his gun in 1777. The Bill of Rights wasn’t ratified until 1791. That means our Founding Fathers not only knew about repeating rifles 14 years before the creation of the Second Amendment, but that they thought highly enough of the idea to pursue further development and implementation of such technology. The fact that it proved to be cost-prohibitive is moot, as it certainly could have been done if Congress and Belton had agreed upon the definition of “reasonable compensation.”

    So, the next time someone tells you the Second Amendment was never designed to protect the right to own a repeating rifle or that it was only meant to apply to flintlock firearms, sit them down and tell them the story of Joseph Belton and his repeating flintlock musket.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2024/07/fact-check-the-founding-fathers-did-know-about-repeating-rifles/

  9. The Myth Of “Lethality”: David Thompson’s Powerful Legal Defense of the ‘Dangerous’ AR-15 Rifle ~ VIDEO
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on November 20, 2024 by Ammoland Editors & Staff

    YouTube video player

    At the 2024 Federalist Society Conference, David Thompson, managing partner at Cooper & Kirk and one of the nation’s foremost litigators, working directly with the Second Amendment Foundation, delivered a compelling defense of the AR-15 rifle.

    With 44 million AR-15s owned across the U.S., Thompson dismantled the narrative that the rifle’s “lethality” justifies banning it, highlighting how such arguments ignore the Second Amendment’s purpose, legal precedent, and the role of firearms in preserving freedom.

    Thompson’s speech not only educated but also energized pro-Second Amendment advocates, reminding them that technological advancements in firearms are a feature of liberty, not a flaw.

    Lethality: The Anti-Gun Argument

    In his speech, Thompson addressed the growing trend among anti-gun advocates and lower courts to label firearms like the AR-15 as “too dangerous for civilian ownership” due to their perceived “unprecedented lethality.” This argument has been weaponized to support bans on AR-15s and standard 30-round magazines, which are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

    Thompson called this narrative both factually and constitutionally flawed.

    “The entire history of firearms is the relentless, continual search for more lethality and more accuracy,” he explained. “These are instruments that determine your life or your death, whether you live free or as a slave.”

    ADVERTISEMENT
    SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING

    This focus on a firearm’s potential danger shifts the legal conversation away from its common use by law-abiding citizens, a cornerstone of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
    The Supreme Court’s Clear Guidance

    Thompson’s analysis rooted itself in precedent, particularly the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller ruling. That decision established that firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, cannot be banned.

    By this test, the AR-15, which is overwhelmingly used for self-defense, target shooting, and hunting, is protected. “99.999% of AR-15s will never be used in any criminal activity,” Thompson said. The rifle’s popularity and lawful ownership place it firmly within the Constitution’s protections.

    Thompson also addressed claims that AR-15 rifles are “military weapons” unsuitable for civilian use. He explained that AR-15s are semi-automatic, firing one bullet per trigger pull, unlike the fully automatic firearms used by militaries. Far from being “too dangerous,” the AR-15’s design makes it accessible, accurate, and effective for civilians defending themselves or their families.

    Live Inventory Price Checker
    PSA AR-15 Pistol 5.56 10.5″ Carbine 1/7 Nitride LTWT M-Lok MOE EPT SBA3 Pistol Palmetto State Armory $ 899.99 $ 529.99
    PSA AR-15 Pistol 5.56 10.5″ Carbine 1/7 Nitride LTWT M-Lok MOE EPT SBA3 Pistol Palmetto State Armory $ 899.99 $ 529.99
    PSA AR-15 Pistol 10.5″ CARBN 5.56 Nitride Classic MFT Battlelink Pistol, Black Palmetto State Armory $ 799.99 $ 499.99
    PSA AR-15 Pistol 10.5″ CARBN 5.56 Nitride Classic MFT Battlelink Pistol, Black Palmetto State Armory $ 799.99 $ 499.99

    The Founders & Firearms Evolution

    Thompson dispelled the myth that the Founders couldn’t have envisioned modern firearms like the AR-15. He pointed to historical records, including a 1775 demonstration before the Continental Congress of a firearm capable of firing 20 rounds without reloading. This early innovation proves that the Founders were aware of—and embraced—advances in firearms technology.

    Justice Antonin Scalia echoed this sentiment in Heller, ridiculing the idea that the Second Amendment protects only firearms existing at the time of the Founding.

    “The Constitution protects advancements in arms as much as it protects advancements in speech or the press,” Thompson said.

    AR-15 Bans: Misguided & Dangerous

    A major flaw in anti-gun arguments, Thompson noted, is the attempt to redefine the Second Amendment’s protections by focusing on criminal misuse of firearms. Courts have entertained the idea that AR15 weapons and similar firearms can be banned because criminals might use them in harmful ways. But Thompson emphasized that the Constitution was designed to protect law-abiding citizens’ rights, not to cater to hypothetical abuses.

    “The features of the AR-15 that make it accurate and effective for self-defense are the same features being twisted into reasons to ban it,” Thompson argued. “The focus should always be on how these firearms empower law-abiding Americans—not on how criminals misuse them.”

    A Broader Lesson: Why Lethality Matters

    Thompson’s most profound point may have been this: the Second Amendment was written precisely because firearms are effective tools. Their lethality is not a constitutional bug—it’s a feature. Citizens need reliable, effective firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.

    “Lethality isn’t the problem,” Thompson said. “It’s the solution when it comes to defending your home or your freedom.”

    He warned that using lethality as a reason to ban firearms undermines the Second Amendment’s purpose and sets a dangerous precedent that could erode other rights.
    Standing Firm on the Second Amendment

    David Thompson’s speech at the Federalist Society Conference was a rallying cry for Second Amendment advocates. By grounding his arguments in history, legal precedent, and common sense, Thompson exposed the flaws in the “lethality” narrative and defended the AR-15’s place as a vital tool of self-defense and freedom.

    For millions of Americans, the AR-15 represents more than a firearm—it’s a symbol of their constitutional right to protect themselves and their families. Thompson’s message was clear: technological advancements and effectiveness in firearms are fully consistent with the Second Amendment, and banning AR-15s is not only unconstitutional but an affront to the principles of liberty.

    https://www.ammoland.com/2024/11/myth-of-lethality-david-thompsons-powerful-legal-defense-dangerous-ar15-rifle/

  10. China Is Recalculating Its Middle East Policy

    Since the October 7th massacre in southern Israel and the outbreak of the war in Gaza, China’s leadership has conveyed outright support in word and deed for the Iran-led “Axis of Resistance.” The display of strategic vulnerability by Iran and its proxies since mid-August appears to have prompted Beijing to pause and reassess…

    China’s Tempered Stance Toward Israel
    The distancing of Iran was reinforced by the parallel toning down of Chinese animosity toward Israel, which had become rife since the October 7 massacre. The linkage between the diplomatic distancing of Iran and toning down criticism toward Israel…

    Chinese Policy Advisers Rethink Iran

    This shift in China’s official public messaging regarding Iran aligns with public commentary by Chinese policy advisers specializing in the Middle East. [BigShot Prof, MidEast Studies, Shanghai U]: the Axis of Resistance led by Iran has suffered significant losses and even a complete failure. The export of the revolution by Iran and ideological diplomacy has reached an unsustainable dead end.

    https://thediplomat.com/2024/11/china-is-recalculating-its-middle-east-policy/