After revisiting this article after 2 years, I will say that my admiration and interest in the ideas and writings of Dr. Wolf has expanded. The breadth and depth of her understanding of the subject matter upon which she expounds is informative and entertaining. Bravo, again and again, Dr. Wolf!

Expand full comment

Is fear of firearms reasonable?

Here are my questions…

Does the person have any fear about walking behind or in front of parked, unoccupied vehicles? Probably not. Most people walk into stores, passing multiple vehicles, all the time.

Next, does the person have any fear of walking behind or in front of an unoccupied running vehicle? Again, probably not. Doing so is a regular occurrence.

Does the person have any fear of walking behind or in front of an occupied vehicle? An occupied running vehicle? Probably not. Most people regularly do these things without much, if any, thought.

A gun, loaded or not, is just as harmless as a car, running or not. A gun is not going to attack anyone on its own and neither is a car. The important factor is the person manning the gun or car. A crazy, angry, or irrational person with either is dangerous. The item itself is not. A crazy, angry, or irrational person can be dangerous even with nothing at all but his/her hands, feet, and head.

Expand full comment

"I did not buy the handgun, as I need a class and a permit and four references. That is as it should be." Probably the only statement in this whole article that I will take issue with. I can't find that listed after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and having to take a class and get a permit and four references is obviously an infringement. Other than that? MOLON LABE!

Expand full comment

A failure to defend innocent life, including your own, is a sin.

Expand full comment

Second Amendment Thoughts from my substack https://drp314.substack.com/

The culture war brims over with skirmishes over the Second Amendment. The modern Left maintains that it is dangerous and leads to higher crime rates, and that it was only important in our pioneer past. Some members of the Left may believe this, while others just don't like that it is a check on arbitrary power. The Right, whatever that means, sees it as a protector of individual rights. (What is the Right, anyway? The Left claims that the German Socialist Workers Party were on the Right, as though Hitler was passing out handguns to Jews to keep them out of the camps.)

It was not always the case that Democrats were so against the Second Amendment. Consider:

“The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” Hubert Humphrey – Democrat, U. S. Senator, Presidential Candidate and Vice President

Notice that Humphrey said nothing about hunting or protection from crime, but that it is a safeguard against tyranny, a view now considered to be extreme right wing, but just a typical American attitude at that time. Also, the word is arms, not guns in particular.

Going with that same point of view, here is Mr. 1984 himself:

"The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." George Orwell

Orwell's “rifle” would have been the “assault rifle” of his day.

What about all of those school shootings, one may ask. One may note that school shootings did not begin until after the passage of the Gun Free School Zones Act in 1990. A cynical view would be this:

School shootings. Pass a law legally prohibiting the adults in a school from protecting the children, wait for the occasional nut case, blame Republicans and guns, never mention said law, rinse and repeat. Frequently talk about school shootings on the news so the nut cases never forget. (So people will give up their guns. After all, people will not willingly get in the boxcars.)

This might be a little strong, but the coastal elites should be aware that many people see things in something of this light.

But clearly, one may opine, any truly decent, well meaning and spiritual person would never condone an armed populous since that would just not be right.

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Mahatma Gandhi

So, is it just a matter of if you are for the powerful or for the people?

We always hear, considering the latest proposed restriction, that if it saves just one life it's worth it. They neglect to say that if it costs just one life it's not worth it. How about, if removing a given firearms restriction saves just one life, it's worth it? The fact that such thoughts are anathema to the left makes one suspect that saving lives is not the issue.

Are there any cases of gun control costing lives? A couple come to mind. At one time airline pilots were required to carry handguns if there was U.S. mail on board, so in effect they always did. (Most pilots were ex military anyway, and they simply had them in their carry on bags, not on their hips.) Rules slowly changed, going to optional until, not too long before 9/11 they were completely banned. After 9/11 there was great resistance to allowing pilots to be armed, and was done only with great regulation.

To reiterate, the other obvious case is school shootings. School shootings were unheard of before the Gun Free School Zones act of 1990. Why is it that the act was not rescinded after the school shootings started? Similarly, before 1968 one could simply buy a gun with cash and walk out of the store with it, yet we did not have mass shootings.

Clearly, at least for the leaders, the issue is not public safety.

Popular among 2A supporters is the idea of the four boxes. The idea is that the protections to liberty contained in the Bill of Rights consist of the ballot box, the jury box, the soap box and the cartridge box. Upon inspection one notices that only the last consists of real, physical objects. A tyrannical government may simply do away with voting, corrupt the court system and eliminate freedom of speech. They would no doubt declare the private possession of arms to be illegal, but collecting them would be a monumental task.

Before all else, be armed. - Niccolo Machiavelli

A disturbing aspect of the 20th century is the large number of people killed by their own governments. Total numbers vary depending on the source, but it's fair to say that at least 100 million people died in this way. (It's hard to pin down; if you died while serving a hard labor sentence in the Soviet Union, does that count?) One may turn around the saving one life argument and say, “If it prevents just one genocide, it's worth it.”

There is the entire issue of the effect of gun control on crime. The tone from the media is always to the effect that, of course, gun control reduces crime, but they do not provide evidence. A big issue is just the fact that there is much that does not come through in official statistics. A person who fends off a burglar in New York City with an illegal gun cannot report it to the police. (He may realize that the criminal will then go on to victimize an unarmed New Yorker, but he can't do anything about it.)

Then there are the crimes that simply don't occur do to the presence of arms. Businesses that do not suffer the from organized crime perpetrating protection rackets, for instance, as they often do in the more heavily restricted areas. Indeed, it seems probable that organized crime is drawn to such areas,and avoids the others.

Well, that's a few thoughts on this inflammatory subject.

Expand full comment

And then there is THIS inconvenient fact that seems to be overlooked continually...THE SSRI CONNECTION


Expand full comment

I noticed years ago that, if you looked into the mass murder stories, the perpetrators seemed all to be on psycho-active drugs, either prescription or illegal. Some of their pictures showed wild eyes and whatnot, but the news stories barely mentioned the fact, as though they were pushing an agenda - the problem had to be the guns. Having grown up in a rural area in the 1950s, where everyone had guns, it made the reporters look like idiots or liars. Reporters now all seem to come from the suburbs, then go to journalism school and have little life experience. I think they suffer from urban provincialism.

Expand full comment

Most suffer from the lack of the ability to think critically due to their indoctrination in the 10th plank communist manifesto school cisterns. Do you recall what George Carlin said?

But there’s a reason. There’s a reason. There’s a reason for this, there’s a reason education SUCKS, and it’s the same reason it will never, ever, EVER be fixed.

It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it, be happy with what you’ve got.

Because the owners, the owners of this country don't want that. I'm talking about the real owners now, the BIG owners! The Wealthy… the REAL owners! The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions.

Forget the politicians. They are irrelevant. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don't. You have no choice! You have OWNERS! They OWN YOU. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls.

They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying, lobbying, to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I'll tell you what they don’t want:

They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. that's against their interests.

that's right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting fucked by a system that threw them overboard 30 fucking years ago. They don’t want that!

You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork. And just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly shitty jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it, and now they’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street, and you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later cause they own this fucking place! It's a big club, and you ain’t in it! You, and I, are not in the big club. ~George Carlin

Expand full comment

They probably don’t realize it, but these elites are in something of the position of Communist dictators. They have what Hyack called the knowledge problem. The Communists simply lacked the knowledge to effectively control their economies, or anything else. These elites don’t know what they don’t know. They are not as powerful as they think. Some hope there.

Expand full comment
Jun 26, 2023·edited Jun 26, 2023

As a retired public health nurse here in California I cannot support irresponsible folks being able to have a gun. AND, if the government wants to take away all our guns, they must go after all the criminals first. Guns are too easily available for purchase. As to a well-regulated militia...yes, the meaning in the Constitution is clear as you so deftly explain. I do support those folks who are well-trained who can defend themselves and others responsibly.

Expand full comment

Naomi, you can have peace without guns. Because the only ones left will be able practice there religion of debauchery. Wokeness is code for: We've awoke from the pit of hell. Lol

Expand full comment

It appears to me that you went through a Charade to promote something you would never use

and call that "advice to women. Ver, very foolish. Lots of words, no substance.

Expand full comment

Some folks simply have a comprehension issue due to cognitive dissonance. You apparently are one of those folks.

Expand full comment

The Second Amendment is not theoretical. It must be lived. It must be acted upon. It must be exercised.

Expand full comment

Including the first 13 words! https://www.courageouslion.us/p/those-forgotten-and-ignored-13-words

Expand full comment

Yes. Absolutely, Courageous. Very sad that what we have is a government that believes its prime function is to find endless new ways to circumvent the Constitution.

Expand full comment

Which, since they take an oath to defend the Constitution, makes them liars, usurpers and traitor tyrants.

Expand full comment

2 disturbing issues you mention Naomi have resonated some further thought 🤔.

The first...they are planning something. Biden’s continued extension of the emergency powers for no legitimate health crisis reason means they are planning something. DEMS are not going to relinquish power easily. So why the unnecessary extension?

The second, you said, “unidentifiable police or mercenary forces, as in Canada, are violent, and the protesters have nothing but the moral high ground with which to deter their violence.”

Is it any wonder that the violence in blue states continues and these officials are doing nothing to combat it? Adams and Hochul in NY, New-scum in CA, Wheeler and Brown in Oregon, Wolf in PA, Michigan’s Gov Whitmer, Mayor Lightfoot in Chicago...are doing absolutely nothing for a reason. They never seem to catch or prosecute these “unidentifiable violent perpetrators” of mass drive-by shootings. Could these be orchestrated as well? Look at the NON-Prosecutors Bragg and Gascon!

The FBI has certainly shown it’s true colors of late with the fake Whitmer kidnapping, Jan 6th setups and unnecessary, illegal raids against peaceful, law-abiding American citizens and a sitting President 😳. Would anyone now not put it past any of them to create some domestic terrorism incident they so willfully claim to deter? Just the obfuscation of law itself by these rogue politicians and agencies should be grounds for dismissal BY THE REPUBLIC!!

The tides are definitely turning because of all the exposed lies and corruption of the Biden family and alphabet agencies. So yes, in all agreement, a moral high ground backed by an uninfringed, Constitutional 2nd Amendment right, is certainly being put to a test!! But WHY? Maybe you or some other trusted, real investigative journalists can find out the “real hidden” reasons behind it all.

Expand full comment

Mostly good thoughts with two glaring exceptions:

1. Merely being armed does not prevent one from becoming a victim of violence.

2. No, a class, a permit, and four references are NOT " ... as it should be ...."

Dr. Wolf is otherwise on-point, and I respect her ability and willingness to re-evaluate her positions.

Expand full comment

"Can We Indeed Have Peace and Freedom Without Guns?" No, because if someone my size decides to be a predator, most people would stand no chance what-so-ever against that person. 6'4" 250 solid weight lifter, 2nd degree black belt in two styles of martial arts. What could you do against someone like that if you were the average woman or the average man? "God made man, Colonel Colt made him equal". "I came here with two of my friends...Smith & Wesson and me" Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry. And if we REALLY wanted to stop the problem we would make those in "power", we need to make them give us those first 13 words back into force and effect.... https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/those-forgotten-and-ignored-13-words-957

Expand full comment

Very well thought out and bravo! Yes, yes and yes. To ANYONE male or female who has an inkling about firearm ownership & safety I say find an officially NRA trained professional and take as many classes and as long as you need to overcome your fears starting in the classroom and then onto the range if you desire. These professionals have the highest of standards regarding safety and training, along with a desire to help you. In fact, safety is so paramount on a range, that you may even see other shooters there warn, guide, instruct, report if necessary anyone acting in an unsafe manner with a firearm. We all take it very seriously. If you still don't want a firearm for yourself, that is ok but read Naomi's writings and let us do the heavy lifting of protection for you and do not limit our rights by buying into the propaganda levied on us for so many years. Remember, there is a reason your Govt would like to disarm you and you saw it exercised during Covid mania. 2A, is the only force multiplier designed to protect the weak from the strong. And yes a semi auto AR15 is justified (family or business protection against multiple intruders aka mob for 1)

Expand full comment

And AR 15 is great for practice in .556. For the dirty work, an AR 10 is what you need to learn to use in 7.62 (.308).

Expand full comment

As a life long resident of upstate NY I have had a permit since 1976. I am not part of the gun problem and I take it personally Kathy Hochul's hate for law abiding citizens like myself. I believe her hatred of 2A is the fear of someone taking her power away. Just like Biden, on down. If it was truly about school shootings the politicians would give up their police forces and the same resources would be re-assigned to the schools. I read that the mayor of Chicago's personal detail takes some 120 police. I imagine Hochul's does too. How many just so Joe can go for ice cream, all armed to the teeth with their words "weapons of war" to protect them from the their constituents.

Expand full comment

Funny how they surround themselves with weapons of war in the hands of the secret service or state police isn't it? NO hypocrisy there! https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/problem-psychopathic-control-freaks

Expand full comment

I agree with every word. I also used to think no one should have guns. But not any more

Expand full comment

No one? I bet you didn't mind it if the police and military had them even though they, throughout HISTORY have been the ones who have tyrannized the people of their own countries. https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/why-the-militia

Expand full comment

Did you not read my post? I said USED to think no one should have them. Just posting to post I see eh??

Expand full comment

My response was in the past tense. Thought being that at the time you thought "no one should" did you think the police and military should? Because no one would encompass them also. So, when you thought no one should did you think NO ONE should or that just citizens should not have guns?

Expand full comment

Glad you arrived. Maybe you spent too much time on college campus. Which is the safest place ever. Within something like five concentric protective barriers. Many thanks for writing this. Sorely wish you had understood this sooner. Hope that this opens some minds.

Expand full comment

Really? A recent study found between the 2001-2002 and 2015-2016 school years, 437 people were shot in 190 college campus shooting incidents. Sounds like a pretty safe place to me...(sarcasm) Of course the "reason" they claim is because there are more guns in the hands of people. So it has nothing to do with CRAZY people using guns. Maybe this has something to do with it. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/07/mark-reynolds/the-ssri-connection-to-suicides-spontaneous-murder-and-mass-shootings/

Expand full comment

Thanks for bringing the receipts, about the SSRIs, which I think is definitely part of the problem, but can you point to the first study you mentioned? I didn't know. If true, then my question would be, are all those campuses designated as "gun-free zones"?

What I was trying to speak to last night was that someone in Academia, or the media, is usually someone completely clueless both about guns, and about the successive invisible barriers protecting them, manned by soldiers and cops and fireman, intelligence analysts, etc.

Expand full comment

NONE of those invisible barriers actually offer protection in reality. A deterrence possibly, but that would be the most you could expect. The only true deterrence is that you are attacked and the pistol you pull out is either discharged at your assailant or the assailant runs away because of your response.

Expand full comment

no argument from me. I finally got through all the infringements this year which my state of residence imposes.

Expand full comment