Fighter Pilot University
FU Store

Gun Debate

Posted by Jolly on January 27, 2013

             GUN CONTROL IS EASY

Should this guy own a Gun?  No, Next....


The Gun control debate is pretty easy like the caption forwarded to me says, but our politicians continue to flirt with denying us our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.  We use the very simple approach here at Fighter Pilot University that every fighter should have a gun and every law abiding American should be able to own a gun (or ten if they wish).   I'll attach two articles forwarded to me that hit home.  The first is a letter to the editor from a Sandy Hook resident, and the second is an article in The New American by conservative reporter William Jasper.  

Folks with a very conservative view write both articles for sure.   Both also point out some obvious flaws in the debate.  First, politicians are hypocrites and don't558934_453562264706350_1780239881_n.jpg honor the oath they've taken to protect and defend the constitution.  Second, any position supported by the Communist Party USA should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

I know there will be some spears thrown over posting this and questions like "what does this have to do with flying fighters?"  Most of us took an Oath to protect and defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, Nuff said.  Here's some flame bait for those who feel we should be politically neutral here, so let's just call the fight on and flame away boys and girls.  I'll include some posters that were forwarded to me by several of our subscribers.  They would be funny if they were not all true.



Elected Officials Are Fundamentally Dishonest


To the Editor:

This letter was forwarded to Barack Obama, John Boehner, Chris Murphy, Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth Esty, and Harry Reid

I live in Sandy Hook, CT. My family and close friends weren't harmed on December 14. That day impacted 26 families with an indescribable, staggering pain and anguish. For most of Sandy Hook, it merely affected us with an inescapable intensity of sadness and grief.

Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though I'm not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers' circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King George's successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. 

Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, it's as threatening as ever.

That so many of you view the NRA with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRA's actions.

You in public office are fundamentally dishonest people. You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening. When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we can't afford and you've never read. You claim it's critical because health care costs are killing this country... no they're not, you are! 

You are killing this country.  You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded. You can't lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn. You fabricate the intense, media laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know you'll be out of office before the bill comes due… you don't care and have no integrity and less honor. 

You lie whenever and wherever you need to to move forth your agenda. Were you able, you would purge the US of guns… every last gun in the country, if you could. So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who don't trust you as far as we can spit. You're a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview. If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.

I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. You'll stop restricting guns when only you have them.

Brendan Duffy

Sandy Hook January 8, 2013


Communists Cheer over Gun Grab


William F. Jasper
New American
Jan 25, 2013

It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board withobamacommie.jpg President Obama’s plan to attack Americans’ right to keep and bear arms as a means to “end gun violence.” A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State.

In a January 18 article, People’s World, an official publication of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), declared that “the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right — one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.”

The article, entitled, “Fight to end gun violence is key to defending democracy,” written by People’s World labor and politics reporter Rick Nagin, claims that “the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans.”

“It is for that reason,” declares Nagin, “as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.”

The Communist Party’s “journalist” continued:

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights.

However, gun rights advocates don’t need to “gin up fear” that President Obama’s “common sense” proposals will lead to even more onerous infringements than the current calls to ban or restrict so-called “assault weapons”; the gun control zealots have been quite emphatic about intending to severely restrict (and many have called for a total ban on) all privately owned firearms. A December 21 article for the Daily Kos is one of the candid admissions against interest by the Left that the real end goal is a total monopoly of gun ownership by the government. Entitled, “How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process,” the regular Daily Kos writer “Sporks” says:

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

The writer then outlines the piecemeal plan by which the federal government can begin with registration and end up with confiscation. The Daily Kos article also cites the need to delegitimize hunting as well. “We should also segway [sic] into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK,” it says. “By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.”

Nagin surely must know that it is not merely groundless paranoia exploited by “extremists” inspiring fear that President Obama’s multi-part gun control plan is but the opening wedge in a new drive for ever-expanding federal restrictions and infringements of the Second Amendment. And Nagin surely is aware that his comrades ruling China, Cuba, North Korea, Russia, and other communist countries have never stopped at partial restrictions on private ownership of weapons.

As The New American reported recently, Communist China’s ruling mandarins, sounding very much like our own media commentators, have blasted the United States for our “rampant gun ownership.” A Chinese government report last year detailing alleged human rights violations in the United States declares:

The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership.

More recently, on December 14, 2012, the Beijing regime’s Xinhua news agency editorialized:

Twenty-eight innocent people, including 20 primary students, have been slaughtered in a mass shooting at an elementary school in the U.S. state of Connecticut. Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control.

“Action speaks louder than words,” concluded the Xinhua editorial. “If Obama wants to take practical measures to control guns, he has to make preparation for a protracted war and considerable political cost.”

Communist China, of course, is no paragon of virtue when it comes to liberty, safety, and human rights. Its total ban on private ownership of guns under Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) guaranteed that the Communist Party would have unchallenged power. And, as Professor R. J. Rummel has pointed out in his several published studies on democide (mass murder by governments): Power kills and absolute power kills absolutely. In the case of Communist China, the mass murder by the communist government under Mao was somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 million souls!

And China remains a rigidly controlled police state to this day, notwithstanding the limited market reforms that the Party has allowed for pragmatic purposes to obtain the capital and technology it needs to modernize. Only Party officials and the police and military (who must be members of, and be vetted by, the Communist Party) are allowed to possess weapons.

Mao’s comrades in Russia, Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin, likewise disarmed the civilian population before initiating mass murder. As did Adolf Hitler and every other “successful” mass-murdering tyrant throughout history. Vladimir Gladkov, a radio propagandist on Vladimir Putin’s “Voice of Russia” program, expressed disappointment on December 20 that the Sandy Hook mass shooting probably would not generate the support President Obama needs to implement his desired gun controls. “Unfortunately, there are grounds for very serious doubt that even after this terrible massacre, a ban on selling weapons will be introduced in the US,” said Gladkov.

Again, considering that rigid, absolute, centralized power is the essence of all totalitarian regimes, those regimes must, therefore, automatically strike down all checks and balances that would limit their central authority. It is not surprising that spokesmen for these totalitarian governments would endorse policies that give the government a monopoly on deadly force.

The American Founding Fathers, on the other hand, recognized that the armed private citizen is the ultimate check and balance against the centralized monopoly of force which invariably turns tyrannical and deadly. Nagin and People’s World, not surprisingly, side with communist tyrants and deride American commitment to our natural rights enshrined in our Constitution.

“The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans,” says Nagin. Nagin, according to the profile provided on Keywiki by Trevor Loudon, has been a member of the CPUSA for several decades and a writer for the People’s World and other communist publications since 1970. He is a member of the Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America as well as a political coordinator for the AFL-CIO in Ohio. In 2012 he was the Democratic Leader in Cleveland Ward 14 and served on the County Democratic Party Executive Committee.

We recognize the totalitarian ideology and objectives of Nagin and other communist propagandists when they advocate disarming of civilians and a total monopoly of force in government. Many of the other people advocating the same gun control policies may not have those totalitarian objectives in mind — but by their support of these policies they would lead us down the same deadly path nonetheless.

See more important reports at




From Milty:

Welcome to Israel


Do all your shopping in the FU Gucci Store

    303_front.jpg a10_hat.jpg

size.jpg       nasty.jpg

Report the FU Store ASAP and check our our embroidered shirts and hats!  



Don't forget about our Original Store for great fighter pilot shirts and cool squadron golf shirts


FU GUCCI STORE - Customize Your FU Gear

If you have a specific design combination you want, just e-mail us at and we will get it loaded up for you.  Additionally, there will always be discounts if you have a large order.  Before placing your order, call our vendor at 1-888-8ZAZZLE (892-9953) or (408) 983-2800 to see if there are any discounts available.


Posted by jpwarlock1 on
every one has the right to have a pistol,rifle,or shotgun for hunting or home defense,no one not even the police need assault rifles.the only people who should have these should be our troops.if you cannot hit your target with a 10 round clip,you are more dangerous than the crooks and you should not have access to a gun.
Posted by Farmer on
@jpwarlock1: If you base your opinion that "everyone has the right to have a pistol, rifle or shotgun" on the 2nd Amendment, you should do a bit of research on the debates which occurred during the writing of the amendment. No where in the Federalist Papers is hunting mentioned. The founders intent was that every able bodied man should have a well maintained firearm and be proficient in its use so as to keep the King Georges of the world at bay, thus the term "militia". Obviously, the technology of those times was a musket and not an AR-15, but any 2nd Amendment argument which tries to make the case that the founders didn't envision an AR-15 should also include mention that, when the 1st Amendment was written, they didn't envision the internet, facebook, twitter, television, radio, etc. So, should we ban any form of free speech other than a street corner or a soap box? That was the communication technology at the time the amendment was written. Please don't fall prey to the clever dis-information campaign being waged by the Progressives. So called assault weapons account for less than 1% of all gun crime. Banning them is like prescribing Zocor for a cancer patient. It may make the doctor feel good but it does nothing to benefit the patient. So, if a ban is a solution for a problem which doesn't exist, ask yourself what is the real reason behind the proposal.
Posted by Tron on
Three points: 1 - jpwarlock1 clearly has never been in a firefight. It isn't like the firing range. With the stress, fear and adrenaline running amok in your body, no matter how well trained you are, it's very likely your number of rounds on target is going to be low. 2 - There are any number of sources that will tell you one round kills are not the norm. The bad guys are known to keep coming even after several hits. The the need for more than his nominal ten round limit. 3 - As to "assault rifles" - my Ruger Ranch Rifle (.223) is every bit as capable as the AR-15 and happily takes a 30 rnd magazine,but won't get banned because it doesn't look scary. Go figure.
Posted by Maggot on
@jpwarlock1, I would ask you if you own power tools. What kind of car do you drive? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? How big is your house? My point is that we have very few basic needs in this country--food, water, shelter. Anything else we own or desire is a WANT. I don't NEED an SUV, but I own one. I don't NEED a Skil saw, because a hand saw will do the job. I don't NEED to drink beer, but a Bud Light goes down pretty good once in a while, and I don't NEED all of the rooms in my house, but they're nice to have.

If I choose to own an AR-15, that should be up to me as well. I haven't shot anyone with it and don't intend to, but I like to go to the range with it occasionally. Same with the pistols and shotgun I own. I have them because I WANT them, not because I NEED them, and as long as you don't break into my house in the middle of the night, it's none of your business and you'll never know just what I have.

Anti-gunners always say, "I want gun control" as if that's a magic mantra that will somehow prevent violence. They rarely go into the mechanics of how it'll be implemented. Would registration have stopped the Newtown massacre? Nope. Nobody's explained how registration would have done anything but given the government a database from which to launch confiscation measures.

jpwarlock1, be careful what you wish for. If you lose this right to bear arms, what might be next? Talk radio, because it's subversive? Maybe...but the Republicans will, someday, regain their majority, and what happens when they decide the mainstream media is biased the other way? Will we have government-run media outlets? How about your right to vote? You seem too extreme to me, so I don't think you should be allowed to vote. Once some of our rights are taken away, it becomes tougher to hold onto the others...which is EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment was written.

Oh, and to expand on Farmer's statistics, in the FBI's report of murders for 2011 (the last complete year), rifles accounted for 323 deaths. Of those 323, SOME may have been "assault rifles" but not all. Even if we said ALL 323 were a result of an assault rifle shooting, that would put the rate at 2.5%; sounds bad, right? Well, 13.3% of murder victims were killed by knives or cutting instruments; 3.9% were killed by blunt objects (hammers, clubs, etc.); 5.7% were killed by "personal weapons" like hands, fists and feet).

If we truly wanted to "save just one child's life," wouldn't we have better luck banning hammers, fists and steak knives? After all, they account for 23.0% of all murders, 10 times the rate of rifles. jpwarlock1, do you really think banning assault rifles is going to stop murder?
Posted by wiener on
A frightened woman lying in bed with the covers over her head asks her husband coming up the stairs with a gun in his hand," Was it another burglar?". He replies "Yes.... and he said if I didn't go back to bed, he'd call the police and tell them I still had my gun!".

The coroner in the Sandy Hook shootings recently revealed that no assault rifle was used. As usual, the media jumps to conclusions before the facts are revealed based on the supposition that the rifle found (and not used) in the shooter's car was an assault weapon.

A pen in the right person's hands can be an assault weapon.

Nuf said.
Posted by Ltfuzz on
What the heck is an assault rifle anyway? A glock 9mm shoots one per pull, that's just as fast as an "assault rifle". We can't have fully auto pieces here. What a job the media has done on the general public.
Posted by StuM on
Anyone who does not understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment should reread James Madison's Federalist Paper #46. Address your remarks to his reasons, not what one thinks one "needs". (I don't "need" 450 hp in my sports car, but I have a "right to own it!)
You must be logged in to leave a reply. Login »

Fighter Pilot University   |   1267 NW 355th, Holden, Missouri 64040   |   1-888-456-WTFO (9836)   |
© 2022 Fighter Pilot University. Web development by Shout Marketing