“Stop selling guns, call for all weapons in circulation to be handed in to police stations and make holding firearms illegal, unless they are intended for sport. This common-sense approach would drastically reduce gun crime, individual homicides and mass killings. It is, President Obama, the right thing to do and the ‘common-sense’ approach.” – Graham Peebles, USA: domestic guns and mass murderredressonline.com

Recommended For You

48 Responses to Quote of the Day: “Common Sense” Gun Laws Revealed Edition

  1. At least he’s being honest about part of his beliefs. The part where criminals give up their guns is still fuzzy.

  2. Demand the criminals turn in their guns first. You should lead the police, first man in, in door to door searches in high crime areas. Really, these idiots suggest this stupidity but never do the leg work. How about you sign up to be a police officer, ignore the 2nd and 4th amendment and seize all the bad, bad naughty guns you find. Yes, you do it yourself. Screw it, don’t even get on the police force, just go do it.
    You have the conviction to pass laws, do you have the conviction to follow through on enforcement? Jesus, these folks are not only stupid but they are cowards.

    • Greg, your suggestion is predicated on these type of people living in a literal, real world with the rest of us. They don’t. They live in a fantasy, coccon world, where reality is inside of the deep thoughts of their brain. These are the guys and girls in the coffee shops totally immersed in the world inside of their laptops and headphones. They only think and talk. Actual action in the real America is beyond the borders of their fantasy world.

  3. Gun control positions, in my opinion, tend to be paradoxical and self-defeating, because the premise for one aspect of their argument is directly contradictory to the premise for another aspect of their argument. Premise 1: people are bad; Conclusion 1: so we should take guns from them so they can’t do bad things. Premise 2: people may be bad, but they are not so bad that they won’t illegally retain their firearms to do bad things; Conclusion 2: Everyone will turn in their guns (including the bad people) and we will all live safe, happy lives.

    How can they on the one hand believe that people are so bad that they can’t handle the responsibility of a firearm, but then turn around and say that those same people would be responsible enough to turn in their guns and not use them in a crime or use some other weapon to commit a crime (like a knife, sword, or a bomb…imagine what a bomb would have done to the aurora theater)? I’ll tell you why. Because they do not believe in personal accountability. They blame others and inanimate objects for their actions. So, in their minds, if they just remove the things that make people do bad things (i.e. guns), then without the bad influence, those same people will automatically revert to being good. It is a fundamental misunderstanding (I and believe largely an intentional rationalization) of human nature. Morality no longer has a constant anymore. Blame everyone else but yourself. But even this position is self-defeating and untenable. You can’t have undefined morality and then label something (gun ownership) as morally wrong when there is no moral reference point. The reality is, some people are just bad to their core and the police cannot be everywhere at once to protect you, nor do they wish to be. You have the greatest control over your own safety. Don’t trade that for an illusion of safety promulgated by the government and narrow minded fools.

    • I think their logic is more along these lines.

      People are bad.
      Bad people shouldn’t have weapons because they will do bad things.
      Government people are good, they can be trusted with the weapons.

      They have a hard time grasping that usually, government is less trustworthy than the average person. I think history shows that a bad person in charge of government can do far more damage than a lot of bad people on even footing with everyone else. That is why private ownership of weapons is a net plus.

    • People aren’t bad. People are inherently good. Guns are bad. Guns are evil and cast a spell over the holder and make them do bad things. At least, that’s the way some people think. And some people think this despite the entire history of the world showing otherwise.

    • Except for the people in Govt. They are not bad, they are good. They know what is better for you than you do. They can have guns to protect you from yourself.

  4. You know, the one thing that I never hear from these gun grabbers is how they intend to compensate the people who’s guns have been involved in a crime for the confiscation of their firearms and the lose of an object with distinct monetary value? For most guns, a 100 dollar visa gift card won’t cut it.

  5. Sounds like a great way to round up all criminals and disarm them. What a wonderful idea. Why didn’t we think of this before instead of playing around with all those silly laws? Maybe we can give them Ipads and big screen TVs for their guns.

  6. Once again, we have some idiot from the UK (look him up, follow the links) who is trying to make policy here in the USA. Seriously, your country and the Eurozone has plenty of issues, go find something in your own backyard to screw up.

    Thinking and making believe that this tack has actually worked in the UK they want to impose this on us. I am sure the criminals will all comply!

    You want ruin your country that is fine with, keep the eff away from mine – what is it with the UK needing to meddle with our politics.

    • The UK had four time the violent crime rate per capita the US does, maybe they should fix their own issues before they give any advice.

    • +1000.
      I’m so sick of foreigners half a world away trying to change the way we do things here just because “it’s unfair”. Look in the mirror next time you want to complain. I don’t go around trying to Americanize everyone from other countries, so stop trying to turn mine into the colossal economic and socialist failure that is Europe.

  7. I find it difficult to attempt any conversation with a person who’s entire premise starts with a blatant fantasy divorced from reality.

  8. Uh, I see many things to talk about when i was reading this but i have a question… what do they mean by this

    “This last finding was calculated from studies in over 50 states of the United States.”

    Just wondering

  9. You’re scraping the bottom of the barrel when you use sites like that, they have like 10 articles total. I’m quite sure MikeB has far more than they do.

  10. This guy is an idiot, all that will be done is honest citizens disarmed. And criminals dont really care for the laws.

    • I count myself as an honest citizen, and I would still be one, even if that law passed. It would be an unconstitutional and tyrannical law that I wouldn’t obey, but that wouldn’t take away my status as an honest citizen.

    • True dat. I can’t wait to try my AR-10 out on the sport of hog hunting. I already took my Benelli M1 deer hunting. And the rest of them are great for the sport of target shooting, still an Olympic sport.

      OTOH who is he to tell me what I can use my tools for?

  11. What kind of alternate reality does this guy live in? Maybe he can show me how to get to one where I married Bar Refaeli, have started a lucrative firearms company, and we have a president who isnt a complete idiot.

  12. If a reduction in the number of murders and mass-killings is the goal, increasing the pool of available victims by denying people the right to own and carry the most efficient self-defense tool yet devised seems like a funny way to go about it.

  13. I call “Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit” ( think Mel Brooks, In a toga, in History of The World Pt 1) on Mr. Peebles.
    He’s just mad because the UK can’t control their own crime and that they still can’t get the US back under their Blue Blood Monarchist Thumb!!
    That and the fact that Mr. Peebles still hasn’t sold Magilla Gorilla!!! 🙂

  14. …a complete ban on the sale of firearms coupled with the handing in of all weapons in private ownership, save those used solely for sport

    It’s a good thing we have a case history to study. From 1903, until World War II, the British Parliament passed law after law restricting their subjects’ gun rights. Overrun by the Germans, the streets slick with blood, how did the UK re-equip with guns?

    They gladly accepted shipments of thousands of rifles and machine guns from the United States. It only took a few weeks to re-arm The UK Home Guard, after years of being disarmed.

    If you think confiscating all guns (and magically grabbing all the criminal’s guns, too) will lead to peace and harmony, well, it’s only temporary, because someone – or country – is going to come after the rest of your valuable stuff.

    If you hold the opinion that a mass invasion like what we witnessed seventy years won’t occur again, then you’re simply setting your children and grandchildren up for failure and occupation.

    Buy a gun. Do it for the kids.

    And remember, there’s about 300 million reasons the United States has never fought a foreign occupation on home soil.

  15. As a PA transplant to NJ, I can tell you first hand that there is no dialogue about common sense gun control laws in Trento. The legislative din is simply summarized as more, more, more restrictions. It’s never restrictive enough for the urban legislative reps and every additional law is a step in the right direction.

    I also want to offer a clarification. The poll found 22% of respondents had someone in their family who owned a firearm. Thats different than being a gun owning household. The state citation below is based on 2003-5 data and it indicates the household ownership rate is <12%. The thicket of forms, steps, laws and restrictions on ranges have effectively reduced firearms ownership by 75-80% here in the Garden State.

    The gun ownership rate as measured by Firearms ID card issuance are in the 2-4% range, so we are a very small minority. The prevailing social hostility against firearms makes the STFU principle doubly important. In truth, I only make it to the range 6-8 times per year. I do, however, make it a point to take new-to-shooting guests with me mos of the times. I'm discrete about owning guns, but my friends and their wives have asked to go one by one.

    My oldest son turns nine next MON. I've taken the day off, so we're picking up his new Savage Rascal after lunch and heading to the club for his first shoot.

    http://www.state.nj.us/health/chs/monthlyfactsheets/firearm_suicide_brief.pdf

  16. The endgame for Mayors Against Illegal Guns types is at a bare minimum this:

    1. No private ownership of semi-automatic pistols or rifles over .22 LR.
    2. No private ownership of revolvers without serious hurdles making it too expensive and difficult for an average person to obtain.
    3. Restrictive storage laws requiring guns to be locked up or otherwise broken down making them useless for home defence.
    4. No transport of firearms except to the range and back to home
    5. Anything else that can make gun ownership expensive, inconvenient and otherwise not worthwhile.

  17. Britain is great no longer. Apparently, some of the Queen’s subjects like this fellow just can’t get over the fact that we left by force of arms and won’t do things her way any more. The line to the pity party starts over there and doesn’t cross our border.

  18. After punishing myself to read through the entire article, I was rewarded with this gem of irony;

    “Trust is not built through actions based on paranoia and a fear of the “other”, who may or may not be a “fugitive”, a “terrorist”, a “dangerous criminal” and or a threat to “national security”. Actions rooted in fear do not alleviate unease but reinforce anxiety.”

    The cognitive dissonance necessary to write such a lengthy column, base almost entirely on “fear” and “paranoia” of the “other” while admonishing gun owners about the “fear and “paranoia” he assumes them to have, is mind boggling! That this article is as guilty of “reinforcing anxiety” as anything i have ever seen, and yet seems completely and conveniently unaware of its hypocrisy is sublime in its perfection.

  19. Okay, Mr. Peebles, you got me. I had thought my guns were intended for sport, but after reading your article I realized that I have gun crime in my heart; I even thought briefly of homicide (yours). So I recognize now that I am part of the very problem you described. My guns have driven me to think horrible thoughts, and the sooner they are taken away, the better.

    So please, come take my guns. Just as soon as you become a U.S. citizen. Oh, and just as soon as you repeal the 2nd Amendment. Good luck. I’ll be waiting for you.

    (end sarcasm)

    My favorite section of Peebles’ article is the “Uncertain Amendment,” in which he offers a murky interpretation of the Second Amendment (made to order for gun-grabbing), and studiously avoids the ACTUAL text of the Second Amendment.

    I give Mr. Peebles full credit for being a skillful writer. He knew exactly what he was doing when he didn’t quote the 2nd Amendment. Those 27 words would have put all 2,428 of his words to shame.

  20. He’s just mad because we kick their butts twice. Also saved them from speaking German twice (WWI, WWII). If the Brits want to have guns than they need to change their own laws and leave us alone.

    • I assume you are referring to the part of the Napoleonic Wars known as the “War of 1812” as your second example of US kicking their butts. This is an error. They pretty much destroyed us. The only significant battle won by the US was at New Orleans after the peace treaty had been signed.

  21. The massacre at Virginia Tech was no less than the end result of an astounding number of abject failures on the part of the many people in various positions of ‘authority’ to effectively deal with a mentally deranged South Korean National.
    That stated, given the graphic depicted as part of the Graham Peebles article, I’m inclined to expect the fine folks in the NRA to peruse the Information provided and upon careful Analysis—seek appropriate and obviously necessary Redress by pursuing with fervor legal action against all parties involved.

    Injustice, disinformation and bigotry…exposed.

  22. Maybe it’s the paranoid Jew in me, but I have a feeling the next sentence would have been: “Those people who won’t give up their guns will be taken to public re-education centers and dealt with accordingly.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *