Billy Johnson: Just Say No to Firearm Ignorance

Billy may be swimming upstream here, but his point is no less valid. While he doesn’t specify, why not start the education process with the nation’s local, state and federal legislators? Now there’s a job even Sisyphus would think twice about.

30 Responses to Billy Johnson: Just Say No to Firearm Ignorance

  1. avatarKeithF says:

    I like this guy even more, go Michigan

  2. avatarCK in CA says:

    But, but, but, but guns are only good for killing people!

    Nevermind the fact that that’s only an extremely small percentage of actual gun use.

  3. avatarDaniel Silverman says:

    Billy for PREZ!! Oh wait did I jump the shark there?

  4. avatarMarcus says:

    His calm, clear-headed manner is refreshing. I like this unkempt youngster.

  5. avatarGRUMPY says:

    I have had almost this exact same conversation with a few antis that I know…..might as well have been speaking ancient egyptian. Logic only works on an open mind.

  6. avatarJFK says:

    But his argument makes sense, so it can’t be right… no uncommon sense allowed? (/sarcasm…)

  7. avatarLupe says:

    I’m down with what’s being said here except for the repeated emphasis of ‘communities call for gun restrictions’. What actually happens is a few loud voices quickly jump in the fray claiming to speak for the community. Replace ‘communities call for restrictions’ with ‘A few individuals representing radical interest groups call for …..’ and we’re ready for prime time.

  8. avatarBillC says:

    B. Johnson with another Truth Bomb. Kaboom.

  9. avatarthe ruester says:

    “You want to teach CHILDREN about GUNS!?”
    rabble rabble
    “You want it to be the wild west in every kindergarten classroom!?!”
    rabble rabble
    “You people are unhinged, We don’t want to live in a country where blind people and school children draw on each other at the slightest provocation!!”
    {exchange looks of smug self satisfaction}
    rabble rabble

  10. avatartfunk says:

    One of the differences is the anti’s don’t want to eliminate pools. And if they did they know they can’t instill fear of them.

    I think we can use videos like this to show that gun restrictions are NOT about children’s safety. If they were, there are much better things to focus on.

  11. avatarDelmarva Chip says:

    Very well-said, Mr. Johnson.

    This should be a public service announcement played repeatedly on televisions across the country.

  12. avatarMina says:

    First one to trot out how many babies are killed each year by abortion gets the raspberry.

    • avatarDuke says:

      Not babies. Not cute cuddly, BORN babies, usually just a collection of cells smaller than a baseball, is what is aborted in the VAST majority of cases. But nice try.

      • avatarNS says:

        all humans are just a “collection of cells”, so that’s not a convincing argument. And Billy is great – I’d like to see more from him.

      • avatarMarcus Aurelius says:

        Be it cut and cuddly or a collection of cells, it is still a human being.

        • avatarData Venia says:

          yep. Genetically distinct from both its parents, and indisputably human life.

        • avatarDrew says:

          Question, where do you personally draw the line? Do you support the arrest of the woman who confided in her doctor that she once considered abortion? She was denied council and held against her will. How about the woman who was forced to give birth to her child after the doctors told her it would likely kill her? Both she and the baby died btw. This is an honest question, like every other law anti abortion laws have unpredicted effects and personal rights and liberties can become trampled quite easily.

        • avatarDuke says:

          No it’s not a human being. It is potentially a human being, but until it can survive outside of a host, it is a parasite.

          Organ donation is not mandatory in this country, but even if it were that would at least happen after you were dead.

          Imagine if you were forced by law to grow an organ inside of your body in a procedure that had massive health risks, in order to give it to someone else to survive. And I’m talking about an actual born person. We would riot rather than entertain that kind of law, regardless of the amount of “human lives” we would save.

          So this collection of cells has more rights than an actual person??? And a pregnant woman has fewer rights than a corpse??!

  13. avatarJW says:

    Awesome. His use of logic is so refreshing.

  14. avatarLJM says:

    I’d love to see Billy to smack down David Gregory, or whatever MSNBC host they would chose to lose against his clarity on MTP. PLEASE NRA, next time you get a MTP invite, send Billy.

  15. avatarMarine 03 says:

    In Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, a civilian can own any calibre size handgun they desire, with any size magazine capacity they desire, and openly carry it in public. A little known fact. I just felt like agitating here and thought I’d mention that to illustrate Americans aren’t as free as some in the UK under current US laws.

    • avatarcubby123 says:

      Plrase let this be sanctioned by the NRA as this is Exactly what gun owners of Ameica are saying. This needs to be stuffed down MDA MAIG BRADY GunControl ADVOCATES throats. Oh wait , they will just run to theit bedrooms, lock the door, turn up the music and yell” I hate you I hate you I hate you!”

    • avatarData Venia says:

      I’d love to look at that more in depth. Can you recommend any sources?

    • avatarjwm says:

      A quick google search doesn’t find that to be true.

      • avatarDrew says:

        I remember Jeremy Clarkson commenting in a bewildered voice that people on the Isle of Man could own hand guns.

  16. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Drowning didn’t kill tm. When you understand that Billy you understand why they want your gun, Randy

    • avatarDrew says:

      So? His point (I’m sure) is that drowning along with countless other causes are real credible dangers to children, guns are not. Oh, and Martin was not a child.

  17. avatarcubby123 says:

    This — IS the “common sense” gun law .It IS exactly what the “fear mongers” need slapped upside their heads.These egotistical ignoramuses need to get a clue.Regulators need the education FIRST from Congress and the Senate to ALL state and municiple legislators and they should pass an exam that they were paying attention before they be allowed to vote on any gun legislation .It is our RIGHTS they are trying to INFRINGE.So if you don’t know, you don’t vote.I don’t want idiots teaching my kids I want professional educators.I don’t want idiots regulating my gun rights I want my responsible educated peers.

  18. avatarPhilip says:

    Only minor points of contention. First I understand the accidental deaths apples to apples comparison but most anti-gunners are pitching a fit about the intentional deaths (i.e. Sandy Hook). So what’s the apples to oranges comparison stat? How many accidental drowning deaths vs children killed by gunfire? That stat would hold a little more water with the Anti crowd. Second is his definition of children. The nationally recognized age of adulthood is 18 (I know I know the libs are redefining “child” to include 24 year olds) so why not use that stat instead of 15 years of age? It makes me think “hmm I wonder if his arguement falls apart if he includes those other two years?” Other than that great arguement and great video.

    • avatarDrew says:

      Because when laying out statistics in relation to specific risks age matters. So you have to be specific. Dividing people in to groups like children teens young adults adults and elderly makes sense because each group is distinct and faces distinct risks in life. The number of “children ” killed by guns is around 60 a year. Teens are at a higher risk of gun death (actually nearly any non disease related death) because that is when the begin to participate in high risk or criminal activity. From driving drinking drugs fighting gang activity people starting at age 16 are at an exponentially greater risk of death than younger or older people. To lump the death of teens and young adults in with actual children is misleading at best. Young children are entirely dependent on adults, teens and adults are capable of self control and in the great majority of cases their deaths are the result of their own poor judgement. So while you might respond to a danger towards a small child with restrictions and expect reasonably good results applying restrictions to semi independent youths can’t possibly have decent results. You either get grown children inept at conducting their own affairs or you get violent rebellion with all the expected fall out.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.