Milt Shook (courtesy Twitter)

“It’s no secret that some people are not naturally responsible, and must have it enforced upon them, under penalty of law. We do that with everything else; why do guns get a pass? If the cost of lead was half the price of stainless steel, do you think manufacturers would hesitate to continue to use it in pencils and spoons, if they could do so legally? Laws, regulation and enforcement are what keep us safe.” – Milt Shook, What has to happen before we get serious about gun control? [via pleasecutthecrap.com]

Recommended For You

162 Responses to Quote of the Day: Safety vs. Liberty Edition

    • defeatism is unacceptable on one hand, but completely acceptable on the other? Can’t give up on the midterms, but reflexively gives up on people because they may not be ” naturally responsible”. Hey buddy, how about hold those who you think are not naturally responsible to a high standard so maybe they rise to meet it and hence change their lives for the better. I know, that’s judgmental, how horrid. And it’s hard work that means we can’t always feel good about ourselves, but it’s a hell of a lot better to elevate our civilization than descend into a modern dark age because we’ve become emotional infants collectively.

    • I think they have the idea that if you tell a lie enough times it becomes truth. Time and time again it has been proven that those who support gun control are losing and yet they still try to give the illusion that’s not true. Facts are like fire to these people.

  1. ” If the cost of lead was half the price of stainless steel, do you think manufacturers would hesitate to continue to use it in pencils and spoons, if they could do so legally? ”

    Not having had my coffee yet, and not fluent in derp, [metalic] lead continued to be used in pencils?

    • Lead hasn’t been used in pencils for a very long time. BUT…. The paint on pencils had lead in it till lead paints were banned. This was bad, because people chew on pencils.

      • Yep; Chicago, the land of “commonsense” gun control. But, wait! isn’t Chicago the land of murder in the streets by illegal gun?

        I’m confused. Chicago should be the safest city in the country. It has been illegal since the seventies to even own a gun in the home, let alone carry a gun in public.

        Do you mean that anti-gun/liberal/progressives really don’t understand cause and effect? That they have no clue In anything that has to do with humans, human beings and what actually improves the human condition?

        The answer, from manifest fact and example of the last fifty years is that not only do they not have a clue; but that everything they do has the exact opposite effect and makes the problem worse.

  2. ” Of course, a few weeks ago, an unarmed teen was shot dead by police in Ferguson, Missouri, apparently because he was jaywalking.”

    If he gets to call fighting a cop and trying to grab his gun “jaywalking,” then you can just imagine what he will call the actions of the storm troopers he will summon to “enforce responsibility upon” us.

  3. More ranting from the vast hinterland of the internet….

    I bet more people read this post than all the people that will read his blog in six months. What is the point of these stories?

    I would rather read the technical info on a box of ammo than this rubbish and if I wanted to see random garbage, I would stick my head in the dumpster.

    • Spot on. I think Dan and Robert would do well to turn off the Google Alert for “gun” and stop giving these idiots the limelight. As I said on another, similarly obscure QOTD article, maybe it doesn’t need to be an every day feature. There are many thousands of these kinds of attention-hungry morons out there, and they just flit from divisive topic to divisive topic, trying to find one that lights a spark and “goes viral” so they can gratify their ego and prove that they’re the special little snowflakes that their mothers told them they were.

      Don’t feed the trolls, people.

      • I read the entire article and I think I have cancer now.

        On the other hand, I stuck my head in the trash can and I found an old copy of Gun Tests. So you lose some, you win some.

      • I’ve said this before.

        It is important to ‘quote’ these people and have OUR commentary show up in search engines. Some people actually do research this stuff when they read it.

        Google search for “Shannon Watts” has the top 5 out of 10 hits being pro-gun, anti-Watts. #10 is a TTAG article.

        Or, try searching Milt Shook. Quite a few first page hits for our side.

        It is important for the counter-point to be out there. Failure to post this stuff allows them to own search engine results.

        • Yes, when it’s people who might otherwise show up in search results, we should provide a counter argument. Some jackoff’s personal blog that gets a dozen hits a month? He’s getting more views from being quoted on TTAG once than in five years of the normal traffic to his sad little vanity blog. He’s not going to show up in a search unless he gets legitimized by popular sites linking to him…like this one.

          So, counter Bloomberg and Watts and the latest bullshit on Huffington Post or wherever, sure. Guys like this? Let them rot in obscurity.

        • “So, counter Bloomberg and Watts and the latest bullshit on Huffington Post or wherever, sure. Guys like this? Let them rot in obscurity.”

          Interesting that you mention HuPo…he’s linked there. Perhaps he’s not as “obscure” as one would wish.

          http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/http%3A%2F%2Fpleasecutthecrap.com

          We should celebrate two things with the posting of stuff like this:

          (1) Let them speak and be heard. The more people exposed to their idiocy, the better for all of us. We don’t need to hide him; we need to have him shouting on the mountain tops.

          (2) The more chances to publicly refute what he/they say, the better. We are gaining momentum in the culture war (which includes the various ways the ‘Net is used in that), and those gains have not been had by hiding and ignoring. They come from engaging.

        • All good points.

          I wasn’t more than a kid in the bad old Clinton days, but I remember going to long since shut down gun shows and I even remember him signing the ‘crime bill’ on TV. My point is, we didn’t have any way to have whole country community wide conversation back then. Without the internet we’d be in a world of hurt. The shit flows downhill and right back uphill these days.

          Hallelujah

    • See, the beauty Brentondadadams is that each and every article on this site has a little heads up as to what each article is about.

      When you see that that articlel isn’t of interest to you, DON’T CLICK ON IT.

      Problem solved. I, on the other hand like reading these type of articles.

      See, everybody wins.

      • Its my clear moral duty to read every article and then comment on it.

        Its a hard job, but someone has to do it.

        I think TTAG is the source for smart gun (not smart guns) and political related stories. The comments are just as good. I’ll take all the push back from any comments I make. These are my people.

  4. Guns get a pass…?

    Carry your gun in the wrong location- felony.

    Take a gun into the wrong state- felony.

    Carry your gun with out the right plastic card in your wallet- felony.

    Swap out the barrel on your rifle for a shorter one with out extensive paperwork-felony.

    Gun has the wrong features- felony.

    Put too many rounds in the mag-felony. (Depending upon the state)

    NFA, ’68 GCA, 922r, AWB, mandatory sentencing laws, safe storage laws, background checks, licensing, gun registration.

    Man, sure doesn’t feel like guns get a pass.

    • My thoughts as well.

      I see we have the new buzz phrase in their never ending failing series of catch phrases: “get serious about gun control.”

      Read / heard that one a lot lately. My response is, “Huh? Gun Controllers have not been serious about all the infringements they’ve passed / tried to pass?”

  5. The “lead” in pencils, Milt, is GRAPHITE and CLAY! Genius!
    Next, the purpose of criminal and civil law is to keep those who don’t have sense to stay in the boundaries of a civil society in check, e.g. if some commits a crime with a gun, THEN, we punish him for it, not until. Ninety-nine percent of us manage that just fine, thank you.
    Milt, please don’t embarrass yourself in print any more until you take (and pass) a class in “Logic for Third Graders”.

    • “Logic for Third Graders?” I think that might be too advanced for him. Let’s start him out with ” Logic for Dummies.”

      • Using “Liber-Logic”, If you have a mouth, vocal cords, and even one lung, you will not be allowed in a theater because you have the means to yell “Fire”.
        .
        .

  6. Wow. So the only reason that Mr. Shook doesn’t burn down his neighbor’s house is because it is against the law?

    Again, to forward his agenda, he doesn’t differentiate between defensive and offensive firearm uses in spinning the data. The homeowner protecting his family from armed intruders is counted the same way as the mass murderer.

    • I guess he’s never heard of Professor de la Paz. Rational Anarchy is a pretty good model for discussing human liberty.

      • There is no such thing as rational anarchy. It is as much a fantasy as Mr. Shook’s vision of a safe society. Anarchy is what goes on in the ghetto.

        • Have you ever read Heinlein at all?

          Rational Anarchy is very specifically defined as a philosophy held by characters in his books. It is probably poorly named, but as a moral concept, it is quite profound.

          The short version is that man is ultimately responsible to no one but himself. In that it means that we are all responsible for the choices we make: to obey the law, or break the law.

          The law cannot dictate behavior, because each individual man ultimately makes a choice to obey it or not. As such, the law is secondary to personal human morals, as has been recognized by social theorists for over a century. Well, some anyway. Marxism (as an underpinning philosophy) sought to overturn that concept.

          Basically, Rational Anarchy is a concise statement of moral libertarianism. Forget for a moment that it has the word “anarchy” in it. It has nothing to do with that.

        • Just as tiindva, there is no such thing as “benevolent government. ”

          As George Washington has been attributed to say, “Government is not eloquence, it is not reason; it is force; like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

          Since organized government has been the agent of over two hundred million deaths in the last hundred years; how bad could anarchy ( no government) be?

        • @Allen: It is obvious you know nothing about the social organization the ghetto. They are essentially ungoverned areas. The government exercises little or no authority over the residents outside of EBT cards. The ghetto social and legal systems are administered by the gangs. What people see as random violence is often nothing more the private enforcement of the social code.

          @JC: Heinlein wrote fiction. Things work because he says they work. The writer of fiction is like the Calvinist God. He predestines everything. Out here in the real world Anarchy looks like the South and West sides of Chicago or Somalia. Please don’t give me it’s never been tried. That what Socialists say when confronted with the continuous failure of their ideology. Rolhbard expropriated the term Libertarian in the way that Pat Buchanan expropriated the term “Neocon.” Neither definition has anything to do with the real deal. What does rational anarchy mean anyway? Since under anarchy everyone is a free agent and with it an infinity of “rational” systems. There is no such thing as rational anarchy because there is an infinity of preference functions.

          Governments may have killed a lot of people but a quick perusal of Africa today where anarchy pretty much reigns outside of the capital. Life over their meets the definition of the state of nature as described by Hobbes.

        • Sorry. You seem to be the one detached from reality. There is NO LAW that can force me to be moral. I am a man, and nothing can compel me to be moral other than myself. I have been in far too many hard, cold places where the only morality enforced on me was that which I enforced on myself. And THAT is the very crux of the matter.

        • tdiinva, you entertaining; I’ll give you that.

          “Heinlein wrote fiction. “

          Yeah, no fiction writer in the history of man has ever used fictional nuances to communicate real observations about the world around him/her. Right. Got it.

        • @Hotel:

          Madison didn’t expect government to make moral. He expected civil society to enforce the moral code with social sanction and until the 1960s civil society did just that. Civil society puts far more constraints on behavior than the government does. Just ask the Amish. You seem to be quite illiterate

          @JR:

          Writers of fiction write about what they know and what they think about society and history but they write a script and they determine the outcome. If they want rational anarchy, whatever that means, to work by God it’s going to work. When someone asked Martin Sheen to run the California Senate based on his experience as President in the Show West Wing he put laughed at them saying that he just acted out what the script required and in no way had the skills and knowledge to run for public office. I suspect your knowledge of literature is limited to Heinlein Get back to me when you can discuss Dostoevsky particular the character Nikolai Stavrogin from “The Devils” also translated as “The Possessed.”

        • Hmmm. Illiterate? I don’t believe that word means what you think it means. Again, no law can compel anyone to be moral, which is what this Milt person is claiming laws do. Take it up with him, not me. And yes, I have read the Federalist Papers, in their original form and in “modern” English. Also the collected writings of many of the founding fathers. They would all be angry that their words are twisted and distorted by those pushing a leftist/socialist agenda. Such as Milt Shook.

        • Oh. And what, exactly, is it you think you know about the Amish? I live in an area with a substantial Amish community, have worked with Amish men, buy from Amish families, and hunt with Amish men. It is my understanding that they accept that morality exists outside, above, the laws of man. Not that morality is created by the laws of man. Have they told you something different?

        • Anarchy will always be what the people who live it make it to be. If you have a collection of civilized people and you remove government, they will generally continue to be civilized. The biggest problem isn’t so much that everyone will devolve into animals without government but that others on the outside will always attempt to impose governance upon the ungoverned.

          Our government may not respect our constitution much, but if it weren’t there or we had no government at all, outside influences would have made things a lot worse a lot faster.

        • “I suspect your knowledge of literature is limited to Heinlein Get back to me when you can discuss Dostoevsky particular the character Nikolai Stavrogin from “The Devils” also translated as “The Possessed.””

          Condescending much? Your suspicion is wrong. But you being wrong does not surprise me.

          Given the closed minded level of discourse you have shown, in this thread and others, on topics such as literature, non-fiction works and history, I have no interest in “getting back to you” on what I’ve read or have not read.

          “Fiction writers” have provided some of the greatest social commentary throughout history that man has known. Or, do you think Homer was actually a historian? Or, how about the authors of the Poetic and Prose Eddas? Maybe Shakespeare had nothing to say about man at all?

          We can all play the pompous “I’m well read” game. Reading a piece of work does not equate with understanding the larger, transcendental messages it provides.

          What an utter waste of time, space and bandwidth this “discussion” (and I use the term loosely) has been. All this from a simple observation I was trying to make: that man is responsible for his own actions. Personal accountability means something. Heinlein labeled that philosophical idea “Rational Anarchy” and I happen to like the way he described it.

          Do you disagree with the concept? Or, do you believe laws control man, and we have no “free will” at all? Forget the label; forget the fact that the notion happened to appear in one work of fiction (of many) from fairly recent social history.

          Just answer that one simple question. Does personal responsibility transcend social constructs such as laws, or not?

          It’s clear where Milt Shook’s beliefs lie, and I disagree with him. That’s all I was trying to say.

        • @2hotel9: Re: Amish… +1. I have experience with both Amish and Mennonite as well as family members from my great grandfather on back in those communities.

          One thing that I would like to comment on, to the conversation in general, regarding tdiinva’s comparison is that when someone breaks the Ordnung, they don’t lose their property and aren’t imprisoned. They lose fellowship but it’s up to them if they leave the area or not. Regardless, it can be a powerful deterrent.

        • I know 2 families that were shunned. They refused to leave their farms, refused to bend knee as it were. They are still there, some in community are still shunning, others not. Work with another man, business owner and well liked in his community. He did 12 years USMC, 2 tours in Iraq, because he felt God had called upon him to do so. Some Amish are not quite so rigid as people like to think, and others are.

    • Obviously, using “Liber-Logic”, we should outlaw matches and gasoline so as to control Mr.Shook’s vile urges to burn down his neighbors’ house.
      .

  7. He’s both right and wrong. Here’s how I see it:
    1) The average citizen is not very responsible. And yes, laws are there to punish those who are irresponsible. But the deeper problem should be “how do we make them responsible?” Often I think it’s many factors within our culture and society that allow people to be irresponsible in the first place, and I’d like to see that changed.
    2) Laws are there to punish the irresponsible. But it is not laws alone that make us safer, as he suggests. Laws simply punish bad behavior and hopefully deter bad behavior, but moral and responsible citizens almost don’t need the law because they obey the spirit of the law. And it’s worth noting that John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” You can throw out the religious part if you like (I don’t), but it’s very much worth noting that with great freedom comes great responsibility, which is where the moral part comes in. A moral person wants to obey the law, and the spirit of the law behind it (“do no harm to others” etc). But for a moral person, there could be no law and they’d still do what is right, without a law to enforce it.
    3) I have no problem with laws. But as it now stands, we have enough laws for guns. We have laws about reckless endangerment, improper storage of firearms, murder, self-defense, etc, tons of laws that pertain to even the lawful use of guns, such as concealed carry laws and licensing. The problem isn’t guns, or laws: it’s people.

    Now as a side note, I’d like NFA repealed. However, SMGs and all items previously NFA should require a license and background check that is more extensive than simply a CWL.

    As such, I don’t mind the laws on the books. I don’t think we need more laws. I think we need to strictly, and without partiality, enforce the ones we have. There should be no “get out of court free” passes for police officers, government officials, or really anyone.

    Also, all murder charges should be expanded so that the maximum sentence for them is now lethal injection. Too often, people get out of the death penalty because they couldn’t prove there was premeditation, so their charges in a case where they intentionally kill someone are less than the death penalty. As with my uncle’s killer, a man can confess to killing for no reason other than jealousy, they can have all the evidence to include murder weapon, prints, blood, etc, but he only serves 5 years and gets out. Anyone who intentionally kills anyone else without justification should receive the death penalty, period.

    • 1.“The average citizen is not very responsible. “

      Really? You have data to back that up?

      If by “responsibility,” we are talking violent crime, there exists data regarding what percentage of the population commit violent. It’s very, very small.

      Or, if by responsibility we are talking about gun owners, well, the percentage of them that commit crimes and such is likewise very, very small.

      How about drivers? Yes, driving can be dangerous. What percentage of drivers cause collisions?

      Statements about “average citizens” are generally ‘weasel words.’ That is, too vague to have real meaning and no data to support it anyway.

      Further, I have for a long time asserted that this “position” is a good way to distinguish Progressive / Statist from Libertarian minded people. One group assumes most people are ‘bad’ and that the State (in some form) must control them (for example, to protect them from their own stupidity), and the other starts with the premise that most people are good and should be left alone.

      I see which side Shook is on. And I know which side I’m on. They are not the same.

      (2) Laws are not there to punish the irresponsible. Laws are there to punish CRIMINALS. Being irresponsible, in general, is not a crime. Nor is being stupid, though some criminals are stupid.

      (3) Whether you have a problem with laws or not is irrelevant. Your agreement or disagreement with them is immaterial with whether any given law is moral and properly serves society or not.

      Shook’s premises are wrong, and his conclusions are idiotic.

      • “One group assumes most people are ‘bad’ … he other starts with the premise that most people are good”

        You have brilliantly, but unknowingly, highlighted the difference between real Libertarians and faux Libertarians. It is Locke/Hobbes versus Rousseau. Real libertarians start with premise that people are intrinsically selfish and and self centered. Faux Libertarians believe that selfishness and self centeredness are positive attributes.

        Let us review what Adams said to determine which side of the fence Madison fell on.

        “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” There is no intrinsic belief that to be moral and religious is automatic. In fact reading Madison you know that he did not believe that this is natural state of affairs. Real Libertarians, like Hayek and von Mises believed as Adams and Madison did. Faux Libertarians stand with the father of Totalitarianism Jean Jacque Rousseau.

        • So, let me get this straight. Madison and Adams did not believe people are, on the whole, fundamentally good, yet they help implement a government in which the power was designed to be held by the people?

          ““Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation.No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

          –James Madison, 20 June, 1788

          Doesn’t look to me from what I’ve read of the man that he presupposes all people are evil. I think he recognized that all have the potential for evil, and that is a real danger.

        • Thanks, tdi. I’m learning a lot- not that I automatically agree with everything you say about Faux Libertarians, but the cites from the Founders, and the comments from others, about what “true libertarians” believe in, is helpful. My observation of the LIbertarian Party is that it has been a joke, almost- not because of beliefs, per se- just that its had little to no influence in national politics in past, and part of that is probably due to lack of clear explanation of what Libertarian means. That plus the kooks and tin-foil hat stuff some members claim, under that banner.

          So, no offense, Mama Liberty – I dont automatically dismiss what someone says, by way of their position-
          that is a valid part of the equation- who is the person speaking, and what is their experience to speak to it- but the philosophy and history, and persuasive argument should stand on its own, and is the biggest part ot the equation.

          Otherwise its a simple logical fallacy- the appeal to authority, either pro- or con, IMHO.

        • @JR: Have you ever read the Federalist Papers, I mean really read them with understanding? Madison didn’t think to highly of the nature of man which is why he, and the other Founding Fathers, structured the government with checks and balance so there be mechanism to counteract the evil of men. With few exceptions they were religious men who believed in the doctrine of original sin.

          If there was one thing that Madison didn’t want was for the people to have absolute power. That the Constitution set a Republic with indirect elections for the Senate and Presidency is ample proof. The one thing all the Founding Fathers feared was democratic mob. The Founding Fathers were practical men who would change their position when things they thought would work failed the reality test. It’s fun to take a quote, say about the standing military made in 1789, and believe that the speaker held the same view in 1815. Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams after the War of 1812 and told him that his biggest mistake was not building Federalist Navy. Go ponder that.

        • tdiinva: Madison didn’t think to highly of the nature of man

          I’ll try again.

          “Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation.No theoretical checks—no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.”

          –James Madison, 20 June, 1788

          Madison did not think too much of the nature of man when men organized into groups and tried to impose the will of one group over another. In other words, his problem was not with individual men; his problem was with groups of people, such as, I don’t know, government agency and lobbies oppressing others.

          That’s why he had a hand writing that whole “Bill of Rights” thing. The standing version of the 10th Amendment logically invalidates your supposition given the quote above – that no government can exist in the absence of virtue in man.

      • Only the human-like species “Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us” using “Liber-Logic” are able to identify “Common Sense” measures to control the world of everything.
        .

  8. The stupid is strong in this one. And Milt? I am serious about gun control, I hit what I aim at.

    A quick perusal of metal prices finds lead at$1.01 per pound, and stainless coiled type 304 at $1.40 and type 316 at $1.93. It appears that Milt needs a bit of education on how to make a valid, coherent point. Also, how to use google.

  9. Where the hell did this “expert” gets his statistic that 45% of the world’s gun murders happen in the US? I guess he’s never looked at stats from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria; etc. Just another example of repeating a lie until the sheeple accept it as fact.

  10. Sure, buddy. Just as soon as we start licensing journalists and doing spot-checks on their stories for attitudes, uh, make that accuracy.

    Seriously. Rights are not privileges are not regulations.

    And he also trots out the old “40% of guns are obtained without a check” shibboleth. Yeesh.

  11. Instead of focusing on the behavior of the “some” that are not responsible…. they punish the majority, Not unlike lowering the bar for the entire class because little johnny cant jump that high..

  12. Laws, regulation and enforcement are what keep us safe.” – Milt Shook. Ask people in North Korea; they will tell you its the truth.

    • Yep. IMHO, the author doesn’t want his freedom and doesn’t want anyone around him to actually be free either. He attempts to rationalize his own chains while seeking to convince others that those chains are good and necessary. He’s as a slave making an argument for the master to other slaves. I’m thankful that we have what freedoms we still enjoy today since people who think like him appear to get more and more notice over time. I don’t believe that a nation such as ours could form in modern times like it did then.

      • I totally agree. They were a small population of people with courage and freedom in mind. The founders were a group of educated philosophers, land owners, farmers. Today’s people are only interested in “Safety” and “Government Assistance.”

  13. Good golly… That was quite the feat to string together so many factual and logical fallacies into a single diatribe. But, it’s on the internet… It must all be true! Sadly, most Americans are too intellectually lazy to vet a single fact for themselves. They eat this stuff up and then regurgitate it like good little talking-point ruminants.

  14. Nope. Not going to click on his diatribe. What a maroon. As someone said he’s never had this many eyes on his drivel.

    • Ah, hell, I quit doing that a decade ago. Nothing coming out a leftards’ mouth is worthy of attention(other than ridicule and derision). Period. Full stop.

  15. “So now, the people of Castle Rock get to be treated to idiots walking around with guns strapped to their backs, and wonder which are the bad guys and which ones are just gunloons.”

    Well I guess it all evens out since, due to my support of the First Amendment, I get to be treated to idiots sitting behind their keyboard spewing out poorly researched, antagonistic, bile.

    This guy comes out swinging and insulting….and I bet he wonders why he can’t “have a conversation” with the pro-rights types.

  16. The blogosphere, cable tv, Facebook, Twitter, et al, have given too many uneducated, uninformed or just plain stupid people a platform from which to widely highlight their shortcomings. Mr. Shook is a another example in a sea of thousands.

    • True. On the other hand, it has also given our side a vehicle to recognize that we are not in the minority that they try to have us believe we are.

      Throughout the 90’s, I often wondered stuff like “Am I think only one that thinks x?”

      It may be small consolation, but the ‘Net has allowed me to see the answer to that question. “They” work very, very hard to sell their ideas and ideology as mainstream. For example, the 90% support for UBC number that gets trotted out.

      Having this particular veil pulled back is one step in exposing their other fundamental lies. As people begin to see, in their own real life experiences, that the stuff they say (like ‘everyone agrees guns are stupid’) is false, they begin to ask what else are they lying about.

      The ‘Net is a double edged sword, I guess.

  17. Dumbass.

    Manufacturers wouldn’t use lead because its now universally known to cause harm. If the public ever found out (and they would) their business woukd be finished, and they’re in the business of making money not commiting financial suicude.

    Capitalism is good because it will correct itself. FOAD

  18. Responsibility can be legally enforced on people? Really? Is that why recidivism rates in criminal activity are sky high, courts are full of baby-mamas chasing child support from baby-daddies, and food stamps are frequently laundered into cash?

    Methinks the author’s quote has some deficits in his understanding of basic human nature.

  19. The problem is that anti’s force laws and enforcement on the law abiding an order to appear like there doing something about violence. Just look at the case of Shaneen Allen.

  20. Do we encourage this derp as a means of exposing the anti-gun derp for what it is or would that be like the Germans sending Lenin to Russia?

  21. I like these QOTD pieces because it reminds me to stay vigilant, but I refuse to give the idiots who write this garbage the page views they are looking for, could you please quote the piece so we don’t give them the attention they want?

  22. “Laws, regulation and enforcement are what keep us safe.” – Milk Toast Milt Shook

    Laws, regulation, and enforcement only provide safety when the laws and regulations are righteous and people follow the laws and regulation. Of course real life show us that laws, regulation, and enforcement often fail us miserably. And for those situations, we need the means to take care of business ourselves.

  23. Laws, regulation and enforcement are what keep us safe.

    Anybody who believes that load of crap has never dealt with the EPA, TSA, ATF or the Crips.

  24. “It’s no secret that some people are not naturally responsible, and must have it enforced upon them, under penalty of law. We do that with everything else. . . .”

    Funny how statists trivially breeze past the crux of a problem, and then proceed to build an argument up it. How about you back up your dump truck full of crap, Mr. Shook, and consider that many would rather jettison the whole rotten idea of legislating “responsibility”.

  25. Yes… I agree… Pleasecutthecrap:

    Every single day, an average of 316 people are shot by a gun, with 83 of those dying as a result. That’s each and every day. While no one expects that number to ever be zero, that should certainly be a goal, Recently, OSHA set new standards for workers’ exposure to silica dust, with the aim of saving 700 lives per year. The FDA also recently set up new standards for inspecting poultry, to cut the number of cases of salmonella, and perhaps a 1,500 lives per year. These are excellent ideas, because they save lives, and that is part of the mission of government.

    Not comparing apples to apples. For city dwellers, all they have to eat is what is in the store. They must eat. I’m sure they would prefer to eat food that is not toxic, poisoned, or riddled with bacteria. My procurement and possession of a firearm is a completely different matter. It is already against the law to threaten and kill people (already regulated). Therefore, if I continue to own a firearm and don’t kill or threaten people with my firearm that ownership only affects me and that is my business. Likewise it would be against the law for me to purposely and forcefully detain and force-feed other people food that is toxic, poisoned, or infested with bacteria. That is a more appropriate comparison. Mr. Milt Shook is blaming the gun for the crimes and accidents of the people who operate them. If he wants to ban guns, then he should also want to ban bacteria. Both can be harmful and safety above all… right? Also, Mr. Shook wants to blanket his ideals over large groups (310 million people) by justification of statistics rather than case by case – thus tossing aside the maters of individual rights and individual freedom (textbook socialist).

    The mission of government should not be about saving lives in my opinion. If our day to day activities were completely regulated and controlled, where we would not possibly be able to hurt ourselves or anyone else, what kind of lifestyle would that be? It would be a “Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.” I’ll pass.

    • “The mission of government should not be about saving lives in my opinion. “

      It’s not. The philosophy upon which the US government is based is that proper role of government is to protect and secure the rights of individual, free people.

      Government is supposed to liberate, not oppress. At least, that’s the theory. Statists, like Milt, obviously, believe otherwise.

  26. Hey everybody, I’m a ‘gunloon’!

    Shook says, “Even though the United States has less than 5% of the world’s population, 45% of the world’s gun murders occur here. We have a problem, and we have to fix it.”

    Say what? From a quick Google search, I found the “top ten” countries with homicides via guns … and, Russia wasn’t even on the list! By rather elementary, first grade arithmetic, I did some cypherin’ (didn’t even have to whip out my spreadsheet) and it came up that the U. S. is around 9% of the “gun murders”.

    I don’t mind a thoughtful debate about gun ownership, but why do the anti-gunners feel that they have to lie all the time?

    Here’s another statistic for you, Shook: “Eighty seven point six percent of statistics are made up on the spot.”

    • Those lies are called facts to Milt:

      From his page:

      About Milt Shook

      A writer with 40 years in the political game (and let’s face it, it is a game). I am a liberal because facts have a liberal bias, and I really like facts. If you like facts, you’ll like this blog. If not, you’ll have a hard time.

      Even his statement indicate that “liberals” like facts and if you are not a liberal you don’t like facts. Hilarious on all fronts.

  27. Several days ago, the town of Castle Rock, Colorado overturned a ban on open carry that had been implemented by the town manager. So now, the people of Castle Rock get to be treated to idiots walking around with guns strapped to their backs, and wonder which are the bad guys and which ones are just gunloons.

    Clear distinction that the author (Milt Shook) instantly sees a guy with a gun as a “bad” guy. Now that the law allows it… he sees bad guys and another breed of bad guy he distinguishes with the term “gunloons.” Because anyone who cares a gun and is not a criminal is a “loon??” Nevermind the fact that a bad guy knows he is at risk of loss of life trying to rob a store or harm the clerk when there are so called “gunloons” present inside the store. But yea… sure… “gunloons” are bad guys. The Bias is very thick with this one.

    • His fail on that is even deeper than that.

      Who does he think pushed for the repeal of the ban?

      Castle Rock voters called for repeal of the ban, Mr. Shook. The people of the town.

      The town violated the State preemption law.

      So, for someone clammering for more laws, he sure does not seem to have a problem with Town Managers (a representative member of government) to violate the laws so long as such violation matches Shooks world view.

  28. But when it comes to guns, we don’t seem to be able to enact even the most basic common sense gun measures. Think about it. If we can stop even five percent of all shootings every year, we would prevent 5,000 shootings and 1,500 deaths every single year. Why would we not want to do that? And frankly, if we’re smart, we can do a lot better than five percent.

    I think we should stop 100% of all deaths by sealing everyone in small white rubber rooms were they are not allowed to suicide, and are only allowed to eat what they are given, do what they are told, and work inside their rooms producing a product under tight surveillance. This is the answer people.

    • The ability to dissociate yourself from all reason is very important to his rambling. He enters the stage with our inability to pass more than the 20,000 gun laws we already have, and immediately jumps (as though it follows) to “saving x% of lives or whatever. Never mind that gun laws are proven every day to have zero to negative effect on saving lives, he talks as though it is a direct correlation, “pass more restrictive laws (never mind the subject), and more lives will be saved.” The term “imbecile” is absurdly generous.

      • You know, most anti gunners seem to labor under the impression that guns are totally unregulated, when they are in fact more regulated than damn near anything else. I’ll take your number of 20,000 for granted, I’m not sure if that’s a researched number or out of thin air, but that’s not really relevant.

        Since violent crime seems to be centered around strict gun control areas, and populations subject to disarmament have no choice but to be victims (hasn’t violent crime in the UK gone up since their handgun ban?), maybe we should start pointing out that the gun laws we have are getting people killed while also pointing out that more lives are saved every year with guns than lives taken with guns. The point is to save lives, right?

        • No, their point is to CONTROL lives, in as rigid and onerous a manner as possible. Until every person is forced unto their knees and begging “government” for the right to exist the political left will not be happy. And even then they will still be pissed off.

        • That’s an important argument to make. At the same time, I hope that the People never lose sight of the purpose behind the Second Amendment; to deter and fight enemies, foreign or domestic. Even if the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms drove the crime rate through the roof, however unlikely, deterring and fighting tyranny is necessary to the security of a free state.

    • According to Milt Shook:Nazi Extraordinaire it is. Funny how leftards ALWAYS come around to forced morality and forced re-education, isn’t it?

  29. The stupidity of people like this man is evident when they say that there are no safety measures, laws and regulations regarding firearms. These idiots want nothing other than full confiscation, and they bury the facts behind their opinions and lies to try and make that happen.

    • And, as usual, I’ll bet he is not planning to come to my door and try to take my guns. In fact, I’d bet by the second or third day of the war that would start, he would be trying to flee the country. There are all kinds of courage. He apparently has none of them.

  30. Perhaps the stupidest part of this is that the problem is actually pretty easy to solve. We just have to want to. That we can’t seem to do anything about the gun problem points (once again) to the Republicanization of America.

    So guns are bad… and republicans. Yep… its those republicans. Their fault! It’s not the gun rights advocates… its Republicans! The outrage.

    There is a serious gun problem in this country. and before the gunloons say something as stupid as, “guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” let me just say this;

    Common sense gun control is not about the guns, but the people who own them. That means the axiom above is always completely meaningless. Guns don’t kill people. People do kill people. But people do kill people with guns. Gun control is about making sure the wrong people have a harder time getting a gun.

    People kill people with guns….. and we have a “gun problem” not a “killing problem?” So is the gun killing or the people killing? Seems Mr. Shook didn’t get the statement: ““guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” And the solution……… more government regulation/control, invasions of privacy, bureaucratic red tape paperwork, more government oversight, more government jobs, higher taxes, …. Yep, textbook statist solution.

    It’s about making sure that people with guns are less capable of violating our rights. Yes, gunloons, people without guns also have rights. We have the right to be protected from you and your guns. We have the right to life. We have the right to not be killed by your right.

    You have the right to be protected?
    http://invisiblebread.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/brucewillisdoubletake.gif

    Well, I guess I going to make up some rights too. I have the right to a cellphone. The right to have a vehicle. The right to wear a new pair of shoes daily. The right to have the words “you are right” told to me once during each conversation with each separate individual each day.

    The right to not be killed by my right?
    My rights don’t kill. No rights kill (any of them), and no one has a the “right” to kill another. Mr. Shook needs to do some reading. Maybe start here?:
    http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/natural-rights/

    Maybe start with the right to “liberty?” The right to “liberty” ties back into Mr. Shooks statement here:

    It’s about making sure that people with guns are less capable of violating our rights.

  31. The concept of “freedom” has been twisted by the gun culture to protect gun owners and carriers from any “inconvenience” whatsoever, without consideration of our collective right to not be shot and the “inconvenience” of being shot and either hospitalized or killed. How free are we, really, if we aren’t sure the bad guys aren’t armed to the teeth, because almost no one buying a gun is being properly screened.

    Mr. Shook needs to go here for a recapitulation:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

    What about scissors, people can be killed with scissors also… Need screenings for those. No? Just for guns yea? Because of … “statistics” and “feelings.”

    Mr. Shook thinks we have collective rights. Not just Individual rights – collective ones. I guess determined by statistics?

    A right to not be shot? You have the right to life. If someone takes it from you (unless they are cops), they get arrested, charged, imprisoned (in a jail), undergo due process that typically results in a trial, courtroom, etc where evidence is weighed against them and penalties are traditionally very severe (or used to be). The penalty of taking rights from others IS the deterrent. Passing laws allowing more government control and oversight to prevent you from obtaining something in order to prevent you from performing a crime is ludicrous. The only reason they exist is because of people like Mr. Shook.

  32. For example, this report by NBC News shows just how easy it is for anyone to buy a gun legally, through licensed gun dealers, and then list the gun for sale, with no legal requirements for doing so:

    Yep, that’s called freedom. We know you hate it.

    Nevermind the concept that if it were illegal – criminals would still be doing it and the “gunloons” would be hassled with more government regulation/control, invasions of privacy, bureaucratic red tape paperwork, more government oversight, more government jobs, and higher taxes. And why would criminals still be doing it? Because a guy willing to shoot someone in the face could care less about the legality of background checks and registration.

  33. In only a handful of states, is there even a requirement that a private seller conduct background checks on a buyer. A gun buyer can legally buy an arsenal of deadly weapons, and if he or she resells them through private methods, there is no requirement in most states that the seller even ask simple questions like, “are you a convicted felon?” …and there is no recourse available if they sell or give the gun to someone who eventually shoots someone else…

    That is correct. Should a man who sells another man a pair of scissor be held responsible for what he does with it? Mr. Shook is totally insane.

    Regardless of how many laws there are, the laws that don’t exist give criminals an easy way out.

    and

    The words “gun” or “firearms” do not appear in the Second Amendment, or anywhere else in the Constitution.

    My response:
    http://stubbornthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/734b3tm.gif?w=560

    More insanity.

    Even the strongest gun advocates have to admit we can’t keep a rocket launcher or nuclear warhead in our backyard… Those are also “arms.” Obviously, we can regulate nukes and chemical weapons as “arms,” so we all agree that there is a line.

    Actually if you read the second amendment – there is no line. Nope no line there. If a line was to be drawn then the second amendment should have been modified.

    In reply to Mr. Shooks section 8 – congress has the power to – clause:
    http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/1/essays/56/organizing-the-militia

    There exists an organized militia and an unorganized militia. The clause was written to address the abysmal performance of the militia in the war of 1812. Not to disarm or restrict them.

  34. When you click the link, you will see a couple of tabs under Milt’s blog header:
    “Obama’s Accomplishments” – a complete fan-boy disconnect from reality.

    “A Progressive Manifesto” – which does contain a bit of truth, in a revealing display of the complete lack of self-awareness in those Elites like Milt, who know whats best for all the rest of us little people:
    “What’s really startling about the progressive approach is that it hasn’t worked for about 40 years”.

    “Tea Party” – that goes to a list of search terms on the despicable “tea-bagger” slur, a despicable ad hominem only made more famous by CNN and its anchor Anderson Cooper, BEFORE he came out.

    I agree with JR, that we should punch back twice as hard on some meme’s, like Bloombergs millions funding agitprop via his sockpuppet Shannon Watts,

    but, really- this nitwit Shook doesnt deserve any clicks to his sewer from TTAG. Debating delusional Progtards on 2A rights, or any individual freedom, for that matter- is like teaching a pig to dance. Pigs can’t dance. The only thing you end up with is being covered with pig-poop, and a pissed off pig.

    This is just another mile marker for later historians to judge just how far off-base the recycled euro socialism of the 30s, imported to the US and re-invented for Progressivism v2.0 evolved before most Americans simply dismissed it as nutty and anti-human.

  35. Once again, gun control is about keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people; it’s not about the guns themselves.

    But wait… Mr. Shook just said we had a gun problem not a “wrong people” problem. This isn’t making sense.

    And…

    No, pencils don’t misspell words, and no, spoons don’t make people fat. But both are regulated, in order to save lives. many years ago, both pencils and spoons were made of lead. However, when it was found out that lead causes brain damage and makes people sick, the government regulated pencils and spoons, and everything else made of lead, except bullets. I think we can all agree that guns are more dangerous than pencils and spoons, which was the point of that argument in the first place. Yet pencils and spoons are more highly regulated than either guns or bullets.

    There are not pencils and spoons dealers requiring licensing. There are no NICs checks or background checks for transferring spoons or pencils and there isn’t even an examination of mill test reports from spoons imported from other countries. I would argue there is limited regulations of pencils or spoons at all that is currently enforced if at all. The statement that pencils and spoons are more regulated than guns or bullets is a blatant lie. But as detailed by Mr. Shook. Only facts matter… right?

    I would say guns are more dangerous than pencils or spoons as Mr. Shook has asserted. That is correct. But again, Mr. Shook doesn’t like to compare apples to apples. Back in those days, people knew guns were dangerous, people didn’t know that some materials hidden in their spoons were that was poisoning them. Has something today changed about guns that is different from back then? Are there hidden dangers to guns today that didn’t exist back then? No. Today there are a lot of risks to buying all manners of materials that “could” be dangerous. Is it dangerous for me to buy 20 gallons of gasoline? Is it dangerous for me to buy and use a pneumatic nail gun? Is it dangerous for me to purchase and use a firearm? We know the dangers of these materials/equipment and regulations on our possession, transfer, and ownership are unnecessary.

    When people demonstrate a level of irresponsibility that results in 30,000 deaths a year, most sane people would agree that a higher level of responsibility should be enforced.

    Sure… enforce responsibility by means of preventing the capability of performing a crime – in lieu of … crime and punishment? Mr. Shooks seems lost on the concept of individual responsibility and crime and punishment. So…. more government oversight and regulations.

    You have a right to drive. It’s not a privilege, it’s a right. But as is the case with all rights, your right to exercise it depends on a balance between your right to drive and everyone else’s right to drive safety on the public roadways

    Really??? All this time all these lawmakers and politicians kept telling me driving was a privilege. Sheesh – its even taught in driver’s ed:
    https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right.aspx

    In that case, next time that cop pulls me over and asks for my license i’ll say, “No officer. Driving is a right not a privilege. Mr. Shook said so.”

    Why don’t we treat guns and gun owners the same way we treat vehicles and their drivers?… As with vehicles, registration, licensing and insurance costs could be indexed to the type of gun, and the potential damage. Shotguns could carry a low registration cost, and would probably also be very cheap to insure.

    ?? I agree. We should. In fact, I can own really any vehicle I want, unregistered, uninsured, unlicensed, and not regulated at all. I can modify it and change its functionality to anything I want – as long as I keep it on my private property and off the roads. In that case – I should be able to buy machine-guns, rocket launchers, etc. I should be able to modify my semi-auto guns to make them full auto also. After all – my private property right?

    It’s no secret that some people are not naturally responsible, and must have it enforced upon them, under penalty of law. We do that with everything else; why do guns get a pass?

    I thought we were doing this. Gun’s don’t get a pass. It is already against the law to damage other people’s property, kill and wound people with firearms.

    Laws, regulation and enforcement are what keep us safe.

    Uh… no. Nothing keeps you safe. Anything could happen at anytime. Laws are pieces of paper decreed by people who think the illusion of authority and threat of punishment will keep people from performing certain actions. Example: Mr. shook keeps talking about all these guns deaths by criminals and school shooters. Well Shook, it is against the law to kill people. If they are willing to kill people – they probably don’t care about registering their firearms if the law decreed it.

    Convicted felons and the mentally ill are not allowed to own or carry weapons, but if we don’t screen for that every time a gun is sold, what good is the law?

    Why stop there? What about knives, scissors, pruning shears, plant fertilizer, toilet bowl cleaner… etc. Oh wait… because of “statistics” and “feelings.” If all of Mr. Shooks gun laws were implemented (and supposedly worked) and everyone was dying by knife/blunt object instead of gun… would it be any better?

    We already have a version of this common sense regulation in place in a number of states, in the form of concealed carry permits. The holders of such permits are licensed, their guns are registered, and they have to demonstrate a competence in handling a firearm that makes it unlikely they will do anything stupid. Let’s just expand the concept to all gun owners.

    Uh…no. A concealed carry permit means you can carry a concealed firearm legally. Who said anything about it requiring registration??

    • Whether or not one blames the spoon or the gun for the eventual fatal outcome, it is still true that spoons lead to more deaths than guns do. If we’re really getting picky, it’s probably down to aluminum cans.

  36. One of our founders said “if you give up liberty for safety you deserve neither.” I believe he was correct.

  37. Having read Mr. Shooks deluge of ridiculousness, I have come to the following conclusions:

    1) Mr. Shook may be insane
    2) Mr. Shook has the views typical of extremist statists, and is a extreme supporter of the nanny state.
    3) Mr. Shook is ill-informed and having difficulty comprehending the differences between facts, opinions, and speculation.
    4) Mr. Shook does not understand the differences between natural rights and privileges. (Key word “natural”).
    5) Mr. Shook does not understand the definition of liberty or freedom and does not know that “liberty” is a natural right.
    6) Mr. Shook’s theories on proposed law are redundant, inherently flawed, would not reduce crime, would not reduce “gun” deaths (as if death by some other method is any better), and would really only hinder/harass those “gunloons” from obtaining, transferring, and owning guns. Mr. Shook is fine with this, as he appears to feel “gunloons” are part of the problem.

  38. First and second sentences void the entire article. “It’s no secret that some people are not naturally responsible, and must have it enforced upon them, under penalty of law. We do that with everything else; why do guns get a pass?
    I’ll take a stab at this one. What is the second amendment, Alex?

  39. I’m thinking that RF should consider changing the title of this section “Pantload of the Day”. Unlike some readers though, I do enjoy seeing what these kind of people have to say. Schadenfreude maybe, since it really is close to watching a guy fall flat on his face.

  40. Somebody clue this asshole in.

    Guess he thinks everyone lives in a gated community with a nice security officer to keep the riff raff away and him “safe.”

    It probably does not occurr to him that some people live in places where many of the denizens do not care so much to follow the laws, or regulations. Where enforcement is fleeting and daily life is more like Lord of the Flies than Sesame Street. No, it does not occur to him at all.

    His words demonstrate, what seems to me, to be the uncrossable chasm of thought between those who have a solipsistic and collectivist view of the world, and those who cherish being adults.

    Further his tone suggests he is a big fan of force, or state sanctioned violence, (most Commies are) as long as it’s someone else doing the dirty work, and it’s targeted at the “right kind” or color of people.

    Hippie Liberal douches like him put sand in my vagina.

    (No homo)

  41. This guy is stupid beyond measure! First, pencils have NEVER contained lead. That’s a misnomer that just won’t die! They are made of carbon in the form of graphite. Second, there are plenty of ludicrous laws out there being haphazardly enforced at the interpretation of officers and judges that are not any more responsible than anyone else. Forcing people to do things under the rule of law is what England did to the colonies before the revolution!

  42. Wasn’t this the same asshat that advocated leaving grocery stores and restaurants without paying upon seeing an open carrier, or do I have my asshats mixed up again?

    • They do tend to be interchangeable. Not sure if this that a$$hat. Any idea how long ago RF posted about that? I remember seeing it here just can’t remember when.

      • I think it was a month or maybe month and a half ago. I really didn’t want anyone to expend much energy researching that, thought some one might remember. No big deal. I think these folks are like 1911’s AR’s and the like: there are just SOOOO MANY variations of the same thing; makes it hard to keep up with the lunacy.

        • Yea, I remember reading it, just not sure when. Have had a busy last 5 weeks, with computer problems dropped in for that special flavor we all love so much!

  43. Seriously guys, your site is like all the “for” or “agin” sites round this issue. There is no debate. And you select our “facts” like a lawyer selects his facts, i.e. ignore the ones that don’t fit your case.

    So here’s my genuine question. What’s wrong with the kind of regimes you find in the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world, and in Scandinavia. You can hunt and shoot recreationally as much as you ever have time for. And you simply can’t ignore the data from so, so many sources about the level of gun violence, gun crime and homicide. I’m not claiming those place don’t have their problems. But the US data is a huge outlier, the “best” of the rest, for sure but are Turkey, Egypt and Latin America really your peer group.The whole “guns secure my liberty” argument- I don’t get personally. I think your own Civil War illustrated that. But leave that aside. By any measure there is way more economic, cultural and social liberty in those countries than in the US. If you think I’m making it up, check out what Cato, Heritage etc have to say about that, never mind “the left”. What’s wrong with the Anglo-Saxon /Scandinavian approach, ? Seriously?

    • Self defense is an unalienable individual right of any people. It doesn’t rely upon public opinion, crime statistics, or laws. Those statistics might look good when it comes to ordinary crime but they won’t mean a damned thing when a tyrant comes to power.

      The United States of America was unique in all of the World in its absolute declaration regarding unalienable rights endowed upon individuals by their Creator, irrespective of governments or even in spite of governments. Although our nation has lost sight of the meaning, the Second Amendment enshrined a protection against government encroachment upon the individual and collective right to keep and bear arms.

      A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      The security of a free state, individual or collective, depends upon the people being able to keep, bear, and regularly train with arms. The word used is necessary and it is precisely that, necessary. Sure, people of other nations might maintain a free state for a while but they will be helpless against tyranny, foreign and domestic, if they allow infringement upon the individual right to keep and bear arms.

      • Exactly!
        .
        In addition, the stats indicate that as gun ownership has gone up, the violent crime rate in total, has gone down!
        .
        A correlation for sure, though not necessarily a causation, but suspiciously so.
        .
        For the doubtful, read “More Guns, Less Crime”, written by a doubting Thomas who, in light of the statistics uncovered, became a doubting Thomas no more.
        .

        .

  44. Clearly, liberty has much more to do with respect for the rule of law and the democratic process than it has to do with the simple possession of “arms”. The better organized industrial-military complex has, and always will, win. The notion of resisting the “state” when you have guns and they have tanks and aircraft is ludicrous! That is the most absurd and self-serving of all the arguments for unregulated gun ownership. To the contrary, everywhere in the world where people neglect the opportunity to participate in the democratic process, or disdain the rule of law, you end up with merely armed “tribes” or “gangs”. These are the facts of history.

    • Before you make such wide ranging statements, perhaps you should consult the following:
      .
      1. The Afghans that whipped the British Army
      2. The American Colonists that whipped the largest & most well trained army in the world.
      3. The Viet Mien defeated the French
      4. The Viet Cong
      5. Again, the Afghans who whipped the Russian Army
      .
      Also you might consider all the U.S. Veterans (including retired Generals, Colonels, Majors, & Captains) available and willing to train and lead such a fight, and the likely unwillingness of U.S. Military members who would refuse to fight their own brothers, sisters, moms, dads and children.
      .
      Your analysis is shallow at best!
      .

      .

    • Clearly, liberty has much more to do with respect for the rule of law and the democratic process than it has to do with the simple possession of “arms”.

      Wrong.

      Liberty is being free to live one’s own life, unencumbered by government bureaucrats and politicians seeking to amass greater and greater control over one’s life.

      As a primer on liberty, here is the Dictionary.com definition:

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberty

      1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
      2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
      3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

    • The notion of resisting the “state” when you have guns and they have tanks and aircraft is ludicrous!

      Wrong. Again.

      With a just a few small arms, the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto held off the Nazis for a month.

      From Encyclopaedia Britannica:

      Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
      http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/636138/Warsaw-Ghetto-Uprising

      Before dawn, 2,000 SS men and German army troops moved into the area with tanks, rapid-fire artillery, and ammunition trailers. While most remaining Jews hid in bunkers, by prearrangement, the ŻOB and a few independent bands of Jewish guerrillas, in all some 1,500 strong, opened fire with their motley weaponry—pistols, a few rifles, one machine gun, and homemade bombs—destroying a number of tanks, killing German troops, and holding off reinforcements trying to enter the ghetto. The Germans withdrew in the evening.

      The next day the fighting resumed and casualties mounted. The Germans used gas, police dogs, and flamethrowers in an effort to rout the Jews from their bunkers, leaving the city under a pall of smoke for days. On the third day the Germans’ tactics shifted. They no longer entered the ghetto in large groups but roamed it in small bands. Then they made a decision to burn the entire ghetto.

      The Germans had planned to liquidate the ghetto in three days. The Jews held out for nearly a month.

    • That is the most absurd and self-serving of all the arguments for unregulated gun ownership.

      Wrong. Again. Still.

      The very heart and soul of the 2nd Amendment is that an armed populace is equipped to hold in check a tyrannical government.

      It wasn’t put in the Bill of Rights to ensure citizens could duck hunt or target shoot.

    • To the contrary, everywhere in the world where people neglect the opportunity to participate in the democratic process, or disdain the rule of law, you end up with merely armed “tribes” or “gangs”.

      So, there is never a time for civil disobedience? Must obey all laws at all times, eh?

      Wasn’t Gandhi disobeying British law?

      What about Martin Luther King?

    • OK. Since I am apparently being censored at the behest of the defenders of islam I guess I should hit this last thread.

      All the “people” who keep screeching&wailing for “civility” are the same a&& f**k babies who defend evil. This “alstir” f**k is yet another example. Just another a$$wipe living on welfare and defending the enemies of the human race.

      Fuck it. No point in talking anymore. It only drags the human race down faster.

Leave a Reply

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