Tallahassee Democrat: We ARE Coming for Your Guns

Gerald Ensley (courtesy gannet.com)

Gun control advocates want to take your guns. They want to disarm you and millions of American gun owners. According to gun control advocates like The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, nonsense! Brady’s jefe Dan Gross and MDA doyenne of disarmament Shannon Watts constantly tell credulous journalists that they support the Second Amendment. Watts “reveals” that her family served in the military and hunted – with guns! If you believe these anti-gun groups, they simply want to make it harder for criminals and crazies to get guns. Not you. It’s a propaganda technique Adolph Hitler christened “die Große Lüge” (The Big Lie). Here’s the bit of Mein Kampf where the future mass murderer describes the concept’s underlying dynamics . . .

. . . in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

Again, the gun control advocates’ Big Lie: we don’t want to take your guns. We just want “common sense” gun control. Sensible restrictions. Millions of Americans believe this asinine assertion because they don’t believe that Watts and her ilk would dare lie so brazenly. They couldn’t possibly want police to go door-to-door confiscating firearms from [otherwise] lawful Americans, throwing the owners in prison or worse.

TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia aren’t stupid (ipso facto). They know the truth about gun control advocates: they are statists promoting a fascist agenda. And our AI are right there when the mask slips. As it does right here, in the Tallahassee Democrat, when Gerald Ensley [above] declares Stop the insanity: Ban gun.

It’s the guns, stupid.

The shootings Thursday at the Florida State University library. The shootings Saturday in a northwest Tallahassee neighborhood. The shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The shooting of Arizona U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The shootings at Virginia Tech. The 10,000 senseless shooting deaths that happen every year in this country.

Take away guns and they don’t happen.

Sherman, set the Wikipedia wayback machine for May 18, 1927.

The Bath School bombings (also known as the Bath School disaster) were a series of violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults and injured at least 58 other people. Kehoe first killed his wife, firebombed his farm, and detonated a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is to this day the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.

And since I’ve evoked Godwin’s Law, while I deplore the 10k “senseless shooting deaths” I also want to point out that American gun rights have prevented tens if not hundreds of thousands of “senseless deaths” via mass murder. Couldn’t happen here? Tell that to the Mexicans. Or the Syrians. Or the Nigerians. Or any disarmed populace.

How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns?

I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks.

I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Ensley’s talking and I’m listening. I’m hearing what gun control advocates aren’t saying – because they’re not stupid enough to break cover, tell the truth and torpedo their civilian disarmament agenda. Is it a coincidence that Ensley uses the same arguments to support his position – there’s no individual right to keep and bear arms, people are too mentally unstable to own guns, civilians aren’t as competent with guns as the police and military – that the Bradys and MDA use to lobby for background checks and banning open carry? I think not.

Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.

Ensley doesn’t really think handguns will magically disappear. (No one’s that dumb.) He would have the State ban the sale, purchase and possession of handguns. An edict they’d enforce the same way the government enforces any law: by force. In other words, at the point of a gun. Imagine the bloodshed. Ensley doesn’t care. And the antis claim gun rights advocates are trigger-happy trolls spoiling for a fight. Go figure.

Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns.

One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.

And there you have it. You have been warned.

comments

  1. avatar Nv says:

    Well that statist, evil, ignorant, totalitarian control freak can go to hell.

    1. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

      Or better yet, have him set up a tent in Ferguson for a week or so. Everything will be fine.

      “It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years.”

      So, you and I are supposed to live through the next 10-20-50 years to reach said utopia? Exactly how? And I mean EXACTLY. Show me a workable plan, or STFU.

      1. avatar C. Armstrong says:

        The irony is looking up the “One Less Gun” pictures as done by the Boston PD.

        http://bpdnews.com/

        You’ll very quickly notice a mix of modern guns–like Glocks–and a plethora of guns that haven’t even been manufactured since the 1930’s. That’s a city finding 85-year-old guns in common service by criminals!

        That ignores the fact that an economy abhors a vacuum and the more you try to ban, the more you create a financial incentive to import or even locally manufacture weapons.

        Like this from last month: http://fox40.com/2015/10/15/eight-indicted-in-illegal-gun-manufacturing-sale/

        The irony there is these guns not only were illegal to sell, but also had features illegal to own without a federal tax stamp.

        Why?

        If you’re going to violate one law, the cost of more starts mattering less…

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      I suggest a group of 12 citizens to arrange a rope shaped ticket.

  2. avatar PeterC says:

    Ensley has violated the first rule of liberalism: Never tell the truth.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      Actually he is using a very common liberal technique. Say it quietly and to a small crowd of supporters when you think nobody is listening so you can have it on record. This way you can later claim you weren’t lying. They do it very often. He won’t say the truth anywhere he thinks it may actually get out. It’s pretty dishonest but to a liberal that’s no the same as lying.

    2. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Sort of, I think he is falling back on the often used “progressive” negotiation tactic of saying something that on the surface sounds a little exaggerated and way off the register even for people who hate guns, so that when he tells the actual truth of what he really wants it sounds “reasonable”, that way they bump the needle way further than if they had started from the middle and worked left.

      Would not be surprised in the least if this clown in the near future walks his point back to something a little more vanilla sounding (but just as far out into the weeds for anyone who uses their brain) and claims he was using “hyperbole” or something like “I didn’t mean literally repeal the 2nd amendment but you know we should definitely look into some creative editing”.

  3. avatar Scott P says:

    There’s no fool like an old fool.

    Another Stalinist, Maoist in waiting.

    1. avatar Ron Burgundy says:

      In waiting??

  4. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I have $100 says he doesn’t plan to try that himself, he will send someone else while he hides. IOW, “we” does not include himself. If I am wrong, why should he wait? He is welcome to come for mine, RIGHT NOW! Chickenshit SOB, come on down! Whether the law is behind you or not will make no difference to you, because you’ll be dead.

    1. avatar Grumpy F'er says:

      “He is welcome to come for mine, RIGHT NOW! Chickenshit SOB, come on down!”

      Ain’t his gig. He’s a writer. He pays others to do his killing for him.

  5. avatar fishydude says:

    What an a-hole.
    He is on the side of organized crime. Why the heck does he think OC is so concentrated in NYC, NJ, and Chicago? For one, shop owners cannot resist extortion demands. Also known as “protection.” Protection from whom? The people they pay the extortion to. But once they pay the extortion they can be prosecuted under federal RICO law.

    1. avatar John P says:

      Don’t use “OC” when you are referring to organized crime. Open carry should not be denigrated that way.

  6. avatar RT says:

    We were warned a long time ago, this moron is just one of the few to speak the truth about their agenda.

  7. avatar Josh says:

    “We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.” Of course, this hysterical character isn’t talking about himself and his fellow grabbers coming to take our guns, per se. I’m sure he is counting on federal, state or local law enforcement (armed with guns, naturally) doing that for him while he is back at gun control HQ pacing around with a clipboard. He of course won’t be the first man through the door to confiscate anyone’s property, but fully expects someone else will without thinking twice. He is living in a fantasy land.

  8. avatar Youzernayme says:

    Is anyone surprised? This guy isn’t firing on all cylinders if he thinks that simply banning something makes it disappear. Methamphetamine is pretty banned. I bet Tallahassee had more than a little to go around.

    “It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years.” Does that fill anyone with confidence about the .gov’s ability to make things happen? If it were any other proposal, say a new school initiative, and voters were told it may take 50 years to produce ANY result, the populace would laugh all the way to the polls.

    If we stop the manufacture of guns today, then maybe in 1500 years, all the remaining guns in circulation would rust away. Of course, we’ll have to outlaw CLP, FrogLube, RemOil, and every other evil firearm preservative. For the Children.

    1. avatar John M. says:

      Now, now, like all Progressive schemes, drug prohibition just needs a little more time before it becomes effective. Or they suddenly join “the right side of history” by opposing it.

      Just try not to pay too much attention lest you see the sunlight shining around the edges of the blackout curtains they hung up to convince you that it’s night.

      1. avatar Youzernayme says:

        Yes. Sadly, every time we declare a “War on _____” <(insert novelty issue here) the result is less than promising. I saw a comment on some thread somewhere sometime regarding mental health and gun owners. The subject was the anti's battle cry – bring into question the sanity of gun owners, while partaking in the age-old definition of mental instability-doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
        Make the same tired old arguments to a new, more emotional generation who do not have desire to research the issues they feel for. If they Google something, it's more likely regarding the goings-on of some Hollywood asshat before it's statistics to uphold their side of a debate.

        In some strange way, it's kind of refreshing to hear the enemy plainly state the endgame. Now maybe some fence-sitters will hear that. And they'll think of Grandpa. Ol' Grandpa walking out into the sticks to go hunt some ducks. And maybe that stirs some fond childhood memory. And maybe that fond childhood memory doesn't jive so good with all their emotional, group-think reactions they've been following lately. And then the minty freshness of actual common sense hits them in the face like a ton on skinny jeans, "Why doesn't Grandpa get to have his gun?"

        Because Virginia, no American is stable enough, trained enough, safe enough, educated enough. Get rid of guns and Utopia comes home.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      He so hates guns (irrational on its face), and is so frustrated that there is so much resistance to his fantasy world, that he is behaving like a small child jumping up and down in a tantrum.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Perfectly stated.

  9. avatar ST says:

    Show of hands, anyone on this site surprised by this?Man there are a lot of crickets around here….

    Total firearm prohibition been Objective #1 from the jump-for what its worth, the opposition has been fairly open about that goal . Senator Feinsatan has said it.Senators from Illinois and New Jersey and New York State have said it. Even Obama said the same thing when he was an Illinois politician regarding handguns. If the attitude of the Tallhassee Democrat columnist surprises you, reader, I welcome you from the cave you’ve been living under the last 30 years.

  10. avatar DickG says:

    “Tallahassee Democrat: We ARE Coming for Your Guns”
    .
    Molon Labe!

      1. avatar Kstan says:

        Something about hands, and the cold, or something like that..

  11. avatar 33AD says:

    “We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns.”

    Sad when you live in such a tall and ivory tower as to think that if not for those guns, we’d be so civilized.

    Silly, I thought the key to civilized societies was knowing the citizens couldn’t be forced into submission.

    1. avatar Drew says:

      It is an odd definition of civilized and utopia. If I believed in such things I would have to believe it would only come about through every single person deciding to become “civilized” . If the only thing keeping us from slaughtering one another is lack of implements then we can’t exactly consider that state civilized. A wolf isn’t tamed if you pull it’s teeth. A truely civilized people approximating their definition would be one where guns could be everywhere but nobody decides to use them.

      1. avatar Herb says:

        Will a toothless wolf still try to gum you to death?

        Anyway, Ensley’s a jerk. Hope he invades a Cabela’s & starts knocking over displays. How long would he last?

  12. avatar Another Robert says:

    Ohhhh, it’s a newspaper! I thought the title referred to a Congressman or some such…

    1. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

      Wait. What’s a “newspaper?” 🙂

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        You know those sheets of paper you lay on the ground when you’re housebreaking a puppy?

        Those are newspapers.

  13. avatar tdiinva says:

    Let’s be fair, he does recognize that Second Amendment protects American’s right to bear arms.

    1. avatar v v ind says:

      Oh yeh, I’ve heard of those, they’re also made for starting the wood stove.

  14. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    If private citizens are too dangerous to allow to own firearms, I wonder if his next logical progression is that local police departments should not have armed police officers, after all, they are not trained nearly as well as federal officers or the military, right? So his peaceful secure utopia is to have one armed federal paramilitary force to impose its will er, um, I mean enforce the law…

  15. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    I don’t worry about the “outlaws” having guns. They are a manageable threat. Allowing government employees to be armed is the real danger.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Excellent point.

  16. avatar Accur81 says:

    We should thank him for telling the truth. We have our advocates, and they have theirs. Ours are armed.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      So are theirs. The problem is they want theirs to continue being armed while disarming ours.

  17. avatar O-Hebi says:

    Now that is a breath of fresh air! A statist telling the truth. Let us look at this in awe and hope that others who would disarm us all are equally plain about their beliefs. There is nothing better than someone who telegraphs a punch.

    1. avatar BDub says:

      The whole thing reads like that moment a 5 year old, who can’t have what he wants, throws a tantrum and lets slip something they wouldn’t have said otherwise.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        More likely Ensley is stating what in his mind ‘needs to be said’ as opposed to incrementally dancing around gun confiscation as the antis are doing so as to establish their ‘taking’ before the American public realizes that was their intent all along.

  18. avatar dlj95118 says:

    “Let the hunters keep their rifles and shotguns; those weapons are ineffective tools in a mass shooting.”

    …ineffective tools…really? This guy has one big bad case of stupid.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Gotta wonder if he ever heard of Charles Whitman?

  19. avatar Redleg says:

    Sadly, this POS doesn’t have the stones to come for anyone’s guns…he’ll just send ignorant thugs with badges to do his dirty work and sadly far too many will comply. Can’t risk the pension you know.

  20. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    Yeah, I don’t much think Mr. Ensley is going to personally participate in such an effort (so he should drop the “we”) and he might find that most of the folks he thinks will will be unwilling.

    1. avatar Redleg says:

      Maybe in free states they will be unwilling, but California already has a task force that goes around and confiscates peoples’ guns so there are always willing participants, and even more than usual in states like Collectivistafornia. I have no doubt that some can be found in Florida as well until they learn the hard way that implementing this strategy greatly reduces their chances of going home safe at the end of their shift!

  21. avatar Mark N. says:

    The Second Amendment cannot be “repealed.” It does not “grant” rights, it declares that these pre-existing natural rights are not subject to governmental interference. Repealing the amendment does not repeal the right.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      What a beautiful summation of the intent behind the Bill of Rights. Bravo, sir, bravo.

  22. avatar John P says:

    I’ve had this conversation with many people who actually believe gun control measures would help before, that some of the leaders of this movement really do want to disarm all of us. I’ve had to make this point to my own mother (who is not only a gun owner but a CCW holder!).

  23. avatar Sammy says:

    “Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking.”

    Spoken like someone who will never have to risk their safety for this grand experiment. To truly reply from my heart would be foolish on my part.

    In my opinion, the quickest way for a regime to deny freedom is for the regime to deny the tools for preserving freedom.

  24. avatar Bigred2989 says:

    Two words: Molon Labe!!

  25. avatar Biff Baxter says:

    First Rule – Any guy wearing a bow-tie has an issue with heavy menstruation.

    1. avatar FoRealz? says:

      Nailed it. Lol.

    2. avatar Mark says:

      What about Alan Gottlieb?

    3. avatar Nick D says:

      That would explain a lot of the new Dr. Who.

  26. avatar JSIII says:

    At least he is letting the fine people of the Gunshine state know where he stands. Outside of Miami and perhaps Orlando there is little appetite for this kind of jagoff.

  27. avatar Stacy says:

    I think my favorite part is how he basically says gun violence is acceptable in third world countries full of brown people, but here in great white America we should be able to do better. It’s enough to remind you that back when he was a kid, the Democrats were the party of the Solid South.

  28. avatar Joe R. says:

    Acceptable gun confiscation can only come (and only be tolerated) in three steps:

    1) Rid the rest of the universe of guns
    2) Get rid of your’s
    3) Come for mine

    Attempt them out of order at your own peril stupid.

  29. avatar bontai Joe says:

    Who is Mr. Ensley? And if he is not an electied official, but just a newspaper columnist, why is his opinion worth 2 cents? This guy comes across as being on the lunatic fringe of society.

  30. avatar Mark F says:

    Cool. I’m sort of bored with work right now, anyway. Come and take them and let’s go game on. At least we could get it all over with. And it would be pretty fast, not like the first American Revolution that took seven years. This one would take maybe only a couple of months, and then some additional time to pass another constitutional amendment that says, “The Second Amendment means what it says and shall not be infringed means exactly that.”

  31. avatar Nick D says:

    No, no, teach children that guns are bad. And that only the military, the police, and the government have guns. Which means that the military, police, and government are bad. Which means you should ignore all their edicts and everything they tell you, and get a gun anyway.

    His logic collapses into a black hole of insufferable arrogance and short sighted idiocy

  32. avatar John L. says:

    Bow ties are cool. But not on this guy.

    I doubt even a fez would help.

    1. avatar Mark F says:

      +1 for the Dr. Who reference,

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      No, but he could get Ezra Pound’s Pisan villa.

  33. avatar John Smith says:

    This traitor needs to be tattooed. and deported to Mexico. This way he will see what it is like to live in a country that has extreme gun control.

  34. avatar Second Amendment says:

    Not that it must be repeated to the AI, but even granting his suicidal acceptance of “Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking” it forgets that before even a single firearm had been invented thugs, highway men, emperors, henchmen, etc. used other methods of FORCE and could NOT be effectively repelled by a smaller, weaker, less healthy victim. A gun in the hands of a good guy or good gal equalizes that force disparity.

    How does he propose to protect the 5’5″ college co-ed against the 6’2″ rapist? Or the home owner against the home invader? Or the grandma in Chi-town against the thuggery? Call 911? LOL!

    Guns are the single most effective way to stop the threat.

    1. avatar John L. says:

      As a technologically savvy, reasonably bright person, I could make my house a (briefly) living hell for the average intruder.

      But that’s illegal, dangerous to myself and my dog, and doesn’t help once I step over the deadfall and out my front door.

    2. avatar TT says:

      “How does he propose to protect the 5’5″ college co-ed against the 6’2″ rapist? Or the home owner against the home invader? Or the grandma in Chi-town against the thuggery? Call 911? LOL!”

      He answered this question. You only have a 1 in 250 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. You take your chances.

      Of course, as of 2012, you only had a .0025 in 250 chance of being killed by someone with a gun. And there were 5,931 homicides committed without a gun. But to hell with all those facts and whatnot. We’ll be better off without guns, damn it!

  35. avatar Scott says:

    This will be a big gut check for law enforcement if it actually comes to this. Which side are they on? I think they know in certain areas what will happen if they come for people’s guns.

  36. avatar Grindstone says:

    “But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.”

    Right, because that worked out for: Pot, crack, coke, alcohol, heroin, child porn, etc.

  37. avatar FoRealz? says:

    I’m sure this pussy will volunteer to be first man in the stack at the first house in the first neighborhood. He’s a true believer after all.

  38. avatar Last Marine OUT ! says:

    And NEVER forget once the guns are gone , soon all other liberty’s and freedoms go too.

  39. avatar Jus Bill says:

    I wonder why all these liberal agitprop dispensers all have the same 1000-yard stare and dress pretty much the same in all their promo pictures? Almost like a uniform. It’s really weird.

    1. avatar FoRealz? says:

      It’s from the Prozac infused Kool-Aid they guzzle.

  40. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Let us look at Mr. Gerald Ensley’s comment from an interesting perspective:

    “Those of us who think widespread (widget) ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children (widgets) are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal (legislation that legalizes them). We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban (widgets).”

    Mr. Ensley’s statement sounds blatantly ridiculous when you replace the word “handgun” with any other object, doesn’t it?

  41. avatar Roscoe says:

    For this bilious bastard to write that kind of stuff for the Tallahassee Democrat just shows he doesn’t know any more about self-defense and freedom under the Constitution than he knows about human nature and reality – however revealing he may be about the antis’ true intentions!

  42. avatar JDS says:

    Who does he think is going to go out and take them? Local police even if every single cop hit the streets would last maybe 2 hours in most southern cities. Short of carpet bombing the area I just don’t see a force big enough to go house to house and take all the guns. It would be open season on the takers. Deer hunters, varmit shooters etc would be picking them off from 100’s of yards. That would be my plan and I’m sure I would have plenty of company. Forcefully taking guns in an all out blitzkrieg would fail in very short order.

  43. avatar Ralph says:

    If this turd really wants to take my guns, I’ll send him my address and a convenient time to make the pickup. I would suggest that he arrive prior to 3 pm, because after that time the local ambulances are very busy and I wouldn’t want him laying around for four hours like Mike Brown.

    1. avatar Last Marine OUT ! says:

      No they will come for your guns at 3AM and be dressed all in black, throw in a flash bang and cs/gas first and will be at least 20 or more …

      1. avatar Mark F says:

        So, you are basically saying that Ralph could handle it either way? I think I’d lean a bit more like 60-40 in R’s favor rather than a straight up coin toss.

      2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        He isn’t one of the “they” who do that…

  44. avatar former water walker says:

    Good luck Mr. Rogers/Orville Reddenbacher. And good luck disarming folks after whatever happen in Ferguson Missouri.

  45. avatar Bob101 says:

    Wow! Bold statement from a little man. Now, who is going to come and take these firearms away? The British elite once made wild boasts very similar to this. It did not work so well for them. After losing this last election by such huge margins, you would think these people would leave people alone for a few months to regroup, reflect, or whatever fascist do when not trying to dictate to their inferiors.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      No, this fits the pattern. They generally turn the Extra Nutty switch to “High” after losing big at the ballot box.

      They just can’t believe “what went wrong.” They’ll never admit that their ideologies and worldviews are in fact a very large minority (taken collectively, there are very few yet very vocal folks that ascribe to the entire spectrum of Progressive ideals).

      They marginally lose elections when we stay home or split votes. They lose HUGE when we are consolidated. There’s a lesson in there somewhere, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

      Anyway, they really do go berserk after losing big. Look at the recent tantrums from the Oval Office as a good example.

  46. avatar Snozzallos says:

    What amazes me is that these people somehow think it will turn out differently here than there, and there are far too many examples of a there where gun confiscation just doesn’t work. Guns still- STILL -make it into the hands of the criminal element in all of these examples and or all other forms of violent crime spike to fill the void.

    Oh, and because we clearly trust politicans to have our best interests at heart.

  47. avatar Stephen Bradley says:

    It’s the cars and trucks, stupid.

    The July 4, 1998 head-on crash on Virginia’s I-81 that killed 7. The 1991 dust storm pile-up of 104 vehicles that killed 17 and seriously injured 150, leaving thousands trapped for a day in their cars. The fiery death of star Paul Walker. The accident that claimed the life of your mother/father/sister/brother/wife/husband/…/random stranger yesterday. The 34,000 senseless traffic deaths that happen every year in this country.

    Take away cars and trucks and they don’t happen.

    ——————–

    Same logical form.

    1. avatar PeterK says:

      Exactly. It’s ludicrous on it’s very face. And yet this is the crap that is parroted over and over, sigh…

  48. avatar Pulatso says:

    Ensely writes for the Tallahassee Democrat, the local fishwrap that’s been dying by degrees for years. More people will read this comment than read his article printed in the paper.

  49. avatar Excedrine says:

    Another sexist, racist, anti-rights, anti-Humanist, sub-Human troll added to The List.

    I laugh when they trot out that old, tired line. I really do. Right in their faces. Then, I point out all the people who do, and watch them stumble and stammer and run away.

    Fmr. President William J. Clinton does.

    “And we should — then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.”

    “When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans …And so a lot of people say there’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” – MTV’s “Enough is Enough!”, 22 March, 1994

    “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…” – USA Today, 11 March, 1993, pg. 2A

    “If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.” – 12 August, 1993

    “You know the one thing that’s wrong with this country? Everyone gets a chance to have their fair say.” – From his speech in Philadelphia PA City Hall Courtyard, 28 May, 1993

    “There is no reason for anyone in this country – anyone except a police officer or military person – to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” – While signing The Brady Bill, 1993

    “The purpose of government is to rein in the rights of the people.” – MTV, 1993

    “I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think – I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it’s the beginning. It’s not the end of the process by any means.” – 11 August, 1993

    Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA) does.

    “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.

    “The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”

    Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ) did.

    “We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”

    He died in 2013.

    Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH) did.

    “No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989

    “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.”

    “What good does it do to ban some guns. All guns should be banned.”

    He died in 2008.

    Fmr. Representative Charles Pashayan (R – CA) does.

    “All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty
    that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.”
    – United Nations Small Arms Conference, 2001

    Fmr. Senator John Chafee (R – RI) did.

    “I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992

    He died in 1999.

    Then-Senator (now Vice President) Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE) does.

    “Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993

    Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL) does.

    “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp

    “We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it…We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.” – The Global Dispatch, 12 March, 2013.

    http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/illinois-rep-jan-schakowsky-says-assault-rifle-ban-just-the-beginning-moment-of-opportunity-and-seeks-to-ban-handguns-70067/

    http://youtu.be/BVz2lHODQvs – Interview by Jason Mattera

    Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY) did.

    “We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”

    “Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns.” – Congressional Record, 10 November, 1993

    He died in 2013.

    Representative Bobby Rush (D – IL) does.

    “My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.”

    Fmr. Representative Craig Anthony Washington (D – TX) does.

    “This is not all we will have in future Congresses, but this is a crack in the door. There are too many handguns in the hands of citizens. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Brady Bill.” – Mark-up hearing on The Brady Bill, 10 April, 1991

    Fmr. Massachusetts State Governor and State House Representative Michael Dukakis (D) does.

    “I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.”

    Fmr. Representative Henry Waxman (D – CA) does.

    “If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.”

    Fmr. Representative William Lacy Clay, Sr. (D – MO) does.

    “The Brady Bill is the minimum step Congress should take…we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns, except in a few cases.” – St. Louis Dispatch, 6 May, 1991

    Senator Charles Ellis Schumer (D – NY) does.

    “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! … We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – NBC Nightly News, 30 November, 1993

    Representative Shiela Jackson Lee (D – TX) does.

    “I would personally just say to those who are listening, maybe you want to turn in your guns.”

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) does.

    “I’m personally all for taxing guns to pay for health care coverage.”

    Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson (D) does.

    “We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing
    who has them we can do that. If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.”

    Colorado State Senator (and Majority Leader) John Morse (D) does.

    “People who own guns are essentially a sickness in our souls who must be cleansed.”

    New Jersey State Senators Loretta Weinberg, Sandra Cunningham, and Linda Greenstein all do.

    “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate… They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/open-mike-reveals-n-j-senators-contempt-for-gun-owners-confiscation-goal

    Fmr. California State Senator Leeland Yee (D) does.

    “It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion.” – CBS San Francisco, 20 May, 2012, before he was arrested and charged with gun-trafficking, taking bribes, money laundering, and official corruption on 24 March, 2014.

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/05/20/cbs-5-story-inspires-new-legislation-to-ban-bullet-button/

    http://www.sfgate.com/file/757/757-complaint_affidavit_14-70421-nc.pdf

    United States Attorney General Eric B. Holder does.

    “[We have to have] as part of the gun initiative, though, an informational campaign to really change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, D.C., and in particular our young people. They are saturated with guns in media and entertainment, [and] by the entertainment industry with violence, and I think too many of our young people, in particular our young men are fascinated with violence and in particular with guns. And what we need to do is change the way people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that’s not acceptable, that’s not hip, to carry a gun anymore.

    In the way we changed out attitudes about cigarettes, y’know, when I was growing up people smoked all the time. I mean, both my parents did. But, over time we changed the way people thought about smoking, and so now why have people who cower outside of buildings and kinda’ smoke in private and don’t want to admit it. And I think that’s what we need to do with guns.

    … One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we jut have to be repetitive about this. It’s not enough to simply have a catchy ad on a Monday and then only do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week, and really just brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.” – C-SPAN2, 1995

    Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno does.

    “Gun registration is not enough.” – On ABC’s “Good Morning America”, 10 December, 1993

    “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”

    Fmr. Director of the ATF John Magaw does.

    “The truth is, [handguns] are used to assassinate people, to kill people, because they are very easily concealed, you can drop them in any pocket.” – When interviewed by ABC’s Day One correspondent John McKenzie.

    Boston Police Commissioner William Evans does.

    “Having long guns – rifles and shotguns – especially here in the city of Boston, I think we should have, as the local authority, some say in the matter. For the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun. Nobody needs a rifle.” – Boston Public Radio, 23 July, 2013

    Fmr. Chief of Police for Los Angeles, California Bernard Parks does.

    “We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for show or someone having it in a collection.” – Reuters, 9 June, 2000

    Fmr. New York City Police Commissioner Patrick V. Murphy did.

    “We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police, and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons. And I would look forward to the day when it would not be necessary for the policeman to carry a sidearm.” – Testimony before the National Association of Citizen Crime Commissions.

    He died in 2011.

    Fmr. San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara does.

    “My experience as a street cop suggests that most merchants should not have guns. But I feel even stronger about the average person having them…most homeowners…simply have no need to own guns.”

    East Palo Alto Police Detective Rod Tuason does.

    “Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night. Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!”

    He is currently being investigated for ethics violations.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/02/14/gun-rights-advocates-target-california-detective-following-facebook-posts/

    Branford, Connecticut Police Officer Joseph Peterson does.

    “I [would] give my left nut to bang down your door and come for your gun.” Those are his exact words to a long-time “friend” of his . . .

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/10/officer-reportedly-tells-citizen-i-give-my-left-n-to-bang-down-your-door-and-come-for-your-gun/

    Connecticut Superior Court Judge Robert C. Brunetti does.

    “No one in this country should have guns. I never return guns.”

    http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-judge-declares-no-one-should-have-guns

    Connecticut Superior Court Judge Edward Mullarkey does, too.

    “Those who support the Second Amendment should be ashamed.”

    http://ctcarry.com/News/Release/631a41bd-55f3-4b63-9644-c79617bd54d9

    New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) does.

    “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” – New York Times, 21 December, 2012

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0

    Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel does.

    “We’re bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns.”

    Fmr. Stockton, CA Mayor Barbara Fass does.

    “I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semi-assault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.”

    Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Office of Government and Community Programs and the Community Violence Prevention Project at the Harvard School of Public Health, does.

    “My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”

    Chester M. Pierce, Fmr. Harvard psychiatrist, does.

    “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.” – Speaking as an “expert” in public education, 1973 International Education Seminar

    Fmr. Chancellor of Boston University John Silber did.

    “I don’t believe anybody has a right to own any kind of a firearm. I believe in order to obtain a permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!”

    He died in 2012.

    Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign) does.

    “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997

    “The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988

    “We must get rid of all the guns.” – Speaking on behalf of HCI, with Sheriff Jay Printz (of Printz v. U.S. fame no less!), “The Phil Donahue Show”, September, 1994

    “The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” – Tampa Tribune, 21 October, 1991

    James Brady, husband of Sarah Brady, did.

    “For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police departments.” – Parade Magazine, 26 June, 1994

    He died in 2014.

    Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Sarah Brady’s predecessor at HCI, does.

    “Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time…The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced…The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of handguns and all handgun ammunition –except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors– totally illegal.” – The New Yorker Magazine, 26 July, 1976, pg. 53F

    Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center, does.

    “Americans are ready to hate somebody, and it’s going to be the gun industry.” – Newsweek Magazine, 16 ay, 1994

    “The word ‘hate’ is a very carefully chosen word. There’s got to be a real sense of revulsion and disgust. People are looking for someone to blame, someone who’s the cause of their problems, and it should be the gun industry. These guys are the living embodiment of the slogan, ‘Guns don’t kill people-people kill people’. They’re complete mercenaries.” – The New American Magazine, 13 June, 1994

    “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.”

    “We need to ratchet down the firepower in civilian hands. We need to get assault weapons off our streets and off the gun store shelves … We should ban handguns.” – “NRA’s “really big problem”: Why it’s dependent on a dwindling fringe”, Salon.com, 13 June, 2014.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/06/13/nras_really_big_problem_why_its_dependent_on_a_dwindling_fringe/

    Michael K. Beard, Fmr President of The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence, does.

    “Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation.” – The Washington Times, 9 December, 1993

    Shannon Watts, head of Moms Demand Action, does.

    “I’ll be pretty clear on this. @MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period. It doesn’t matter what it takes.” – From Twitter, 10 June, 2014

    “Banning assault weapons. If you ban the assault weapons listed in the (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein bill, you would still have 2,000 firearms to choose from.”

    Time Magazine does.

    “As you probably know by now, Time’s editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use.” – Letter to the NRA, 24 April, 1981

    The New York Times does.

    “The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business.” – Unsigned editorial, 24 September, 1975

    The Washington Post does.

    “The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be banned…We do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual the right to keep them.” – “Legal Guns Kill Too”, 5 November, 1999

    The Star-Ledger Editorial Board does.

    “So do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.” – “What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks: Editorial”, 19 September, 2014

    Michael Gartner, Fmr. President of NBC News, does.

    “There is no reason for anyone in this country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.” – USA Today, “Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?”, 16 January, 1992

    Charles Krauthammer, a nationally syndicated columnist, does.

    “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” – From “Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet.”, The Washington Post, 5 April, 1996

    “I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work. (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.” – From “The root of mass-murder.”, The Washington Post, 20 December, 2012

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-roots-of-mass-murder/2012/12/20/e4d99594-4ae3-11e2-b709-667035ff9029_story.html

    Molly Ivan, another nationally syndicated columnist, does.

    “Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” – 19 July, 1994

    Gerald Ensely, of the Tallahassee Democrat, does.

    “How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns? I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks. I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Gun freaks say if you take away their guns only outlaws will have guns. That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.

    Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns. One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

    We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.” — In “Stop the insanity: Ban guns”, 23 Bovember, 2014

    “Professor” Dean Morris, Director of the Law Enforcement Assistance Association does.

    “I am one who believes that as a first step, the United States should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols, and revolvers…No one should have the right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun.”

    J. Elliot Corbett, Secretary of the National Council for Responsible Firearms Policy, does.

    “We are now supporting the President’s bill which provides stringent restrictions on rifles and shotguns. We shall also get behind the bill which provides for national registration and licensing. I personally believe handguns should be outlawed.” – 17 June, 1968

    “Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” – Interviewed for the Washington Evening Star, 19 September, 1969

    Rosie O’Donnell does.

    “I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” – Ottawa Sun, 29 April, 1999

    “I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” – The Rosie O’Donnell Show, 19 April, 1999.

    The American Civil “Liberties” Union does.

    “We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47, adopted by its Board of Directors in Semptember, 1976

    The United Nations does.

    “Tighten controls on the gun trade in the United States and other member nations.” – UN Disarmament Commission

    Poughkeepsie, NY Mayor John Tkayik (R) knows the truth.

    “I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens.”

    He is currently running for New York State Senator, 41st District.

    Sioux City, MO Mayor Bob Scott knows the truth, too.

    “I was never an active member. They’re not just against illegal guns, they’re against all guns.”

    So does Madeira Beach, FL Mayor Patricia Shontz.

    “I am withdrawing because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns. Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership. It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens. This is gun control, not crime prevention.”

    Nashua, NH Mayor Donnalee Lozeau knows.

    “I simply cannot be part of an organization that chooses this course of action instead of cooperatively working with those that have proven over a lifetime of work their true intentions.”

    Edgewood, KY Mayor John D. Link found out.

    “Sometime ago, I attended a meeting with many city officials from throughout the United States. At this meeting there was a table with the title “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” Not wanting illegal guns, I signed the form not knowing what kind of spin would ensue. As it turned out, I was against the 2nd amendment, etc. I have since been removed from the “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” movement. On our city website I have a letter to all stating my position. I’m not against the NRA, guns, or hunting, and never will be.”

    Oldmans Township, NJ Mayor Harry Moore knows better now.

    “It is simply unconscionable that this coalition, under your [Michael Bloomberg’s] leadership, would call for a repeal of the Shelby/Tiahrt amendment that helps to safeguard criminal investigations and the lives of law enforcement officers, witnesses, and others by restricting access to firearms trace data solely to law enforcement. How anyone, least of all a public official, could be willing to sacrifice such a law enforcement lifeline in order to gain an edge in suing an industry they have political differences with is repugnant to me. The fact that your campaign against this protective language consisted of overheated rhetoric, deception, and falsehoods is disturbing.”

    I could go on literally for days and days, listing pages upon pages of people saying exactly how and why they’re coming for our guns. Not a single bit of it could ever be supported, defended, or refuted by them, either.

    1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

      Great post but wow it must be the longest one ever here…

    2. avatar Luis says:

      Beautiful post. One small errata, and maybe you weren’t aware:

      I believe you meant Molly Ivins DID – she’s now deceased.

      I’m kinda GLAD that Ensley came right out and said they want to come for our guns. It finally drops the fig leaf of pretense, by those who say things like, “I support the Second Amendment, but…”, or “I believe in guns for protection, but…”

      Such people are known as “but monkeys”. I can almost hear the head of the Brady Bunch saying, “Pay no attention to that man in the bow-tie!” This actually reveals a schism in the ranks of the anti-gunners – with some continuing to mouth the platitudes of supporting the Second Amendment, while others like Ensley come right out and say they want to take our guns.

      What was that thing that Lincoln said about a house divided against itself? Well, now you have Ensley saying openly they want our guns – while at the same time, Shannon Watts still mouths platitutes about supporting the Second Amendment. Too late, the game is up.

      The Evolution of Gun Control:

      Legislation
      Registration
      Confiscation
      Extermination

  50. avatar PeterK says:

    “That’s a chance worth taking. Because if we ban guns, eventually the tide will turn. It might take 10 years or 20 years. Hell, it might take 50 years. But if we make it illegal to own a handgun, eventually there will be no handguns.”

    This is pure BS. Guy doesn’t understand math, let alone something as nuanced as history. Look at all the many countries where these things ARE banned. And for how long? 0 Fireams? No. 0 violent deaths? No.

    Man tripe like this makes me annoyed. especially when it starts out poisoning the well from the beginning. At least it exposes the extremists as what they are.

  51. avatar Kent W. says:

    He should put a big ” Gun free house ” sign on his house. Put his money where his mouth is.

  52. avatar dan says:

    ‘THEY’ that propose and demand these ‘laws’ will not be at your door to enforce them….they will send the LEO who choose to ignore the Constitution and natural rights , but will enforce some ‘politicians ‘ edict no matter what….the enforcers MUST not believe these despots, for if they choose to enforce tyranny,…then THEY will have made a ‘grave error.’……I would ask the politicians that make whatever ‘law’ , that demands LEO to enforce confiscation of weapons..to be the first at the ‘door’for enforcement….for if YOU are not willing to stand in front of your belief’s..then YOU should not be able to command a replacement to endure the rath for your tyranny….imho………………………..Molon Labe…………………..Semper Fi

  53. avatar JackinAlabama says:

    Outside of the fact that he’s a puerile progressive idealist who wouldn’t know a god-given right from a granted privilege, this dude’s rug AIN’T cuttin’ it, I’m just saying…

  54. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Maybe they should make shooting people illegal. Has anyone tried that yet? I mean it should be common sense so lets start there.

  55. avatar Glenn in USA says:

    I believe gun control activists are suicidal because they are begging to be martyrs for the sake of their agenda.
    Such extreme risk they are taking.
    They should be admired.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      It not suicidal because “they” aren’t going to do anything… “They” want other people to do it for them while “they” just heckle.

  56. avatar Merits says:

    Pretty bold words for a bow-tied democrat-man. If you ever convinced the government to do what you want them to, there would be a door-to-door, man-woman-child, hand to hand, hill valley and knoll, rural and urban, war to end all wars that would be so destructive and bloody that there would be nothing left for this Statist to rule over in the end.

    Which likely doesn’t bother him.

  57. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.”

    And by “we” he means other people with guns… He is just going to whine and belly ache.

  58. avatar Patrick A. Johnson says:

    Will banning guns prevent gun violence? In response, I offer three words to support that it will not – “War on Drugs.”

  59. avatar DickDanger says:

    Those who are willing to give up freedom for safety deserve neither.

  60. avatar TT says:

    My favorite part is when Ensley says the fact that “the average American has only a 1 in 250 chance of being the victim of a violent crime” means people don’t have a legitimate need for guns for self defense. By Ensley’s numbers (3 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people) the “average American” has .00075 in 250 chance of being murdered by someone with a gun. So by Ensley’s logic the government should force the average person to give up a means to mitigate one serious risk in an effort to mitigate a different serious risk that is 1,333 times less likely to occur.

  61. avatar Piet Padkos says:

    Come on, take and ban our guns!

    It’s not like people are smart enough to make more…

  62. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Actually, I wish more Liberals would spout off like Ensley. Statists like Bloomberg, Watts, and Gifford are much more dangerous.

  63. avatar Steve Hammond says:

    Come and TRY to get them TN faggot, it is your funeral. Only a faggot would wear a bow tie nowadays.

  64. avatar Anonymous says:

    About 5 years ago, a friend of mine asked me to hold a bag for him. I suspected drugs were in the bag but didn’t really give a shit since we were young and we didn’t have any heat on us. Finally I got bored one day and decided to look in the bag. Inside were about 100 old, faded, water-stained cardboard boxes, each the size of a pack of cigarettes. The boxes read “Morphine Sulfate”. Inside each box were four ampoules of morphine, the old brown glass kind. Apparently his girlfriends grandfather had stashed them somewhere during the Cold War. They were so old they didn’t even have the “C II” logo indicating it’s a Schedule II controlled substance, so they were at least as old as the Controlled Substances act (passed in 1970).

    My point? Those ampoules were found at least 40 years after they were stashed. With over 300 million firearms in the hands of private citizens alone, it would take at LEAST 100 years to even come close to getting every gun “off the street”. Then you’d still have all the stashed ones. We’ll still be using projectile weapon systems in 2114, but I doubt they’ll meet the definition of firearms. You can print an AR lower on a 3D printer now. In 20 or 30 years? You’ll probably be able to print in metal and make every component you need. And don’t forget about the fact that no one is going to try to ban LE/Mil from having guns and those guns will always get stolen, simple as that. Hell, look at the article about the ATF agent from 1992 losing his gun and badge and a fisherman finding it 22 years later. I’m betting that weapon could be stripped down to the frame, fitted with new parts and made into a fully functional firearm very easily. How many more of those are at the bottom of bodies of water or in lakes?

    The reality is that there are two kinds of gun control people: 1 – the kind that don’t understand guns and therefore don’t like them. 2 – the kind that have a grudge against guns coupled with nothing better to do (i.e. Shannon Watts) and are basically a bunch of Adolf Hitlers going after guns instead of jews. By reasoning with the first group we can easily take on the second.

  65. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Blah blah. My response is always the same. If Mr. Ensley wants to take our guns, he should tool up and get started.

  66. avatar john b says:

    And every other country that makes firearms will magically stop (including those that want to rule the world). The cartels won’t buy machining centers to make their own parts.

    I’ve always said it…the progressives/liberals have a short game and a long game…always with an eye on their prize.

  67. avatar barnbwt says:

    Is it just me, or does the guy look like a chicken in the photo? Like, the actual bird…

    “It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
    Hitler was wrong on this point. The problem is that, when exposed to the Lie long enough, you end up with a situation like Russia where the populace is largely unable to accept ANY truth, and only believes in multitude conspiracies for generations after the Lie ends. Literally, cynical beyond belief.

  68. avatar czp07 says:

    Something strange about a half man wearing a bow tie talking shit….whatever D. Bag….

  69. avatar BHirsh says:

    Re: Mein Kampf

    Gruber couldn’ta said it better hisse’f.

  70. avatar tom f. says:

    after the guns are removed from law abiding citizens, do you think that will make you satisfied, or,, what’s next?

  71. avatar Mary says:

    Oh don’t worry. It’s not propaganda or a sneaky method. We are coming for your guns. We are going to overturn the 2nd amendment. We have had enough. You are not being paranoid. We are coming and we are taking those weapons out of your hands. Count on it.

  72. avatar Biff Baxter says:

    Come take them, you bow-tied dweeb.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email