Keith C. Burris (courtesy toledoblade.com)

“It’s the guns, stupid,” Keith C. Burris editorializes for toledoblade.com. [Spoiler Alert: when Keith calls you stupid, he’s not kidding.] “We can’t control them, but we can, and eventually must, regulate them. Limit them.” Now that’s what I call a distinction without a difference. But Mr. Burris’ attempt to euphemize his readers into accepting the unacceptable is no different from other failed attempts by the civilian disarmament industrial complex to rebrand gun control into something more insidious. I mean, palatable. No wait. Insidious. How this for “logic” . . .

We put limits on how fast people may drive, on when and where and to whom alcohol may be sold, and on what food and drugs may be sold on the open market. We regulate political speech and spending. If we limit the kinds of guns that may be sold and to whom, the Second Amendment will endure.

That’s not the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard a gun control advocate say but it’s certainly one of the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard I’ve ever heard a gun control advocates say. We’ve got to infringe on the Second Amendment to protect its protections against infringement. Go figure.

I don’t think the term “gun regulation” will enter the antis’ lexicon. Unlike the Ohio intellectual, America’s über-antis understand that mainstream Americans place the word “regulation” somewhere between “an upside down mortgage” and “syphilis” in the list of things they feel they need to make their lives better.

After having tendered that piece of non-logic for the feeble-minded, Burris finishes his dietribe [sic] by vigorously waving the bloody shirt.

Our kids are dying. Reasonable, responsible, modest regulation of guns is simply humane. It will take political courage. But that can usually be found in times of crisis in America. I see Sen. Rob Portman (R., Ohio) as someone who could lead on this issue, and persuade those now uninformed or afraid.

We have failed to acknowledge an obvious moral imperative: Little children should not be shot in their schools. Shot multiple times. In the arms of teachers trying to shield them.

The man who killed 20 children and their teachers in Newtown, Conn., should not, with the problems he had, have had access to any gun. And he had access to weapons of war.

Visiting before her speech, Ms. Hockley told me she would never “get over” the death of her son. It’s not possible, she said, and she would not want it to be possible.

If we are a good society, a just and humane one, even an approximation of the civilization we want to be, we won’t forget it either.

It’s funny how gun control advocates get so close to the truth. Little children should not be shot in their schools. Adam Lanza should not have had access to any gun. Ms. Hockley nor society should not forget what happened that day. But gun control could not – did not – prevent that tragedy. No matter what you call it.

43 Responses to Another Day, Another Gun Control Euphemism: “Gun Regulation”

  1. So Sen. Rob Portman wants children to die if he does not lead on this issue.
    Cute callout. It’s like the third grade all over again.

    • There ya go! He aimed that epithet directly at the wrong crowd. It’s that “projection” thing I guess.

  2. Too many children die from car accidents(collisions with fault not accidents). That’s a perfect reason to regulate the wheeled transport of our youngsters. Cars didn’t exist when the Bill of Rights was written nor is it even mentioned that motorized transport is a secured freedom. Now let’s look at that “for the children” argument or possibly we can revisit the “ar15’s are not muskets” bs… Drops mic.

  3. Let’s limit the kinds of people we can shoot.
    Bad guys. Whoops, gotta check my misogyny, bad PEOPLE.
    If the person you shoot, isn’t bad, you get a ticket, just like speeding. That makes sense, doesn’t it.
    /sarc

  4. Yeah, a dumb bunny for sure… Just wondering, however, if someone took his razor away from him – for his own good, of course. Or is he just too dumb and lazy to shave regularly. Either grow a beard or shave.. Is it just me, or are there more and more people in the “news” these days with such creepy faces? Hmmm, maybe it isn’t the hair, really. Just adds a measure of yuk to the whole thing.

    • Inoticed this whole 1 day shadow fad become more common as the metrosexual movement spread.

      As real men became girly men they compensated by trying to look rough and tough by not shaving.

      To me, it just looks unkempt, messy and just plain uncomfortable.

      I know when I go for more than a day unshaved it just itches.

    • It’s a “look” Mama Liberty. Nothing more or less-except he looks like crap. And +1 Chip…

  5. That’s nice cupcake. Lets start by regulating the authors 1st Amendment ‘ suggestion ‘
    We now know , surely , we cant just have ‘ certain ‘ people speaking freely. I order to have free speech one must be ‘ approved ‘ and vetted lest they say something offensive , or in Mr. Burriss’ case ‘ tarded.

  6. The comparison with cars always fascinates me. Yes, how fast you can go is regulated. But what KIND of automobile you can purchase is for the most part not regulated. There are all manner of automobiles I can buy that the average person has no need for. If automobiles were to be regulated like guns (or how many want guns to be regulated), we’d see the following laws:

    1) No cars with more than 50 hp

    2) All civilian vehicles (minus law enforcement) limited to 0 – 60 acceleration of no less than 12 seconds

    3) Top speed of all civilian vehicles 65 mph

    4) All engines four cylinders or less

    5) GPS tracking devices on all cars

    6) High-powered sports cars only legal with special license, training requirement, permit, and when operated on a track

    7) To purchase an SUV, full-size van, or pickup truck, one must demonstrate a specific need for the vehicle, and special license, permit, tax, training requirement, and insurance required. All SUVs/full-size vans/pickup trucks limited to 100 hp 6 cylinder engines. Transmissions will be geared low for torque requirements for things like towing and hauling.

    Now the thing is, such regulations as the above, if implemented in all vehicles over time, probably WOULD help prevent some automotive deaths that occur and end high-speed chases (although criminals could always illegally modify their cars). But even if so, it would be a blatant violation of personal freedom.

    Alcohol we have limitations for age, but we still sell it nonetheless. We don’t outlaw for example hard liquor like whiskey and only limit people to say wine, we let people drink whatever they want. If outlawing of it could be done where there was no black market present (a fantasy), it would save lives from drunk drivers, but it also would be a major infringement on human freedom (if only politicians and people overall loved guns as they do alcohol).

    The comparison with current driving laws to guns would be if you could freely carry a rifle anywhere, and just say when going through towns, or say a school zone, there were big signs saying things like, “Weapons On Safe and Pointed Down,” “School Zone: Emphasize Muzzle Awareness,” etc…

    • Don’t forget, if cars have any two of the following features:

      -Spoilers
      -Racing rims
      -Ground effects
      -Headrests
      -Fuel Injection
      -Fiberglass hood
      -Air scoops of any kind

      …then they’re considered racing cars and are illegal for the general public to own.

    • Well good luck if you want to buy any “global” market vehicle that doesn’t meet the ridiculous EPA/NHTSA standards. You can’t very allowed to drive unsafe and polluting vehicles sold in such third world nations such as England and Germany.

      You might even be arrested and your vehicle seized if you somehow manage to get around the import restrictions, such as what happened to a man who imported a diesel Land Rover a couple years back.

  7. Somebody who doesn’t know that “weapons of war” (i.e. full-auto capable, small-arms wise) have been rather tightly regulated since 1935 has no business calling anyone else “uninformed”.

    • Well, they look like scary war weapons, so that’s all the information he needs. Just like any time you see someone wearing camouflage they’re obviously a soldier…

  8. The Toledo Blade. He makes such “cutting” commentary, “cuts to the quick”, “straight to the heart”, about such a hot button issue, at least in his own mind.

    Of course, it’s not about the guns”stupid”. There are already laws against rape, robbery, murder and assault. Making laws restricting an inanimate object to stop a human predator from committing unprovoked violence against another human being is the height(depth?) of “stupid(ity)”.

  9. Two thoughts:

    1. Thanks for suggesting regulation as a way to allow the Second Amendment to “endure.” The only threat to the 2A is people like you. I’m calling BS on this new gun-grabber talking point, which is fast becoming ubiquitous as a replacement for “I support the Second Amendment but…

    2. I can’t make up my mind whether these anti-gun hysterics are cynically suggesting that firearms are currently completely unregulated, or if they actually believe it. I do know that it works, though — I’ve had conversations with countless people who have no clue how regulated guns actually are. The most common rationale I’ve heard for this line of thinking is “Well, why are there so many mass shootings/school shootings/nuts running around with assault weapons, then?”

  10. We put limits on how fast people may drive…

    I can drive as fast and in whatever manner I like on my private property. I can own any vehicle I like on my private property with zero regulations of any kind whatsoever – no insurance, no registration, no driver’s license, no background checks. I can modify these cars on my private property any way I like with no limitations.

    We put limits… on when and where and to whom alcohol may be sold

    Fine, but I can make my own beer at home with no limitations whatsoever. I can share my brew with anyone I like.

    We put limits … on what food and drugs may be sold on the open market

    Quite futilely I may add for both drugs and food. Regardless of the FDA regulations on things like raw cow’s milk and farmers and gardener’s produce, people with money wanting food will continue to buy and sell.

    We regulate political speech and spending.

    When has a the government regulated spending? I’m not seeing this at all. Regulate political speech? What about your political speech? Should that be regulated?

    If we limit the kinds of guns that may be sold and to whom, the Second Amendment will endure.

    What?? Talk about some Orwellian doublespeak right there. This total weirdo is like some character straight out of 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World. And he actually supports this totalitarian nonsense.

    For his totally ridiculous statements I have awarded Keith C. Burris the “Totalitarian Award.” Yay.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2011/12/21/201112217456860734_20.jpg

    The Totalitarian award is the highest honor granted to those with the greatest fervor in supporting endless regulations and legislation for the purpose of the homogenizing the governed body into one singular entity where all are the same, bleeding with nationalism, and saluting the greater good as portrayed by the governing entities, with happiness and safety for all. Through endless implementations of laws, we will all reach peace, happiness, and safety.

  11. “If we are a good society, a just and humane one, even an approximation of the civilization we want to be, we won’t forget it either regulating inanimate objects for any reason would be deemed unwarranted and unnecessary.

    Ftfy Keith…

  12. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I am getting really fed up with all these ” intellectuals” thinking they know what’s good for everyone else while in the same breath putting everyone else down.
    I read his little diatribe and it is packed with the same tired, inaccurate drivel. You would think that after they get sent to the woodshed time after time on the padded stats, down right lies and misinformation, that they would learn how much of an ass-clown it makes them look like.

  13. I was just pleased to read the comments below the article in the paper. The writer is being excoriated for his foolishness!

  14. The man who killed 20 children and their teachers in Newtown, Conn., belonged in an asylum sharing a room with Burris, where they could spend their spare time arguing over the last little tub of lime Jello.

  15. I appreciate, in a totalitarian spirit, that his justification for more control is existing control. Many of us didn’t appreciate the first serving.

  16. Good grief. It’s elementary school all over again. Half a dozen half wits sitting around a tree house reflexively shouting “New rule!” before offering up the lastest, lasting solution to every imaginable, mostly imaginary, temporary problem. Well.

    Turns out, “No girls allowed” was as shortsighted and misguided then, as “It’s the guns” is now. Grow up, Mr. Burris, grow up.

  17. Just how short does this guy think the public’s attention span is?

    This column is billed as the second of two parts. In the first part, he relates the efforts of a post-Newtown group to reduce gun violence — without regulating guns. Then, in the second part, he proceeds to make exactly the opposite case — that we should regulate guns because, as he would like us to believe, are completely unregulated.

    Has he no shame? Cynically co-opting the emotional element of Newtown directly from the parents of murdered children? And then completely contradicting their message in favor of his own, factually bankrupt talking points? Wow. Talk about climbing over dead bodies to get to the pulpit.

    For a publication that proclaims itself “one of America’s great newspapers,” the Toledo Blade isn’t so sharp.

  18. For a half a century the Toledo Blade has dominated that city’s weak kneed politicians. Why the east side of Toledo is such a garden spot and the entire city is a model of economic growth.

  19. Is HE the one who’s a dummy, or is he just knowingly lying through his teeth to accomplish his entrenched ends, and damn the means? I mean, Shannon Watts, aka Mommy-Who-Demands-Action-Dearest, has repeatedly said that there has never been a single case of a gun in the hands of a private citizen stopping a crime or saving innocent life. There is no way she believes that. No way she’s been in this debate for this long and thinks that’s true. So when these people try to make their “argument” to the middle-ground undecideds, they are lying. Being a moron is bad, but intentional lies are worse, because they carry the intent to deceive with them. Calling this guy an idiot is giving him a pass for something intentional, as if he doesn’t know any better. Of course he does. He’s just chosen to flat-out lie to achieve his objectives. Pantalones en el fuego.

  20. I think the founders of the republic would be quite upset by any “regulation” of speech, especially political speech. Freedom of political speech is the primary type of speech that the first amendment was written to protect.

    False speech that is likely to cause mass panic (yelling fire in a theater when there isn’t a fire) is prohibited but unlikely because no one listens anymore.

    The right to keep and bear arms is absolutely necessary because of attempts to “regulate” speech.

  21. If only that woman in Australia didn’t have access to a knife, those 8 children would still be alive! If only the Charlie Hebdo attackers didn’t go to a Belgium train station and buy real weapons of war, oh wait, those were highly controlled and they still bought them. The point? Bad people find a way to do bad things to innocent people.

    This guy fails at data analysis. How will controlling what guns I personally can buy stop gang bangers and crazy frackers from killing people? Oh that’s right, it won’t. He who shall not be named could have had an H&R handi rifle or NEF shotgun and killed just as many people. He had 9 minutes to kill uninpeded. How do you prevent a crazy person from shooting at will for 9 minutes? Give him effective opposition, someone who has a firearm and can put up a fight.

  22. This is no surprise to Christian Conservatives, liberals have been doing this verbal voodoo for decades. They call sexual perversion equality. They call the murder of babies women’s rights. They call illegal aliens undocumented workers. Christian Conservatives have been the number one victim of liberal verbal voodoo. Gun owners should not allow the liberals to get away with this. Push back!!

Leave a Reply

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