(courtesy salon.com)

I’ve been arguing with my New York-based family for the last few days over Facebook. The argument always starts the same way. They post something from Huffington Post about how evil guns are, make a broad statement about “stopping the evil NRA” and then demand “something needs to be done!” They never offer any proposals offered beyond those by Hillary Clinton. When I’m done fisking their statements they run to the same old rhetoric for refuge . . .

More guns isn’t the answer!

President Obama used that line in the pro-gun control speech he gave before the bodies at Umpqua were cold. The Washington Post addressed the “issue” of gun prevalence in an post-Umopqua article attempting to present both “sides” of the gun control argument. Their very first question: would more guns prevent more deaths? While it’s an excellent thought experiment, it’s isn’t really germane to a discussion about school shootings.

After these horrific events, security experts always recommend the same thing: arming school guards. As Wayne LaPierre pointed out after the Sandy Hook Slaughter, we have armed guards for politicians, banks and convenience stores (and even gun control activists). Providing the same protection for our children while they’re at school is a natural extension of a common sense solution to the threat of armed attack.

The gun control crowd reject the idea out of hand. When it comes to our most precious resource (our children), the calculus suddenly changes. While they would never admit it publicly, gun control advocates would prefer to have more children die in school shootings than to see their ultimate goal of a gun-free America go down the tubes. Here’s who that works . . .

Gun control advocates all agree on one thing: guns are evil. They cause death. Any notion that a gun can be used to save life is dismissed as being against the accepted doctrine. Never mind that defensive gun uses happen quite frequently. Any use of a firearm – other than guns used by agents of the state – is beyond the pale, something no one in a civilized society should even contemplate. Something that must be stopped.

Working from this doctrinaire view of the world, they get behind any law that promises to reduce the number of guns in the U.S. Similarly, they refuse to consider any piece of legislation that seeks to ease restrictions and increase the firearms availability. Arming school guards? Placing talismans of death in the same location as precious, angelic children? That’s totally unacceptable.

The majority of Americans just want their children to be safe — “even” if that means having armed guards in school. To keep that dangerous notion from taking root, the gun control crowd needs to poison the proposition. “You just want more guns all over the place! More guns aren’t the answer! How can more guns possibly make people safer? Guns kill people!”

Reducing gun ownership is the only acceptable solution to the “gun violence epidemic” (the one that doesn’t exist). Arming school guards means “putting more guns into more people’s hands.” It’s anathema to the antis’ indoctrinated base, who reject the idea without any additional thought, purely on an ideological basis. Their mainstream media enablers are also blind to the blindingly obvious  “solution” to school slaughter.

After the Umpqua shooting, once the initial rush of coverage of a mass shooting settled down, the media gave air time to pro-gun talking heads. The “sickened” anti-gun journos framed the questions over “solutions” using the anti-gunnners’ playbook. You’re pro-gun. You want everyone to have a gun. How would more guns have stopped this tragedy? There were armed students there and it didn’t do anything to stop the slaughter.

Whether or not more guns = less crime, regardless of Americans’ right to arm themselves, the lack of discussion about arming school guards or other school personnel leaves children and young adults exposed to potential danger. The gun control crowd don’t have a good argument against arming school staff. Engaging in the discussion would risk their supporters actually thinking about the issue objectively. Which is why we should be talking about it again. Now.

Recommended For You

71 Responses to How to Counter the Argument “More Guns Isn’t the Answer!” After School Shootings

  1. Two school shootings last year were stopped by LEOs stationed at those schools. I don’t know how to talk to people who can’t understand this concept.

  2. “Somehow when it comes to our most precious resource (our children) the calculus suddenly changes. Gun control activists would apparently prefer to have more children die in school shootings than to see their ultimate goal of a gun-free America go down the tubes.” This sounds an awful lot like antis speech. However, first of all the children are not collectively owned, nor do I have a responsibility for other peoples children. I don’t even value children any more than anyone else. Finally I think it is a bit hyperbolic to imply that if confronted with the certainty of the deaths of children in the face of getting the policies they want that most antis would accept opt for the deaths of the children. I suspect that rather they have a logical disconnect when confronted with a contradiction in their ideology.

    • I completely agree with your “logical disconnect” theory. They cant advocate something they dont want even when its the best solution. People are willing to pile bad decisions, lie to them selves and others rather then admit they were wrong on a issue.

  3. More guns aren’t the answer, fewer guns aren’t the answer, because guns aren’t the problem. However until someone does find the solution to violent crime, I will take whatever steps make sense to me.

    • Guns, in the hands of ethically upright and competent people, are the finest answer to violent crimes in progress that this world has ever seen. Further, those hands could be a police officer, an NRA member, or even an 87 year old grandmother who refuses to be a victim. Any action which purports to criminalize arms in the hands of responsible people is morally bankrupt.

      • “If someone had had a gun” — Donald Trump in an interview. That, in substance, is the final argument against gun-control arguments about limiting or confiscating guns. Gun controllers cannot refute the hard fact that a good guy with a gun in a spree killer attack has the potential (although not the guarantee) to save lives. Someone in possession of a gun means potential victims may have a fighting chance. The denial of the right to armed self-defense means that victims have no chance at all. No state can keep its citizens from being victims. Victims, however, can fight back. It’s the fighting back part that libtards are afraid of.

  4. The fact that they, (CSGV, etc), don’t allow opposing views or comments on anything web related just shows that they are not willing to listen to any thought or reason but their own.
    That makes them dangerous. And in my personal view, evil.

  5. The liberals and gun grabbers actually do want more school shootings and I think some of them have let that slip out. School shootings are an opportunity for them to further their agenda.
    About 2 weeks, a Brit on a talk show asked the liberals what actually would be effective in reducing school shootings with 300 million guns in the USA, and they stammered about the complexity of the problem, blathering about the passion and emotion of more gun control. The liberal media anchors never did come up with any real answers.

  6. Engaging in the discussion would risk their supporters actually thinking about the issue objectively.
    Not part of the agenda.

  7. i wonder how they’ll handle the near future when people get a formula whereby criminals can print fully functional machine gun (the real kind) built on their 3d printers.

    We’re probably only 10 years at most from that.

    Then it will be truly hilarious to see how they use gun control arguments. In that little slice of paradise, ONLY criminals will have easy and totally uncontrolled access to guns.

  8. I like talking with people who are smarter than me. That’s how I learn things.

    One such person brought a good point: We don’t actually need to *do* anything. We need to *stop* doing a few things.

    We need to stop pretending these things happen any more often than a statistical zero, especially when contrasted against other methods of getting dead. We need to stop sensationalizing the perpetrators of heinous acts, which validates their perceived grievances. We need to stop actively disrespecting the human right of self-defense of every school staff member, visitor, and even student that steps over an invisible and arbitrary felony line.

    I would love to read everybody’s thoughts on this, mostly because I believe you’re all smarter than I am. Even if you aren’t, you know something that I don’t or have a perspective I haven’t considered.

    • Yes, exactly.

      It doesn’t meet the emotional needs of people who scream we have to DO SOMETHING NOW even it’s just a really futile and stupid gesture, but that’s too bad.

    • We need to stop voting for the leftwing whining babies that feel the need to “Do SOMETHING”. Gov. Moonbeam has signed a bill prohibiting any chance of self-defense in our schools. He’d best pray that my grandkids are nice and safe.

    • Another enabler to kill more children while penalizing law abiding citizens obtaining a CCW with 10 year moratorium on gun ownership FOR possessing a bullet (not a gun) on a school grounds.

      This means if I go armed to my kids soccer game, on a weekend, l loose my CCW and right to lawfully defend myself, family and soccer players.

      This will be the reason I leave the state.

      • I can’t blame you. I donated money to Calguns, signed petitions, and called the governor’s office. He bent to the Democrat’s anti-gun schtick like a tentpole in a hurricane.

    • The LA Times story talks about closing a “loophole that allows people with concealed-weapons permits to carry firearms onto school grounds.”

      What was the status of the law until now? Was there actually a “loophole” or did the law’s intent allow it?

      • Don’t know about California, but there’s an intentional Federal exemption in the Gun Free School Zones act, based on the state you’re in not having their own laws against it, and also having a concealed carry licensing program. Here in Oregon even though most school districts do their utmost to lie and convince everyone that no matter what you cannot bring a firearm into their buildings (and people that get caught often are arrested illegally) the exemption does in fact exist, as intended, licensed carriers can carry anywhere in the so called Gun free zone.

  9. The hard part is there are some who are emotional to the point they want any number of deaths from guns to be between 01. Which is an impossibility. I also note that they blank out moments of historical record in those countries with strict gun laws (see Oz and they have had 4 mass shootings since the 96 ban) or they move the goal posts (again see Oz and instead of gun crime we see arguments about suicide or the constant shift about what is a civilized nation as if Mexico or Brazil aren’t civilized) or ignore that even in the most strictest of nations there is still gun violence (see japan where only the police and the Yakuza carry really and they still have a rate of firearm death where x>1). They don’t care, it is the fear of the gun it is the fear of violence. That is why these folks don’t want the rest of us to have it. It isn’t about imposing control, no they want some mythical peace utopia where everyone loves everyone and so on. The problem is the progs reject reason and science in that we are at our base animals and have animal like impulses towards violence. Nothing will change that. Yet, they hold onto a fantasy like a rainbow pooping unicorn being ridden by a leprechaun who has a large golden pot with gold in it.

    I would note that some other essay I read some place else recently; seem to make the distinction between how the Progressive Left of the 1900s to 1920s made it that we could reduce crime and increase productive, reduce poverty, and cure all the other social ill if we get rid of the devil’s water Alcohol. So they did, by making it all about those emotional appeals. It worked we got rid of it, wasted time and resources hunting down the scofflaws. The mythos that the prohibition made the mob is wrong if you read the history. It just was always there; what it did was make them richer faster and gave them a reason to actively compete for a segment in the market share in the black market. Now off course the Progressive claim to not have been behind the ban on booze. They instead blame church going conservative and use weasely words to try and describe the demographics flip of who is a prog and who is a conservative. Now the modern “history” being told in some books is that it was the evil conservatives who wanted to blow up booze because religion and fear and some other crap.

    We need to ask ourselves if now almost a hundred years from the ban on booze at a federal level, that the progs of today wouldn’t try it again with guns. You have seen plenty of agtiprop from folks tied to the disarmament movement in the media in the last 8 years. Now the media is spinning all manner of stories to be disarm now, see the recent number of articles about Lennon’s 75th birthday and most of them start with the premise that if he hadn’t been gunned down by a nutter then we would have had rock and roll and no inner city poverty and the world would have been a happy place. Look at the international news (I follow a number of more right wing UK papers like the Telegraph and the Times) where every place that there is a shooting it has become an international headline. Look at the left leaning papers (the guardian, Haaretz [the lefty paper of Israel], Der Speigal and others) and they have painted the US as dangerous or more so than any country in the midis of a civil war and no functional government, as well as painting anyone who believes in arms as being akin to ISIS or AQ or any other terror group out there.

  10. The real answer is, More fathers and fewer sperm doners.
    But the left knows that children don’t need a proper male role model.

    • I strongly suspect that men who have the mentality of “sperm donor” are NOT the men you would want as father figures.

      Strong male role models is the more important aspect in almost every respect.

  11. Let’s accept for a moment their argument that guns are only used to kill people.
    Here’s an argument that matches with their black and white thinking:
    “There are two kinds of people, good people and evil people. There are two options: evil people kill good people trying to live their peaceful lives or good people kill evil people trying to kill good people. Which would you prefer? How long will you keep allowing evil people to kill good people and innocent children? I am sick of seeing defenceless people being killed by evil people and we need to do something about it”.

    Then they will most likely argue getting rid of all guns would fix that or any one of the idiotic and unfounded arguments and you will lose them after presenting any single fact to the contrary of the emotional argument locked in their head.

  12. More guns in the hands of competent, responsible gun owners and less guns in the hands of psychotic or thugs IS the answer

  13. If our esteemed president and other Washington bigwigs send their kids to a school (Sidwell Friends) that has a dozen armed guards on staff, why is it an unacceptable precaution for the rest of us?

    • a dozen armed guards in addition to the phalanx of secret service and capital police. . . . .

      there – fixed it for ya

  14. If ‘more guns isn’t the answer’, then why is it that whenever a gun is misused these same liberal twits get on their phones and dial 911 and pray that more guns show up before the only gun on the scene comes for them?

  15. What I’ve heard from virtually every anti-gunner is the hyperbolic claim that we’re insisting on arming all teachers, even in kindergarten. Or some such bull. Face it, no such thing would ever happen, nor would it need to.

    The ONLY thing that DOES need to happen is to remove legal and political sanctions to lawful concealed carry on school grounds. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less. Some teachers and administrators will indeed arm themselves, quietly and unobtrusively, perhaps carrying on their person, perhaps not. But the seed of deterrence will be planted, and that’s really all that’s necessary.

    Tom

    • That does make me laugh. They “shout” it in all caps most of the time; “YOU WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE A GUN ON THEM THAT DOESNT MAKE US SAFE NOT EVERYONE CAN USE A GUN LIKE A ACTION MOVIE STAR”. This is yet more projection, since they want to make every gun owner/carrier change their life completely they think we want everyone that isn’t a gun owner/carrier to change their life completely. All we ask for is that people that already have carry permits, already went through all the government probing, went through all the training and vetting, and want to carry be allowed to do so. I remember the overwhelmingly positive reports coming from teachers during that short period where the districts were covering the costs of teachers taking their concealed carry classes for those that wanted to do so.

      The anti-gun side thinks that since they want to force us to do something we want to force them to do something and it’s more emotionally-driven projectionist malarkey.

  16. Ive learned through experience with my family. You cant argue with a closed mind. No matter where I send them for the facts debunking their beliefs.
    A Liberal mind is a waste of time to argue with.
    In my close family anyway. No more hugz for my family. Im tired of explaining why I carry a gun 20/24 7 days a week including at home 24/7.

  17. What gun people need to understand is that the anti-gun zombies don’t hate guns. They hate us. So when they say “we have to do something,” they mean “we have to do something about you!” When they say “more guns is not the answer,” they mean “more people like you is not the answer!”

    In this regard, culture wars and race wars have a lot in common. Neither require any degree of thought.

    • Ironic that you used the term “zombies” because most of the people I know and see in my social media feed who are anti-gun (or anti-free) love those stupid zombies shows where people survive because they have guns.

    • Very true. If gun control isn’t about guns but rather control, then their hatred isn’t about guns but rather about those who refuse to be controlled. Who hates people who refuse to be controlled? Statists.

  18. Anti-gun harpy: “more guns aren’t the answer to school shootings!!!”

    Rational Person: “Then we shouldn’t call cops with guns when people are being shot?”

  19. Let’s start with the right question … how do we minimize the total number of innocent victims of all spree killers?

    The answer is simple: good people must counterattack the spree killer as soon as possible with the most effective counterattack possible.

    And here is the proof:
    (1) The sooner the counterattack, the fewer the casualties.
    (2) The more effective the counterattack, the fewer the casualties.
    There is no wiggle room in these two components of the solution. There is nothing to explore or understand. They are simple facts that are just as absolute as the fact that our oceans have salt in them.

    Now, for the coup de grâce:
    (1) No one can counterattack a spree killer faster than the spree killer’s intended victims because the intended victims are already on site. Period. This is not debatable. It is an absolute fact.
    (2) No tool can universally incapacitate any spree killer more quickly and more reliably than a firearm. Period. This is not debatable. It is an absolute fact.

    This is how you destroy the gun-grabber’s ramblings. You start with the right question. And you provide the simple answer with immutable facts.

    Of course some gun-grabbers will try to go off on a tangent and say something like, “Well, if we eliminated firearms, then unarmed people would be much more effective in their counterattack against an unarmed spree killer.” And to that you can respond, “Tell me, how is a 50 year old, 120 pound female kindergarten teacher, with nothing more than her bare hands, going to stop a 20 year old, 240 pound male spree killer with a machete or steel pipe?” And make sure to remind your gun-grabber friend how quickly and easily a 20 year old, 240 pound male spree killer could kill 10 kindergarten children using nothing more than a machete or a steel pipe. Answer: it would take no more than one solid strike from a steel pipe or sharp machete to kill a child and the hypothetical fit male could easily deliver one strike every six seconds. In other words that hypothetical fit male could easily kill 10 children in 60 seconds.

    Gun-grabbers who disagree with the above argument will reveal their true beef as Ralph stated above: gun-grabbers want a solution that doesn’t involve us.

    • u_c, I agree, but wouldn’t it be better to get to the root of the problem? Surely the perps all have/had serious psychological issues, and many if not most were taking psychotropic drugs known to have side effects in line with extreme violence.

      Wouldn’t it be good to address the root cause (psychology)?

      • With so many roots out there it is impossible to rid the country of these actions outright. These are black swan events. A black swan by definition cannot be predicted, there are too many variables; consider how many people there are, think about all their mixed issues, then consider all the relationships there are and the issues and conflict that may bring, then consider all the places that might be considered as a venue, consider all the false threats and diabolic boasting that does not lead to an event, then tally up all the potential guns that could be used and you have an event that is impossible to predict. I’m sure there are more variables than that as well.

        “Getting to the root” assumes we can use statistics to zero-in on likely individuals, particular guns used, a particular place, and a particular time. What we know is a “troubled individual” using “some kind of firearm” will attack “some where” at “some time in the future”. There are millions of “troubled individuals” that will not do any harm to anyone in their life. There are hundreds of millions of guns that will never be used to hurt anyone. There are hundreds of millions of locations that will not ever see any violence.

        We do need to improve our mental illness system for a whole host of reasons, but expecting that to reduce the numbers of these horrible events may be a stretch and would further stigmatize and ostracize those who need mental illness help.

        From some accounts we know these troubled individuals were social outcasts and loners, making social watch-dog systems, as proposed by liberals, useless. Others are very good actors, so much so that those close to them are shocked by the events they commit. Most have no criminal background or disqualifying events in their lives, which follows the general population trend. There is no way to predict these events, the only sensible common sense solution is having an effective counterattack plan in place to neutralize the threat as quickly as possible. Stopping it is not going to happen, when it happens you have to stop it.

  20. No one is claiming that “more guns” is the answer. we are claiming, quite correctly, that an individual has a right to carry a firearm in case of such an event. We are also claiming, again correctly, that shouting about mass shootings is pointless and counter productive and actually harmful to the end of finding a solution for violence, and that singling out “gun violence” is meaningless.

    • A socialist wanting to disarm his subjects? Say it ain’t Hitler…I mean Mao…I mean Stalin…I mean so.

      It proves Sanders is as much a career liar as any other politician. He played the Vermon “game” to get elected, not pushing gun control there. But once he has the big seat, you better believe he’ll go full Stalin. And Vermont will be responsible for ending America.

  21. “When it comes to our most precious resource (our children), the calculus suddenly changes. While they would never admit it publicly, gun control advocates would prefer to have more children die in school shootings than to see their ultimate goal of a gun-free America go down the tubes.”

    TRANSLATION: Follow the money.

    No more dead kids to mourn and provide bloody clothes to wave, no more fat checks for Ladd, Shannon, et al. Which means real jobs and real problems. for them. Boom

    • It’s the same reason employers have no-guns policies; they want to avoid financial liability and have no legal requirement to keep everyone safe and alive. Even the police don’t have that requirement. The chance that the employer would be financially liable for a mistake an employee makes is far more important than the lives of the employees or anyone in their care. When the surviving loved ones come to complain they put on a show and do nothing that would make a difference, if anything they do something to limit their liability further and order a $10 plaque to give to the families.

  22. As long as there are crazy people fixed on doing bad things we are left to match them or better them as a defense.
    The armed people at Umpqua were not in the area, and Umpqua is a gun-free zone, this is fact.

  23. You might have better luck leaving guns out of the discussion at least at the beginning. The problem is that a school staff member needs some way to subdue or drive off an intruder who has malicious intentions. The method must be one that can be implemented in seconds and is effective against intruders with superior size and strength. If your relatives reply that it wouldn’t be necessary in the absence of guns, you can play the “what if” game on them. What if the intruder is armed with a knife, hammer, etc. or is unarmed but suffering from drug induced paranoia? How many will he kill before the police arrive? The strategy is to back them into a corner where they have only two alternatives — arm the staff or accept casualties.

  24. I’m not sure why nobody points out that these are all staged events. Nobody died at Sandy Hook and Oregon was a drill. These will not stop because they are being organized at a high level, not lone lunatics. Spend a couple hours looking at these events and it will be clear to you.

  25. Armed guards at Whole Foods, a liberal favorite, are OK, but it’s not OK in schools.

    Liberals are absolutely and completely stupid when it comes to this topic.

  26. “More guns isn’t the answer” … they are asking the wrong questions, then.

    But we know Liberals always tries to solve the wrong problem.

    The problem isn’t “guns” but “violence” and the clearly failed policy of “Gun Free Zones”, which was an emotional, not rational, response to violence.

  27. Ya’ know I noticed more armed guards and guys obviously carrying guns in the very large NW indiana church we attend.(Besides me). I don’t know if there was any threat but it was good to see. And they encourage self-defense as the pastor actually made a gun joke where he inferred he was a gun owner. I love the “normalizing” they have done. No gun-free zones here-gotta’ love the Baptists…

  28. If more guns aren’t the answer, why do leftists call the police to come bring themselves and their guns to an emergency?

  29. “Guns are Evil!” or so say the anti gunners. That is assigning human characteristics to an inanimate object, also known as anthropomorphism, or in writing, “pathetic fallacy.”

    How appropriate.

  30. I don’t think more guns is the answer. However, I don’t think that less guns is the answer either. I think that the root cause of the violence and hate filled suiciders has nothing to do with guns at all.

    People back in the day had pride, honor, respect for their families, morals, and family values. Today we live progressively and incrementally in the liberal’s utopia. More taxes, less responsibility, less accountability, free baby aborting, free healthcare, increased microaggressions, less tolerance for others different from ourselves, erosion of rights and totalitarian Majoritarianism. The state, the state psychologists, and state human services are never going to care about a child as much as a responsible parent instilled with the characteristics first mentioned above. We are in a state of cultural and moral decay. More or less guns aren’t going to fix that.

  31. “If someone had had a gun” — Donald Trump in an interview. That, in substance, is the final argument against gun-control arguments about limiting or confiscating guns. Gun controllers cannot refute the hard fact that a good guy with a gun in a spree killer attack has the potential (although not the guarantee) to save lives. Someone in possession of a gun means potential victims may have a fighting chance. The denial of the right to armed self-defense means that victims have no chance at all. No state can keep its citizens from being victims. Victims, however, can fight back. It’s the fighting back part that libtards are afraid of.

  32. The real problems called nfa act in 3 editions (34,68 and 86) + GFSZA thats discriminated the liberty of any state to to self what they think it”s best.
    Complete repeal needet !

  33. I tried to argue against a guy saying that guns in civilian hands don’t stop crimes. I told him he was wrong, and cited 3 or 4 articles in the past 2 weeks where civilians stopped crimes with guns. The liberal then put up an article from NY Times “proving” his side. I then showed him more articles, and I was told that my articles were merely anecdotes, I was stupid not to belief his biased opinion piece, and his article was science. These people don’t understand logic, and no amount of reasoning will make them stop. Every time I try they just regurgitate more crap they heard but never researched. I hope maybe one day we can just wall them off into their own pot haze utopias, and the real americans can get back to making this country great.

    • I feel you. I don’t know how to show people that what they think is science is actually anything but.

      When you point out that just because something is peer-reviewed and even if you assume it’s politically neutral (newsflash, it isn’t), then you still aren’t guaranteed it’s correct they flip out on you and call you anti-science. It’s entirely aggravating.

  34. I’ve seen some really terrible arguments surrounding this. When you say you think people should be allowed to carry in schools they act like you are trying to force guns on every teacher. Which is the biggest non sequitur ever. Maybe it’s because they are trying to forcibly disarm you? They assume the opposite extreme in you?

    The other thing is I can’t tell if they are dismissive or what, but no one seems to take seriously the claim that guns are used EVERY DAY to defend people. You have to drag it out of them that they don’t want to stop people from defending themselves. But they two minutes later they seem perfectly willing to totally disarm everyone because look at this baby or w/e. Sigh. I guess the first thing to do is help them get over the emotional paralysis so they can actually look at things rationally?

  35. We need to stop letting the opposition frame the question.

    Every mass shooting is stopped by guns… eventually. The cops show up with guns and stop the mass shooting. That’s a 100% success rate, once the people with guns show up.

    The real question is, how long should killers be allowed kill before the people guns, which WILL stop them, show up?

    Since we know that 100% of mass shooting are stopped by armed interdiction, how much free killing time are you (Mr. Anti-gun) willing to give mass murdered before they are stopped?

  36. Not to be critical, but the headline on this article promised “How to counter the argument.” The article talked a lot about the argument, and why dipwits continue to make the argument, but contains no counter to the argument. “We have to continue to argue with them” doesn’t qualify. I’ve actually seen better counters in the comments than in the original article. 🙁

  37. Schools should be teaching the “Bill of Rights” because it is OUR history.
    Some of the disarmed people murdered by the governments of the world, Christians Rome, Jews Nazi Germany, Aztecs Spanish, Maori of NZ and Aboriginals Australia, Chinese, Scottish William Wallace, the Irish, Welsh by English and the Native America by the US government. THIS is why we need guns to protect ourselves from those who would subject us to their whim and if this is not enough just google dictators.
    There are over 400 gun laws on the books and they have done nothing to stop the violence. Because of the winey few we are chastised for wanting to protect ourselves. We NEED guns to protect ourselves from criminals in and out of the government. I deserve the right to protect myself and if you don’t like it tough $hit.
    The only gun control law there should be is that criminals can’t have any firearms. No double standards put DC politicians on Obamacare and SS.Thanks for your support and vote.Pass the word. mrpresident2016.com

Leave a Reply

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