Quote of the Day: Edgar Allen Beem Wants to Replace The Second Amendment Edition

“In an ideal world here’s what we’d do about guns. First, we’d replace the Second Amendment with a law stating that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Only people over 21 who have passed an extensive background check and a gun safety course would be allowed to own firearms, subject to certain limitations. No automatic or semiautomatic weapons. No assault weapons. No high-capacity magazines. No silencers. Concealed-weapon permits issued by police only upon demonstrated need . . .

All gun owners to drill once every two years with local law enforcement because, after all, the right to bear arms is not about hunting, it’s about maintaining a well-regulated militia. None of this is likely to occur of course, but, at the very least, we should make every effort to pass a universal background-check law. At this point I could care less whether background checks would have any effect on gun violence or not.” – Edgar Allen Beem, The Universal Notebook: Sick of guns, sick of intimidation [via theforecaster.net]

comments

  1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Please, I urge you: begin the process to amend the second amendment.

    Fair warning, though: the right to keep and bear arms is a natural, inherent, civil right. It does not derive from the constitution.

    Also: why do you hate poor people and the innocent? Why do you wish to see them disarmed, and rendered defenseless against perpetrators of violence and other evil intent?

    1. avatar James says:

      Answer: because the perpetrators is usually the government or some voting bloc that helps keep the government in power. Simple authoritarianism and totalitarianism.

      1. avatar Custodian says:

        He tips his hat to a new constitution and takes a bow for the new revolution!

        Does any liberal think, that the repealing of the second amendment WON’T trigger the second civil war of our troubled republic?

    2. avatar Question Authority says:

      Beem just wants to help people, if only they could be made live the way he knows would be best for them. It isn’t just the 2nd that keeps him from helping people, it is all those other “rights” also. If only he could make everyone think as he thinks and do as he does. /sarc

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Delete the “/sarc” and you would be 100% right. He and his ilk are unshakably convinced that the world would be perfect if only they had the power to force everyone to live according to their dictates. It should be understood that this is not just a left wing attitude. Rabid right wingers are the same. The only differences between them are the details of their respective agendas.

        1. avatar Bob says:

          True that. What people should worry about is that people like him will not stop with gun owners. It’s anything, everything, and anyone, that doesn’t “fit” with the way they think things should be.

          And there’s no reasoning with them; they’ve already dehumanized you in their mind, so they feel no guilt in their efforts to trample on you.

          It’s almost like I’ve heard this before, perhaps in past history, maybe in Europe? Just now minus the Aryan race undertones.

        2. avatar Sock Monkey says:

          “Rabid right-wingers”? Are those like radical conservatives, or extreme moderates?

    3. avatar gjohn says:

      With people like Beem it’s not about gun control..He’s nothing more than a lying pos..It’s never really about gun control..They want to start with gun control and gun registration.Then,they will start banning this and confiscating that,until all guns are banned..That is the bottom line for these gun control people

      1. avatar Lost Doen South says:

        Also:

        “He and his ilk are unshakably convinced that the world would be perfect if only they had the power to force everyone to live according to their dictates.”

        But not in their neighborhood. I would be interested to see the demographics and crime reports far around his house.

    4. avatar DisThunder says:

      I’ll give this guy his due- he totally acknowledges how ridiculous he sounds and how even that ever so tangible pipe dream of a universal background check wouldn’t make a damn bit of difference. Such honesty is a true rarity among mouth-breathing wannabe intellectual types.

  2. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Good thing for us it’s not an ideal world.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      An ‘ideal world’ where ‘laws’ trump the Constitution. Think of all the other laws we could pass.

    2. avatar M J Johnson says:

      Correction: Good thing this isn’t *His* ideal world. Otherwise, there’d be a revolution.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’m confused… in an “ideal” world, why would such restrictions be needed? Are people still murdering each other in this ideal world? Are school shootings still a thing?

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        In his ‘ideal world’ only governments murder people.

      2. avatar PeterW says:

        NO kidding! We wouldn’t need to shoot, injure or kill **anybody** in an IDEAL world. Maranatha Lord Jesus!

      3. avatar Wee Liam says:

        Great point.

  3. avatar James says:

    In my ideal world, people would not just rely on their feelings to decide their position on a topic. In my ideal world, we’d have less feeling driven stupidity like what is going on at Yale, Missouri, and Baltimore.

    Guess neither of us is getting what we want.

  4. avatar George says:

    And to exercise their First Amendment rights, journalists’ work would be reviewed every two years, and if their articles weren’t completely fact-checked and balanced they could no longer write……

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      Every two WEEKS, you mean.

      We don’t want those “assault word processors” in action if they aren’t being accurate, do we? After all, it’s For The Children.

    2. avatar Hobbez says:

      This this this this, so much this.

      Anyone who writes something like this needs to take their “work” and replace every mention of 2nd amendment with the 1st, or 4th, or 10th, etc. Every mention of firearm or gun, replaced with computer, television, radio, vote, or due process. They should have to undergo “Voter Training”, and acquire a license and submit to a background check every time they fill out a ballot. Folks that support ideas like this guy should have to face a panel of super smart liberals whenever they commit a crime who get to decide if the crime was too dangerous to society for the perpetrator to be allowed to have their right to due process.

      Anyone who proposes restrictions on the 2nd should be forced to have those very same restrictions placed on ALL their Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        Given what is going on at Yale and Missouri an awful lot of these people are not only willing to assault the rest of the BOR but appear quite eager to.
        The anti’s are eating themselves alive now by running wild hand in hand with useful idiots. Academia and many on the typical left are at each others throats trying to simultaneously defend and attack the 1st and 4th Amendments.
        We’re watching America’s very own Great Leap unfold before our eyes. It’s going to get a lot crazier real fast as they run around like foaming at the mouth and wailing incoherently at anything and everything that attracts their ire. The entire BOR is a hateful racist document to them and the only justice comes from putting all of their perceived enemies in chains.

        Shit’s about to get all sorts of wacky.

        1. avatar Wee Liam says:

          + a Googolplex or so!

      2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Let’s see how it would sound:

        In an ideal world here’s what we’d do about faith. First, we’d replace the First Amendment with a law stating that practicing faith is a privilege, not a right. Only people over 21 who have passed an extensive background check and a world religions course would be allowed to practice faith, subject to certain limitations. No evangelism or outreach. No religious tracts. No catechisms. No revivals. No televised or public prayers. Faith leader permits issued by police only upon demonstrated need . . .”

        Nope. That is about as obscene as it gets. That attitude is an utter and complete disaster for faith. And it is an utter and complete disaster for firearms ownership.

        1. avatar JeremyR says:

          If we applied that logic to the press portion of the first it might be OK. No more SeeBS, no more Faux News.(p)MSNBC would be a dream instead of a nightmare.
          Ah, I can dream.

        2. avatar Galtha58 says:

          No, just eliminate faith altogether. Like in Russia and China under Communism. That worked out so well for them, didn’t it ? Well, not really.

        3. avatar Raoul Duke says:

          There are a lot of Progs who would want that to happen too.

      3. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        Noone should be allowed to write, unless they have a demonstrated need…..

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I’m sure he would be perfectly fine with this kind of regulation and oversight of speech. Provided, of course, his side would be the ones doing the regulation. Totalitarians are totalitarians. Yes, I recognize that someone may hold different views of regulation on different topics. But if they are willing to use the power of government (raw force) to impose their will on innocent others at all, it will take no more than the right combination of propaganda and crisis (real or manufactured) to convince them to suppress other rights.

  5. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

    At least Mr. Peem admits he doesn’t even care if his desired infringements on natural rights actually have any effect. His side lost and he is joining the ranks of anti-liberty whiners, while the rest of us go about our business and laugh at the likes of him.

    1. avatar DJ says:

      His side hasn’t “lost” – they’re just regrouping for the counter-attack. Fascists will never give up, and since about half the country is willing to embrace at least some part of their agenda, we shouldn’t be declaring victory any time soon.

      1. avatar Bryan Snyder says:

        This…. Unlike other groups, who will eat their own. Libs will fall back, regroup and wait for the next opportunity/tragedy to tuck at heart strings and not brain cells. Never turn your back on a wounded liberal.

      2. avatar Wee Liam says:

        Veritas. Sic Semper Tyrannis!

  6. avatar DetroitMan says:

    “…we should make every effort to pass a universal background-check law. At this point I could care less whether background checks would have any effect on gun violence or not.”

    Brilliant display of the mind-boggling lack of logic or even rudimentary thought of the antis. “Do something, even if it will be completely ineffective.” Maybe he should try pissing in the wind…

    1. avatar Jolly Roger Out says:

      Preferably upwind, in his case

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      DetroitMan,

      The author simply demonstrated that feelings are king for his ilk. It doesn’t matter if something is right or wrong, whether it is effective or ineffective … all that matters is that something FEELS good.

      In a vacuum, that would not be a problem. But we are not in a vacuum. And, using the author’s approach, we could “legalize” rape because it makes the perpetrator FEEL good.

      Respect, dignity, honor, rules, laws, right-and-wrong are sworn enemies of people who elevate feelings above all else. This person just let the mask slip.

      1. avatar Wee Liam says:

        Torturing other people feels good to serial killers, too.

  7. avatar HP says:

    I clicked on the linked article, and the author only made it to the third paragraph before the first lie was posted.

    I’d say more, but reading the comment section on that one has been more than entertaining enough.

    1. avatar Brian K. says:

      I found “gun-show loophole that allows anyoe with a fistful of dollars to purchase a gun without a background check” in the first sentence.

      1. avatar CRF says:

        I wonder what these people think guns cost?

        1. avatar Wee Liam says:

          Um… about 60 or 70 dollars, right?

      2. avatar ACP_arms says:

        Must have been a broke Hi Point. 🙂

      3. avatar HP says:

        Ha! Good catch, I must have glossed over that.

  8. avatar Oxygenthief says:

    “In an ideal world here’s what we’d do about idiots regurgitating leftist BS. First, we’d replace the First Amendment with a law stating that speaking and writing is a privilege, not a right. Only people over 35, who have passed an extensive background check, posses a credit score of 800+, and posess an IQ of 130+ would be allowed to speak or write about guns, subject to certain limitations. No negative stances may be implied regarding automatic or semiautomatic weapons. Usage of the term Assault Weapons would be grounds for immediate revocation of free speech rights. Incorrectly using the term high-capacity magazines, when referring to standard-capacity magazines would be grounds for prison time (felony charge, of course). No silencer references, period. Concealed-pen/pencil permits issued by registered republicans only upon demonstrated need . “

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Only people over 35 … and posess an IQ of 130+ would be allowed to speak or write about guns,”

      Not a bad idea. 😉

      Actually, this is not TOO far from Heinlein’s “Only Vets are Citizens” idea.

      The notion is that it takes a certain degree of intelligence and life experience (in some combination) to exercise the responsibility of leadership / “authority” over other people.

      Instead, we have now a society where everyone with “an opinion” thinks their opinion is EQUAL to all others. This is a non sequitur.

      There are people whose opinions I trust based on observation of them acting in their lives. There are others whose opinions are totally worthless, not only because of what they are saying but also in observing how they live their lives.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        The interesting thing about the system in Starship Troopers that is was not a totalitarian state. Everyone had most basic rights, except voting and holding office. Those required federal service which was not exclusively military. The military was the option that he focus on, but the point of the service was that it was hard and dangerous, and not for the faint of heart.

        1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

          At our current stage of depravity, I’d honestly rather see the prerequisite for voting and holding office being a history of fighting AGAINST the Feds, than for them…. Or, best of all, of course, render voting and holding office entirely irrelevant, by reducing the scumbags’ discretionary powers to exactly nothing.

  9. avatar NineShooter says:

    I think what he is describing was basically the situation in Chicago up to last year, wasn’t it?

    And we all know how well THAT’S been working out…

  10. avatar Nick says:

    “At this point I could care less whether background checks would have any effect on gun violence or not”

    He openly admits this isn’t about saving lives. It’s a personal vendetta against guns.

    1. avatar Galtha58 says:

      Yep, noticed that also. Wonder what his real reasons are if not eliminating violence. Seems more like he is a pseudo-intellectual control freak that does not really like freedom at all. With the exception of his own freedom to spout whatever nonsense he comes up with on a regular basis.

      1. avatar Michelle says:

        Usually their rationale is, “It’s just not civilized”. A lot of hand-wringing over society being “barbaric” unless we get rid of guns.

        Those are the two things I usually hear from the “It may not save lives but…” crowd.

        Usually academics who think of themselves as superior anyhow. They’ve studied this — including ALL of the literature that supports their point of view — so they know better than the “layperson”, of course.

        It’s.. interesting. I know one of these types who works at an art museum. We had a creepy guy coming around our house, and I mentioned that I was home carrying. He implored me to “just call the police”. I responded that “the police aren’t magical, they don’t really fix things, they’re usually just the clean up crew at best”. He now says that I “hate cops” — (I don’t, but I am a realist)… simply because I said they don’t magically “fix things” and protect individuals from aggressors.

        The thought process really is that authority has this almost mystical quality. Police especially are seen as almost super humanly benevolent and bestowed with a universal sense of good. (And burglars wear striped prison suits and face masks, and will just take your stuff and not hurt you, if you just comply. But don’t worry, the police helicopters and K9 units will head the bad guy off at the county line.)

        these people are sheltered and have been lucky enough to not have to deal with anything uncomfortable. But still, if anything does happen , their first call will be to summon “men with guns”.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Usually their rationale is, “It’s just not civilized”. A lot of hand-wringing over society being “barbaric” unless we get rid of guns.

          Bingo. At an Ann Arbor Public School meeting a few months ago it was stated that “guns don’t have a place in modern society.”

          Idiots. 🙁

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “The thought process really is that authority has this almost mystical quality.”

          It’s trained into most Americans from an early age…that’s public school’s job.

          John Taylor Gatto has talked about this. He has emphasized that the role of institutionalized “education” is to train young children to unquestioningly obey “authority.”

          In school, it’s the teachers, other staff, principal, even the secretary answering the phones. It’s obey the bell..move when “they” say move, stay still when they say stand still. It’s speak only when told you are allowed to; nowadays, it has gotten to say only what you are allowed to say. Etc.

          Institutional schools train children to “follow” and especially to follow “government.”

          Chapter 2 of Marx and Engels outlines why “they” think this is important.

  11. avatar EJQ says:

    This “Journalist” is an Art Critic. Writes an op-ed piece for a weekly newspaper. Published a couple of books on Art.

  12. avatar bearclawed says:

    I’d have no problem getting some tar and feathers to deal with this scum.

    1. avatar anaxis says:

      The guy is so anti-American, he should be waterboarded first.

  13. avatar Ethan says:

    “..we should make every effort to pass a universal background-check law. At this point I could care less whether background checks would have any effect on gun violence or not..”

    How very telling. In your heart you know you don’t give two sh*ts about reducing crime – you simply have an irrational fear of guns owners and so you want to CONTROL them.

    My, aren’t we quite the little fascist.

  14. avatar TX Gun Gal says:

    “No automatic or semiautomatic weapons.”
    “No high-capacity magazines”
    Maybe he met “No high-capacity “moon clips” since if no automatic or semiautomatic, that would be revolvers or single shot long guns?

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      There have been slide-action AR-style rifles made to get around the semi-auto/assault-weapon restrictions. These rifles would accept all the various AR magazines of any size/capacity. And some Aussies were recently up-in-arms over a lever-action shotgun with a (gasp!) 8-shot capacity. It’s not a detachable magazine, but hey, if the mag can’t be removed and the mag is banned, well, I guess that means the gun is banned too, right? Tube-fed .22 rifles used to be fairly common, but you don’t see them much nowadays.

      And for those who say it can’t happen here, the state-level gun-banning bill introduced recently in Wisconsin had no grandfather clause or exceptions for guns of any caliber (it would have included .22 rimfires with fixed/attached magazines).

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        That should have read “Tube-fed bolt-action .22 rifles used to be fairly common…”

        1. avatar Chris. says:

          I have a Marlin glen field model 60; semi auto, tube magazine.

          Super fun little gun. Belonged to my grandfather; Good memories…

        2. avatar Jake R says:

          I’ve got one! Marlin bolt-action .22WMR with a stainless barrel and a tube magazine. It’s a sweet looking little rifle!

      2. avatar 16V says:

        There’s north of 11MM Model 60s out there, far and away more popular than the 10/22 with only around 5MM examples.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_60

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_10/22

        Yes, there’s a metric f-ton of accessories for a 10/22, but if we’re talking about which one is really ubiquitous…

        1. avatar anaxis says:

          Don’t forget about the Savage 6. That one is double-evil (or triple, if it decides to go FA).

  15. avatar Craig says:

    In a perfect world, the left would realize that guns, and if you really go back to through English history also bows, swords and other arms, won their freedom.

    They would also realize the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, considering they were the pro-slavery party and they now think they’re the epitome of progress and human rights.

    But this is an imperfect world.

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      That’s exactly why some countries just overwhelmingly hate firearms. Since their systems of government have never even theoretically been by The People and for The People, guns were historically seen as making it difficult for the nobility to exploit their lower classes.

      Swords and bows required a lot of training and upper body strength to use, but a gun allowed even the lowliest peasant to stop an armored knight or samurai by force. It’s hard to rape, pillage and butcher the peasantry when they can shoot your “honorable” ass right out the saddle for trying. Since feudal cultures are dictated by the ruling class, places like China, the U.K. and Japan have an entrenched love and reverence for authority even today. It’s easy to see how they could let themselves be disarmed and submit to having state-operated cameras on every street corner: their betters told them they had to.

      Sickening mentality, but it goes back hundreds of years. All we can do is try to keep it the f*ck out of our society.

  16. avatar PeterC says:

    He “could care less?” Perhaps he should care more about careless writing.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      The fact that he’s only semi-literate isn’t really a surprise, is it?

      1. avatar Galtha58 says:

        How can you say that when he has such a smug look about him? Don’t you realize that he knows more than anyone else? Hillary and some of the other Leftists also seem to have that same look. As if they know what is best for all of us. They sit in their ivory towers and do our thinking for us so we won’t have that chore to contend with. And if too many listen and respond we will head down the road to tyranny with people like this running our country. My hope is that most people will realize how foolish their ideas really are and ignore them or move in exactly the opposite direction to fight their insanity.

    2. avatar Wee Liam says:

      Actually, “could care less” is an acceptable form. It’s sarcasm, but it’s been in use so long people have forgotten its origin.

  17. avatar Chris says:

    1. There are plenty of countries that agree with you so move there.

    2. You are the reason we have the second.

  18. avatar Denny says:

    Well, I wasn’t sure if I was going to re-up my GOA and NRA memberships. He convinced me I need to do it today.

  19. avatar C.S. says:

    With Progressive ability to selectively interpret the English language, they could simply continue to ignore the “not” in “shall not be infringed”.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      No, you don’t understand. They’re not ignoring the word “not.”

      Every federal judge gets a pair of secret goggles, which let him read the invisible ink that is on the page “…, except when we feel like it.”

  20. avatar Sian says:

    The man is so self-delusional he doesn’t even make sense across a single paragraph.

    It’s about a well-regulated militia (it isn’t, but let’s go with it), but we’re going to deny ownership of weapons that are actually valid for fighting in modern times and were obsolete for infantry 70 years ago.

  21. avatar ButtMunch says:

    Just another fag that thinks he knows what is best for you.

  22. avatar NikcaP says:

    Well I’m triggered. He needs to resign his post and fade into the background of forgotten so I can have my safe space back.

  23. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    No, in an ideal world, there would not be a need to use a weapon in defense of one’s self, family, property, or country. But, we don’t live in an ideal world….

    As further evident by the fact that this self-important, entitled man-gina wasn’t drown at birth, as to not weaken the gene pool.

    1. avatar Katy says:

      I’m surprised it took so long for someone to point this out. Frankly, in my ideal world, guns wouldn’t exist. Why? Because we would have never considered the idea of expelling a projectile to cause harm to something. We’d never have a need for, and this never conceive weaponry.

      There’d be no violence or need to secure food. Bite size steaks and blueberry buckle would grow on wild trees everywhere and we’d have all that we could want. There would be plenty of spaces for everybody and nobody would ever covet that which their neighbor possessed. It would be wonderful.

      So, really, Beem is a bit more aggressive than I would like. If there is ever a need for self defense in your ideal world, you’re too dystopian for me.

      1. avatar Galtha58 says:

        In an ideal world there would be no aggression, no knives, stones, sticks or anything else that could harm someone. That world would also be incredibly boring. Guessing the suicide rate would skyrocket in a world like that.

        1. avatar Katy says:

          How would they suicide? Once something was a tool was turned to violence against self, utopia would end – it would only be a matter of time until that tool was turned on another. And at that point, it would be an arms race to where we are today.

        2. avatar Arkansas kurt says:

          and in the big rock candy mountains, all the cops have wooden legs, and the bulldogs all have rubber teeth and the hens lay soft boiled eggs.

  24. avatar JohnO_inTX says:

    “I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him. It would be good if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.” — Woody Allen

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      “Age is nothing but a number, sweetie. Now take that retainer out and get busy; Mom’s gonna be home in less than ten minutes.” — Woody Allen

    2. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      You’ve always been a good comedian, Woody.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        You’ve always been a good comedian, Woody.

        He has. He’s been very successful depicting himself as an unqualified, incompetent boob in all his pictures. Who knew he wasn’t acting?

  25. avatar TT says:

    Nevermore?

    1. avatar Bryan Snyder says:

      I see what you did there….

      His parents must have had high hopes or been literary academics. I would have disowned this beta.

  26. avatar Mike in Ohio says:

    According to the British Library:
    In 1516 Sir Thomas More wrote the first ‘Utopia’. He coined the word ‘utopia’ from the Greek ou-topos meaning ‘no place’ or ‘nowhere’
    which is why nothing is ever enough for progressives.
    And they know it.

  27. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    ” At this point I could care less whether background checks would have any effect on gun violence or not.”

    The mask comes off. He doesn’t care about public safety. He doesn’t care about anyone’s ability to protect himself and his family from criminal predators. And he certainly doesn’t care about what a tyrannical government might do.

    He just hates us, and wants to make life miserable for us.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      His honesty is kinda refreshing…. its rare that any of the anti-rights crowd say openly that they only care about the control part.

  28. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    when did Kenny Rogers become the enemy?

    1. avatar Michelle says:

      Probably when he quit music and started those chicken restaurants.

  29. avatar PeterK says:

    These people’s ideal worlds all suck. Is that really the best you can do? In an ideal world we have arbitrary pointless restrictions?

    In an ideal world we don’t NEED any of that because the people themselves are ideal and self-defense is not needed.

    1. avatar Stuki Moi says:

      Also, in anything even resembling an ideal world, there simply would not be any government apologists like this guy around. Alas, there is. Hence the need for guns.

  30. avatar B says:

    First against the wall. Nice neat list of traitors should they ever decide Democracy doesn’t let them do what they want, and that we need a more “aggressive” form of government.

    1. avatar anaxis says:

      Except for providing poetic justice, that’d be too dignified; a rope would be more appropriate.

  31. avatar Buck says:

    Him and those like him are infringing on my families rights and I’m not in a tactful mood today so they can just fuck the hell off.

  32. avatar Tex300BLK says:

    “drill once every two years with local law enforcement”

    Yeah that will last all of about 5seconds when we the peasan… err people, outshoot our local law enforcement officers at said drills year after year.

  33. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    “At this point I could care less whether background checks would have any effect on gun violence or not.”

    Then why have them?!

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Because it makes them FEEL good. Liberalism is all about feeling good.

  34. avatar Mike says:

    I’m sorry, Beem, the Soviet Union is gone.

  35. avatar RayfromBama says:

    Why is this turd so pro-criminal?

  36. avatar neiowa says:

    Excuse me WFT is needs 3 names to impress “Edgar Allen Beem”?

    1. avatar BDub says:

      Maybe he’s pretending to be 2/3rds the writer that Poe was.

      1. avatar NineShooter says:

        (On the subject of guns)

        Quoth the Dumbarse “Nevermore.”

        1. avatar BDub says:

          nice.

    2. avatar Ken says:

      Wasn’t the Edgar Allen he is apparently named after on drugs when he wrote. He must be trying to imitate him.

  37. avatar Don says:

    He should move to another country, perhaps Canada, his perfect world exists now if he looks around. Sadly the result is not his perfect fantasy, there’s still murder and mayhem wherever in the world you go. Recent information creeping out from behind the buyback curtain in OZ shows once again and with feeling that their stupid confiscation has done nothing to stop criminals from getting handguns and ammo, gun crime is on a meteoric rise in the land of the defenseless.

  38. avatar William says:

    Kind of an aside but doesn’t his hair look like Hillary’s?

  39. avatar Patriot says:

    good luck with that, bro-ham.

  40. avatar Gman says:

    In an ideal world…
    The apple would still be on the tree
    There would be no bad guys
    There would be no crime
    There would be no famine
    Everyone would be a millionaire
    Idiots like you wouldn’t have been born
    more…

    1. avatar Gman says:

      But just in case you hadn’t noticed; this isn’t an ideal world.

  41. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Oh, he’s sick, is he? Well, his real quarrel is with reality. Some people want to hurt others. Some people are weaker than others. The former tend to prey upon the latter, resulting in many of latter tooling up to defend themselves from violent attack.

    In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be monstrous, criminally violent people roaming the streets, but there are. So we do the next best thing and defend ourselves with self-defense firearms.

  42. avatar BDub says:

    “First, we’d replace the Second Amendment with a law stating that gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. …. All gun owners to drill once every two years with local law enforcement because, after all, the right to bear arms is not about hunting, it’s about maintaining a well-regulated militia.”

    Another progressive that can’t even complete a single paragraph without completely contradicting themselves and their supposed principles.

  43. His argument fails on simple internal logical consistency. He says gun owners will have to train with the *police* because gun owners are supposed to be the *militia* after earlier he’s stated that the ideal rule set would debar the ownership of anything semi-automatic or fully automatic as well as suppressors. Wowzors.

    First there’s the issue of the militia being every able bodied man not an organization. Then there’s the troublesome fact that the militia would be something you’d want trained by military personnel not law enforcement personnel. Then there’s the bit where military weapons and anything that is even remotely likely to be useful in battle is specifically excluded from ownership by the militia so they can’t do their job if they become needed.

    So, he doesn’t know what combat is or who engages in it or what tools they use. He doesn’t have a bloody clue what the police are supposed to do with their time day to day but it seems he thinks their job is to shoot people. I know it can seem like that in the news sometimes but it’s not really that common. Most of the naughtiness cops get up to is simple corruption or us-versus-them-ism both of which are toxic but both are truly American traditions.

    He doesn’t know a thing about what he’s speaking on and worse, doesn’t know that he doesn’t know. That’s the kind of people that are actually RUNNING THINGS NOW. Keep that powder dry and your possibles bag close.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      You’re correct he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Even the logistics of what he wants is impossible. Force carry holders to train with/by the police every two years? Who would train them? Many PDs are small, and even ones that aren’t aren’t qualified to train people in firearms usage. So who would train? The state police? Michigan has about 500,000 concealed carry license holders. That’s over 20,000 license holders that need to be trained each and every month, each and every year. Florida has roughly 1.4 million license holders. That means nearly 60,000 citizens would have to be trained by the police each and every month, each and every year.

      This guy is insane. No wonder he writes about art. He’s certainly not good with math.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Indeed. I know of two local police chiefs, one of a university police force and one of a bedroom community P.D., who cannot even get funding for their own officers to train at a range.

        On this point, I mean no disrespect to the officers in their respective departments, but my goodness. The public’s out there thinking everyone with a badge is ready to retake Nakatomi Plaza singlehandedly. It’s just not so.

      2. avatar Ing says:

        The logistics may be impossible, but the constitutional logic in drilling with the police and/or military is actually quite sound. In fact, it might be the only point in his article that isn’t borderline insane. (Impractical, yes, but…)

        The militia clause in the Second Amendment admonishes the government to make good use of the individual right it protects. So if the government wants to require all gun owners to drill in self-defense and civil defense tactics at certain intervals, it can do so.

        I’d kind of like to see that, actually. Heck, in the interest of fairness to all and encouraging everyone to do their civic duty, the .gov could create a $1,000 tax credit that could be claimed once every six years with verified purchase of a militarily useful firearm.

        It could have several salutary effects.

        Although a tax credit would be a de facto registration, confiscation would be unthinkable; even those who didn’t much value their guns and/or rights might value their ability to get a $1k reward for buying a $600 rifle. Gun ownership might even become so ubiquitous that a ban or confiscation would be akin to banning smartphones.

        The government, having played a role in training, would be very aware that a militia 100 million strong stands ready to protect their own individual rights (and the state, too…if it asks really nice).

        Wouldn’t it be great if Mr. Beem’s desire for universal militia training led to a wonderful world in which hoplophobes like him were universally recognized for the dead weight they truly are?

  44. avatar Joe R. says:

    Somebody/Nobody again.

    Somebody (we’ve yet to take away your classification) who Nobody (I really doubt anyone, but would stipulate to NOBODY WHO THE REST OF US GIVE A FLYING F ABOUT) asked.

    Chuck the Constitution at your peril.

  45. avatar DrVino says:

    People like him have no idea how dangerous they are.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      I think they do… Just won’t admit it.

  46. avatar Bt justice says:

    Who is this pinko and why is he getting more publicity?

  47. avatar Jeff O says:

    Wait, let’s play by their game.

    Edgar Allen Beem wants children to lose their hearing! He actively seeks to get rid of safety devices that help protect children’s hearing. Each year millions of American children have their hearing damaged PERMANENTLY and FOR LIFE by loud noises and Edgar Allen Beem wants to rip the best hearing protection device out of their hands.

    Shame on you Edgar Allen Beem.

    LOOK AT THIS BABY!

    (Hooray for Straw-men!)

  48. avatar Ralph says:

    Ah, yet another anti-gun tweed jacket lunatic from another planet. One to Beem up, Scotty.

  49. avatar Max says:

    In an ideal world here’s what we’d do about the media.
    First, we’d replace the First Amendment with a law stating that writing for the
    press is a privilege, not a right. Only people over 21 who have passed an extensive
    background check and a “approved writing topics” course would be allowed to own
    a word processor, subject to certain limitations. No silicon-chip computers. No
    auto correct. No LAZER printers. No editors. Access to anything other than a
    Gutenberg Press is contingent only upon demonstrated need . . .

    … All writers are to attended workshops on government-approved
    topics once every two years with local political officers because, after all,
    the right to free speech is not about opinion, it’s about maintaining a an
    organized and government-approved press. None of this is likely to occur of
    course, but, at the very least, we should make every effort to pass government-controlled
    universal media/press control. At this point I could care less whether free
    expression maters to you or not.

  50. avatar Mark says:

    AS John Lennon said ” we all like to change your mind”. You just want to move the power to the government. And take the power away from We The People. And we all know how honest governments are. Do you understand the word “Genocide”. Look it up.

  51. avatar CZ Guy says:

    In an ideal world, Mr. Been and liberal sissy men like him would not exist. Man up sissy Mary, stop whining and depending on others to protect you. You have the right to say whatever you want, and I have the right to tell you to STFU.

  52. avatar Ben says:

    He lost all credibility with the first four words, if he ever had any credibility to begin with.

  53. avatar Paul says:

    “…but there’s no reason for anyone to be opposed to background checks unless they believe they couldn’t pass one.” This is the most telling and most scary thing he wrote. The essence of the statist and the slippery slope. We should be heartened that the comments he got on his own blog were a lot more scathing and negative than the ones here.

  54. avatar RGwinn says:

    Hitler, 1938, Gun Control Act. Register your guns or else, then came the forced confiscation, then things got really bad.

  55. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    As a couple of others have already mentioned, this guy’s actually just an art critic.

    He’s now trying to break into the general political/societal, pundit/palterer racket. Well.

    How transferable are his skills? Let’s listen to his own words and decide, shall we? We have a clip. Roll the tape:

    Ed says, “My credo as an arts writer has long been: ‘The work of art is the search for meaning.’ I believe art is not only a form of personal expression but also a form of inquiry, every bit as much a quest for truth as scientific research.” OK, not bad, IF he actually believed it. He doesn’t.

    He claims there’s more to meaning than superficiality. However, he writes of anti-gun proposals which he eagerly embraces and freely admits won’t be effective, but will feel good. Superficiality reigns.

    He claims a belief in personal expression and a quest for truth. However, he completely disregards individual rights, opting to recast them as privileges. He aborts all inquiry into truth, neglecting the true causes of violence by obsessing over firearms themselves. Scientific method forfeits.

    Free advice, Ed? Never mind gents packing gats, stick to “Dogs Playing Poker.”

  56. avatar Jim says:

    In an ideal world the 2nd Amendment would not be necessary, since all would understand it to be a human right.

  57. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Wait-when did Caitlyn Jenner grow a beard?

  58. avatar Anonymous says:

    I think we should replace the 2nd amendment with the following:

    A well regulated, restricted privilege being necessary to allow the people self rationalization that they actually have freedom and the safety of a free state, the privilege of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed and restricted by legislation by the state as needed by the state at any time.

    After all, everyone knows that the people can’t stand up to things like nuclear weapons, the military, tanks, and drones as such – even though the people that pilot all those are people too (with rights) who may or may not divulge information about the injustices observed or use those very instruments to assist a cause.

  59. avatar Anonymous says:

    Edgar Allen Beem in a nutshell:

    We, the people, have the right to take our own rights away and to tell others who aren’t hurting or bothering anyone that they need to do what we tell them to do because we are right and they are wrong and no proven justification is needed.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Proven” justification? He didn’t offer any justification at all!

  60. avatar Wee Liam says:

    Ever see a portrait of one of these folks where they’re not smug-looking?

  61. avatar dave s says:

    Folks like that are why we cannot compromise.
    if you want to consider how regulated a “privilege” is, try building a house without the blessing of government in this day of Google earth and aerial photography

  62. avatar Liberty2Alpha says:

    How does this strike you, Edgar?

    “In an ideal world here’s what we’d do about speech. First, we’d replace the First Amendment with a law stating that speech is a privilege, not a right. Only people over 21 who have passed an extensive background check and a speech safety course would be allowed to speak, subject to certain limitations. No handwritten or computerized letters. No tweets. No Facebook posts. No emails. Free Speech permits issued by police only upon demonstrated need .”

    Yeah, that’s how I feel too. FO.

  63. avatar Dale says:

    Actually, “In an ideal world…” There would be no need for guns, period.

  64. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

    I would replace the 2A also.
    It should be something like

    The right to bear own and carry arms in any public place or on ones own property shall not be regulated. This amendment is not subject to any compelling government interest and may not be modified by any law.
    Violent Criminals and the mentally ill people may have this right taken away by a jury trial only at the state level.
    For the purpose of this amendment all fire arms currently in use or historically in use and any ammunition they may use are considered lawful arms as are any fire arms or personal arms produced in the future that are in use by soldiers or police. The regulation of thermo nuclear devices not used by a single infantry soldier or future weapons that replace those devices and explosive devices not usuable by a small unit are legal by states only not the federal government.
    All citizens have standing to sue for any violation of this right by any government official in any jurisdiction in these United States. Any willful violation of this right is an offense not subject to any pardon by the executive of any state or the United States. Nor is it subject to patrol or probation. Any person in the employ of a government office willfully denying this right to a us citizen is subject to a minimum of 10 years continent to a maximum penalty of death.
    Any prosecutor in any jurisdiction my bring criminal charges under this amendment.

  65. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Idiot…

  66. avatar J.R. says:

    Well now, I see most all those amendments as being, hmmm, lets say troublesome. For example, we don’t need that “Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, and that pesky Right to Peaceably Assemble” stuff. We all know that the government leaders know what is right for the people. Of course you do! Do you vote? Most people don’t, they trust the people in office to know how to handle things. I’ll skip that 2nd one, it’s the cause of all these problems. And what is the problem with staying in a shelter while the “militia” shelters in your home while they drill. I’ll bet Mr. Beem wouldn’t squawk, no siree. And while they are there, there’s no harm in just sort of looking around, after all, you have nothing to hide. Right? I won’t bore you talking about those things about court & trials, punishments and so on and so forth. In fact, why should we vote anyone new in? Those in there would be just like mommy and daddy taking care of us. As the say in the South, “Don’t worry your pretty little (empty) head”.

  67. avatar CarlosT says:

    If we’re rewriting the Second Amendment, go with Washington’s version:

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

    It’s explicitly individual, explicitly tied to defense, and emphatically not collective. Maybe there’s some wiggle room there, but not much.

  68. avatar LarryinTX says:

    I’m writing a book, “sick of E. A. Beem, sick of intimidation”, therefore everyone should listen to what I say, I suspect I have sold as many copies as that doofus has. Assuming the quotes are fairly accurate, this guy is certifiable, with IQ in the middle 2 digit area. He has zero knowledge how America works (wants to replace an Amendment with a law?), how human nature works, or in fact what the word “work” means. Why are we paying attention, is he a senator or something?

  69. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

    In my ideal world every child would be issued a firearm at birth. When the child started school instruction would be given in care, maintenance, marksmanship, self defense and safety. The instruction would continue throughout the public education period.

    The press would be licensed after an intensive psychological exam testing for mental illness, political or social agendas and pansyitis. I would personally appoint the people to do the testing.

  70. avatar Roger Wilco says:

    That’s nice, Ed. Now, jump off a bridge. @sshole.

  71. avatar MichaelPA says:

    His thinking is flawed.

    Guns do not exist in the perfect world.

    Neither does violence, rape, and illness.

  72. avatar John E. Smith says:

    I think it’s a great idea. Let’s write a new second amendment.

    It can be this: The right of the people to keep and bear firearms of all types regardless of caliber, capacity, or ammunition feed rate shall not be infringed, taxed, regulated, restricted, documented or registered. Weapons and ammunition not yet invented shall be protected by this document.

    I can dream… right?

  73. avatar The Original Brad says:

    Lol, he’s an art writer. A writer who writes about art? WTF is that? These types of sniveling bafoons are always in professions like this; art writer, communications professor, feminists the male and female kind). Worthless humans who produce nothing and contribute even less. I’d love to take 10 people who regularly post on his blog and 10 from this site and put them 100 miles out into the woods and let them go head to head. No competition; his group would starve in a week.

  74. avatar Magister says:

    And in that same world only a portion of the nation would live under those rules. The other half would have broken away while removing every last assbag like him, by choice or by force. “People” like him should be careful of what they wish for. They just may get it, but I’m certain they wont like the aftermath.

  75. avatar Don from CT says:

    This guy is very impressive.

    He manages to shit on the natural rights protected by the first and second amendments all in one paragraph:

    We, the people, have the right to demand that anyone buying a gun pass a background check and we should do so. And we, the people, have the right to be free from intimidation. If we need a law to prohibit videotaping at the polls, let’s do it

  76. avatar Charlie says:

    F***k him and the wesel he rode in on.

    Some people have a problem with reading comprehension. and this twerp is their poster boy.

  77. avatar JoeVK says:

    In an ideal world, there would be no need for police or military, because the entire world would be peaceful. There would be no crime of any kind in an ideal world. But we’re human beings. With a long, documented history of great violence. An ideal world simply isn’t possible.

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