photo

“It’s time to stop calling the efforts of the gun violence prevention movement ‘gun control.’ Contrary to gun rights absolutists who call us ‘gun grabbers,’ we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We also believe in balancing public safety against individual rights with restrictions on highly lethal weaponry such as large capacity magazines and firearms designed for military use.” – Greenwich Council Against Gun Violence’s Jonathan Perloe in Gun control vs. gun rights is the wrong discussion [at greenwichtime.com]

Recommended For You

97 Responses to Quote of the Day: Stop Calling a Spade a Spade Edition

  1. Ah yes, another person unclear on the purpose of the 2A. Also, clearly a liar, as evidenced by the words of plenty of his comrades. If he isn’t lying then he is completely lost.

    • Wanna see a douche nozzle? Scratch a “Progressive”. Progressivism is NOT about a better future. It’s about dismanlting the Constitutional limits on central government in favor of a tiny cadre of self-appointed “masterminds” running our lives just like in pre-Enlightenment Europe. They never went away. They were biding their time because a self-governing nation based on a civil society founded on ordered liberty works unless they can monkey wrench it as they’ve been trying since 1910.

      Ray

      • I would argue that even post “enlightened” Europe has a propensity for centralized all powerful government. The 20th century is a testament to that.

    • ” If he isn’t lying then he is completely lost.”

      It is so hard to tell the difference. Misguided or manipulator.

      Just today in the headline for a article in Connecticut Register Citizen is “Victim advocate: Connecticut needs stronger gun control”

      The legislature is starting it’s session on Jan 6 and there are big plans to put up more GUN CONTROL. instead of wasting our time with BS about “gun violence” as not being about gun control, authors like Perloe should put some effort into things that really kill a lot of people, like cancer and heart disease. Of course without the flawed reasoning they apply to their irrational gun control crusade.

  2. I’d say, “If you want us to stop calling you that, then stop doing it,” but I’ve got to find the people who believe him and sell them my lovely bridge.

  3. That’s the usual way of the propagandist.
    When the message fails, rebrand yourself and hope people forget what you were trying to do to them the day before.

    The contents of the snake oil never change, just the sales pitch that goes along with it.

    • Also notice the strawman argument he used here:

      “we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

      Implied is that the other side wants dangerous people to have guns and are unreasonable. Quite a convenient way to set up a false argument and present oneself as somehow more morally superior to anyone who dare question them.

      It’s the long game now, and this demonization and vilification are going to be the anti’s most favorite weapon.

      • Something tells me his definition of “reasonable” and my definition of “reasonable” are not one and the same. Well that and “compromise” to him and his friends means that gun owners give up rights they already have in exchange for ummm….less rights. What exactly is it the anti’s have to offer in exhange?

      • “we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

        Excuse me, but I’m PRETTY sure the whole purpose of the Second Amendment, its basic intent, was to deny the government the ability to decide who are or are not “dangerous people” who would therefore lose their right to keep and bear arms. Something about “…shall not be infringed.”

        The very concept that this same government has the authority to compile a list of people it considers too dangerous to allow to exercise their Second Amendment rights is a direct contradiction to the inclusion in the Constitution of the right itself.

        • And anyone, such as this imbecile, incapable of understanding that without making a fool of himself like this, should not in the future be allowed to make any statements whatsoever in public, including over the interwebz, since that would be “reasonable regulation” of the 1st Amendment, to prevent the contagion of stupidity he has obviously been infected by..

    • “What is true is that higher rates of gun ownership are associated with higher rates of gun deaths, with the United States at the top of the list for both.”
      Wow!! I bet places with more beaches or private pool ownership also experience higher drowning rates. More cars, more automotive related injuries/deaths? Who would have ever thunk it? I bet very few vegetarians die from choking on chicken bones.

  4. I would point out that members of this clown’s organization have supported the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” concept like good little fascists. They call them “wise words to live by”. Nuremburg is an excellent example of what should happen to anybody who supports them.

  5. …balancing public safety against individual rights

    Not just no, but f*** no! They wouldn’t stand for that level of nonsense if the goal was to restrict/undermine any other constitutionally protected right. However, since their pet crusade is against firearms it’s no big deal. Group think, greater good horsesh**!

    I’ll stand up, speak out, and defend every one of their natural rights whether I think they’re assholes or otherwise.

  6. 1. What is a “high capacity” magazine?
    2. Does this mean that 9mm pistols, the standard sidearm for the military, should not be owned by civilians? What about shotguns? Semi automatic rifles? Bolt action rifles?

  7. Yet another America hating leftard spewing the same lies and sh*t America hating leftards always spew. 20,000 pages of “common sense gun regulations” that jacka$$es like this refuse to enforce. And he just wants more laws, so he can ignore them and call for MORE laws which he will ignore and call for MORE laws which he will ignore. Starting to see a pattern here.

    • On the other hand…

      I’ll bet that if they finally got the law they actually want – the authority to compile a list of people who in the opinion of the government bureaucracy are not allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights, and the sole authority to decide who goes on that list AND the authority to confiscate weapons from such persons by whatever means necessary, you would see a great enthusiasm on their part for enforcing that law.

      • Actually, as with all leftists, once they achieve what they want their leadership turns on them and they are the first to be “liquidated” for the good of the Cause. People with guns are not who they go after first.

  8. My comment to the original essay.

    “Of course, some of us don’t speak about gun control or “gun grabbers” at all. We know that the organizations are properly called the Gun Confiscation Lobby. That’s because the ultimate aim is to have the same thing happen in the US that has already happened in Britain where their Gun Confiscation Lobby chipped away at gun possession until it’s nearly impossible to use one for any reason. It began with handguns there, then rifles, and finally shotguns. Along the way, using a firearm for self defense became prohibited, even putting those so using a firearm for that purpose in prison for long terms.

    So we of the Self Defense Rights advocacy know full well what you are and will continue to identify you as the Gun Confiscation Lobby.”

    • Yep. I went to the original site. There was five comments at that time, including yours, all supporting gun rights.

      That is pretty much the norm; one lone voice advocating for being defenseless, powerless and helpless while giving “monopoly of Force” to the acknowledged liars, connivers and power corrupted of the government and in response; most every comment in support of personal freedom and the right of self-defense.

      There is hope after all.

  9. This is a lot like how I’m not for tarring and feathering these constitution hating weenies, but rather support common sense regulations on who gets feathered when and how.

  10. “Gun control vs. gun rights is the wrong discussion”

    Yes, it is; “a Free People versus a Peasantry” is closer to the mark. Pity it might be too late for that discussion.

  11. Let the proof be in the results!

    You are such a charlatan. You deny while doing what you think is right (maybe). I believe the things you are denying and live My days accordingly. 2A doesn’t say what you say. It says what I have read. Learn to accept before you set yourself up as the judge you are not.

    BTW, the proof is that the constitution works and your approach does not!

    Whether we talk about guns or politics. If they do not do what we expect, then lets walk away with our, money, legs, or ballots!

  12. Another dull, predictable exercise in stupidity full of the same debunked statistics, cherry picked arguments and correlation equaling causation.

  13. Sigh…. I’m not sure if we can take this seriously, the “ban hi capacity magazines, and scary things” crowd are difficult to take seriously but we need to. 200 years into the industrial revolution some people actually think we can control access to a box with a spring in it, sigh prohibition has never worked. It has always led to a worse situation than they were trying to fix. I tried to get that across to a liberal and he countered with “the prohibition against nuclear weapons” . The stupidity of that still leaves me speechless.

    • A great counter to that asinine point about nukes is “could you afford a nuke?” Even if they were legalized and Wal-Mart started selling them tomorrow, nobody who didn’t already have (illegal) access to them would own one.

    • It reveals their undying faith in the state, since of course the soviets, pakistan, and north korea all asserted their “human right” to operative nuclear weapons contrary to the most formidable prohibition of all; frikin NUCLEAR deterrents!

  14. It’s time to start having some REASONABLE regulations on freedom of speech and see how the ANTIs that preach their disdain for “gun violence” while in the same breath wanting all NRA members and legal gun owners to be shot dead on site feel what reasonable is!? HYPOCRITES!

    • “It’s time to start having some REASONABLE regulations on freedom of speech and see how the ANTIs that preach their disdain for “gun violence” ”

      True enough.

      The ‘Boston Marathon Bomber’ learned how to make a pressure-cooker bomb from the Jihad internet magazine “Inspire”.

      Three dead and over 200 injured with at least 14 people that required amputations.

      The Internet was where they found the directions to make that bomb.

      Obviously, the US Government needs a nation-wide Internet firewall along the same lines as the one China has.

      IP records must be kept. The police must investigate every American that does a search for bombs and other terrorists activity.

      It’s ‘For the children’ you know…

  15. Start actually trying to prevent gun violence, and people will stop calling you gun grabbers. Not that hard to understand really.

  16. Still the same stupid argument. Again, Still.
    “If you make gun control stronger there will be less guns in the hands of evil people.”

    Kinda like “Stronger drug laws will decrease drug use.” or, “Stronger penalties for murder will decrease the murder rate”.

    Absurd.

    • “Stronger penalties for murder will decrease the murder rate”

      If they would invoke those stronger penalties they WOULD reduce the murder… or any illegal act for that matter, rate. But alas, the revolving door penal system just keeps up the “Catch and Release” program.

    • “…stronger drug laws…”

      This may explain why we NEVER hear of illicit drug use inside prisons full of people incarcerated for illicit drug use, right?

  17. The only balance these people believe in is when it is totally one sided – their side. Proof is the have never opposed any gun control initiative no matter how stupid that initiative. If they believed in balance they would have a record of also shouting down legislation that is a all out ban, but they don’t – there is no ban they do not like. They do not believe in balance, only outright bans – thus, they will always be part of the civilian disarmament complex.

  18. “We also believe in balancing public safety against individual rights with restrictions on highly lethal weaponry …”

    You could claim some gain in “public safety” (whatever that is) at the expense of all rights.

    Let’s throw away our right to these as well:
    – due process
    – privacy
    – warrants for searches
    – probable cause for arrests
    – “large” bank accounts which enable all sorts of criminal activities
    – “high performance” cars, trucks, SUVs, motorcycles
    – “dangerous” products such as chainsaws, weed whackers, and power tools
    – accelerants such as gasoline, acetone, alcohol and matches

    Or, we could capture violent criminals after they actually commit crimes, imprison them, and keep them in prison. I much prefer this idea.

  19. Tried to go to their/his web site but found that they/he is using the same brand 9600 baud modem that TTAG is using, so I lost patience an booted.

  20. “…we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

    People in hell want icewater too. It is not possible to keep weapons of any kind out of the hands of dangerous people. It is not even possible to identify most of the “dangerous people” they worry about to start with.

    And, finally, we should all actually BE “dangerous people” to those who would harm us. I’m almost 70, a disabled woman… and I know I’m a very dangerous person to anyone who would attack me.

    • +1

      As a rule of thumb, few if any of the antis have any self defense training.

      They cannot quote or articulate their State law regarding the legally greenlighted use of deadly force for self defense.

      Nor can they quote common law use of deadly force valid in all 50 states.

      They use their own anecdotal experience with violence (none) to cast the widest net that deadly force in legally articulated self defense is not necessary nor needed. They take no personal responsibility as their own first responder.

      They believe the police will arrive instantly to their immediately placed call to 911 that a violent forcible felon will allow them to make.

      The reality is they are so clueless to the process of real, predatory and illegal violence that their retarded assumptions about guns endanger us all. Sheep using sheep thinking to make Everyone more sheeplike and defenseless. Because. Sheep!

      It wont happen to me. They hide behind statistics which cannot shank, stab, slash, rip, cut, tear, bludgeon or shoot them. Yet, predatory violence DOES happen to real people. Bad people do that. We have prisons full of them.

      This guy has the typical narrative of a well bred, submissive, obedient and compliant victim who remains intentionally ignorant of legally articulated use of deadly force in self defense.

    • “…we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

      If that is true, feel free to fund an effort to amend the Constitution, or STFU.

      • Larry, the “constitution” does not confer the natural authority of every human being to defend their own life and property. Amending the “constitution” could not alter that.

        • Of course that is true, but an amendment could allow some amount of “infringement”, so long as everyone retained the right to keep and bear. No semiauto pistols, for example, leaving revolvers only. Or, hell, no select fire, which is currently an unconstitutional law, the clear knowledge of which has done us no good at all for 80 years now. Magazine capacity limits?

        • I believe it does…

          Isn’t that where Life as in ‘Life, Liberty, and the persuit of Happiness’ comes in?

        • No. The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are extant whether the BoR says so or not. They are natural, inherent, or God-given, you decide which applies to you.

  21. Ha! As of right now there are 6 comments on that article and all of them oppose the authors point of view.

    • You just have to love that. It is almost exactly the same tactic they have been using about us; if you say anything, we will shout you down. The only difference is that we tend to use actual facts and logical (unfeeling) arguments to demonstrate they actually are wrongheaded, rather than just shouting incoherently.

  22. “It’s time to stop calling the efforts of the gun violence prevention movement ‘gun control.’ Contrary to gun rights absolutists who call us ‘gun grabbers,’ we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”

    “Keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people” is not possible with gun control. I do believe there would be a reduction of deaths, with guns, with the implementation of strict gun control. I’m not sure if death by knife, poison, or crowbar, etc, is better than death by gun. I do believe the occurrence of rape, theft, and other crimes would increase as has been demonstrated by countries who have implemented strict gun control.

    “We also believe in balancing public safety against individual rights with restrictions on highly lethal weaponry such as large capacity magazines and firearms designed for military use.”

    “Safety against individual rights” is the honest statement used here. That is exactly what it is and is also precisely why we as a whole will never come to a consensus on these “supposed” issues. We are not interested in throwing away our principles or our ideology that rights and freedom are more important than safety (Which was the ideology when this country was founded). But that is a whole other topic for another day.

    In regard to the “large capacity magazines” and “firearms designed for military use” – we aren’t talking about America’s favorite rifle right? The AR15? A single modular firearm that can be chambered for over 61 different chamberings? One you can hunt almost any game anywhere with this one rifle? We aren’t talking about that rifle right? The rifle not designed for military use (as it has no select fire feature on the firearm)? And since we are mentioning this type of firearm we can (again) bring to light that this firearm is almost never used in typical crimes. Handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. This means that this statement is strictly over “school shootings.” Which are about on par with deaths associated with lightening strikes in America (which are not well covered by mainstream media). So again – The “Gun Grabbers” want to ban the AR15? Right? The rights/freedoms of 300 million Americans because of the criminal action of the few against approximately 500 people in schools every 10 years.

    But if it saves one life we should do it right???
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/351695/if-it-saves-one-life-kevin-d-williamson
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337324/if-it-saves-one-life-charles-c-w-cooke

    We call you gun grabbers because you are always after the gun and never the root cause of the problem. You seek the cheap easy way out that you think best benefits you at the costs of millions of American people’s freedoms.

    “We are for reasonable regulation of firearms”

    Lets get real. After school shooters switched from ARs to pistols you would want to ban those next. You wouldn’t stop until the only firearm America could have would be a single shot shotgun and only the elite would be able to possess one. Please don’t lie to our faces.

  23. Hey, it worked for the pro-abortion and anti-abortion groups:
    Don’t call us pro-abortion, use a stupid euphemism, like pro-choice.
    Don’t call us anti-abortion, use a stupid euphemism, like pro-life.

    And anyway, the MSM writing style guide seems to mandate calling anti-gunners “anti-violence” while referring to pro gun activists non-euphemistically.

  24. He claims a study showed no correlation between gun ownership and crime, but then proceeded to claim higher rates of gun ownership correlated with higher rates of death by firearm (once you exclude the “developing” countries, including the one we share a 2,000 mile land border with). But if it isn’t crime, what accounts for increased “gun deaths? ” Accidents? They account for too few deaths to be significant. What’s left is suicides, and it’s true that higher levels of gun ownership correlate with higher rates of suicide by firearm. They do not, however, correlate with overall suicide rate.

    So basically, his entire argument is that he should be allowed to infringe the rights of others on the basis that he’s decided that hanging, poisoning, and falls are more desirable methods of suicide than firearms. He declines top explain why.

  25. “we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.”
    That is a good thing to be “for”, but the problem is that we haven’t seen any regulations proposed or enacted that has or would accomplish this.

    • IMO the law he is looking for already exists – the Second Amendment.

      Whether the “dangerous people” are lunatics, criminals, thugs, or the government, the right to keep and bear arms allows everyone the ability to defend themselves and their neighbors from such people and to “take the guns out of the hands of dangerous people” on a case by case basis.

    • As an example, has anyone seen a list of crimes which would have been, even theoretically, prevented by UBC? I have not heard of a single one. It would have to be someone who legally purchased a firearm (other than being prohibited) at a gun show or otherwise from a non-ffl individual, Craigslist or whatever, and committed a crime with it. I say “theoretically” because of course a criminal could have stolen one or purchased a stolen one regardless of UBC if that prevented him, but for the purpose of the question, let’s ignore that. I have literally never heard of one, and yet that is the bugaboo we are currently supposed to be worried about. Nothing I can think of could possibly make more clear that the goal is not preventing crime (since none would ever be prevented), but forming a registry.

      Years ago, I actually got a point across with a family group of ardent grabbers, when they asked why I was such an idiot about refusing a national registry, and I responded with a challenge to show precisely how registration would help anything except causing a larger government, spending huge amounts of money without benefit. A man was killed with a .357 magnum. With the wonderful registry, we could narrow down the potential killers to around 20 million, with no hope of ever finding a way to sort them out otherwise. If we find the murder weapon, we would know exactly who owns it. Yeah, so you could return it to the owner, who might not even know (or admit) that it was missing. And if he did do the crime, why would he leave it behind? You can demonstrate, without even really trying, that there is absolutely zero actual utility in a registry, unless you plan to confiscate all firearms. Go ahead and try to find a real use, otherwise.

  26. There isn’t any “balance” to be had here except to throw the “balance” away entirely and get entirely behind our civil rights.

    Either you want your civil rights or you don’t. There is no “middle ground”. There is no “grey area”. There never ever has been. There never ever will be. Anyone and everyone asking or looking for “middle ground” is either ignorant or being intellectually dishonest. Period.

  27. “Reasonable” limitations seem to ultimately devolve to limitations on magazine sizes, banning modern semiautomatic rifles and carbines, and registration and licensing schemes. None of which really have been shown to reduce gun violence.

    And, since the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated fundamental right, the burden is on those proposing limitations to show fairly conclusively that their proposed legislation will actually further their important or compelling government interest – not that they think that it might (which is the normal standard), but will. And, sorry, fundamental rights don’t get balanced against non-fundamental rights, including the author’s wishful thinking.

    • “…their proposed legislation will actually further their important or compelling government interest…”

      My only comment here is that the wording of the Second Amendment, as with all of the Bill of Rights, shows specific intent that these are rights that are natural, civil and Constitutionally protected against being abridged by any supposed “compelling government interest.” The purpose of demanding that these rights be enumerated in the Constitution before the states would agree to ratify was to codify the basic minimum of natural rights that the new government (and by implication ANY government) could not deny the people based on some supposed “compelling government interest.”

      • A couple of things here. No Constitutional right is absolute. There are going to be weapons that you can’t own, and no everyone is going to be allowed any type of firearm. Ditto for other Constitutional rights. For example, despite the 1st Amdt, there are things you cannot legally say, and there are times you cannot say it. Classic example was (inaccurately) yelling fire in a crowded theater.

        With that in mind, the courts apply prescribed level of scrutiny to laws and the like to determine whether it is Constitutional or not. Most of the time, rational basis is utilized. But for fundamental rights, increased scrutiny is utilized, which is either intermediate or strict. Traditionally, only sex and alienage discrimination got intermediate scrutiny, while race and ethnic discrimination, along with other fundamental rights, such as free speech and religion get strict scrutiny. Prior to Heller, the courts were giving 2nd Amdt questions rational basis analysis. This meant that governments only had to have some rational reason for the legislation, etc, even if it were wrong. Very rarely do courts invalidate laws as unconstitutional under this level of scrutiny. But the Supreme Court in Heller (and its successor, McDonald) pointed out that the 2nd Amdt right to keep and bear arms was fundamental, and therefore, increased judicial scrutiny was required. It didn’t say whether intermediate or strict scrutiny was required, just that It was greater than rational basis. The trend in the lower courts since then seems to be towards strict scrutiny. We shall see.

        Part of these three levels of scrutiny involve the government interest. Rational basis only requires that it be legitimate. Intermediate scrutiny that it be important, and strict scrutiny requires that it be a compelling state interest. With the latter, the means provided to satisfy the compelling state interest must essentially be the least restrictive available.

        Finally, as to enactment, when the Constitution was originally drafted, Federalists held sway, and they believed that fundamental rights did not need to be enumerated in that document. Everyone agreed on them, so there was no reason to write them down. That is how it was originally ratified. Ultimately though, the more sceptical (or paranoid) anti-Federalists prevailed, and the Bill of Rights were quickly added in the form of the first ten amendments to our Constitution. What is great about our history is that the detailed debates between these two groups were published at the time, and collected in what are known now as the Federalist Papers.

        • Sorry, the shouting fire example qas incorrect when it was writren. You absolutely can do so, however you can be held responsible for the actiion.
          See how that works?
          Also, any limits on the absolute nature of a given right is spelled out for you in the enumeration. Go ahead, check out number 2, do you see the linitation?
          Amazing huh? Look at the rest, you will see them.
          As ti your commentary, paragraphs worth of moot discussion do not change one iota the simple words that actually ended up on paper. Nice try though.

  28. My favorite question to ask the over educated, over civilised anti’s I know is since we live in a dangerous world why do you willingly put yourself in.a defenceless position? The way they twist their answers into pretzels is truly entertaining.

  29. I posted the following on the newspaper comments:

    “Yes indeed. It is time to stop calling you and your fellow travelers “gun grabbers”. It is time we who support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights called you for what you are. Traitors. Period. There is no such thing as “reasonable restrictions” on any right. You traitors forget that the Bill of Rights guarantee rights that existed prior to the Constitution being written. They are not subject to your stupid restrictions. The things that you tout are the first steps in the slippery slope to total confiscation and disarmament. That is your ultimate goal, the creation of a socialist state.”

    I’ll check back later and see if it’s still there.

  30. This guy has some nerve whining about the term “gun control” when his groups use all sorts of abusive and defamatory terms to refer to gun owners.
    Then he rationalizes his complaint with a bald-faced lie, “we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people.” Yeah, right! Your definition of “dangerous people” means everybody.
    Then goes on to assert “We also believe in balancing public safety against individual rights with restrictions on highly lethal weaponry such as large capacity magazines and firearms designed for military use.” If he gets his way, he really means the only “balance” is to deny any sort of firearms to everyone. Pure unadulterated Bovine Scatology. Referring to his kind a “gun control’ advocates is uncalled for civility and only inaccurate insofar as it is too kindly.

    • How can you argue with someone so insistently, deliberately ignorant that he believes a magazine is a weapon? I mean, get ya a double stack .45 mag loaded up with 230 g BBs, and I guess you could conk someone with it, but still …

      • I’m pretty sure it is willful ignorance, or disdain for the subject…but you’re right…arguing with them is impossible, but, then, they are not remotely open to changing their minds they only want to change yours, so it’s a pointless endeavor…like arguing with NAZI’s that Jews are really good people.

  31. Dana Leosch described it best in her latest book…

    (I’ll paraphrase)

    We should all stop using “THEIR” terminology. Using words from “THEIR” playbook means we will always be playing catch up should we ever need to engage in a serious debate, this topic is proof of that.

    I agree, we should not use the term GUN GRABBER any more, period. Instead lets use the proper term: Anti-Second Amendment Advocate.

    Along with that change how about we stop using the terms Assault Rifle, Assault weapon, and High Capacity Magazine. Instead use the correct terminology, i.e. hunting or sporting rifle (and when actually talking about military weaponry, use the term Battle Rifle). As for magazines, only the leftists want everyone to think of 30 round magazines as High Capacity. Use the correct terminology of Standard Capacity Magazines instead.

    If you capitulate and start a debate using their terminology, you have already lost. Don’t give an inch lest you want them to take a mile.

    • Dana is right – using leftist terminology (and don’t they always change the language to fit their goals?) means playing their game, but I would say rather than giving an inch & allowing them to take a mile, start taking miles from them by going on the offensive. Do things like removing the sales tax(es) on all firearms & ammo (but watchout for liberal head explosions here). Repeal concealed carry laws & follow the 2A with constitutional carry w/o a permit. Start carrying long guns in pickup truck back windows again. And more.

    • I would only quibble in pointing out that an assault rife is defined to be a select fire rifle or carbine of intermediate caliber. I.e. Main battle rifles used by modern armies for the last 55 or so years.

  32. What do people like this not understand? We do not “compromise” our freedoms away, especially to a bunch of nationalistic Progressives like this bozo. We will not give up our freedoms even by one inch.

    • Oh, come on, you’re no fun. I would be perfectly willing to compromise, to be reasonable, like they want from us. Like, I see no real reason why anyone needs a magazine which holds more than 100 rounds. So, we should be willing to ban such magazines in the same legislation which repeals all gun control laws written since 1933, and creates federal preemption and thus wipes all state laws off the books at the same time.

      Are you sure we can’t find common ground? If high capacity magazines are a big deal, here’s your chance.

  33. There it is… the grand deception of gun control. To be so humble to assert they only want to keep guns out of the hands of bad people.
    On the surface it sounds relatively reasonable. But that is only a veil. Behind it hides the will to disarm everybody. I would even go so far to say that they would eventually disarm the police.
    They have never spoke up about a gun-control bill to say, “well that’s actually too far.” They have never said, “this gun control law only serves to prevent a good guy from acquiring the device,” or, “this law is only symbolic and serves no good purpose.”
    They have supported every law or bill that limits the right.
    They have protested actively and publicly against the good guy with a gun while bad guys do as they please.
    They are quiet about taking responsibility when their gun control results in the disarmed from being harmed in a crime.
    They only blame the good guy and not the criminal.
    Because they feel anyone with access to a gun is a potential bad guy or at least a source to get a gun to a bad guy. That is what they hide… to disarm everybody.

  34. Bah, they’ve been trying to avoid calling it “gun control” for decades now. But the term keeps coming up, even in the sympathetic MSM, perhaps because that’s just what it is.

  35. So what this tool is say that is they can just kind of rebrand gun control and we’ll just magically forget that these groups have been fighting tooth and nail against one of the most treasured civil liberties available to us here in the US.

  36. I would love to see this incredible dimbulb attempt to define “Infringed”. And then tell me again about how his concept of “sensible regulations” is not unconstitutional.

  37. Well I guess they should ban my Winchester Model 70’s When I pull the bolt from one of them and compare to the bolt on my Mauser 98 the only difference is the position of the safety. Clearly my Winchesters are designed for military use and should be banned.

  38. It doesn’t matter if they aren’t going to go door to door to collect guns. If you try to take away my choice of what firearm and magazines I want to own that still qualifies you as a gun grabber.

  39. Perloe just proved our point while trying to deny it. What a maroon.

    It reminds me of the time that King Richard Daley of Chicago said, “The police are not here to create disorder, they’re here to preserve disorder.”

    Yeah, we got that.

  40. Mr. Perloe is happy to move to England or Australia is the Constitution or the
    Bill of Rights bothers him. He can cower in terror waiting for the next home
    invasion like all the other “subjects”. Ironically, without the 2nd the 1st
    Amendment would have an even shorter life expectancy.

  41. All I see is an oxymoron: Violence prevention.You cannot prevent violence; you can discourage it, but not prevent it…unless you are a psychic. So, since we all know this, it must be about gun control because you will never be able to prevent squat.

  42. Eh, he’s trying to claim that it is extreme to believe the constitution says what it says, but this seems more the middle ground to me.

    Where he is at is NOT the common sense reasonable place he thinks it is, whether through honest ignorance, or willful denial of fact. Either way he’s wrong. :p

  43. we are for reasonable regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of dangerous people, such as all American citizens. See he is telling the truth, sort of.

  44. There is something to be said about a man who actually RECOMMENDS trading rights for safety… Without rights, safety has no value! The men who would rather live as a “safe” slave (who is actually in great danger, being at the mercy of potential tyrants and all) are making a compromise where no slack should be given to government…

  45. BS.

    Unless you’re less than 10 years old, you’ve witnessed “reasonable” redefined at least ten times. In California, it’s been redefined at least 20. “Reasonable” moves the goalposts faster than a Palestinian rocket launcher after an Israeli land concession.

    Here’s a test for the defenders of “reasonable”. Would you accept the exact same “reasonable” regulation in regard to your internet usage, your newspaper access, your telecommunications use? Would you then accept new “reasonable” expansions every 2 years while NEVER releasing or letting up on previous regulation?

  46. “…the gun violence prevention movement… …we are for … regulation of firearms that keeps guns out of the hands of … people. We also believe in … restrictions on … magazines and firearms…”

    Question: In what sense is “regulation of firearms” to “keep guns out of the hands of people”, and “restrictions on magazines and firearms” *not* “gun control. You are controlling guns, and who has them.

    I’ll note, after the moniker for the “movement” there’s not one mention of “violence.”

    Sheesh.

Leave a Reply

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