Previous Post
Next Post

Those of us on the “let ’em go down to K-Mart, buy a gun, buy some bullets and walk out” side of the Second Amendment debate tend to forget that the same old gun control arguments are out there, somewhere. Actually, they’re in Sharon Massachusetts, as espoused by high schooler Adomas Grigonis. Mr. Grigonis’ essay in the Talon is a masterpiece of concision, presenting all the anti-gun shibboleths which have “informed” the left’s perspective on the issue for decades. “The Second Amendment in the Constitution allows Americans to bear arms, but this was written in the 18th century when homeland security was dependent on local militias.” Yup. That one. The one that completely ignores the Supreme Court’s recent ruling affirming Americans’ constitutional right to armed self-defense. Wait! There’s less!

Today guns are more of a liability than a necessity. According to the Stop Handgun Violence organization 40% of American households with children have guns.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense . . .

Most pro-firearms people argue that a person has to pull the trigger, but if the person had not been given a gun in the first place would there not be a trigger to pull?

I didn’t start this blog to cross swords with a high schooler who wants to save the world from gun violence. So I’m not going to rip his polemic to pieces. I merely want to point out that the TTAG is, by and large, an echo chamber.

If you want to defend the right to bear arms, you have to take the battle where it can do some good: in the places where anti-gun forces mass (so to speak). Tell the truth about guns to people who don’t want to hear it. Be calm and rational and persistent. But do it. Your rights are in their hands as much as your own.

Meanwhile, I blame Mr. Grigonis’ teachers for his lopsided views on gun control. Surely our schools should be teaching our children how to think, rather than how to parrot the PC politics of perceived wisdom. Or lack thereof.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. In other news, Massachusetts's 4th Congressional District (which includes Sharon) just re-elected Barney Frank — Brandy Campaign proponent, author of the Fannie/Freddie mortgage meltdown that cast the US economy into its current recession, and one-time benefactor of the "gay male Mayflower Madam" — in a landslide victory. Growing up in that environment young Adomas Grigonis doesn't stand much of a chance.

    • There were several opportunities for change in the MA elections, and they all passed us by. At the state level, we had a golden opportunity to get rid of Gov Patrick and AG Martha Coakley, both of which could have had serious implications for the 2nd Amendment in MA. Very frustrating…

  2. Actually, the kid is right about far many more things than your side. Yes, it's rather a Cliff's Notes version of the issue and it ceratinly glosses over some of the nuances but there's not a whole lot wrong with the essay.

    OTOH, your side's arguments are largely fraudulent. Consider the arguments of a typical "true, grown-up" gunloon:

    –Gun Control leads to Nazi Germany as run by Pol Pot.
    –Guns are a "God-given" right.
    –International comparisons are meaningless. Unless we're talking about Hitler and gun control.
    –All universities and professional organizations are biased.
    –Statistics rank below the practice of alchemy and tea leaf reading as a viable science.
    –Guns are the only things that prevent us from being overrun by UN forces, space invaders, or rabid panda bears.

    The list goes on.

    Sadly, your side can't claim youth as an excuse.

    • "OTOH, your side's arguments are largely fraudulent."

      Largely fraudulent?? I beg to differ. Let us fisk:

      "Gun Control leads to Nazi Germany as run by Pol Pot."

      Tyrannical governments have a long and well-documented history of disarming their citizens. And we needn't look far back in time to see plenty of examples of this. Given this overwhelming empirical evidence, how (un)safe is it to assume that disarmament *won't* lead to tyranny? How many examples do you need? And why is the answer always, "One more"?

      "Guns are a "God-given" right."

      No, guns are *not* a God-given right. However, one has a God-given right to their life and a God-given right to defend it. Until we develop personal/portable Star Trek-like "Shields, Mr. Sulu!", fighting back is still the best way to survive a violent attack that you can't avoid. I don't know about you, but at my age, I can't pull off the 100-yard dash at nearly the speed I could 30 years ago. Nor can I do nearly as much damage to the punching bag as I did in my karate days. Relying solely on either of those two means to defend my (God-given) life is shortchanging myself.

      Don't believe in God? Fine. Evolution shows that those organisms in nature that are most adaptable and take the most advantage of what they're given, survive. You don't hear of bears shedding their claws because they scare tourists, do you? So then why should we handicap ourselves?

      "International comparisons are meaningless. Unless we're talking about Hitler and gun control."

      International comparison *are* meaningless only if they don't produce the conclusions you want. ;^)

      "All universities and professional organizations are biased."

      Not all of them, but a lot of them. Many of the departments that educate those in the "information and policy arts" — education, journalism, law, and political science, for example — are staffed heavily to the Left. To deny this is to deny the hand at the end of your arm. I spent five years working to graduate from a large state university and I saw it every day. Every. Day.

      "Statistics rank below the practice of alchemy and tea leaf reading as a viable science."

      Lies, damned lies, and statistics! The fact that the average American has no concept of a first-order derivative means that most useful statistics sail clear over their heads. And that's not to mention that both sides of the gun control argument violate "best practices" when applying statistics. "Offsetting penalties. Replay the down."

      "Guns are the only things that prevent us from being overrun by UN forces, space invaders, or rabid panda bears."

      Wrong again. Willpower is what prevents being overrun. But sometimes willpower alone doesn't cut it. How do you think Ghandi would have fared had he been staring down Hitler's Germany and not England? I hardly think he'd have lasted a week. Now combine that willpower with a well-armed citizenry and you have something completely different. You have Switzerland, instead — a country Hitler "conveniently" avoided invading.



  3. No, Roy, I'm afraid you're not right. The best gun control folks I know are former gun owners who've converted. To think you can get anti-gun people to change sides simply by putting a gun in their hand is silly. It's more of that pro-gun tendency of attributing magical qualities to the gun all the while you denounce our focusing on the "tool" instead of the user of the tool.

  4. Mike, it sounds crazy but it does work. I've "converted" more than a few people by taking them to the range. In any case, I think that everyone should have some practical exposure to firearms, so at least we're all talking about the same thing, experientially speaking.

  5. Agreed, absolutely. In fact there ought to be a law. No gun control talk unless you've fired a gun yourself.

    I'm joking. I agree. What I don't agree with is the inference that most people would be converted if they'd only allow themselves to experience the magic of guns. Many gun control folks already have had experience. Many others would be further convinced of their beliefs after a trip to the range. And as you said some would be converted, but not most.

    Your argument touches on a comparison I've made, even though I hate comparing things to guns. It's addiction. You guys in many cases (some cases) are hooked on the use of guns for all the obvious reasons. Therefore, a wishy washy gun control person who's never touched a gun might find it so empowering and so exhilirating that he experiences a type of love at first sight.

  6. Nice to see you! Thanks for posting this article, as it’s really useful for me! But, who can do your tasks very cheap? So, I’m a pro author of essays and dissertations, and I’m working at this perfect section for a long time of my hard life. Please, visit our website if you wanna be the best student of this year!

  7. I think guns are very dangerous! On the one hand I understand why people buy them! Many people are afraid for their children. But on the other hand there is the danger of accidentally damaging the same child.

    Okay, if we judge globally, then we need to have a stable situation in the country so that people would not have the idea of buying guns. Am I wrong?
    Respectfully, writer from cheap paper writing service website.

  8. Ask for More by Alex Carter is a best seller in the Wall Street Journal. It proves that better questions lead to better outcomes in negotiations. Learning how to negotiate effectively can improve your relationships and daily life. Alexandra Carter is a Columbia law professor and mediator. She provides a clear and concise guide to the art of negotiation. She has helped people of all levels improve their negotiations and achieve their goals. Read on to discover how you can ask for more in negotiations!


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here