Previous Post
Next Post


An editorial in The Ellsworth American promises us “rational gun control.” Unsurprisingly, to anyone who understands that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, it’s anything but that. In typical bipolar fashion, noise is generated to make it sound like the right to keep and bear arms is recognized, but that’s just lip service as the author tries to convince us that “bans on semi- automatic and assault-style weapons and high capacity ammunition clips,” along with all the other obligatory infringements shoved at gun owners ad nauseam, are just the ticket for giving the public what it wants.

The problem, according to the editorial, is that the “gun rights lobbyists” outspend “gun control lobbyists.” It must be true, because Time Magazine says the NRA and others have a 17 to 1 advantage of $4.2 million to $240,000. And they wouldn’t lie, would they? Never mind that Michael Bloomberg has thrown $50 million into the pot. Never mind all the free media the antis get every time a handful of Disgruntled Moms decide they need some attention. Never mind the slick media propaganda campaigns by left-wing ad agencies. By deceptively limiting things being counted to what Time deems “lobbying,” the low-information reader will be manipulated into indignation.

Mission accomplished.

Then we have G. Allen Smith in the Danbury News Times, and he’s offering us “a solution to regulate gun sales.” Just to make sure the dialog he wishes to have is sufficiently inclusive, G. Allen endears gun owners with references to “the NRA and everyone else whining about their Second Amendment rights.”

Now there’s a guy I want to sit down and have a respectful conversation with. And that “solution” he promised us?

“In order for a first-time buyer to purchase a handgun or rifle there would be either a $500 to $1,000 fee or a 60-to-90-day waiting period,” G. Allen proclaims. Then add registration and mandatory training – not to mention the police being able to deny applications – and, oh, by the way, if you need to hire a lawyer to exercise your rights, good, because that will further “delay the process.” And in order for it to really work, we need to make it nationwide.

Thanks, G. Allen. That was fun.

At least the “editorial editors … of the editorial board” at the Department of Redundancy Department, I mean, The Miami Student, have an excuse for cranking out sophomoric opinions, although I suspect many are simply slow-learning juniors and seniors. They announce their intent at “arming criminals with preventable weapons,” whatever the hell that means (it’s amazing though, what headlines you can produce with all those editors).

Rather than try to wade through all the incoherent thought and faulty logic, there’s one point made that puts everything in perspective:

“For some, including most members of our Editorial Board, a world with one gun is a world with too many,” they admit. “The United States would be better off without them…”

So much for the oft-repeated “No one wants to take your guns” lie. Of course they do. They just can’t figure out how to swallow the elephant whole, so they’ll settle for taking a piece here and a piece there, hoping they can find quislings on the gun rights side dumb and cowardly enough to “compromise” with them.

Speaking of pieces, we had all the talking points consolidated today, courtesy of former Maryland Governor and Democrat presidential hopeful Martin O’Malley, hopelessly behind in the polls and hoping to gain at least a little media attention.

“As a nation, it is time for sensible gun safety laws that save lives,” O’Malley tweeted Monday. “Read my full plan…”

Note these characters always represent their “gun safety” rants as “sensible, although there is absolutely nothing in O’Malley’s background to show he knows the first thing about true gun safety. As their constituents generally don’t have a clue themselves, the utter lack of qualifications and competence never stops these frauds from passing themselves off as experts on whatever subject can accrue more power to control.

Still, he’s given us a wish list that sets the stage for, but stops just short of the Miami editorial editors’ goal. It includes intolerable acts such as universal registration and … TTAG’s Robert Farago gives us a breakdown of O’Malley’s scheming, so no need to recount the details here. Suffice it to say, based on noncompliance examples we’ve seen in Connecticut, New York, and elsewhere, attempts at nationwide enforcement will soon become a self-evident joke.

In this case, though, O’Malley is throwing a “Hail Mary.” With Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton using up all the electoral oxygen in the room, and even undeclared Joe Biden drawing four time his numbers, O’Malley is currently coming in at three percent. That’s no small coincidence when you consider the number of estimated gun owners  who will not go quietly into that good night.

The bottom line – for the “rational” Ellsworth, for G. Allen, for the editorial editors and for O’Malley – is there’s really only one response to their proposals. It’s the same answer for everyone who is under the delusion that if only they can trick enough ignoramuses, they’ll have a claim on our rights, and we must then surrender and obey: No. Your move.

In O’Malley’s case, I wouldn’t worry overmuch. After having his “tweet” out since morning and despite all the media coverage, this ostensibly national figure presuming to run for president has only managed to attract a few dozen “retweets” and “favorites.” Compare that to the numbers another professional narcissist generated when she shared her “Puss ‘n Boots” this afternoon. That’s why America’s First Freedom probably overstated the case: After all, how much of a menace can a guy whose “gun control” plan draws less interest than a Kim Kardashian selfie be?

That’s about how seriously he deserves to be taken by men and women who will never comply with ridiculous power junkies and who will do #whateverittakes to repel moral defectives demanding their submission.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Analogizing the 2016 Presidential race to the NFL draft, O’Malley is “Mr. Irrelevant.” He wanted to run as the most left-wing of the left-wing lunatics, but Bernie Sanders beat him to that position. He tried to be the populist candidate by playing his guitar and flexing his biceps like Bruce Springsteen, but Trump is the king of populism right now. His administration failed so badly in Maryland that the Old Democrat State, having exactly one (one-term) Republican governor in over fifty years, then elected a Republican governor just for spite. So O’Malley is right where he deserves to be — nowhere.

    Watch for O’Malley to get loonier and loonier as he falls further and further out of the race.

  2. This is a guy who’s polling at 2% in the primaries right now, with basically zero prospects of getting anywhere. His opinion on this subject, or on any other, is hardly even worth a TTAG post, much less a journal front page.

  3. I seem to recall that the anti-gunners spent over $4 million in Washington to get a(n outrageously bad) universal background check bill passed. And they anticipate spending about that much in Nevada. I don’t know what they spent in Oregon. Their lobbying efforts–paid for by Daddy Boombucks–far exceed the annual spending of the NRA.

  4. I’m sorry, but this whole article is kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. An editorial from some unknown Podunk-town newspaper, that drew exactly one (1) comment; a letter to the editor from some , let’s just say logic-deficient gun-muggle, and a student-paper editorial from some no-name bastion of what passes for “higher education” in this time of grade hyper-inflation. Are these really even worthy of comment? I don’t see it, and I don’t see how dredging up Martin O’Malley’s political corpse from the swamp of irrelevance that it was happily devoured by previously does the NRA any credit; it’s just chumming to stir up the sharks.

  5. I know we are supposed to believe that these people think they are making some kind of sense, but that is very difficult. They sound more and more like a bunch of spoiled children who are throwing a tantrum because they are not getting their way. Just one small example, I thought we had disposed of “microstamping” years ago.

  6. “Unsurprisingly, to anyone who understands that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day,”

    No, no, no, you don’t understand

    It’s not “Progressive” as in “Progress” but “Progressive” as in “Cancer.”

  7. Hey guys, let’s be clear, we all know that there is not enough popular political support to get further gun control rammed through congress without a sweetheart deal attached to something else. That said, there also is not enough people in the legislature to repeal anything that’s already on the books or to punish the ATF in any substantive manner. And it will remain that way until the middle-Easterners and Latin Americans begin voting, at which point the Dems will take everything they need by about 5-10% in every election. And the first thing on the agenda is to strangle America’s gun culture the way they did Australia. And the rules of the system are rigged against us.

    Voting Republican will not save you from this, because in the end they’re part of it. Buy a black rifle, a doublestack 9mm, and a plate carrier with plates and web gear. You’re going to need it.

  8. Y’know, we should be helping those Moms to get their proposals implemented nationwide. If national compliance rates are even approximately close to CT and NY, the discussion would be over — permanently — right there.

    80 million gun owners saying ‘No’ in unison would be the shot heard ’round the world.

  9. Progressives learned a long time ago that the vast majority of the American people don’t want what they’re selling. But part of the progressive philosophy is that the people are stupid and need their intellectual betters to force them to become better people. The ends justify the means. So they took their agenda and started whitewashing it with euphemisms and deceptive adjectives. The radical banning and confiscation of guns became ‘commonsense’. Murdering your children became a ‘choice’. Collapsing the economy became ‘income equality’. This is how they work. It’s on us to know better than to trust them.

  10. Hey lefties, wouldn’t all these mandatory fees just make it harder for minorities and poor people to exercise their rights, or does that only count for voter ID?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here