Is ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control Even a Thing?

common sense gun control protest sign

Shutterstock

By MarkPA

Back when I was in high school, we spoke simply of “gun control.” Congress passed “An Act to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide for better control of the interstate traffic in firearms”, more simply called the “Gun Control Act of 1968”.

Somewhere along the way, the rhetoric changed. The phrase “common sense” was added as a qualifier to gun control. No longer would we speak of gun control for the sake of control. Advocates modified their stance to argue solely for those measures which they could characterize as “common sense.”

Okay, I’m all for common sense. But many of us advocates for responsible gun ownership remain uncertain how this modifying phrase “common sense” changed the substance of the debate. Perhaps we would be better able to reach our common goal if we could understand what advocates mean when they speak of “common sense” gun control laws. To this end, I respectfully offer the thesis:

The phrase “common sense” used to qualify gun control means nothing.  

For “common sense gun control” to be logically distinguished from simple “gun control” there must be a difference. Is there? Conventional wisdom is that there are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books of federal. state and municipal governments.

One refutation of my thesis could be in the form of a list of those laws—repealed, current or proposed—which fail the “common sense” qualification; e.g., 19,999 gun control laws pass the common sense test except X, which defies common sense. Somehow I doubt that gun control advocates would provide a list of any candidates for gun control laws that defy common sense.

In U.S. constitutional law the lowest standard for review is referred to as the “rational basis test.” If the law is “rationally related” to a “legitimate” government interest, whether real or hypothetical, it passes this standard. The Supreme Court found that the District of Columbia’s law, banning from the home the most preferred firearm, would fail constitutional muster under any standard of scrutiny. Would advocates of common sense gun control concede that that DC law failed the “common sense” standard?

Dick Heller vs DC

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

The Heller v. DC decision was a mere 5 to 4 holding, so let’s consider another. Ms. Jamie Caetano, a homeless single mother, was convicted of defying Massachusetts absolute ban on stun guns. The Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed her conviction. Would advocates of common sense gun control concede that the Massachusetts law failed the “common sense” standard?

If advocates for “common sense” gun control can offer no example of a law which fails to meet their “common sense” qualification then I rest my case. That phrase means nothing. If the “common sense” standard advocates would offer examples that meet or fail their standard “common sense” then we might be able to discern the reasons.

For example, suppose that the standard is that SCOTUS must explicitly rule on a specific set of facts under a specific law. Under that criteria, we can say that only absolute bans on stun guns or handguns inside the home fail the “common sense” test. Would it then follow that every law will pass the “common sense” standard unless and until SCOTUS rules otherwise? Complicating liberal theology, this would imply there are ordinarily no “emanations and penumbras” in US constitutional law.

How would that rationale apply to the countless unenumerated rights generally acknowledged by Americans?

There is “no right to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater.” We’ve constantly heard. There is no SCOTUS ruling upholding the right of citizens to attend the theater unmuzzled. There is no right to undermine Congress’ authority to conscript men for military service through intemperate advocacy of draft-card burning. So, could a municipality require theater-goers to wear muzzles? May Congress pass a law forbidding the carrying of matches or lighters in public places?

Obviously, no.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Yet speech is one thing. Keeping and bearing of arms is quite another by its legal treatment. Why is the right to arms evaluated so differently from other enumerated rights such as speech, press, religion, assembly, quartering, searches, seizures, warrants and so forth. All enumerated rights — save those for arms — must meet intermediate or strict scrutiny. Arms alone are subject to the special “common sense” test.

It might be that exploring the phrase “common sense gun control” could establish some common understanding, however minuscule, that some rights to arms must be respected even by gun control advocates. We might learn what we all mean as “common sense” while becoming clearer on what we would continue to regard as nonsense.

I strongly suspect that there is no such thing as “common sense gun control” as distinct from gun control for the sake of control itself.

 

‘MarkPA’  is trained in economics, a life-long gun owner, NRA Instructor and Massad Ayoob graduate. He is inspired by our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and holds that having the means to defend oneself and one’s community is vital to securing them.

This article originally appeared at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission.

comments

  1. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Common sense gun control” is imminently understandable. Additionally, there is a clear demarcation between “gun control” law, and “common sense” gun control. Standard “gun control” permits some portion of the public to keep and bear arms, under some circumstances. “Common sense” gun control is banishment and confiscation.

    QED

    1. avatar Paul says:

      I want to hear more about Common Sense Speech Control.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I want to hear more about Common Sense Speech Control.”

        Simple: anything you say, write or think that offends me is hate speech. The First Amendment only protects legitimate speech; I determine what is legitimate.

        1. avatar Ministry of Truth says:

          “common sense” is simply a poll-tested term that the left-wing (aka socialists) attach as a prefix to ANY and ALL legislation and policies they wish to hoodwink the public into accepting. If the “common sense” descriptor is attached to a policy or proposed piece of legislation, you can be sure there is nothing about the proposal that is logical, appropriate, proper, or beneficial to society in general. On the contrary, rest assured the proposed issue lacks any common sense and most often goes against what a normal person would say is correct.

      2. avatar FedUp says:

        Commie Sense Speech Control is when one of Biden’s Ukrainian Kickback Advisors is put in charge of election news censorship at Facebook?
        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/10/17/unbelievable-facebooks-lead-executive-on-election-policy-was-vice-president-joe-bidens-advisor-to-ukraine/

        Or is it when a black guy (Philip Anderson) helps organize a free speech rally to protect social media censorship, and a bunch of racist white Antifa Communists knock his teeth out while repeatedly calling him that word which cannot be mentioned (unless you’re a Communist, then you can say it all you want)?
        https://twitter.com/dpi_19/status/1317547887325138950

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Damn you autocorrect. Anderson was protesting censorship, not protecting it.
          Almost makes me want to register my name so I can edit.

        2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @ Fed Up

          I purely hates auto correct.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “the corrupt activity between the Biden family payoffs and Ukraine.”

          I would really be interested in seeing what evidence one has to substantiate this claim.

          I’m wondering why after 4 years trump’s attorney general Barr and his DOJ have not prosecuted the Biden’s for this alleged criminal activity?

        4. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

          Miner49er,

          Do you, really?! What about ACTUAL emails, from Hunter Biden’s ACTUAL computer, that clearly implicate him and his corrupt “Godfather”??? Would that be enough for you? Apparently not, since:

          1. The Biden campaign has NOT denied the substance or accuracy of the emails;
          2. Hunter’s own attorney attempted to “reclaim” the laptop (how do you “reclaim” something that wasn’t yours to begin with?????); and
          3. The laptop clearly contains material that could only have been obtained by . . . Hunter Biden.

          I kjnow “progressives” aren’t big on critical thinking, but try pulling your head out of your fourth point of contact long enough to see reality. The Bidens are a a crime family, every bit as much as Sam Giovanni.

          But you do you, simpleton.

        5. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

          Miner49er,

          Sorry, it should be “Giancana” not “Giovanni”. and I’m waiting for you to embarrass yourself by saying something stupid likie, “Yeah, all those wop names sound alike, don’t they.”

          You are a pathetic, brainless tool

        6. avatar FedUp says:

          You know you’re on the target when 49er starts shooting flak at you.

        7. avatar Nero “...diction, not grammar.” Wolfe says:

          “… prosecuted the Biden’s for this alleged criminal activity?”

          So miner, did you intend to use an apostrophe to indicate a plural, or is your autocorrect function disabled? I recommend that you enable it. A tremendous side benefit would be that your posts would be much shorter. Some may become so corrected as to disappear entirely! Woohoo!

        8. avatar enuf says:

          There is yet to be any evidence produced of any crime involving the Bidens. So far it is a lot of false moral outrage and bloviating. There is no crime on being paid to lend your name to a corporate board of directors. If there were, countless politicians and famous persons would be in prison.

          Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor refusing to act on countless charges brought against elements of the Ukraine government by the USA, European nations and an anti-corruption movement within Ukraine. No connection to any wrongdoing involving Burisma has ever been found. Upon Shokin’s removal, Ukraine began to have success in exposing and removing other corrupt officials.

          Now in the news is that Trump’s own FBI is investigating the Rudy Giuliani supplied hard drive as a Russian disinformation scheme to influence the election in favor of Trump. Who Putin has always favored as a useful stooge.

          On the whole, the only thing this episode tells me is that voting to remove Trump continues to be in the vital security interests of the Republic.

          Biden’s routine liberalism we can deal with in the normal manner, should we manage to succeed in removing the Trump authoritarina threat to Democracy in this, our American Republic.

        9. avatar Miner49er says:

          So my question still is, why after 4 years trump’s attorney general Barr and his DOJ have not prosecuted the Biden’s for this alleged criminal activity?

          The same goes for Barack Hussein Obama, almost 4 years with complete access to the classified records and still, no indictments much less trials, much less convictions.

          And the Clintons, they’ve been investigated by every Republican committee coming and going for 30 years, no charges.
          Investigations by the DOJ and every other alphabet agency, still no charges.

          Following the guidance of occam’s razor, the reason there are no charges for criminal behavior is because… There has been no criminal behavior.

        10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Miner49er,

          Thank you for throwing me a slow pitch that I can knock out of the park.

          First of all, the United States Justice Department under Trump for the last four years did not, I repeat, DID NOT have irrefutable evidence of alleged Biden family criminal dealings for four years. Instead, the computer shop owner turned over Hunter Biden’s notebook computer to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation only a year ago. And it is entirely possible that the FBI agent who received the notebook computer is a Biden supporter who sat on the computer for several months — or even politically neutral and sat on the computer for several months simply because there was no compelling reason to delve into it.

          Second of all, how quaint of you to think that the underlings at the various federal agencies fall all over themselves to immediately provide documents which Trump’s inner circle and/or the Justice Department requests. It is a known fact that the majority of federal government employees support Democrats: thus those underlings often refuse to cooperate with requests from Republicans. And why not refuse to cooperate since it is almost impossible to fire low-level federal employees?

          Third of all, Trump’s inner circle and the Justice Department have absolutely no idea what documentation or evidence even exists within the bowels of the federal leviathan. How can Trump’s inner circle and the Justice Department request documents and evidence that they have no idea even exists?

          Fourth of all, Trumps inner circle and the Justice Department can issue a blanket request (cast a “wide net”) and underlings can simply come up empty-handed — either on purpose or because of incompetence.

          The only time that something happens promptly, thoroughly, and competently at the federal government is when there is a huge event with overwhelming support from both Democrats and Republicans. Investigating and prosecuting the Biden family for alleged criminal dealings does not fall under that category.

        11. avatar Dude says:

          enuf: “So far it is a lot of false moral outrage and bloviating.”

          Is that what you said when they impeached Trump? Biden literally did the exact thing they claimed Trump was going to do, only worse because he got someone fired. Joe is on video bragging about it. The Bidens have been caught selling influence. If this is such a nothing story, then why did the tech companies work overtime to censor it? Why didn’t Biden come out and specifically say those emails were fraudulent? Joe was also caught in a major lie. He lied about his knowledge of his son’s business dealing. The emails specifically request political help, Joe delivered, and the Bidens got paid. You must be a shill. Nobody is that dumb. Oh, and but Russia! Where have you been the past four years? Where is this proof that this is nothing but a Russian disinformation campaign? How many times are you idiots going to accept that story?

        12. avatar Dude says:

          This just in. Sorry enuf. You were lied to again by CNN’s famous “anonymous” sources. When will you stop being so gullible? Or maybe you’re just a partisan shill?

          Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Monday said the information contained on Hunter Biden’s laptop revealed by The Post last week “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign.”

          “Let me be clear: The intelligence community doesn’t believe that because there is no intelligence that supports that. And we have shared no intelligence with Adam Schiff, or any member of Congress,” he said.

          https://nypost.com/2020/10/19/john-ratcliffe-info-on-hunter-biden-laptop-not-russian-disinformation/

        13. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Schiff has never received any intelligence from any source.

        14. avatar Miner49er says:

          John Ratcliffe is a politician who has little knowledge regarding intelligence affairs and has been caught misrepresenting his experience.

          “Ratcliffe has little experience in national security or national intelligence and is reported to have demonstrated little engagement on the matters as a congressman.[5][6][60] Trump’s intent to nominate Ratcliffe became controversial when he was found to have misrepresented his role in prosecuting terrorism and immigration cases.[5][61][62] On February 29, 2020, Sen. Mark Warner, vicechair of the Senate Intelligence Committee warned Trump against nominating Ratcliffe.[13]

          Ratcliffe is well known for criticizing the FBI and the special counsel investigation as being biased against Trump. Ratcliffe has also alleged that Russian interference may have benefited Trump’s 2016 rival candidate Hillary Clinton more than it benefited Trump. American intelligence agencies, the Senate Intelligence Committee and Robert Mueller have maintained that Russia interfered to help Trump. A week before Trump’s announcement, Ratcliffe had argued that the special counsel investigation put Trump “below the law” because it declined to exonerate Trump. Later, Ratcliffe claimed on Fox News that the special counsel investigation’s report was not written by special counsel Robert Mueller, but by “Hillary Clinton’s de facto legal team”.[63][8]

          Democrats asserted Ratcliffe was unqualified and too partisan to serve in such a role, which is historically considered relatively nonpartisan.[64] Some Republicans also privately expressed discontent with his selection and concerns about his ability to be confirmed.[65] However, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr and Senator John Cornyn expressed confidence in him.[66][67] Democratic senators including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Ron Wyden, a member of the Intelligence Committee, said that Ratcliffe’s only qualification for the office appeared to be “blind loyalty” to Trump, noting that he has promoted some of Trump’s conspiracy theories about the Russia investigation and has called for prosecution of Trump’s political enemies.[68][63] Several former members of the intelligence community expressed concerns that Ratcliffe’s appointment risked politicizing intelligence work.[5][69] They expressed fear that with Ratcliffe as DNI, Trump would in effect be assuming personal control over the intelligence community, which would then be expected to tell him only what he wants to hear.[70] They stressed the need for intelligence to be “candid, truthful and accurate even if it is unpleasant and does not confirm to the biases of the president”.[8]

          On August 2, 2019, Trump said in a tweet that he was withdrawing Ratcliffe’s name from nomination, claiming that mainstream media scrutiny of Ratcliffe (though using the “lamestream” pejorative in the actual message) was unfair, and would result in “months of slander and libel,” while White House sources said that Trump had become concerned about Ratcliffe’s chances for confirmation, following feedback from some Republican senators.[9][12] Speaking to reporters later that day, Trump insisted the press had treated Ratcliffe unfairly, but he also stated that he liked the way the press vetted his nominees, saying “You vet for me.”[71] In his formal statement withdrawing from consideration, Ratcliffe said, “I do not wish for a national security and intelligence debate surrounding my confirmation, however untrue, to become a purely political and partisan issue. The country we all love deserves that it be treated as an American issue. Accordingly, I have asked the President to nominate someone other than me for this position.”[72]“

      3. avatar Debbie W. says:

        That’s easy. You may run into a crowded movie theater and yell “FIRE” all you want. But if you run into a crowded fire station and yell “MOVIE”, you can expect to get hosed.

        Ask me how I know!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But if you run into a crowded fire station and yell “MOVIE”, you can expect to get hosed.”

          Note to Debbie: “get hosed” has multiple meanings. Be careful.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Note to Debbie: “get hosed” has multiple meanings. Be careful.”

          I was thinking ‘Wet T-shirt Contest’… 🙂

      4. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

        Or common sense religion control (cannot practice a faith that countermands governmental doctrine!). Or common sense assembly control (no more than 4 people can gather together at a time). Etc.

        That shit sounds just as crazy to me as any kind “gun control”.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “there is a clear demarcation between “gun control” law, and “common sense” gun control. Standard “gun control”

      Especially as the supposed supreme law of the land forbids any form of arms control,PERIOD.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Common sense freedom protections?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Common sense freedom protections?”

        I like it.

  2. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Gun Control? It’s a democRat Party and a nazi party family tradition rooted in racism and genocide. There is no common sense whatsoever in Gun Control.

    1. avatar Innocent Bystander says:

      The Democratic Party has raised more than $500 million dollars for this election than the Republican Party. Everyone on this site needs to donate hundreds if not thousands to the Republican Party NOW. The big Republican donors are not stepping up. If we lose our rights please don’t be crying on this site. It’s your own fault.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        “The big Republican donors are not stepping up.”

        Yes, the smart money people are abandoning Trump.

        They realize he is inept and clueless, his failed response to the pandemic is costing American businesses billions.

        And ordinary Americans realize that, with 220,000 of our family, friends and neighbors dead in just 8 months, we are on track to exceed the death toll of the 1918 pandemic if America doesn’t change it’s response to the COVID-19 disaster.

        Keep trump in office and you can say goodbye to grandma and grandpa.

  3. avatar StLPro2A says:

    Sadly, common sense is very uncommon on the Left.

    Definition of common sense. : sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts. However, different factions often have conflicting perspectives of the situation and the facts.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      StLPro2A,

      … different factions often have conflicting perspectives of the situation and the facts.

      I disagree. The real root problem is that different factions have different emotions regarding the situation and facts.

      The net result:
      1) Progressives define right versus wrong based on the identities of the actor and receiver rather than immutable standards of right versus wrong.
      2) Conservatives define right versus wrong based on immutable standards of right versus wrong.

      To make this crystal clear, I will provide a simple example. Progressives have declared that Conservatives are evil. Therefore, it is “right” in Progressive minds if a Progressive “protester” punches a Conservative in the face — even if the Conservative was just standing on the sidewalk doing nothing. The simple Progressive rationale: the Conservative deserved a punch in the face for being “evil”. Diametrically opposed are Conservatives who would condemn a Conservative who punched a Progressive in the face who was doing nothing more than standing on a sidewalk.

      Sadly, there is no peaceful way to resolve this.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Common Sense is Leftard phraseology to sell infringements that government is expressly prohibited from, just so much Leftard Bravo Sierra.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    I believe “common sense” has fled America. Thomas Payne would be some obscure pamphleter scorned into oblivion after being banned oh Tweeter & Fakebook…

    1. avatar Karl says:

      At least he’d be interviewed on the Rubin Report.

  6. avatar Dude says:

    ‘Common Sense’ isn’t even a democrat thing. A CBS reporter had the audacity to ask Joe Biden about the NY Post corruption story, and the twitter army of blue check journos and activists all showed up to let everyone know that this is a “debunked Russian conspiracy.” Are democrat voters really that dumb?

    https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1317275294194085888

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Unfortunately yes,they are, thus the term Leftard and to buy the MSM,nothing to see here the Tard is strong in the Left.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Exchange between Robert Mueller and Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO).

      “Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Buck asked.

      “Yes,” Mueller replied instantly.

      Buck went on: “You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

      “Yes,” Mueller said again.

      So yes, Trump broke the law, the only reason he wasn’t indicted by Mueller was because US Department of Justice policy not to indict a sitting President.“

      1. avatar jwm says:

        So we’ll see what charges are filed against him after 2024.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          I’m sure they’ll come right after we see those charges filed against Kavanaugh…

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Looks like his strongest defense will be to just stay in office until 2032, when the statute of limitations takes effect to prevent any prosecution of the Greatest President Of All Time.

      2. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        Oh, because Mumbling Mueller is an UNIMPEACHABLE pundit on matters legal, eh????

        If he had reasonable cause to believe POTUS committed crimes, you think he wouldn’t have raised them?????

        Do you have an homunculus on your shoulder, to remind you to breathe???

        Do the world a favor, reduce “globull warmening” by removing yourself from the earth.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Lamprey, you ain’t fit to provide to spit to shine Bob Mueller’s boots.

          Navy commendation medal with V for valor, Bronze star with V for valor, Purple Heart.

          “In 2004, the Army’s Ranger Hall of Fame inducted Mueller. The shrine recognizes Rangers who have distinguished themselves among their peers, as well as Ranger School alumni like Mueller who did not serve in a Ranger unit, but graduated from Ranger School and distinguished themselves in other ways. Voting for the board includes senior soldiers from the elite 75thRanger Regiment, leaders from the Army’s Ranger Training Brigade, and representatives from nonprofit organizations associated with the Rangers.
          The hall credited Mueller with leading the FBI “through the dramatic transformation required in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks.” It cited his continued leadership in transforming the bureau into a modern counterterrorism agency.
          “His law enforcement acumen, coupled with his valiant efforts to protect our homeland, will ensure his legacy of fearlessly leading the way,” the shrine’s leadership said, riffing on the Ranger motto: “Rangers Lead the Way!”

        2. avatar Ing says:

          That’s a fallacious appeal to authority, Minor.

          Doesn’t matter what Mueller did in the military 60 years ago or how wonderful some fraternal order of fraternizers thinks he is.

          What does matter is that he spent YEARS attempting to find evidence of Trump/Russia colluson, with all the resources of the federal government at his disposal, and came up with nothing…and refuses to admit that he ran a baseless partisan witch-hunt.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          “That’s a fallacious appeal to authority, Minor.”

          No, that’s reliance on a proven record of bravery, intelligence and patriotism.

          Your reliance on the statements of proven prevaricator President Trump is the fallacy, you are relying on ‘authority’ when evidence proves otherwise.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          He was a lawyer, ie, not a line officer, there was no courage involved.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Larry, how can I put this tactfully?

          You sir, are lower than whale snot, an individual who calls himself an American citizen but you would lie about a patriotic American soldier who has more bravery, integrity and honesty in his big toe then you will ever possess.

          Really, do you think it’s patriotic to lie about a real American hero?

          “In combat, Mueller was a member of H Company, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, an infantry unit assigned along dangerous Mutter’s Ridge. It was a section of Quang Tri province that overlooked the Vietnamese Demilitarized Zone that separated North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
          Mueller’s unit was decorated for two battles outlined in media accounts, including The Post’s today.
          In the first, he led Marines through an eight-hour battle near Mutter’s Ridge in which the his men faced fire from small arms and automatic weapons, as well as a grenade launcher. Mueller, then a second lieutenant, moved among Marine positions in the battle, directing counter-fire and setting up a defensive perimeter and then supervising the evacuation of wounded Marines, including one who died.
          For his actions, Mueller would receive the Bronze Star with “V” device.

          Four months later, Mueller was shot in the thigh responding to the ambush of some of the Marines under his command.
          He received the Navy Commendation Medal with “V” for that engagement.”

          Larry, did you know that Bob Mueller went to the army ranger school, it’s a rare marine that they let earn a Ranger tab, only the best and the brightest.

          Really, you conservative Republicans are just a bunch of lame assed chicken hawks.

          Real American soldiers and sailors, like John McCain, John Kerry and Bob Mueller are the men who will save this country, they’ve proven time and again their bravery under fire, honesty and integrity.

      3. avatar Dude says:

        In other words, Miner doesn’t want to respond to the comment at hand, so he changes the subject (as he often does). Regarding the Mueller deflection, this was yet again another distraction technique. Nothing stopped Mueller from listing any crimes that he found. Let me repeat that: Just because Mueller could not prosecute the president, NOTHING prevented him from specifically laying out any and all crimes that could have been committed by the president. So why didn’t Mueller specify any crimes? Because there weren’t any! That little distraction trick was meant to fool low information, low IQ voters. Mission accomplished.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          TTAG responds to whiner49er……..

          https://tenor.com/view/naked-gun-face-palm-funny-omg-oh-no-gif-5707607

          Trump/Pence 2020…..no facepalms, just the Leadership our Country needs.
          The entertaining TDS meltdowns are just an enjoyable added BONUS!!! 💯🍿

      4. avatar Miner49er says:

        President Trump: “Putin has strongly denied interfering in our elections and I have no reason not to believe him.”

        “The Justice Department Monday announced an indictment against six Russia GRU officers charged with engaging in a series of hacking and malware deployment operations to attack other countries’ infrastructure, elections and other actions designed to further Russia’s interests.

        The indictment specifically accuses the six alleged hackers of engaging in computer intrusions “intended to support Russian government efforts to undermine, retaliate against or otherwise destabilize” Ukraine, Georgia, elections in France, the 2018 PyeongChang Olympic Games and international efforts to hold Russia accountable for its use of the nerve agent Novichok on foreign soil.

        According to the Justice Department, several members of the same military group were previously charged for their role in Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election, though the allegations in Monday’s indictment do not relate to U.S. election interference.

        U.S. officials at virtual press conference at DOJ described the hacking campaign as among “the most destructive and costly cyber-attacks in history,” dealing with “some of the world’s most destructive malware to date.”

    3. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

      Are Dim voters really that dumb??? You can actually ask that question, unironically???

      Dude, they put up Joe Biden, who was stupid BEFORE he was senile, as their nominee. Yeah, they’re that dumb.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Rhetorical, but I appreciate the answer. 😉

    4. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      I know when I voted Democrat I was that much of an ignorant wretch. They got me good in my late teens up until my middle 20’s. It all SOUNDS so good in a bubble…

  7. avatar RGP says:

    They use the term “common sense” to eliminate the need to prove anything. They expect you to accept what they say without any supporting evidence.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Gun Control zealots and their useful idiots form a gullible knee jerk mob to go after The Second Amendment just like gun control democRats formed the KKK to go after Black Americans and gun control nazis formed the SS to go after Jews.
      First on the list for deranged marxist democRats is to confiscate guns. Next on their list is to get rid of the deplorable Americans who owned them.

      TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      When put to the test, most “common sense” gun control proposals usually end in prohibition and confiscation.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        In ways that often (as in Waco) result in mass murder in order to protect us from ourselves.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “In ways that often (as in Waco) result in mass murder in order to protect us from ourselves.”

          I was stationed in Fort Worth when that happened. Had several versions of the US flag flying from the house (the Bennington is still my favorite) at the time. Right after the raid, I drove home, took down all the flags, and never put them back up. Waco was Lexington Green and Boston Massacre, combined. The nation shrugged.

  8. avatar Someone says:

    Leftists want their opponents/victims disarmed. Adding “Commonsense” to their public disarmament schemes is just another way of getting them through, no matter how unconstitutional, draconian and unreasonable they are. After all – whoever speaks against common sense is automatically unreasonable and therefore his opinion can be ignored.

  9. avatar Darkman says:

    “We the People” already have a Common Sense Firearms Law. It was put in place by men who understood exactly what is happening now. Because they had just experienced it themselves. The Founding Patriots understood that there will always be those in a Society who wish to Rule rather than Govern. Hence they defined within the Bill of Rights those things that Government did not have the authority to do. Included in those provisions is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Now “We the People” face the very people the Founders warned Us about and who the 2nd Amendment was meant to stop. Those who refuse to abide by the Bill of Rights and have worked to weaken and redefine it’s meaning. For the last 245 years “We the People” have been willing to work peacefully within the system of Government provided by the Founders to Protect and Preserve the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That time is quickly coming to an End. For now We face an enemy who has No respect for that which they cannot Control. The Rule of Law has No meaning as they choose which laws they will abide by based on their Political Ideology. The Constitution to them is exactly what it was intended to be a “Road Block” to their Authoritative Control and that is why they ignore it. If We are to allow this to continue We do so at Our own Peril. The time is Nigh to exercise the Full Intent of the 2nd Amendment. To throw off the Bonds of Tyranny and Cleanse the Nation of those who wish to “Rule It”. Keep Your Powder Dry

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This !

    2. avatar Nero “...diction, not grammar.” Wolfe says:

      ‘“We the People’ already have a Common Sense Firearms Law.”

      Precisely.

    3. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Affirmative.

  10. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    Gun control dogma is fundamentally based on the sociological phenomena of “status discontent”. Advocates are frustrated that their values are not being properly respected by others and the resulting frustration emerges as a conflict over social status. Referring to their gun-control aspirations as “commonsense” is an attempt to claim a moral imperative over those cultural enemies who are in opposition to their views. Implicit in their dogma, is a belief that anyone who disagree with their views is immoral. Thus, claiming that gun-control is just “commonsense” attempts to claim a moral high ground that any decent person should recognize as right and proper.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      I.E, virtue signaling.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        A good example of ‘virtue signaling‘ would be Melania Trump’s position on Christmas, as related on the audio tape recordings of her conversations:

        “I’m working … my ass off on the Christmas stuff, that you know, who gives a fuck about the Christmas stuff and decorations? But I need to do it, right?”

        Melania realized the importance of virtue signaling in order to manipulate Christians into believing that she and her husband share their religious beliefs.

        But of course, her subconscious was unable to continue the deception which is why we get weird Halloween-style Christmas displays like the rows of blood red trees or the wicked witch of winter scene.

        1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

          Dude, is that the best you’ve got??????

          A first lady who is UNDENIABLY gorgeous, poised, intelligent (how many languages to YOU speak, buttboy?) expressed frustration about her workload, and a traitorous c*** surreptitiously recorded her, and your trying to make something of that????

          Good luck, @$$wipe.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          This goes to show that you know nothing about Christians. Christmas decorations aren’t the point. Not even close. It sounds like she’s bitching about the stereotypical role of the First Lady. If she were a democrat they would have praised this as being brave and wanting to smash stereotypes. Not to mention that they would love her for being an immigrant, among other things. Instead, that’s just another line of attack from the Party of Tolerance and Acceptance.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          So you you would approve of Michelle Obama saying “who gives a fuck about the Christmas stuff“?

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Yes Miner. I, along with the vast majority of Americans, don’t give a flying flip about the White House Christmas decorations.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Dud, I don’t know if I agree with that, and are you conservatives sure did get weird about Michelle Obama’s sleeveless dress.

          “Conservatives Criticize Michelle Obama For Bare Arms, Stay Silent On Melania Trump’s Nude Poses”

          For real fun, search Melania Trump porn on PornHub, that’s really classy stuff (if you’re into female homosexuals).

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I would be all right with a sorry, privileged bitch who proclaims that the first time she was proud to be American was after her sorry-ass husband was elected President because of the color of his skin? Not in this lifetime, the two of them are an embarrassment to our nation we will never live down.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          “sorry, privileged bitch”

          You consider her privileged?

          As Jim Croce said, she’s from ‘the southside of Chicago, the baddest part of town’, her dad worked at the water plant.

          And yet she worked her way from her humble upbringing, to graduate from Princeton and Harvard as an accomplished litigator.

          And she has honored her vows, staying faithful to her partner throughout this, her only marriage.

          On the other hand, first lady Melania Trump has had lesbian porn experience, as well as the distinction of committing adultery with Donald Trump. So much for their public vows to foresake all others, you can tell they are real champions of the sanctity of holy matrimony.

          Hey Melanie, keep it classy!

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    “Common Sense” means that no reason is required — it’s just common sense (whatever that is). The phrase allows true believers to disparage anyone who disagrees with them. It’s the functional equivalent of “Everybody Knows.”

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Just like we don’t need to prove specific examples of racism because it’s “systemic.” We know that black cops are racist toward black criminals because all cops are racist (it’s systemic). That’s why we see young, white (clueless) activists screaming in the face of black cops.

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    Lots of over-thinking.
    It’s really quite simple.
    No matter what the cause referring to a thing as “common sense” appeals to ignorant do-gooders while marking anyone who doesn’t bow to “common sense” an idiot. You don’t want to be an idiot, do you?

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Beat me to it and yes obvious social engineering tool to guide a discussion.

  13. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

    Gun control – You do not need these liberties

    Common sense gun control – You should feel like an idiot for thinking you should have these liberties

    Did I miss anything major?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Common sense gun control – You should feel like an idiot are evil, wicked, mean, bad and nasty for thinking you should have these liberties.”

      FIFY

      1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

        Yeah I guess I missed the Millennium (millennial) edition update there.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Yeah I guess I missed the Millennium (millennial) edition update there.”

          Yeah, sometimes it is hard to keep up with all the idiocy.

  14. avatar RobinGoodfellow says:

    No one ever wants “common sense” restrictions on the 4th or 5th amendments.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “No one ever wants “common sense” restrictions on the 4th or 5th amendments.”

      You cannot apply 18th century thought and law (constitution) to 21st societal fluidity. Today, the people should vote on every issue, and the majority rules everywhere. Things change and change back too fast to hold to any concrete standards. Well, except for settled science like human caused climate disaster. Or the fact that you can be any sex you want, but cannot choose your age. Or, hardened criminals cannot be trapped in an environment where beer virus will spread and cause serious sickness and death, but people who refuse to wear masks can and should be locked away in those same prisons. Or the common sense that peaceful protests can legitimately break down into looting, destruction and injury because Orange Man/White Man bad.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Hey, if we just decide to allow each person to also decide his/her own race, won’t all our problems be over?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Hey, if we just decide to allow each person to also decide his/her own race, won’t all our problems be over?”

          That’s what the flower children of the ’60s promised.

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      Not unless they’re Law Enforcers or Clarence Thomas.
      (I like Justice Thomas, but he’s not Constitutionalist, he’s a Conservative, and he can be a Copsucker when it comes to the 4th and 5th Amendments)

      1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

        Oh, how I wish we had a REAL “libertarian” party!!

        Thomas Jefferson (PBUH) told us everything we need to know about government – we are apparently too stupid to listen. And, Miner49er? PLEASE choose me off about TJ. Please. I would enjoy beating your ignorant @$$ in public.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “PLEASE choose me off about TJ.”

          ?

    3. avatar Dave says:

      Yes they do want restrictions or just outright ignoring of 4A and 5A. How much of the post 9/11 mass surveillance and travel “homeland security” has been repealed?

  15. avatar Mikey says:

    Sure, there should absolutely be Common Sense Gun Control:
    1. Handle every gun as if it is loaded.
    2. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target.
    3. Don’t let the muzzle of the gun point at or sweep anything you don’t want to shoot.
    4. Be sure of your target and what is around and behind it.

    End of gun control laws. Nothing else.

    1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

      God bless Jeff Cooper!!!

      And, yes, Jeff’s “Four Rules” ate all anyone needs to know about guns . . . if they REALLY observe them.

  16. avatar Mark says:

    Is this message being sent effectively to the other side, or is this just more preaching to the choir?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Is this message being sent effectively to the other side, or is this just more preaching to the choir?”

      Blogs like this have two purposes: preach to the choir; screech at the choir.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Actually, it serves as a handy public forum for POTG to engage in open virtue signaling in order to achieve a sense of belonging.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Why are you here then?

          What are you signalling?

        2. avatar James Campbell says:

          “What are you signalling?”
          Whiner49er is signalling the horrible long term effects of lead paint chip consumption.
          Trump /Pence 2020……zero % harmful heavy metals, 100% competent leadership.

        3. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          James
          I think his favorite hors d’oeuvres is Robin Egg Blue, with just a dash of pipe shavings. I bet if you shook him he would sound like an above ground pool, the water-headed bastard.

        4. avatar James Campbell says:

          Hey whiner49er, the Director of National Intel (Ratcliff), came out and stated there is NO Russian connection to crackhead Hunters laptop.
          Go and ask Shifty Schiff what BS to say next you pathetic loser.
          Trump/Pence 2020.

        5. avatar James Campbell says:

          Hey whiner49er, know what time it is for the TTAG commenters who read your BS?………

          https://youtu.be/2q35PgSXhKg

  17. avatar MLee says:

    “Common Sense” is catch all meaningless phrase used for people who are too stupid and lack enough common sense to recognize the term “common sense” is meaningless.
    It’s meant to confuse the type of people who watch CNN who nod at everything said in agreement. We all know the type, stupid ignorant people!

    If there was any damn common sense, they’d ban tobacco products which kills ten times that of which guns do. Why isn’t that shoved in Bidens face EVER????

  18. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It looks like a great multitude of people with graduate degrees are so stupid, idiotic and “uneducated” that they cannot comprehend the meaning of those very simple common sense words.
    This is elementary school 6th to 8th grade stuff.

    Of course, these same people defend Dementia Joe, whose advanced Alzheimer’s is quite noticeable, as the proper person to lead this country.
    Those same people, with their vastly superior sense of decorating, also think red trees in the White House should not be allowed.

    Who was it that famously said: “Stupid is as stupid does..”?

    Libtards are quite fond of ascribing totally new meanings to words, so it wouldn’t surprise me that the meaning of “shall not be infringed” has now morphed into “shall be governed by common sense gun controls”

    Hey, maybe I could put this in libtard talk: It’s time for some cranial reorganizations via a high speed wireless lead delivery system….

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      It looks like a great multitude of people with graduate degrees are so stupid, idiotic and “uneducated” that they cannot comprehend the meaning of those very simple common sense words.
      This is elementary school 6th to 8th grade stuff. ”

      Once “No rights are absolute”, is accepted as truth, the equivocation begins. From there, yes indeed, RTKBA is not absolute (even some POTG here admit that….”RTKBA except for…felons, mentally ill, etc), thus limits can legitimately be placed on the Second Amendment. The only real question is who holds the political power to inflict those limits?

      However, if no rights are absolute, what do we do with the 13th Amendment? Is that the only provision of the constitution that is truly inviolable? If so, why? And if the 13th is absolute, can it be repealed or modified by subsequent amendment? If not, why not?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Forget repealing the 13th. Repeal the 19th.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Forget repealing the 13th. Repeal the 19th.”

          My proposition was not whether it would be prudent to modify the 13th, but whether that amendment is the sole section of the constitution that is absolute. In short, would the SC declare a constitutional amendment repealing, or modifying, the 13th as being unconstitutional?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Repeal the 19th?

          “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

          Great idea, straight back to the 18th century for us!

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        The 13th doesn’t grant or protect any rights. Instead, it voids a pre-existing right.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The 13th doesn’t grant or protect any rights. Instead, it voids a pre-existing right.”

          That distinction isn’t really relevant to whether the 13th is absolute. the 21st re-established a right, but the question remains, “Is the 21st Amendment absolute?”

          I picked the 13th because it is so politically and emotionally charged. People like to discuss how the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments are/are not absolute, but it is rare to read/hear anyone questioning the absoluteness of the 13th. So, if all the other amendments are declared to not be absolute, what is the justification for exempting the 13th? Do we have an amendment that is actually superior to the constitution itself?

      3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Is interesting point.

    2. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

      Sam I Am, even the 13th is not inviolate.

      “Involuntary servitude”, or slavery, has been recently used by VP candidate, Kameltoe Harris, on California felons she put behind bars.
      I seems she, or her office, received money, so much per hour, or per day for the labor of these convicts.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Involuntary servitude”, or slavery, has been recently used by VP candidate, Kameltoe Harris,…”

        The 13th specifically authorizes government to impose involuntary servitude.

        1. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

          Maybe, but this was for cash. Not a good look for a government official.

        2. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          Draft?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Draft?”

          13th allows involuntary servitude as a consequence of conviction of a crime. One would think that convicts could certainly be drafted.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The Kamel doesn’t have any good looks.

  19. avatar UpInArms says:

    Any time someone has to tell you something is common sense, then, by definition, it isn’t common sense.

  20. avatar Derfel Cadarn says:

    IRRELEVANT ! Any gun control is un-Constitutional. There is no grey area in the word INFRINGED, it either is or it is not.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “There is no grey area in the word INFRINGED, it either is or it is not.”

      That means no restriction, no time, nowhere, no reason, no excuses for anyone. Are you comfortable with that?

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        To some here and elsewhere, the answer is ‘Yes.’

        Apparently, the phrase ‘shall not be infringed’ is so explicit and unalienable that the convicted axe-murdering child-molesting homicidal maniac who has just been released from prison on probation because of COVID-19, has an absolute right to purchase a belt-fed Vickers MkI complete with tripod, water can, and several belts of .303 British ball ammunition, set it up across the street from a school playground, and there’s absolutely nothing that can interfere with his right to do so unless-or until-he actually pulls the trigger and kills the first victim–which makes it the crime of murder, something not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

        Convicted violent felon? Don’t care. Homicidal maniac? Nope. Belt-fed machine gun? Yawn. School zone? Meh. There’s nothing in the 2nd Amendment that mentions violent felonies, or mental disorders, or prior criminal history, or time-and-place restrictions, or levels of lethality; It just says ‘Shall not be infringed.’

        Am I getting it right?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Am I getting it right?”

          Indeed, you are correctly framing the “absolutist” position, stance, principle. However….

          The constitution (5th Amendment) sets up a conundrum for absolutists: the authorized power of the central government to deprive individuals (“we the people”) of their life, liberty and property as a direct result of due process of law. Whether one classifies individual possession of “arms” as either property rights, or liberty, the 5th seems to present the “immovable object meets irresible force” problem. It is here that the concept of “common sense” gun control can likely be squeezed in. It is here where pro and anti-gun forces begin to squabble over which controls/laws are permissible infringements, and which are not; each justified from the opposite position of the other.

          It is here that both sides actually agree that “shall not be infringed” is not absolute, and from here the quibbling emanates.

        2. avatar John in AK says:

          I wish that it was so that ‘both sides agree’ to anything of the sort. It isn’t. In each of the three relevant threads of the past day or so, and n many others, there’s been SOMEbody parroting ‘Shall not be infringed!’ as a sort of magical talisman that ostensibly should, and must, negate any possible constraint upon the overarching right of all and sundry, no matter their background, proclivities, history, or mental aberrations, to possess ‘arms.’ If these folks actually believe that the Founders meant for there to be absolutely, positively NO restrictions whatsoever on the possession of ‘arms,’ then the 2nd Amendment is a societal suicide pact and must be amended. If the 2nd Amendment IS subject to interpretation and critical restrictions, such as keeping Vickers Mk1s out of the hands of the criminally insane for one, that’s something that RATIONAL people can agree upon.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If the 2nd Amendment IS subject to interpretation and critical restrictions, such as keeping Vickers Mk1s out of the hands of the criminally insane for one, that’s something that RATIONAL people can agree upon.

          One would think, but the fact is, some consider it RATIONAL to think that the threat of individuals owning any firearm is far greater than any imagining of a police state with the populace in concentration camps, military roaming the streets of every town and burg, a president for life.

          For many people LIFE is the only and greatest liberty to be considered. Any and all threats to everyday life must be eliminated in order to ensure safety of the individual. If one travels to $…hole countries one finds the primary concern is sustaining life. The desire to be left alone and tend to family is more important than any other consideration. Many “advanced” nations have layered themselves with the façade of arriving and living higher on the Malthusian population pyramid, but at the core is the desire to be safe to survive. It is this core element that drives the “safety at all costs” thinking of about half the population. And being self-centered, these people easily delegate the responsibility for their safety and comfort to an omnipresent government, believing in the inate goodness of the people in that government.

          So yes, the anti-gunners, and many of the pro-2A supporters agree that some (not necessarily common in thought) infringements are proper, disagreeing only on the volume and reach of those restrictions. Interestingly, one side labels such infringements “common sense gun controls”, the other seems obliious to the contradiction with “shall not be infringed”.

          Personally, my position is that the Second Amendment is absolute, in all its application and results. Individually, I can agree that some people should not even be in the same Zip Code where firearms are present. However….principle outweighs preference.

        4. avatar John in AK says:

          Ah, ‘principle.’

          To paraphrase a learned gentleman of Yore, “I abhor your possession of the tools with which to commit rapid and efficient wholesale murder, due to your complete lack of ethics, morals, empathy, sanity, or basic human decency, but I will defend to the death your right to possess them because ‘shall not be infringed!'”

          That’s an ugly hill upon which to die.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That’s an ugly hill upon which to die.”

          As noted, I stand by the principle but recognize the reality. 2A defenders are Sisypho, ever condemned to pushing an immense boulder uphill.

      2. avatar ChoseDeath says:

        Hi Sam! Yes, I’m comfortable with that. But I don’t expect that to be the widely accepted position, so I’ll just happily park myself in the Second Amendment Extremist camp and hopefully keep pulling that Overton Window closer to my side of the arguement. Everyone needs a hobby 😉

  21. avatar Shawn says:

    To the far left running the democratic party there is only one “common sense” solution: the complete and total ban of all private gun ownership with forced manditory ‘buyback’ and the door to door confiscation of all guns that are left with the immediate execution without trail of every single solitary gun owner that still has there guns as well as the killing if the gun owners entire family. And when the majority of the country turns against the dems the ultimate plan of the far left: the complete and total extermination of every single gun owner and there families as well as every single solitary citizen that opposes that and them culminating in the literal extermination of every single United state citizen that opposes them up to and preferably including the liter complete and total extermination of the entire United States population even if it means the full
    Deployment of the entire nuclear arsenal.

    The far left and Democratic Party view the population having guns as the worst thing ever. If you ask a Democrat progressive which is worse; the removal of all gun control on the state and federal level or the complete end to all private gun ownership but to bring about it they would have to literally exterminate 300 million United state citizens they would take extermination of the population in a heartbeat. Because to them it fits with there view that the only good American citizen is a few American citizen and the best thing ever is the extermination of all United States citizens that are not them.

    And you know what? I admit that sounds insanely hyperbolic. The problem is given how the opposition thinks now I’m not sure how insanely hyperbolic it is anymore.

  22. avatar DrDKW says:

    Actually, the current, politically-correct phrase is “common sense gun safety”!

  23. avatar george lortz says:

    As I learned it, “Gun control is a firm, two-handed grip”.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      And hitting what you are aiming at.

  24. avatar Jeffery P says:

    You mean common sense gun laws from people who have none? Few of their “facts” are in arguably true. Most are outright lies.

    Common sense is a smoke screen. It’s a market-tested slogan that appeals to people driven by emotion, not by reason.

  25. avatar Out Fang Thief says:

    “Common sense” is a political cudgel to beat the opponents of whatever gun control is being pushed. Or any government intrusion on our constitutionally protected rights. If you don’t agree to “common sense gun control,” you are by default, unreasonable, intractable, and a borderline crank whose opinions should be treated as suspect.

    Common sense: so rare, it’s a goddamn superpower.

  26. avatar Dale Menard says:

    Look up “Common sense” and you will find it is a logical fallacy.

  27. avatar Wally1 says:

    “Common sense” has a different definition depending on where you live and how you grew up. i grew up in a small town in Alaska in the 60’s, it was common to see bears in town. Having a firearm with me at age 12 was totally justifiable, but then again My parents taught me gun safety at a early age. we actually had a locker at school where to secure our firearms during school hours and got them back for the walk home.

    Want to blame someone for the problems with guns in today’s society, blame irresponsible parents. it is actually that simple.

  28. avatar Ronald west says:

    That’s the trouble 90% of the elected afficials have forgotten how to use it, are either they are too stupid to know that common sense is best used, before they open their mouths, and destroy this nation, by blaming everything but themselves, it’s not common sense to put greed over what’s right for America and it’s people.

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