Previous Post
Next Post

Rather doubtful? I’d say entirely unlikely. But you never know. Some of those 18th century dudes were into time travel, or so I’m told. In fact, there is evidence (suppressed by the Illuminati) that George Washington secured a 308 caliber Ruger Law Enforcement Police Sniper Rifle during a quick trip to a Kansas gun store in 2003, but thought he was buying a gun chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO and bought the wrong ammo. Anyway, there’s a good reason that Ryan Williams’ editorial on gun control is sophomoric: he’s a sophomore at Notre Dame (roughly translated “Our Broad”). One who wants to ban semi-automatic guns of any kind and asks . . .

Why can any ordinary 18-year-old walk into a pawnshop and purchase the exact same weapon that is being used by the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan? Why do Americans feel the need to purchase a gun whose only outstanding quality is that it can kill more people in a shorter period of time than a conventional non-automatic firearm?

Williams answers his rhetorical question by ragging on the Second Amendment, portraying it as outdated. And then he recommends that Uncle Sam (or someone) should restrict American gun buyers to outdated weapons.

Another argument put forth by gun rights supporters is that firearms are necessary to protect one’s home and family. While this argument has its merits, does anyone really think they need more than an ordinary, non-automatic rifle or handgun to defend their home? Seriously, unless the IRA or Hezbollah make frequent visits to your neighborhood, it seems highly unlikely that you would ever need to break out your trusty assault rifle.

A non-automatic rifle would be a bolt-action long gun and a non-automatic handgun would be a revolver, no? So who disarms first? Me or the criminals with semi-automatic weapons? Can’t we go the other way and let private citizens own machine guns? I’d like one. At least one.

‘Cause I can think of a time I might need a semi or fully-automatic weapon other than an IRA/Hezbollah invasion: if the young inherit the Earth. There’s no telling what they’d do to my peace and security. I know: I used to be young, once.

I suppose it comes down to this: should we try to roll back the clock to a mythical time of reduced violence or suffer the slings and arrows—make that bullets of our country’s outrageous [good] fortune? I’m going with the slings and stuff. Williams?

So please, let’s restore a little common sense and sanity to government and get rid of these dangerous and deadly automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Let’s keep them out of our gun stores, off our streets and as far away as possible from our high schools and universities. America has seen more than its fair share of school shootings. It’s time to start taking some concrete steps to ensure that these horrifying tragedies never again take place, and denying would-be gunmen the weapons that only facilitate their rampages is as good a place to start as any. Only then can we begin to realize President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s dream of an America that guaranteed “freedom from fear” to all its citizens.

Did Franky guarantee freedom from fear to all Americans? I thought he said “the only thing we have to fear is head lice.” No wait; that was my daughter’s first grade teacher. The oxymoronic progressive prez said we shouldn’t fear fear. Here here! I’m all about fear relief. But I’m not happy relying on the government to do it for me. I depend on a semi-automatic gun (or two), instead.

If you want as good a place as any to remove the danger of a campus spree killer (which the UT gunman was not), I’m thinking that every student should have a revolver on their person. That way, if someone says “Are you happy to see me or is that a Smith & Wesson 642 in your pocket?” they could answer “yes.” That’s it Mr. Williams, just say yes to guns! It’s the title of my next book, in fact.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. "Why do Americans feel the need to purchase a gun whose only outstanding quality is that it can kill more people in a shorter period of time than a conventional non-automatic firearm?"

    In case one gets attacked by multiple people in a short period of time.

  2. “It seems rather doubtful that the Founding Fathers had the internet in mind when they sat down to pen the Constitution” Sounds like we should ban free speech not written with a quill.

  3. This Williams character is an out-and-out punk!….or, as we say here in 0zz, an effin' DRONGO!

    Aussies pretty much lost their right to own fire-arms (especially: semi-auto' fire-arms) for self-defence 15 yrs ago now!….because of the highly dubious "Port Arthur Massacre" at Port Arthur, Tasmania on April 28th, 1996!

    Since then, the violent crime rate has SKY-rocketed to the point of being almost TOTALLY OUT of CONTROL!

    Aussie cops are running around like "head-less chooks" trying to "contain" it and the courts and gaols are like backed-up, storm-flooded, over-flowing SEWERs!

    There have been nearly 2000 violent home invasions across Australia in just over twelve months…..this in a country of less than 25-million people and where the bulk of the population live in a habitable area probably not much bigger than the state of Oregon in the US! (most of Australia is uninhabited and uninhabitable!)

    Thugs, hoons, gangsters and psychos now "rule-the-roost" in Australia and NO-one is safe any-where…..on the streets, at work, on public transport, going to the super-market or at home!

    I dare this clown to come on our FaceBook group….
    …and tell Aussies that their country is "safer" because of massive gun control!

    • If youve read the article ,he isnt supporting banning the ownerhship of guns,he is asking for regulation. Big difference.

  4. He misses the essential point of the Second Amendment, as so many of us liberals (yeah I am one), do. The Founder's didn't give us a right to bear arms so that we could defend ourselves from each other. They FORBID the government from abridging that right, because that is among the first and most obvious steps of a tyrant intent on taking power. What society should be forbidding is the MANUFACTURE of the weapons all together – for popular use, police or military.

    Until then, as long as Sarah Palin is within a credible distance of getting her own nuclear arsenal, I feel that I, as a liberal, should be allowed to have one in my basement too. If it happens to go off an level my city accidentally, that is just the price of freedom. And, NO, I am not joking. The Constitution is a set of rules designed to govern the lives of hundreds of millions of people for centuries. If a few thousand people die because the rule is not quite perfect, that is the cost of an imperfect world.

    I fear the charismatic sociopathic politician FAR more than I fear the socially akward sociopathic math major. For that reason I remain a well armed liberal.

  5. Am I missing something here? Can't a pump action 12 ga. loaded with 00 buck do, oh I don't know, A MASSIVE AMOUNT of damage to a group of any size. Forget that, make it a coach gun in the hands of someone who's practiced a rapid reload; not a big difference and since the presumed targets are conveniently unarmed, the end result would be largely the same as if a semi-auto anything was used. The same case can be made with the use of a bolt action rifle chambered in any hunting round with a 5 round magazine a-la Charles Whitman.

    The common denominator here isn't the tools of the trade it's the intent of the tradesman. Since this kid isn't arguing for an out and out ban of even the types of weapons I described above, what exactly is his point and what difference would it make? An unavoidable tragedy is an unavoidable tragedy and they all revolve around the acts of sentient individuals not the means they use to execute their wicked plans.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here