K7O2_aeH

Now that The New York Times has come out of the gun confiscation closet, other members of the assault media are lining up. Over at newrepublic.com, Phoebe Maltz Bovy [above] has added her voice to those calling for civilian disarmament with an article headlined It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them. Whereas the Times only alluded to “certain kinds of weapons” for their gun grabbing aspirations, Ms. Bovy’s going full, well, you know. Like this . . .

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

It doesn’t get any plainer than that, folks. Do we need to go into Ms. Bovy’s “logic” on the subject? I guess so. The American ex-pat (‘natch) offers an “argument” that’s not your bog-standard “do it for the children” proposition. She reckons extremism in defense of tyranny is no sin.

I say this not to win some sort of ideological purity contest, but because banning gunsurgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility. The national conversation needs to shift from one extreme—an acceptance, ranging from complacent to enthusiastic, of an individual right to own guns—to another, which requires people who are not politicians to speak their minds. And this will only happen if the Americans who are quietly convinced that guns are terrible speak out . . .

On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. Getting bogged down in discussions of what’s feasible is keeps what needs to happen—no more guns—from entering the realm of possibility. Public opinion needs to shift. The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.

I couldn’t agree more! The fact that the “sensible gun safety laws” folks are outing themselves as unapologetic confiscationists is a sea change. The change in discourse allows informed Americans to choose sides, without disingenuous arguments about protecting hunting or “allowing” citizens to own certain types/numbers/calibers of firearms in certain situations, maybe. Now, let’s see what happens….

[h/t BC]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

213 COMMENTS

  1. Yes left wing media YES declare war on guns, this cost you the white house in 2000 and 2004, it will cost you the white house again in 2016. Bring it on!

    • Not sure what reality you live in.

      We’re in Bizzaro world, and the open Socialist has been predicted by the university that has never been wrong about presidential elections, to take the presidency in a land slide.

      Gun confiscations will happen within the next 2-4 years. Bet on it.

      Sell what you can now.

      • Western Illinois University has never been wrong since 1975. That’s not much of a record. I’m sticking with Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight Endorsement Scorecard:

        http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

        That’s right. It’s going to be Hillary and Jeb or Hillary and Rubio for 2016. Hillary’s going to have a pick a token Latino for the VP spot. My money is Julian Castro from Texas. In any case Florida is in the bag for the Republicans, just need to win Ohio and voila. It’s over for the Hildabeast.

        Listen, and understand! The Hildabeast is out there! It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until it’s President of the United States.

        • Kyle Reese, is that you? Have you traveled back to help stop the horrible liberal machine meant to kill all of humanity? Awesome Terminator reference.

        • If Hillary is the only option, I guarantee you that the vast majority of younger liberals will switch to conservative for just this one cycle.

      • Holy shit you’re lowballing yourself! At least let the fever kick up a couple degrees before hitting the sell button. I may be a pig but I’m laughing all the way to the trough.

      • We’ve had millions upon millions of people killed, tortured, endless misery, poverty, starvation, etc. all at the feet of the socialist government. Escapees from these hellholes, the USSR, Red China, North Korea, Cuba, all to a man tell tales that would make any sane man cry knowing what has been done to people all in the name of the collective good.

        Socialism is a fraud, it’s been tried, it fails every single time, and it’s evil.

        Look to federalist #51;

        “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human
        nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were
        to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be
        necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over
        men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government
        to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

        Madison was right. And you, the socialist want to remove all chains and controls from the state, and give them all the power! That is evil.

        And still we have in this ‘enlightened’ day and age, people who will not give up the fantasy that the state can take from all and provide to all. That the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

        Corruption is the constant; yes many men are good and were all men to be truly good, then something like socialism could work. But, news to you NFAMark, not all men are good, lots of them suck and some of them are truly evil. And the evil ones are good at hiding their evil and at getting other men to give them power, like Stalin.

        The free market is the only truly fair economic system, and a political system that fosters the free market is the only real way to bring equality and fairness to the civil society, or at least right now that’s the best we have.

        The United States Constitution is one such political system, and if we only followed it we would be seeing prosperity like no one has ever seen before.

        How to get back to it is the question, because there are so many corrupt politicians in the way right now it seems almost impossible.

        But socialism? (I should say communism, as we are already functionally a fully socialist country). No sir. You will have to come and take my guns.

        I will not disarm. I will not submit.

        • The problem with socialism is its marketing appeals to the unwashed masses. It SOUNDS good, as long as you don’t think too much about it. And we all know that most people don’t think too much about anything they hear or see.

          It sounds good to hear them say “We’ll take care of you. We’ll take care of your kids. We’ll keep you safe. All you have to do is let us handle things and we’ll take care of all of it. Don’t worry about losing your job. Don’t worry about affording medical care. Don’t worry about your kids’ college education. Don’t worry about ANYTHING–we’ll handle all of it.” If you don’t study history (most people are ignorant of any history that happened before they were born) and don’t ask too many questions (questions like “how are you going to keep me safe? How are you going to pay for all this?”) socialism sounds like a great idea.

      • You’re one step away from standing on a corner with a sign that reads, “The end is near! ” aren’t you?

        • And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.

          I do not subscribe to the tin foil hat society, but even the most bizarre of rocks can have a nugget of truth.

        • No doubt. However, the “give up your guns now, because it’s hopeless” folks are too far out there.

          It is one of the two things a) defeatist or b) just anti gun liberal looking to create desertion amoung the opposition.

      • Sell? Now is not the time to sell. Even if everything you say is true, make them put up or shut up. We saw how it worked in NY and CT. What was that line about hanging together or hang separately? We need that way of thinking more than ever.

      • There will be a lot of blood shed. Does anyone REALLY think this is possible? It will be all out war you idiots!!!

        • There will always be guns and I am not giving mine. I know of people that make them from scratch in their garage, the videos are allover you tube. Try and stop that.

        • Oh and by the way, don’t forget that when the 2nd amendment goes the rest of the Constitution is TP but I guess that does not matter if you are not an American and have no real say in what goes on here Aey!

      • NFAMark, we accept you giving up your firearms, that is if you even own any….

        While you’re doing that, we also respect the leftist decisions not to recognize or exercise their 2nd amendment right, they have that right to make that decision for themselves. They’re setting up their own demise and rightfully so. That said, do not entertain them by arguing over who’s right or wrong. Just feel satisfied that what’s going to happen to them, by their own inclusion or exclusion (however you want to look at it) is this…

        Being unarmed and unwilling to even want to protect themselves or their loved ones, THEY will be the first to meet their demise when the shooting starts, when wolves with guns come banging down their doors. That leaves a great % of the castrated males, estrogen pumped lily feminist males and females to meet their maker on behalf of their own choice and the remaining of us to continue the fight.

        Bottom line is this –

        “Confiscation on a massive scale” is not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. Confiscation in other countries only worked because they had no 2nd Amendment and the sheer number of guns was utterly minuscule in comparison to gun ownership in the U.S.

        Even more important than the number of guns is the depth of American “devotion” to them. This devotion–this dedication to the philosophy and tradition underlying the right to keep and bear arms–turns the mere mention of confiscation into something that could literally rip the country apart.

        “The prospect of confiscation is simply impossible in the United States.” Statements by Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson, stressed that Jews could have curtailed the Holocaust had they retained their guns. “Second Amendment enthusiasts are fond of arguing,” namely, “that gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution not only for the sake of hunters or people who want to protect their homes and businesses from criminals, but also to allow the population to resist an overreaching government.”

        One of the Founding Fathers, James Madison, used Federalist 46 to make that very point–that armed citizens could band together and resist their government, should it tend toward tyranny and he pointed out that this demonstrated American exceptionalism inasmuch as citizens of other nations, lacking arms, also lacked the ability to resist.

        The Anti-Gun crowd can joke all they like about Americans fearing “black helicopters” taking our guns away, but it is no exaggeration to suggest that civil war would erupt on American soil, were the U.S. government to attempt anything remotely resembling what was done in Australia.

        All that said, IF and I mean IF a large scale confiscation were to start, rest assure that the Patriots of this nation will be coming and all HELL will be coming with us!

    • Remember this every time some brain dead sub human leftist tells you “We are not coming to take way your guns” lie.

    • WTF is wrong with you? have you been living in a hole? Hillary is going to be the next president…100% chance of that. She may also be the last president of the former united states but she is going to win. Prepare yourself.

      • You wouldn’t happen to be sitting on a boat load of stripped lower receivers and 30 round magazines that you’re selling now, would you?

        • Boy, I wish. No, after eight years of Obama I’m one step above being on food stamps and figure with Hillary I’m either going to be on the streets or signing up to fight the civil war.

    • “left wing media”? you do you know that nearly all media is owned/controlled by a handful of people, right? Too funny.

    • Gee, and they just certified women for full on combat in the military. Guess that will add quite a bit to the female gun owners and users. Thanks libtards, you just increased potential gun owners exponentially.

    • I note that the New Republic’s website allowed no place for readers’ comments. What a pity. The publishers might have learned — though I’m sure Ms. Bovy would refuse to — that there’s an enormous amount of resistance to her idea. In fact, surveys taken before San Bernardino showed that over 52% of Americans believe that people should have guns for protection; I daresay the percentage is higher now.

      She also doesn’t seem to realize that weakening the Bill of Rights is a very bad idea. Consider: if the 2nd Amendment can be dickered away for political correctitude, then what’s to protect the 1st?

      –Leslie < Fish

  2. “…Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto …”

    Uh, last I checked Toronto is in Canada. Aay?

    • Toronto would rather be the centre of the universe, so we don’t accept them here. Unfortunately they still vote in our elections.

      She must have noticed all the shootings going around pure gun-free Toronto lately. Or perhaps not, it’s not like anyone she cares about is getting shot.

        • Rob Ford? Quite possibly. Of course, he followed on after several of the most useless mayors ever. If you want exciting mayors in Canada, you have to look to Montreal, where one got arrested for corruption shortly after he created a corruption-fighting board.

        • Actually Rob Ford was probably the second coolest mayor ever next to Marion Barry who managed to win back the Washington D.C. mayorship after he served his sentence for being addicted to crack cocaine. And this was after MB was shot and nearly killed by Hanafi Muslims, so that probably put him two up on RF. Kind of like the Dos Equis commercials – the most interesting mayor in the world!

        • All I wanted for my birthday was to spend a weekend in Vegas with Rob Ford, Marion Barry and Charlie Sheen…not too much to ask for…

    • Yeah..sooo like tell her to put her big girl touque on and like take off…its not like she’s Geddy Lee, eh…

    • She’s actually a PhD in French and French Studies from Princeton or some such. You knew that such stupidity had to come out of the Ivy League, didn’t you?

  4. It’s refreshing to see all of these petty tyrants finally come out of hiding and stop using weasel words to hide their real agenda. Keep going full “R” statists!

    • It’s pretty terrifying actually. They’re like a cornered animal, no longer ruled by something resembling a kind of reason, but lashing out in wild unpredictable strokes.

      It’s only a matter of time until they say “f*#$ elections, were doing this now.”

    • It’s Republic as in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of China, or the German Democratic Republic: bastions of liberty and government restraint!

  7. Oh noes…..they’re going to use the mystical power of *art* to stop us from owning firearms…..help us Obi-wan….

    • …Bon Jovi 😀

      (that’s actually funny on a lotta levels; artist, NJ-progressive, anti-gun celebrity airheads, and of course Star Wars)

  8. According to her bio she holds a doctorate in French and French Studies from New York University. I don’t think she has any credibility when dealing with public policy.

  9. Gun banners like Phoebe forget that to accomplish what they are asking will require them to have the will to commit one of largest the humanitarian atrocities in a developed nation since WWII. Imagine a hundred million Waco massacres, all in the name of collecting some common hardware off of innocent civilians who had and would have done no one any harm whatsoever.

    Can you stomach it gun banners? Actually sure you can, because you figure you’ll just let law enforcement do your dirty work for you. It doesn’t compromise your superior morals if you sub-contract your wanton violence out, right?

        • On a site run by a holocaust survivor’s son…

          Well, even the reprehensibly stupid have a right to their ideas. But if they ever act on those ideas, shoot the bastards.

        • I’m much more likely to need my guns to protect myself from people like him than cowardly harridans like Phoebe Maltz Bovy. She’ll encourage others to enforce tyranny, he straight up endorses mass murder and probably wants to murder my entire family just because of our ancestry. As dangerous as people like Bovy are, they’re not all Nazis. Here’s a guy who identifies with a party whose legacy is the enthusiastic embrace of Nazi ideology and the murder of half a million people. Bovy wants to lay the groundwork for the worst of humanity to arise, but Nazis are already there and eager to mass murder.

    • Well stated Don. Our western progressives are sick folks. They’d love to see expendable people go after fellow citizens who hold a different view in the name of enforcing their totalitarian ideology. They’d never do the dirty work themselves, but send in the expendable serfs to do the dirty work and bear the brunt of damage.

      On another positive side, I know the Mexican drug lords and gangs would love to have a new revenue stream and more superior fire power, so they got that going for them, which is nice.

  11. The change in discourse allows informed Americans to choose sides, without disingenuous arguments about protecting hunting or “allowing” citizens to own certain types/numbers/calibers of firearms in certain situations, maybe.

    I don’t think it allows a choice, it forces a choice. It is now clear that the debate is over. The only choice left for gun owners is:

    A. Molon Labe
    Or
    B. Turn ’em all in

    I always wanted to be a part of the A team.

    • Or just watch these fools reap the whirlwind, when an entire generation of budding Democrat tyrants see their political futures go up in smoke next November, and SCOTUS immediately rules favorably on Shall Issue, Reciprocity, and AWBs after Ginsberg kicks and a replacement is made. Gun control is, and always has been, a loser issue; it only works in emergencies and when you have full authority, and the Dems have neither. But then, Hillary has never been very shrewd, or clever, or had a talent for subterfuge; that’s what Bill was for. Bill’s internal emails show he and his team knew the AWB was a massive loser, yet such a skilled political critter pushed it anyway. I wonder why? I wonder why, now that Hillary has the reigns again, they are making the same suicidal push?

        • I’m not sure you understand. If Hillary “wins” she will never get inaugurated. The country would descend into civil war long before January.

      • I think the reason Hillary is pushing gun control is an attempt to motivate the Democratic base. Barry got health care through and the Supremes took gay rights away from the Dems as a campaign issue by legalizing gay marriage.

        And in the last two presidential elections, Obama brought out the youth vote. Now the Democrats are going to put up either a cranky old man or an old woman who folds under pressure.

        Meanwhile, over on the Republican side, they’re either going to put up a bombastic billionaire or one of two young Latinos. Or possibly a brain surgeon.

        The gun control thing is because they have nothing left politically to try and bring out the base. And the screeching from the gun grabbing left is the battle cry of what they see as a heroic last stand.

  12. Prohibition worked with alcohol in the 20th century (well then, maybe not), and works so well today for drugs (well, again, maybe not). So how can some people think it will work any better with guns?

  13. She talks about not violating civil rights and then insists on violating civil rights in the same breath.

    On the plus side. They can never again tell that lie about not coming for our guns. Even Fudd guns.

    • Yea, what I get out of this mini-essay is an argument being made ‘for the children’ perhaps over a glass of red wine. There really isn’t any research put into this, no argument is explored to its logical ends. This tripe is all about feelings and being ‘on the right side of history’.

      Stalin would have loved this chickie-poo.

      “On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity. What’s needed to stop all gun violence is a vocal ban guns contingent. […] Public opinion needs to shift.”

      This is from the final paragraph, thus the conclusion. So we have “vocal” and “public opinion”.

  15. Last time around they pulled their shit all they managed to do was pour about 20 million new guns into the country. Let them keep talking. Since the end of 2012 I personally know dozens of people who have armed themselves for the first time. Lets see how these new folks to the fold feel about talks of confiscation. Every time they pull their shit a few million more Americans tool up.

    • Saw something the other day on the lines of 100,000,000 guns sold since the big O took office. I’m assuming some of those were used guns, but still…

      • I was only a casual plinking shooter when Obama entered office. I only had a couple guns back then (Marlin 60, and a Mosin M44). Now, I have more than a dozen guns, including an evil AK and numerous handguns. I now stock thousands of rounds of ammo. I have a CCW, have taken a defensive handgun course, and carry all the time where legal. Obama helped push me from being a casual hobbyist to a diehard defender of the 2nd.

        • I don’t have any more thanks to that clown but I do have a bunch of bitchen “paperweights”

  17. Toronto, like many of the big cities in the US, is a nice place to live. Visited there and really liked it as tourists. But you need A LOT of MONEY. From what we could tell, if you were the average person, you lived in an old house or small apartment, with very high taxes and the same pay scale as in the US. Just like NYC or SF, and I am willing to agree with Phoebe, a whole lot safer. But then it is Canada, without the US’ social history, and I am not talking about guns. I am sure Phoebe’s daddy, who paid the sky-high tuition at NYU for a largely useless degree, is still paying for Phoebe, who probably will never grow up. If she loses the superior, know it all expression, she might even be considered cute and may find a sugar daddy, because she will always need someone else to pay her way. Or she could move to Paris, work for Charlie Hebdo, and wait for the next attack, firmly convinced of her superiority to the end.

    • I used to spend lots of time at somewhat trendy bars here in town, and there were a handful of “these” types…women with wealthy fathers who paid for their daughter’s useless college degree partly to just get them out of their hair. With that wealth and degree comes an air of smugness and entitlement, they won’t admit being wrong even if the Oxford English Dictionary says otherwise. Most of their time is spent writing Yelp! reviews rather than any actual “journalism”, which is universally a skewed op-ed piece tossed to her by an editor she was willing to sleep with. They were a source of endless amusement and drama. That face is just a classic example for one of “them”.

    • A quick google search reveals this exactly – Phoebe is a Maltz, a Toronto family with much wealth and connections, and she boasts about the great amount of tine she has spent living in Paris. Just another example of born and bred elite liberal telling all how they must live in order to conform to the “non-conformists”.

      • Interesting, no doubt she is good friends with Adam Glopnik. I’d be willing to bet that this piece, and the Glopnik piece from the other day were conceived together.

        What is it that causes these people to lose all touch with reality? Their plan consists, basically of:

        1) Give lots and lots of money to the state and encourage them to buy lots and lots of guns and ammo
        2) Have the state take guns away from law abiding people

        And that’s it. They think no further, and they don’t consider the consequences, history, nothing. It’s like when the subject includes ‘guns’, the blinders go on and all they can do is mindlessly repeat ‘ban guns’.

        Now Phoebe does make causal mention of taking guns away from the police, but this is only touched on with no analysis or any real thought put behind it. No doubt Phoebe would say ‘well of course we cannot take away all guns from the police’, meaning of course that the state will be as armed up as much as they want to be. Which will be armed up to the teeth, seeing as how no citizen is able to be armed.

        Just as she ignores the reality of disarming the police, she ignores the reality of her entire scheme; You cannot remove guns from one group of people, without doing so by means of force. So in reality when Phoebe is saying:

        ‘We must ban guns’

        She really means:

        ‘We must use fabulous levels of violence to take away peoples right to defend themselves, and this will be done by lots of men, with lots of guns, including scary assault rifles, and we’ll probably have to murder 5 to 10% of the people to get this done.’

        That’s statism right there, and this ignoramus is the most useful of the useful idiots, carrying water for the statist politician without even being asked to do so. Happily giving up her rights to pretty much everything and handing over all power to the state – the benevolent, all knowing, all powerful state that will care for her from cradle to grave.

  19. She writes and looks remarkably adult-like for a 7 year old. Because that’s the kind of solutions to problems 7 year olds come up with.
    Now go to your room. No more blogging til you finish your history homework. Your teacher says freaky Robin Williams-Jack kid or not, you haven’t done a damn thing in that class.

    • You just take all the crime, pollution, and guns, put it in a rocket, and launch it into the sun. We are truly dealing with kindergarten level intelects here.

      • Why not just ban all white people, all Asians, all Latinos, and all black people? Ban all Muslims, Jews, and Christians. These people are responsible for the majority of crime in our society. Let’s just put them on a big ship, and send them away. Makes about as much sense as her proposal.

    • She has that look…the look like that 70s-80s rich European girl that got caught up with Baader Meinhof or Red Brigade…sort of like the villian’s GF in “Die Hard 3” when they had the shoot out in…oh yeah Canadia….

    • When I was seven, I thought that we should build a wall around all of the terrorists in the Middle East and let the good people stay outside, and then nuke the area inside the wall from orbit. Boom, no more terrorism.

      Yeah, sounds like the same mindset, although my idea is more plausible.

  21. There’s a political arms race afoot; whenever the Dems get control of the congress & presidency again, they will enact mass confiscation. It took fifty years for nationalized healthcare to get rammed through, it took about that long for the slavery/states’ rights issue to be ‘settled’ in a similarly ham-fisted bout of reckless zeal. Dems will be all about packing the electorate every which way they can (legal immigration, amnestied illegal immigration, accelerated naturalization, refugees, probably a push to make Puerto Rico or Guam/USVI a state at some point, dismantling of all voting review or oversight, most likely an attempt to push ‘online voting’ at the federal level) just like they were about naming new Free States in an attempt to shut out the South in the federal government.

  22. The good part is, cat’s outa the bag, the genie’s outa the bottle. They have forever outed themselves, and they are on the wrong side.

    The scary part is, they know that, and they did it anyway.

    • Maybe they think theyll be safe in their ivory towers, while their gestapo in blue attempt to enforce their decrees? Do they not realize 30.06 has no trouble punching through those walls and the squishy bits inside?

      • The phrase “ivory towers” reminds me of Saruman’s white tower. We are Gandalf, the Ents, and the Hobbits, who along with the riders of Rohan, will crush Saruman’s minions. This woman is like a defeated Saruman. She is routed, and hiding in her tower screaming obscenities at the decent people surrounding her from below.

        • Don’t let Sharkey and his thugs take over the Shire. We aren’t all great heroes like Aragorn, Gandalf or Faramir. Most of us are peace loving Hobbit type folk. Yet, even the Hobbits have the right and responsibility to bear arms in defense of their homeland. The Shire could use a good cleansing. Like Theoden, we have listened to the lies of Worm Tongue for far to long. It is once again a time for strenghth and couage. Hobbits can kick butt when they have to.

          Dang I love LOTR.

  23. My question is, if Obummer the dumbass in command decides to heed these hoplophobes and issues an executive order banning guns, will the armed intelligentsia actually fight this with more than words? I really can’t believe we’ve let it get this far as it is. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

  24. Being old enough to have lived through the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban, the The Brady Campaign, etc., etc., right up the present traitor in the White House, I have to admit that I am STILL amazed these cowards are calling for an all out Ban on firearms. I didn’t think I would see this in my life time. Their desperation has truly revealed them for what they are. I don’t believe they truly, truly understand what will happen if confiscation is attempted. That there are so many of us will not surrender, who will fight for our freedom.

    • Obama’s stance is… “I am intentionally letting terrorists into the country so guns must be banned for your own safety.”

    • It’s easy to talk tough when you’re sitting behind a monitor, but when men with badges and guns and plenty of friends show up for some meaningless pieces of steel and wood? You’ll comply.

      Just as you have complied with all gun control laws enacted since 1934. You will comply with the next one.

      Anyone can be gangsta until it’s time to do gangsta shit. You ain’t gangsta. Sorry.

      • Actually I won’t. Never have nor will I. Too men have died giving me this freedom to just “comply”. Until a week ago when I moved south to free America, I was in an occupied northern state that passed a ban. Proud non complier. Myself, family and friends from the occupied region did not comply when they demanded we turn them in.

      • The only real question is if you’re a Mark ass trick or trick ass Mark. You’ve never stared down the other guy, we’re all just squiggly bits of goop blindly clawing to get back to our warm nest at days end. Pray our loved ones never see what I’ve seen.

      • NFAmark, This is our nation, not theirs. You evidently have never spent anytime in rural America. The time for compromise and playing games is about over. Many understand this. Evidently, you don’t. That’s ok, we will need cooks and support people too…

      • NFAMark: “Just as you have complied with all gun control laws enacted since 1934. You will comply with the next one.”

        Already been discussed, and you are wrong.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/robert-farago/ct-massive-non-compliance-assault-weapons-large-capacity-magazine-registration/

        Funny, do you like being so wrong, or are you being paid for it and really don’t care very much?

        Because if you wanted to make real effective arguments for gun control, they are out there (wrong arguments, but they are there) and if you have a brain you could be using some of them. But you aren’t.

        I am going to bet, paid troll. Soros money.

      • We’ve had way better trolls on here than you… You’re going to have to step up your game, Mark.

        Mark. Isn’t that fitting… It’s that “gangsta” for a sucker.

  25. Someone is awfully desperate. LMAO. Give up my guns? Nope…but I think I’ll buy more to celebrate my freedoms.. Suck it.

  27. Take away my Nerf Guns. Oh NO! This could lead to a Nerf War. Guess maybe she doesn’t mean all guns. Or maybe she does. Who knows.

  28. So she suggests banning guns because to do otherwise would infringe on civil liberties, even though 2A is basically also a civil liberty. Right.

  29. They are screaming louder because the gun culture has finally grown a spine and just started ignoring them. In the past our side caved and placated them. Now that we aren’t, and our side is even introducing legislation to LEGALIZE SILENCERS(which are already legal), and once we get that done and have a real victory for the first time since 1933 it will embolden even the cucks at the NRA to go after the NFA34 and the GCA68. And that means the only thing the gun grabbers/collectivists can think to do is raise their voices and screech louder, because they can’t fight physically because we have all the guns. They haven’t started illegal mass confiscation because they can’t trust the military to help, and they can’t bring in a foreign military because that’s sure to be viewed as a foreign invasion, which could easily result in a coup. Even the FBI and ATF have no idea how to enforce the new executive orders that Barry is sending them. They are out of moves.

    • Think about this, they have all of Hollywood, all the print media, almost all of the television media, a rather sizable chunk of the web, and the best they can manage in America is 51% following a failed Republican administration, which fizzles almost immediately. They control the culture factories and they are FAILING.

      • I think this is an incredibly important point to repeat.

        Even in the face of Bloomberg’s money, the shrill MDA machine, owning ALL the MSM and much of the “Blogosphere,” the Presidential bully pulpit and everything else…they are still failing.

        They are failure on display.

        I think this really started becoming clear to a lot of “fence sitters” after Sandy Hook. If they could not make broad, sweeping changes after THAT cock-up, they are essentially powerless.

        Cognitive dissonance is a thing. They can repeat lies like “Even x% gun owners want this,” but people can see it simply is not true.

    • She’s keeping it au natural. You can almost smell the patchouli wafting from her wannabe french canadian armpit hair.

  32. “as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties”

    Ha, as if taking my firearms would not be a violation of my civil liberties (ahem, 2nd Amendment, anyone?)?

  33. “It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them”

    Ha! Good luck with that. 😉

    And to celebrate gun-control freakazoids going full retard openly all over the country, I just purchased another AR-15 rifle (or as they call them, “one-of-them-scary-black-multiautomatic-guns-that-shoot-.223mm-ammo-at-8000rnd/sec.”) just because.

    So there. 😛 😀

  34. Ok, I did not read all the comments but why doesn’t she write about Canadian gun laws and that gee whiz people in Canada still own guns. If she likes Canada so much why doesn’t she become a citizen and renounce her American citizenship.

  35. Whats that saying, “people get the face they deserve by the time they are 40”?

    That is one crazy-bitter-mean face there.

  36. “On the pro-gun-control side of things, there’s far too much timidity…”

    Says the the ‘ex-pat.’

    Come back here and start taking guns yourself.

    • She’d rather have guys like you do it. The thought that there are cops that will not comply hasn’t ever entered her empty, big-government-loving head.

      • I am afraid far too many cops, especially in “blue” areas, would comply if it were the law.

        NYPD cops are all already on-board with civilian disarmament, after all. They enforce it every day.

        If you’re a big city cop, and your state passes a ban of any sort — say a new assault weapons ban — how many of you are going to quit or refuse to comply the first time you’re called on to arrest someone based on a report of an “illegal assault weapon?”

        You’ve got bills, kids to feed….

        • “You’ve got bills, kids to feed….”

          Kinda hard to pay bills dead.

          If cops go full confiscation, where the ONLY reason they are kicking down your door is to get your guns, that’s a big time game changer. There might be a few bubbles of “blue” that try it and get away with it.

          The numbers simply are not on their side. CT did not even TRY to enforce “registration,” much less confiscation, for example. Why do you think that is?

          And, NY SAFE is in enforcement trouble. In much of the state, there are LEO’s that are not enforcing it.

          What makes you think that upping the ante on the laws already not enforced is going to make all these cops suddenly say, “Okay, NOW I’ll go anti-citizen”?

    • Ditto. Amazing how Liberal Fascist always talk about confiscation without the guts to do it themselves. I have talked with a lot of people who have drawn a line at the 2nd amendment. No one wants the fight, but they will fight to protect their freedoms. I will say this again: We must win this election.

      • I made the same point the other day only to be met with the strangest blank stare ever. It’s like he never even thought that the “law” was us!

  37. “…banning guns urgently needs to become a rhetorical and conceptual possibility.”

    Just not an actual, physical one, though. Because that’s f*cking impossible.

    It seems that this is the new badge of honor for leftist idiots, then. They’re falling over each other trying to come up with the most hardcore anti-gun bullshit they can imagine. None of which is practical or will stop any violence whatsoever.

    • Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge, and that can be fixed. But this is much worse than simple ignorance. An adult who believes you can make something go away just by writing some words on a piece of paper, that’s delusional. That’s like meeting a 30-year-old who still believes in the Easter Bunny.

  39. its time to jail the constitution deniers! seize all their assets to pay for their own incarceration

  40. What she’s advocating to me has the same morality as advocating a return to chattel slavery. And that is the way we need to push back against this sort of view. Don’t ask them why they hate guns, ask them why they love slavery.

  41. its time to jail the constitution deniers! seize their assets to pay for their own incarceration

  42. Jewish journalist #8782347234877823 is a far-left liberal that hates White people, males, and gun rights.

  44. The socialist progressive Islamists are just letting it all hang out. Soon they’ll be calling to burn down churches.

    You know this only ends in a civil war, right?

  45. NO-the “nose” knows…can’t we get this goofy gal on making “terroristic threats” or somethin’?

  46. Now may be a good time to invest in 1′ diameter PVC pipe, end caps, and shovels… If you catch my drift.

    • I totally catch your drift — we need to stop worrying about guns and make sure we address the drainage problems on our properties!

  49. One of the bad things about the internet is that there’s no shortage of sites willing to provide a platform for the rantings of hysterical children.

  50. FTFA: “Phoebe Maltz Bovy is a writer living in Toronto. She is writing a book with St. Martin’s Press about the idea of privilege (2017).”

    Yep, I guess she’s definitely writing that book from experience. Will she ever give away her most privileged snowflake in the world status? I doubt it.

    • Warp;
      I love getting lectures about privilege from white girls with closets full of clothes made by orphans in Indonesian sweatshops, 4-6 years of useless education about social commentary funded by federally subsidized grants or loans, access to all the world’s knowledge via high-speed internet, and raised without ever knowing real hunger, financial insecurity, or real physical danger.

  51. … Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.

    I see what you did there. But I don’t think you see what you did there. Priceless.

  53. I wonder how many tales of tragic boating accidents the confiscators would run into should a full scale confiscation ever be enacted. I know I lost my entire collection in such a way.

  54. Dear Ms. Bovy,

    You stated:
    “Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns!”

    Please change the word “gun(s)” to:
    “Vehicles”, “Speech”, “Pointy objects”, “Offensive actions”,”Negativity”

    How does that sound now?

    Ban humans! For the children’s sake ®

  55. Funny how back in the 90’s people didn’t take blogging seriously just because it was the Internet.
    Now it seems we’ve done a 180 and every imbecile posting anything online is taken as an expert or valuable pundit just because it’s on the Internet.

    In her defense it’s not like she can go out and do anything productive or worthwhile with those degrees she has.

  56. Yes I agree ban all guns! That way we won’t be so concerned with the crumbling constitution and we can turn our focus on the economic collapse that a gun ban will cause. Imagine the billions of dollars in the gun industry. Imagine all the employees now looking for work. Trickle down effect to health care workers, imagine no more gun shot victims, what are the doctors going to do? No more lawsuits involving gun deaths, no need for so many lawyers? How many millions of people would be affected by the complete gun ban?

  57. “Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a gun and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban guns! Not just gun violence. Not just certain guns. Not just already-technically-illegal guns. All of them.”

    This is what self-parody looks like, my Friends. Ban guns so that cops can’t shoot back! Ban guns to make bad behavior more illegaller! Ban guns because they are icky!

    What. A. Load.

  58. We should be encouraging people like her. If only more people in the “common sense gun control” camp would just say what’s really on their minds, our lives would be so much easier.

    • Thank you!

      I like Ms. Bovy’s approach and I think we should encourage it. Two reasons: First, she’s honest about here intentions, not like these sniveling, lying anti-gunners who say their for private gun ownership, but only want “sensible regulations,” but who really believe Ms. Bovy’s position in their hearts. They are smart and sneaky. They are doing the public opinion version of “maneuver warfare” and they are dangerous. They will deal us the “death of a thousand cuts.”

      Second, Ms. Bovy has chosen the least effective, least practical, least probable to succeed strategy out there. The direct, “hey-diddle-diddle, right up the middle approach.” The great thing about this approach is it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding. A liberal SCOTUS could weaken 2A and Heller with “sensible regulations,” but even a liberal justice would look at a total gun ban, look a 2A and say, “This is too much of a stretch, even for me.” Even a liberal legislator would look at a total gun ban and say, “This would pretty much guarantee that I don’t get re-elected. No thanks.”

      So you go, Ms. Bovy!

  60. Am I mistaken or didn’t the bio at the end of this screed say the author lived in Toronto? That being the case, SHUT UP!!!!!

  61. Awwww… the widdle Canadian thinks we care what she thinks about U.S. gun ownership. That’s so cute!

  63. Once again. Get enough state legislatures, the vast majority are Republican controlled, to change the 2nd Amendment. Until then STFU.

    Come and take them.

  64. With possibly several hundred million new guns sold in the past four years of the Obama reign, we have to convince those millions of new gun owners to vote against The Hildabeast and for the same Republican Nominee. Not perfect, but better than letting her get elected under any circumstance. The worst thing would be to force Donald Trump to run as an Independent, which could split the Republican/Independent Vote and hand the election to The Hildabeast. Not advocating for Trump, just observing the facts.

    The Electoral College is NOT our friend going into this election with California and New York almost guaranteed to throw 84 EC votes to The Hildabeast. If Florida goes Blue,again, taken with Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and Washington (State, not DC), The Hildabeast would have it pretty well sewn up when you add in the New England States (who usually go Blue). There is real danger here, unless we can generate an EC winning backlash against the Democrats and unite behind one “Not The Hildabeast” Candidate for POTUS.

    As I said, not a perfect situation, but this election is a tipping-point for America and the balance at present is leaning precariously to the Left.

  65. I find this new open assertiveness on the part of gun-haters…well, refreshing. Its so nice to get a clear message, one not calculated to deceive or obfuscate their desired outcomes. Now the next obvious part of the conversation can begin.

    We can start with the question, “How do you propose to take my guns from me?”, or “How do you get rid of guns without the using guns and causing more violence than presently exists?”, or how about, “Would you really be comfortable living in a world were only criminals and the government have arms?”

  67. Marxistesque naivete at its finest. Once everyone sees how great communism is everyone will join in. There will be no more government and everyone will live in one big happy village. Maybe we should try wishing the guns away while we are at it? Maybe we should ban drugs too?

    Please, please ban guns cuz when they are all illegal then they will all be legal. When the entire market is black it will just be the market.

  68. Let’s try an exercise, shall we?

    s/guns/murder:

    Ban murder. All murder. Get rid of murder in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with a murder and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban murder! Not just murder violence. Not just certain murder. Not just already-technically-illegal murder. All murder.

    s/guns/drugs:

    Ban drugs. All drugs. Get rid of drugs in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police. Not just because of San Bernardino, or whichever mass shooting may pop up next, but also not not because of those. Don’t sort the population into those who might do something evil or foolish or self-destructive with drugs and those who surely will not. As if this could be known—as if it could be assessed without massively violating civil liberties and stigmatizing the mentally ill. Ban drugs! Not just drugs violence. Not just certain drugs. Not just already-technically-illegal drugs. All drugs.

    …because those efforts have worked so well, right?

  69. Would it be too much to ask of these idiots to explain “WHY” ban all guns, instead of how, or when, or let’s keep it a secret? What such fanatic actions are supposed to accomplish?

  70. So, you get guns universally “banned”, then what?

    I do not think that word means what you think it means. “Ban” doesn’t mean there won’t be any more guns, or violence performed using guns, (or violence in general.) “Ban” means there’s a law, perhaps with associated regulation, and undoubtedly with subsequent enforcement.

    Really, maybe do something about what you really care about. If it’s people shooting up other people, the leverage points are the shooters first, the potential targets second, and the particular tools, a distant third, at best.

    “We need to get rid of guns in the world.” seems more like what you mean. A “gun ban” is not that, and suggests a question: “What is it with the guns, vs. violence done with them?” Getting rid of violence done with guns I understand. That’s already mostly banned, BTW, being violence, and like general violence some continues. Also, some is not banned, because sometimes it’s OK to “punch back twice as hard.” I’m OK if you want to go Ghandi in the face of violence directed at you. Insisting – forcing with threat of violence – that others make the same choice seems a bit … inconsistent.

    Even advocating “banning” guns doesn’t mean “I do not think people should have this awesome power.” It only means you do not think people inclined to follow the law, or at risk of coercion by having nothing, or too much to lose, shouldn’t have access to that awesome power. Everybody else will still access that awesome power, ban or no.

    Again I’m OK if you are uncomfortable with agency in the world to the point of abandoning capabilities that you have. (Next, perhaps electricity and internal combustion, then reading and writing.) Insisting that others be coerced into abandoning agency they might have again seems … inconsistent. You use your agency to force others to do what you think is best, which is abandon a particular agency they would otherwise choose. Why not just tie them up?

    I think anything good that *might* come from a “gun ban” comes from possibly reducing the number of guns out there, or the distribution of who has them. That’s far from proven, BTW. The “ban” itself … only bad direct consequences. So, maybe go for where the traction is … less guns out there (lying about – guns someone has chosen to have and use are not the problem), and less intersection of knuckleheads and the agency to do bad things.

    How about that?

  71. So Phebes thinks that there are a lot more anti-gun folks out there who are afraid to speak out? Wow. I wonder if she’s considered the possibility that – especially given the huge rise in gun sales in recent years – she just might be out in left field nearly alone?

    We gun owners are about 140 million out of a population of 315 million (maybe 345 million, but ‘undocumented’ is undocumented, right?). Subtracting out 75 million for ‘too young to own a gun anyway), we’re 140 out of 240 million. So we are about 6 out of 10 adults. Then there are bunches of adults who don’t have a dog in the gun fight, so I’m guessing we’re about 140 million to maybe 20 million anti-gunners. That should make them all nervous enough to shut up and go crawl into a basement to hide – not because any of us are out to get them, but because they are such rank cowards that it’s all about ‘feeling safe’ without any responsibility for making themselves feel that way, so outnumbered 7 to 1, they must be soiling themselves every time they go out of doors.

  73. I’d bet she is 100% pro-abortion. You know those good people who want to make everyone as defenseless as the babies they slaughter in their own wombs.

  75. She just wants to feel safe in her little gun free zones, and not wet her lace panties due to the fact that there are legally armed American citizens out there. Now if she would only wet her panties over the terrorists, nut cases and criminals that consider gun free zones as free fire zones with target rich environments we’d all be better off.

  76. She’s probably right, let’s ban guns, all of them… but I would recommend to start by Terrorists and Criminals… and then Military and Police. And once we success that, then, maybe, I might consider to surrender my guns… Until then, I’ll keep them 😉

  77. So with the recent super desperate moves on the anti gun side do you suppose the Fudds that previously were thinking “it’s not important if AR’s or semi-auto pistols get banned as long as I can have my deer rifle and bird hunting shotgun” have changed their minds?

  78. Let’s just look at a few things about the Author of the article….Phoebe Maltz Bovy. She live in Toronto, Canada. Not America. She studied French and French Studies at New York University, which she got a Doctorate in. Not an easy thing to do but ITS FRENCH AND FRENCH STUDIES!?!?!?!?! WTF! What could you possibly expect to do with that degree? Oh I know! How about write articles for a Left Wing Blog that are based in the made up world of LaLa Land.

  79. O.K., so guns are banned. The criminals will still be armed, and it will still, in the Northern Hemisphere, get cold in December., What one wonders will the Goody Two Shoosers of Gun Control or Gun Bans do for that proverbial encore?

  80. So you somehow magically ban and confiscate all Guns everywhere on Earth; and lets further suppose that you somehow magically make it impossible for anyone to ever manufacture any more.
    At this point even the most Die-Hard Anti-Gunner who ever lived realizes that his tribe has painted mankind into a dark noir corner where all human dignity and all reason to live have been forever forfeited.
    What’s more, I believe that every Anti-Gunner already realizes this deep down.
    I mean, even Anti-Gunners who live in an Anti-Gun Nightmare Country like Britain or Japan can unconsciously nourish their souls knowing that in places like America and the Pathan Country in Pakistan has Guns.
    Take that away and the whole human race goes into terminal depression.
    Being Anti-Gun is like proclaiming that one is a Satanist just to be different all the while never truly wanting to go to Hell.
    The Logic of such neurotics escapes me.
    …..RVM45

  81. Regarding the Miss Bovy’s statement that “Public opinion needs to shift.”

    I don’t care if public opinion shifts. It’s not yours, or anyone else’s business what personal property I possess, as long as it isn’t causing unjust harm to anyone else. I qualify with unjust, because if I murder someone then it is your business because I’ve demonstrated that I’m a potential threat to you, and because I’ve harmed you by making you sad for the loss of a life. But if I kill someone in my own defense or defense of another, or if I get lucky and am never forced to use my firearm for defense, then it’s none of your business. I don’t care what your arguments are, and for that matter I don’t want to be in business with you period. I choose not to join you in causing the guns of the police used to take guns away from everyone else. Yes, I know, in theory “We The People” could then instruct our elected representatives to pass laws disarming all the employees of all the governments. Don’t care, thanks but not interested. Go somewhere else with your do-good ideas.

    I’m sure you’re a very nice person and under certain circumstances I might be shamefully happy to be owned by you, but unfortunately you’re a stranger and you don’t own me, you don’t get to force me to do what you want. Unless you’re a criminal, which I know you’re not.

  82. Who is Phoebe Maltz Bovy and why do we think what she says is Important? Since she is an expat, what she says is irrelevant. Expats have no say in what happens in the country they voluntarily left.

  85. Shouldn’t we ban ST’OO’PID, FIRST?

    I have carried my weapon for the last 30 years and not once did it up an hurt someone. I have been hurt a whole lot more by stupidity.
    Medical malpractice.

  86. Folks, you need to “consider the source” here.

    The New Republic was a magazine that had been Jewish owned and catered to Jewish self-styled “intellectuals” for decades, with a respectable Zionist tilt. While TNR was reliably left of center on domestic issues, it rarely pandered to such rank stupidity as the article cited above.

    But then, a college roommate of Zuckerberg, who had 100’s of millions of $$$ due to the Facebook IPO, bought out The New Republic for an undisclosed sum. When this happened, TNR lost a lot of their talent in a very short period of time, mostly because the talent disagrees with where the new owner was going to take the magazine:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/08/the-rise-and-fall-of-chris-hughes-and-sean-eldridge-america-s-worst-gay-couple.html

    As a result, the magazine picks up pieces like the one above, written by someone with a PhD in French and “French Studies,” (whatever the heck that is).

    The author might well believe this pablum she’s peddling, but I’ll wager that an editor somewhere in the chain hit her (or some other writers as well) up for a piece on banning guns, just to make some controversy to create web hits to their publication.

  87. They (progressive/socialist/communists) really want us killed. They know what the end game is if such a ban is enacted, and when they feel confident they will be among the survivors, they will act.

    Perhaps our role is to make sure they never gain that confidence.

    Socialism is not healthy for children or other living things, especially on a national scale. National Socialism just rubs me the wrong way, Herr Bernie.

    I have family who died on their knees with their hands tied behind their back the last time National Socialism reared its ugly head. Not me, nor my kids. Reference Ross’ Unintended Consequences and others.

  88. Yes…and while they’re banning all guns, please don’t forget knives, forks, automobiles and pillows…all known to have been used in recent murders. The most dangerous thing about the USA is not firearms or eating utensils…the most dangerous thing about the USA is the general ignorance of our young people. This is not their fault, it is the fault of a society that has all but eliminated discipline in the home and in the public schools. Add to that, a leftist dominated “educational” system that teaches a union controlled, left-leaning curriculum along with the silly notion that all students are college material, so there is no need to teach those that aren’t, cooking, welding, auto repair, carpentry, etc. In the end…you get the assortment of ignorant, poorly informed little tools that make silly statements about things they know nothing about. Now you know how Hussein Obama was elected.

  89. LOL. This girl has got to be happy with herself to see her picture plastered all over the internet and know that she is the new and pure definition of naïve and ignorant at its very best.

  90. Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

    In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.

    The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation … and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

    No one “needs” a seat belt. After all, 99.999 percent of your driving time you don’t “need” a seat belt. You only “need” a seat belt during an automobile crash. Do you want a seat belt? Of course! No one would even debate this issue.

    To a greater or lesser degree, the same goes for property insurance, fire extinguishers, spare tires, life jackets, and first aid kits, to name just a few things.

    “To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason.

    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington.

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” – George Washington

    Washington understood before almost anyone that firearms were ‘the great equalizer’. Until the invention of the gun, the old saying ‘might makes right’ was true. Justice didn’t prevail. Intelligence didn’t prevail. And love didn’t prevail. Those who rely on violence, murder and force to get their way or prove they’re right are often wicked and evil, with no use for justice, intelligence or love.

    Washington taught us over 200 years ago that firearms in the hands of the people “restrains evil”. It’s no coincidence that America and its freedom have been the envy of the world for more than two centuries. Our ruling Constitution is the oldest in the world because of its brilliance and distant foresight. The founding fathers knew that as long as the American people remained armed, that in any future time and place, freedom would always have a fighting chance to survive.

    Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln understood that.

  91. “The no-guns stance needs to be an identifiable place on the spectrum, embraced unapologetically, if it’s to be reckoned with.”

    It has a place on the spectrum of ideology alright. You can always find no-guns ideologies clustered in the same zone as fascism, Marxism, tyranny and totalitarianism.

    That she advocates banning guns should come as no surprise. She’s also writing a book on “privilege” which tells me that she’s just another useful idiot of the left. She has no expertise in either subject until she spends a year living in an Islamic country and one in a country in which her race is a distinct minority. Then she can tell us how America compares. Not before.

Comments are closed.