Previous Post
Next Post

Larry Hirsch (courtesy

Organizing for Action “Team Leader” and Garden State gadfly Larry Hirsch [above] penned a polemic for called Just Sayin’ — Republican Doublespeak on Guns. As a TTAG commentator once pointed out, when you say “just sayin'” you’re “just sayin'” your logic is on shaky ground. If that’s true, Hirsch’s anti-gun rights rhetoric rates an eight on the logical Richter Scale. More than that, Hirsch’s diatribe reveals a fundamentally flawed, not-to-say mentally challenged mindset. Like this . . .

When Donald Trump and the Republicans talk about gun violence the only incidents they seem to bring up are San Bernardino, Paris and now Brussels. What these incidents have in common is that they were carried out by terrorists tied to ISIS. The Republicans use these tragedies to argue against stricter gun laws saying that people need guns to protect themselves from terrorist attacks. Donald Trump’s now famous line is that there would have been less deaths if everyone in the Paris nightclub had guns. The equation for them is more guns = less tragedies.

Right from the git-go, Hirsch displays complete contempt for factuality. A quick Google search reveals that Donald Trump has “brought up” the Umpqua Community College shooting, the Virginia TV broadcaster shooting, the Planned Parenthood shooting and many more mass shootings.

Truth be told, every time there’s a big-profile ballistic incident, The Donald and his Republican cohorts address the dangers of civilian disarmament. As you’d expect. But that doesn’t suit Hirsch’s pro-gun control, anti-Republican narrative.

You don’t hear the Republicans bring up Columbine, Newtown, Charleston, Virginia Tech, Umpqua Community College or the hundreds of other gun violence tragedies where the killer was not ISIS-related. They don’t want us to look at the Americans perpetrating terrorist-type killings in our country. This would undermine their argument against more restrictive gun laws. Never mind that the killers at Columbine and Newtown got their guns from their parents large stash. There would have been less to choose from if there was a limit on how many guns a person could own. Never mind that the killer in Newtown had a semi-automatic weapon and how many lives would have been saved if they were still banned in this country. Republicans don’t want to discuss these attacks. Listening to Trump, Cruz, and their friends you would never know they happened.

When you start your argument with a bald-faced lie (Republicans focus their gun rights arguments entirely on terrorism) it’s easy to slip into absurdity. Gun control is a good thing because it would have restricted the Columbine killer’s choice of firearms? Huh? I wonder if Hirsch knows that Columbine was a failed bomb plot. Or how guns work.

Equally, Hirsch contends/assumes that an “assault weapon” ban would save lives. While there is some minor debate about the efficacy of the previous assault weapons ban — advocates share Mr. Hirsch’s belief it simply wasn’t in place long enough — studies conclude the AWB did sweet FA to reduce “gun violence.”

I also wonder if the OFA Team Leader has even a tenuous grasp of reality. Or is Hirsch one of those “ends justifies the means” gun control guys: an agitpropagandist who believes that the need for civilian disarmament trumps any requirement to tell the truth about guns.

This willful ignorance by Republicans is distorting the debate on guns and is a danger to the American people. Yes, it is vitally important to deter terrorist attacks by ISIS and other groups. However, not to include the other needless deaths caused by the easy availability of guns in this country is irresponsible. The fact that assault weapons aren’t banned here is a travesty as they have nothing to do with self-protection. A person can have their second amendment rights without having the right to have guns that do nothing but kill other people quicker.

Gun control advocates suffer from psychological projection ( “defending themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others”).

Normally, gun control advocates accuse gun owners of barely contained mental illness. In this case, Hirsch asserts that Republicans suffer from willful ignorance. As I’ve shown above, he’s describing his own mental mindset.

By this point in his rant, Hirsch is racing for the finish line. Which accounts for the [inadvertent] implication that civilian firearms ownership deters terrorists. And the take-it-for-granted assertion that the “easy availability of guns” leads to “needless deaths.” Not to mention the intellectually sloppy idea that the Second Amendment has some sort of lethality clause, related to the speed at which a gun cycles.

The gun issue should be a wedge issue in this campaign. The vast majority of Americans support stricter gun laws and electing a President and a Congress that supports them should send a strong message to the NRA and its supporters. We cannot elect any candidate that does not address the whole issue of gun violence instead of just focusing on foreign terrorist attacks. The plain truth is LESS GUNS = LESS TRAGEDIES all you have to do is read the names of those who have died needlessly. The hope is that this truth will resonate with Americans when they vote this November.

Hirsch finishes as he started: with a blatant lie. The vast majority of Americans do not support stricter gun laws; the last Gallup poll pegged the number at 55 percent. That’s without inquiring what the term “stricter gun laws” actually means — gun control or tougher penalties for criminal use of firearms?
As for the idea that reading the names of people who “died needlessly” proves that gun control saves lives, well that’s just ridiculous. Has Mr. Hirsch even heard of the scientific method?
Mr. Hirsch and gun rights advocates can certainly agree that gun control should be a wedge issue. And we share Mr. Hirsch’s desire for resonating truth at the ballot box. But thank God that word doesn’t mean what he wants it to mean.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Since I cant flame him.
    Ill let his smug face on the picture with the post say it all.

    • My thoughts exactly. I think this sums it up: “When you start your argument with a bald-faced lie (Republicans focus their gun rights arguments entirely on terrorism) it’s easy to slip into absurdity.”

  2. “the killer in Newtown had a semi-automatic weapon and how many lives would have been saved if they were still banned in this country.”… when, since the invention of semi-automatic firearms, have semi-automatic firearms as a whole been banned in this country? Heck, even the AWB didn’t ban semi-automatic guns; it banned cosmetic features.

    • Shhh… Let them be ignorant.

      The weapon used at Sandy Hook was CT AWB compliant which mirrored the ’94 ban so it wouldn’t have changed a thing. I also love to point out to anti-gunners AR15s are still for sale in NY, sans-cosmetic features. They usually get livid.

    • Not to mention that for these sorts of crimes it really doesn’t matter how large the “arsenal” of weapons – despite what happens in FPS games, there is only just so many weapons and just so much ammunition that a single person can carry and use. Doesn’t matter in Lanza had stolen a whole gun-shop full of weapons, he still left the shotgun in the car.

      What does matter, in the long run, is not how many weapons the shooter can carry and use, but how many weapons he faces when he starts shooting.

      • “What does matter, in the long run, is not how many weapons the shooter can carry and use, but how many weapons he faces when he starts shooting.”

        Don’t think I have seen the argument summed up any better than this. Well done sir!

    • And of course, if they ever succeed in having semi-automatic firearms banned, they’ll immediately pretend to be shocked at how little difference it makes when a psychopath decides to slaughter the defenseless. Their failure will then be used as a justification for banning manually cycled repeaters.

  3. Gadfly perhaps, journalist not so much. But hey, it’s HuffPo.

    BTW don’t Google “Larry Hirsch NJ” or you’ll break the internet.

  4. I’ve never seen a Progtard before, build a straw-man that big, and then wear it as power-armor.

  5. First of all, I’m far too right wing to be a Republican, nor do I have much faith in the Republican Party. With that said, I have far less faith in the Democratic Party. I hold nothing more than contempt for the current Democratic party, and contempt for this individual in particular.

    It’s asinine to think that a semi-auto ban, about which so many anti-gunners fantacize, would have any beneficial effect in disarming psychos when we have black markets, insecure borders and hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation. Gun Free Zones clearly don’t work.

    I’ve challenged many an anti-gunner about who would be more effective in stopping a mass shooter – a coward with a cell phone or a competent, armed citizen. It doesn’t matter to me if that citizen is wearing a uniform or not. What matters is accurate fire placed on the chest or head of the bad guy within seconds of his rampage. If that happens the bad guy’s attack is finished. If it doesn’t happen then the psycho in question can rampage his Gun Free Zone with virtually zero opposition. That’s when whole classrooms get assassinated (Sandy Hook), when disarmed soldiers get killed (Ft. Hood), and when movie theatres become a macabre shooting gallery (Aurora).

    So when the anti-gunners talk about gun laws, I talk about the south side of Chicago, LA, and Mexico. All are a mess and all of them have strict gun laws. When they talk about throwing text books at bad guys I can challenge them to see if they can throw a textbook at 1200 FPS through a bullseye at 10 yards like I can do with my 9mm +P. I’ve got personal experience with almost every less-lethal weapon made and they don’t work as well as firearms.

    And when they talk about gun violence I remind them, not so subtlely, that the governments and terrorist groups in world history have murdered millions more people than individual criminals.

    • “I’m far too right wing to be a Republican”.

      Starting to warm up to you Accur81, no doubt deserving a man hug, however we should hold off on the warm showers.

      • The traditional spartan greeting, high fives for the women and open mouth tongue kisses for the men.

    • The very same Progressives who swear that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to deport 11 million illegal immigrants will at the same time argue that it is perfectly reasonable and logical to confiscate 300 million privately owned and Constitutionally protected firearms. Go figure.

  6. The guy is the Essex County, NJ “team leader” of an organization that was built from leftover campaign funds from Obama’s 2012 campaign in a county well known for corruption among politicians and supporters. Newark, NJ is the county seat and an abysmal failure of gun control. The man is the epitome of “willful ignorance”.

  7. Little Larry is a paid propagandist, a liar for hire. His only personal belief would be a strong belief in his bank account.

  8. Semi autos were banned… Yes, surly, you’re right. It was those damn semi autos and their high velocity clipazines.

  9. “…the only incidents they seem to bring up are San Bernardino, Paris and now Brussels. What these incidents have in common is that they were carried out by terrorists tied to ISIS.”

    …and the government did nothing to prevent any of the 3 attacks…and lots of people were dead by the time swat got around to doing their thing… and, as far as I know, the only “civilian” that was able to defeat any of the terrorists was a Colombian drug dealer in a Paris café who shot a couple assholes with his pistola thus committing a crime by defending himself…and the Bernardino attacks were committed by “self-radicalised” ISIS followers, not ISIS regulars …and I stopped reading after that.

  10. My kid better not get in my “stash” and if he did, shooting a gun would be just whay to loud, man

  11. “… other needless deaths caused by the easy availability of guns in this country …” — Larry Hirsch

    I responded to this type of nonsense the other day. In the state of Vermont, you can legally acquire a handgun, rifle, or shotgun and carry it in public openly visible or concealed … without any license, permit or vetting from government. If that does not count as “easy availability of guns”, I don’t know what does. And yet the total violent crime rate (not just crimes where the attacker used a firearm for their weapon) in Vermont is minuscule. And there have been precisely ZERO spree killings in Vermont since forever as far as I can determine.

    Mr. Hirsch’s assertion is demonstrably false which makes Mr. Hirsch a bald-faced liar.

  12. Seem to recall a Christian man in Pakistan this past Easter wish he could protect his family with a gun. Claimed their churches are guarded by govt security but they have no such detail in public spaces. Consequently large numbers of them were killed over Easter weekend and every trip in public is filled with dread. Very sad state where that man and his children are at the mercy of hostile forces his govt cannot stop.

  13. “…the killers at Columbine and Newtown got their guns from their parents large stash.”

    The Columbine shooters got their weapons via straw purchases by an 18 year old friend, and a shotgun from another friend. I don’t think that either of their parents owned firearms.

    So…more lies.

Comments are closed.