Previous Post
Next Post


By Adam S.

One of the biggest problems with the gun control debate is the fact that it is about guns. Before anyone gets all butt-hurt about that statement, let me explain what I mean. First off, it should be noted that I support gun rights. I enjoy shooting and plinking, and I have a license to carry concealed in my state. Clearly I don’t have a problem with guns, so why do I consider guns to be the problem within the context of the debate? . . .

I think it’s fair to say that there is something of a stigma against guns amongst the general public. People tend to fear what they don’t understand; it’s human nature. So it stands to reason that the non-gun-owning public, who are likely being exposed to media with a pretty obvious bias against guns and gun ownership on a nearly constant basis, would be ambivalent at best toward the idea of gun rights.

There’s a certain level of discomfort that goes hand-in-hand with total unfamiliarity, as well as a natural and unavoidable emotional response to the idea of innocent lives being lost. It’s hard to divorce yourself from the emotional response and think about things logically, especially with major news outlets bombarding you with images of grieving families juxtaposed against ominous silhouettes of sinister-looking black rifles.

See, the disconnect in the debate over gun control is the fact that it’s about guns. Very generally speaking, the public perception of guns and gun owners trends toward the negative. I attribute this attitude to several things. First off, as I stated before, unfamiliarity and discomfort are a package deal, and many people lack a familiarity with firearms, especially those who live in urban areas and/or state and jurisdictions that are historically restrictive when it comes to guns.

Secondly, this unfamiliarity is simultaneously mirrored and exploited by the majority of news media outlets. This can be seen in the use of terms like “high-capacity magazine clips” and phrases like “the gun went off,” constructed in such a way as to make the gun itself only a noun in the sentence. The guy didn’t fire the gun, the gun went off. Get it?

Terms like “gun violence” imply an active role on the part of the gun itself, and the use of a qualifier indicates a distinction between different types of violence. The fact that “gun violence” is the only flavor of mayhem to use a qualifying attributive noun – we never hear about “knife violence” or “blunt object violence” – implies that violent actions undertaken with a gun are somehow worse than violent actions committed without one. This sort of manipulative reporting creates outrage and concern amongst those who have an unfamiliarity with, or preexisting bias against, firearms. This practice also aggravates gun owners; it pretty frustrating to see a misinformed public receiving misinformation from a misinformed source who clearly is too contemptuous of its subject matter to actually learn about it.

Finally, in any discussion that takes place on an extremely broad scale, the unfortunate reality is that the loudest voices are also usually the weirdest and most extreme. By and large, the most outspoken advocates of gun rights are also among those most likely to be branded as weird extremists by a gun-shy public; this exacerbates the already negative associations that people have with guns.

So, how do we move this debate forward? We’ve established that a lot of people are uncomfortable with guns, or indeed are reflexively hostile toward the idea of gun ownership. The question of “why does anyone need a gun” inevitably arises. And any answer, no matter how rational and well-phrased, will likely alienate the public, as it will involve acknowledging that guns are used to shoot things. The only way to transcend this impasse is to remove the guns from the gun control debate, or at the very least, deemphasize them. And that’s totally okay, because the way I see it, the debate over gun control has never really been about the guns themselves anyway. At the heart of things, the “gun” component of gun control is merely a set piece for a larger issue: the willful exchange of liberty for the illusion of safety or the public good.

Typically speaking, the perpetrators of tragic events involving guns fall into at least one of the following three categories: bad people, insane people and idiots. Most people, however, are not bad, insane or idiots (and for the most part, the ones who are idiots aren’t the type of idiot who puts lives at risk). Here’s what I’m getting at: whenever a bad, insane or idiotic person does something bad, insane or idiotic with a gun, the immediate reaction is to call for tighter restrictions on carrying and owning guns. But given that most people are good, sane, and relatively intelligent, is that really fair or effective?

It’s like enacting the PATRIOT act following 9/11. A terrible, devastatingly tragic event happened, people felt a need to do something, and in turn we enacted legislation that infringed on the rights of millions of people who had literally nothing to do with the event that inspired the legislation in the first place. Viewed through the lens of history, I think most people would agree that the PATRIOT act was an egregious misstep that pushed the boundaries of government policy further in the wrong direction than any other single piece of legislation in recent decades.

The public outcry and subsequent state-level changes in gun legislation that have followed in the wake of every recent highly publicized shooting follows a similar pattern. The heart of the issue is not guns; the true questions are 1) whether infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens in the hopes of preventing a thing that has already happened is justifiable and legally defensible, and 2) whether appointing the government as the ultimate arbiter and regulator of who can be armed is really such a good idea. The dangers of rushed, ill-conceived reactionary legislation and excessive government control apply to issues far beyond gun regulation.

To illustrate this point, I’m going to draw a comparison to a different potentially lethal item, the importation of which has been outright banned by the federal government: Kinder Surprise Eggs. Kinder Surprise Eggs, for those of you not in the know, are basically hollow chocolate eggs with a small toy inside. I think they’re from somewhere in Europe. Or somewhere dumb like Canada. Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The point is that the government has prohibited the importation of Kinder Surprise Eggs into the United States on the grounds that people might choke on the toys and die.

What? I mean…I can almost see that happening with, say, kids. Like, the really, really stupid ones. You know, old enough to be given a candy egg with a toy inside in the first place, but just really, really stupid and unaware of the fact that they have to chew food. Kids who are unable to discern the difference in flavor and texture between between chocolate and a plastic toy. But we’re outright prohibiting these because a few idiots might misuse it? If you’re stupid enough to choke on a toy in a candy egg – the primary appeal of which being the loudly advertised toy inside – then I think it’s fair to say that you’re stupid enough to choke on just about anything that can fit in your mouth, so what’s the point? Just let us have our damn Kinder Surprise Eggs.

I know that the right to keep and bear Kinder Surprise Eggs isn’t Constitutionally protected, but both cases come down to the same thing: you can’t legislate decency or common sense. People do bad things sometimes. People can be stupid. And at the end of the day, no law or restriction or ban or background check can alter that. The gun control debate ultimately isn’t about keeping and bearing arms; it’s about the extent to which the government will increase its legal powers in the name of an ultimately futile crusade for “public safety,” and the latitude that people will grant the government in expanding its powers in exchange for the illusion of safety.

See, the overwhelming majority of people are in denial with regards to human mortality. By and large, this is a good thing; having the inevitability our own deaths and the deaths of those we love at the front our minds would be a constant bummer. However, the tragic but inescapable reality is that people die. Whether it is the result of a violent action, a freak accident or our own bodies saying, “screw it, I’m done” and rebelling against us, the one universal commonality between all of humanity is that our existence, at least in a corporeal sense, is temporary.

I get that a lot of people have a difficult time accepting the notion that an armed populace is one of the fundamental building blocks of a free society, but I think it’s fair to say that most people would agree that a world where the government has absolute control over every aspect of life would be terrible. For me, the debate over gun control is all about the precedent that could be set for increased government control under the guise of the public good. Let’s say that eventually the United States becomes a society where the federal government has jurisdiction over every aspect of life. I’ll even give the government the benefit of the doubt and imagine that they genuinely had the best interests of the people in mind in doing this. The purity of their motives notwithstanding, the end result would be a restrictive society with a diminished quality of life, in which people will still inevitably all die. Is that a fair trade for the illusion of safety?

When people talk about freedom in the context of gun control, it’s easy to write them off as gun nuts ranting about the freedom to own guns, but it goes deeper than that. Whether they realize it or not, those who espouse the virtues of freedom in the spotlight of the raging debate over gun regulations are talking about something that extends well beyond the arena of gun rights. The guns themselves are incidental; no matter how you may feel about them, I think we can all agree that a free society is worth fighting for. And that’s what this debate is really all about.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • The content is great but it should have been tightened up a bit.

      It could have easily been 30% shorter. There is a lot of repetition.

  1. I wish I could get the few minutes back it took to read this goobledygoop. We are winning. It’s my civil, moral , ethical and God-given RIGHT to keep and bare arms. Many millions DO NOT hang on every word of the MSM. And yeah I know this country elected Barry Soetero twice. Sheep gonna’ be sheep…

    • I’ll give you civil. I agree with that. But the magical old sky man didn’t make the world so that you could have guns. Frankly, I’m frightened by anyone with a firm, implacable belief that their god gives them the right to anything at all.

      • Why is it that so many people feel compelled to ridicule another person’s beliefs?

        Disagree with it, fine. But what’s the thinking behind being rude about it? Does his belief in God offend you? In my experience, those who discount His existence in a rude manner, and ridicule those who do believe, are the ones who’re most insecure in their belief that He does not exist.

        You have a God given right, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, to bear arms. And to smoke cigarettes. And to join the KKK, the NRA, or any other organization you wish. And to say whatever you want.

        He did not create this world for us to bear arms specifically, no. What He *did* do is create this world for us to live as free men and women, with the free will and cognitive function to make our own decisions about what we will say, what we will believe, and what gun we will carry. ALL rights are ours through His creation, including but not limited to, the right to keep and bear arms.

        • Well said…may I add there would be no United States without Christianity. For good or for bad.

        • Yeah – the Pilgrims immigrated here to escape the Divine Right of Kings, and wrote a Constitution that’s supposed to forbid another theocracy.

        • Richard Grise, you really need to do some research.

          Nowhere in any of the founding documents will you find a line saying “This Constitution is hereby drafted in order to prevent a theocracy from being formed,” or anything to that effect.

          The development of a theocracy was forbidden by implication with the First Amendment, which clearly states that “Congress shall make no law… [pertaining to] an establishment of religion.” What that means is that anybody is free to observe any religion they wish, and our Government is forbidden from doing anything about it. And just as we are free to observe any religion we wish, we are also free to NOT observe a religion if we so choose. And because of that, a theocracy has been implicitly forbidden in this country.

          A common misconception that people like to spout off about is a “separation of church and state.” What was originally intended was that the State stays out of Religion; NOT that Religion stays out of the State. For example, the Christian religion is present in many state and local governments, and parts of the federal government, in the form of its Christian members. People who live their lives according to Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Buddhist/whatever values are going to support legislative action that aligns with their beliefs, because their beliefs dictate their values and how they live their lives.

          Catholic politicians will support pro-life and pro-family legislative action, just as a Buddhist politician would probably support legislative action that encourages passivity and nonviolence. You get the point.

          The Pilgrims did not leave England and come to America to escape religion. They came to escape the persecution they faced if they chose to practice a religion OTHER than the king’s religion. They WANTED to practice and observe religion, they just didn’t want to be told how to do it. And THAT is the foundation of the First Amendment, our Constitution, and our Country.

        • “Nowhere in any of the founding documents will you find a line saying “This Constitution is hereby drafted in order to prevent a theocracy from being formed,” or anything to that effect.”

          Well, maybe you’re using a different dictionary, or speaking some other language, but to me, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is fairly clear.

          Worship whatever deity or deities you want to, but if you send men with guns to make me worship your deity, I will defend myself from your aggression.

        • Technicallly, the states could invoke a state religion. That is another factor destroying tbe incorporation farce. No matter how one feels , a simple read of tbe first amendment makes clear it applies only to Congress. You cannot infer a different meaning absent amending tbe words. Many states once had state religions.

        • Congratulations, you were successfully able to repeat what I just said.

          Language explicitly banning a theocracy was not included in the constitution, BECAUSE it is implicitly forbidden under the First Amendment. I don’t care who or what you worship and make no effort to sway you one way or another, BECAUSE the First Amendment protects the individual right to worship, or not worship, as you see fit.

        • Oh, I see the source of our confusion. When I say, “The Constitution,” I mean the Constitution with the Bill of Rights incorporated.

  2. ” the willful exchange of liberty for the illusion of safety or the public good”

    Amen brother. That’s the krups of it. It’s all about freedom. If I want to drink a damn 60 ounce soda, then that’s my decision. My right. With their (ill)logic, where does it all end? Apply their same misguided argument to alcohol or cars or anything else and where do we end up? Can I have someone’s license taken away with no due process, just by my word? No, but they can take your guns away with no due process – and want to make that federal law now too. It’s frikking communism any way you slice it.

  3. “The guns themselves are incidental; no matter how you may feel about them, I think we can all agree that a free society is worth fighting for. And that’s what this debate is really all about.”

    The guns are NOT incidental. We don’t all agree that “a free society is worth fighting for.” That’s the problem. The people who are OK with doing away with gun rights are also OK with giving up a lot of freedoms we as individuals cherish. As long as they can maintain their illusion of safety, and persist in the belief that Authority will save them, if bad comes to worse, then they are more than happy to abdicate both freedom and individual self-reliance.

    The reason we are actually winning this issue, is because our adversaries do not have the strength of their convictions. They have only the confidence and backbone that comes from thinking the majority and the government have their back – which is also an illusion.

  4. I believe that the gun control debate is really a culture war between gun owners on the one hand and fearful idiots on the other.

    Since there’s no way to give the cowering crowd a dose of courage, I expect this debate to continue ad infinitum. But at the end of the day — whenever that is — one side or the other may win, or one might get tired and decide to leave the other alone.

    I’m betting that if anybody quits, it won’t be us.

  5. I guess you must be frightened of me pseudo. Let me frighten you MORE. I believe in Jesus Christ, creator of heaven and earth. HE gave me my rights. Not some troll. Or men from the government.

    • Calm down, there is no need to pull out the Bronze-Age Sky Man on this one. There are plenty of valid arguments in favor of liberty, without resorting to that. If we were being painted into a corner and didn’t have reason, precedent, humanity, and decency on our side, then we might have to resort to that trump-card to justify our position – indeed, then we could justify anything, which is reason enough not to go there.

      • The communists and Nazis didn’t believe in any Judeo-Christian God either. Have a special secular day.

        • Not at all The SS especially was encouraged to atheism, or if one had to have a religion, Nordic gods like Wodan or Thor. Toleration or even pandering to a religion to further one’s cause is not the same as being part of that religion.

        • And the Crusades. The point being that religion is the worst mass killer, even beating out government, which is tantamount to a religion anyway.

        • “Toleration or even pandering to a religion to further one’s cause is not the same as being part of that religion.”

          So the next time a religious person invokes their God in order to do harm or take away liberty, how will I be able to tell if they are really religious or just pandering? I ask only because from where I stand it doesn’t make a difference what you motivation is, its your actions I’ll judge by?

        • Nazi party espoused atheism or Nordic gods, and sought eliminatiin of Christianity, while allowing it outwardly. How is that Christian? Your opinion does not square with facts. Sorry.

    • Actually, Mother Nature created us and gave us the rights. The Infinite Tyrant In the Sky just wants to take credit for Mother’s Creation and he keeps trying to be Cosmic Boss of Everything. He’s not, but it’s his trying that has led to all the bloodshed. Ever.

      In a lighter vein, the quickest and most effective path to Freedom is to Be Free.

      • The “religion is responsible for the most bloodshed” diatribe has been proven wrong so many times now that it is nothing but a tired cliché. Actually, land or “nature” is responsible for a lot of bloodshed, so go tell your mother to stop it.

  6. I cannot agree the line “The guns themselves are incidental”. If we are JUST fighting for FREEDOMS why are we not all a blaze over the patriot act and every injustice that followed? Why are so many of us apathetic when it comes to Snowdens revelations? I fight for my freedoms but I’ll fight for my guns first.

    • Indeed it is said that the pen is mightier than the sword, but when, at the stoke of a pen, they deny you your freedom, what will you reach for when they come – Your pen, or your sword?

    • “Why are so many of us apathetic when it comes to Snowdens revelations?”

      Some are apathetic. I believe many want to act. The problem is that those people who want to act are wise and realize that they cannot accomplish anything meaningful or lasting all by themselves.

      Those who want to act need to organize and determine a strategic plan of action. Once they are convinced that enough people will act in a coordinated effort to actually accomplish their objective, they will act.

  7. You can call those eggs 5-7s ’cause they are FN great. And you can’t possibly eat the toy as it is in a 1+” x2″ capsule.

  8. The day you hear a gun-control debate that doesn’t center around guns is the day Bloomberg will think he hears the sound of pearly gates closing to him. That would have to absolutely drive him bonkers!

  9. Did not read completely to damn long and convoluted, but I agree with the over all msg and I loved those things when I lived in England. With that said there not specifically banned we just have a law that says you can’t have somthing in food that’s not food (not sure how most processed food makes it here with that)

  10. I used to get paid to read and critique stuff like this. Only they were draft position papers, directives and regulations. I seriously believe the authors (very highly-paid defense contractors) subscribed to the “Plop” theory of writing; that is, if you didn’t hear a loud “plop” when you dropped the document on a table it was too short, regardless of what you had to say.

    I don’t get paid to do this any more (I retired), so I didn’t read the whole article. I think I lost the bubble (and interest) somewhere around the fourth or fifth paragraph.

    Brevity is the kindest compliment you can pay to an idea, to coin a phrase. Otherwise you’re trying to baffle with BS. Invoking another old but true saying, You can’t BS a BSer.

  11. USA does not have a gun problem, it has a war on drugs problem. The USA did not have gun problem during prohibition, it had a war on alcohol problem.

    • Actually, the US has much more than a “war on drugs” problem. That is merely one symptom… along with the war on energy, guns, raw milk, ad nausea. The real problem is the perception of so many people that any government, any set of “rulers” has some legitimate authority to control their lives, to dictate their diets or health care and so forth. And that remains true even when those same people object to the control, to the “war on” whatever. They can’t see past the idea that they are the only ones with legitimate authority… over themselves, and nobody else.

      That illigitimate “authority” is what has to be exposed, refuted and destroyed. Anything else we do is fighting the symptoms, not the disease. Fighting the symptoms in the meantime, and as a bridge to the more important thing, is very wise, but far too few people see the core problem yet.

      I think this writer tried to say that, and made many good points. A condensed version would be more powerful.

  12. “I think most people would agree that the PATRIOT act was an egregious misstep…”

    The PATRIOT Act wasn’t a “misstep”. Calling it that implies that those responsible were acting in good faith, but just miscalculated the effect it would have. That abomination was a police-state wish list that had been in the works for a long time, just waiting for the right opportunity to cram it through with minimal opposition.

  13. When talking about the increase in violence there is never any mention about income, jobs, housing, inflation, personal/family safety or other social/economic issues that greatly affect a person’s happiness. Happy people don’t commit violence. Simplistic, maybe, but those who can provide food shelter and clothing for themselves and theirs have other priorities. There is a lot more to it than “gun nuts” (Of which I am proudly one) and those on anti-depressants.

    And as far as “gun nuts” goes:
    1) Can we call grabbers Tyranny Nuts?
    2) Only boy guns have ’em.

  14. Good article. I got butt-hurt (excuse me, bum-hurt) at your Canada comment! lol But ya, Kinder Eggs/Kinder Toys are awesome…and it’s not like we don’t have toys with small parts and choking hazard down here in the States. The US border guys confiscated $30+ worth of Kinder Eggs from my kids and me on one of our trips…made my youngest cry! Wouldn’t even let us eat the chocolate first…and had to fill out all kinds of paperwork to surrender them. There’s no risk of accidently ingesting the toy while eating the chocolate. The toy is within a plastic capsule inside the egg, and most require some assembly once opened.

    • Yes, I was also a little disturbed to see Canada described as a stupid place, because it is not, certainly different than the US, but not stupid.

  15. There is a broader context to this debate. One aspect of this is the notion that we should rely on government to care for us and manage all aspects of our lives, in return all we have to do is submit to unbridled authority. The idea that we should exchange responsibility for our own safety, for the meaningless assurance of police protection sounds reasonable to some of our intellectually challenged fellow citizens. This is reinforced by the belief that the morally superior citizen renounces all violence, with the exception of acts of violence committed by agents of government.

    Some of the citizens of these United States are fortunate to live and work in places that provide insulation from violent criminals. If you live in a gated community and are willing to pay a little more to shop in upscale stores you have a much greater expectation of spending your entire existence without ever coming into contact with someone who would do you harm. If you are privileged, concern about your personal security can be much more theoretical at no cost to you. Such people provide fertile ground for the efforts of the propagandists who are paid to convince us to disarm.

  16. wayyyy too long and way off the mark in my opinion. It is about guns. I have accomplished many a conversion wrt the gun control debate, albeit with non-marxist center of the road non gun owners that were not hell bent on fundamental transformation.

    point out that guns and the brave individuals that wielded said guns kicked off our split from a tyrannical government that was out to take away guns that very morning, in order to ensure this country could never be created.
    point out to the genius who believes that no one should own an AR 15, that 6 million jews in retrospect would given everything if given a second chance, to own an AR 15. And watch their expression.
    point out 100,000 die EVERY YEAR via hospital acquired infections, so perhaps we should just ban hospital using the same logic.
    I could go on and on, just as the author.
    Never shrink from the gun in the gun debate. Ever. Its weak.

  17. You stated:

    “At the heart of things, the “gun” component of gun control is merely a set piece for a larger issue: the willful exchange of liberty for the illusion of safety or the public good.”

    With respect, I think your statement is incorrect.

    I think different people have different reasons for supporting gun control. For some (perhaps many), they are anti-gun because their friend/relative/neighbor was injured/killed by someone’s maliciousness/negligence with a firearm. For some, it’s simply that they’ve been taught that only police/military should have guns and they’ve always accepted that. They’ve bought the idea that their own self-defense is someone else’s responsibility. Others may not have known any victim of a gun crime/accident, but perhaps their current/former neighborhood had gang members with guns, and that’s how they view them – as the tools of a gang of thugs.

    For a portion of gun control advocates (I suspect a relatively small portion), I think they favor gun control because they want to exert control over other people. I suspect that regarding those folks, helping them change their mind will be either extremely difficult or impossible. But for many of the others, there’s a chance that they can see things differently.

    I don’t think the “liberty” argument that you appear to be presenting is going to work for many people. The issue for many won’t be “safety vs. liberty” … the issue is simply “safety” period. Also, to put it bluntly, there are too many people who simply don’t care about liberty. They may claim to, but liberty requires responsibility, and they’d gladly trade their liberty for less responsibility for their own lives.

    IMO, the solution is to educate people about … well, the truth about guns. One by one, if necessary. Show them how the media lies and distorts the truth (e.g. “the gun went off” BS). Show them how the anti-gun folks lie and distort the truth (inflated or erroneous statistics, discredited studies, etc.). Show them how the gun laws that are proposed and/or already exist have no hope of achieving the purported desired outcomes.

    Different arguments could work for different people. Such as …

    “You want a ‘gun-free zone’ sign at the school / restaurant / store / etc. If we can assume that someone who is willing to go on a spree killing one of these locations is either evil and/or insane, what makes you think that evil and/or insane person will obey that sign?”

    “You’re upset about the NSA spying on everyone, and about local, state and federal cops arresting people for harmless drug use, consuming raw milk, etc. Why exactly do you want those same folks that are abusing people to be the ONLY people who have firearms?”

    “Do you really think that a thug is going to stop being a thug if he can’t get his hands on a gun?”

    The fight for liberty is a good one but is a separate issue as far as gun control goes. One does not need to be all on board about liberty in order to be pro-gun.

    • very well stated. With conditioning by the media and indoctrination within the public school system, liberty is becoming a confusing abstract for a fair number of low information individuals, the same individuals that willingly trade their ability to support themselves for the helping hand of a sympathetic and altruistic central government.

      Your sample arguments are framed such that they create a visual, such as the gun free zone sign and a maniac walking right past it….visuals help. It is hard to visualize liberty, however.

  18. to rg. god has been used in the name of conquest for hundreds of years. the armed subjugation of the hemisphere we live in was done in the name of god and the cross always marched before the gun.

  19. “Typically speaking, the perpetrators of tragic events involving guns fall into at least one of the following three categories: bad people, insane people and idiots. Most people, however, are not bad, insane or idiots (and for the most part, the ones who are idiots aren’t the type of idiot who puts lives at risk). Here’s what I’m getting at: whenever a bad, insane or idiotic person does something bad, insane or idiotic with a gun, the immediate reaction is to call for tighter restrictions on carrying and owning guns. But given that most people are good, sane, and relatively intelligent, is that really fair or effective?”

    Money quote!

  20. Well-written, and I’m stealing his definition of the debate as “To exchange liberty for the illusion of safety or the public good.” That’s good stuff!

    • There is a better quote out there:
      “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
      Benjamin Franklin

  21. The point IMO is that the crux is the the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in a nutshell. I have the right to protect my life. I have the right to liberty and to happiness…

    Translation: Whatever I choose to own, make, believe, carry is none of your business unless I infringe on your rights and if you choose to challenge me about the same then we have a Civil Liberties issue. This should be our stance.

  22. Animism still exists in our society. Some liberals commonly believe in the animism of guns, just as some conservatives believe in the animism of drugs.

  23. Just like anything that is banned, I still can find Kinder eggs. I have a bunch of the toys sitting around. I find it funny that the their country of origin still allows those scary assault eggs to be sold to children.

  24. A final thought…why do you anti-Christian gun people bring up the crusades or the Inquisition? I am NOT CATHOLIC and am a protestant. Labeling every so-called Christian responsible for the atrocities of the Catholic church makes you NO DIFFERENT than the leftwing loons who label all us gun owners as bloodthirsty redneck knuckledraggers who want to kill their kids.

    • I only mention it to express my fear of theocracy and why I have that fear. “I’m gonna save your soul if I have to burn you at the stake to do it!”

      No, thanks, I’ll see to my own soul, thanks anyway.

  25. The GUN control debate is the GUN control debate. Notice the word ‘gun’? Yeah. Why on earth would we remove the guns from the gun control debate? The gun control debate is not the civil liberties debate, it is the gun control debate. There is a difference, namely one focuses on firearm liberties and the other on everything else.
    You say you want to make guns normal, and that the antis are uninformed. How do you think that we are meant to inform them about something that we are avoiding discussing? If you want to inform antis about guns, talk about them! Tell them that they are not evil, tell them they cannot go off without the trigger being pulled, tell them that the person behind the gun is to blame! You are simply rolling over to the likes of MDA’s mob here- making the discussion of guns taboo. If anything, we should focus more on the firearms that the situation around it. The question here is “should we ban guns?”, not “is the government denying us out civil liberties?”. Two different debates.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here