Previous Post
Next Post

Scott Martelle (courtesy

“Ban the guns, and slowly but inexorably bring our culture back from this violent, communal madness. It won’t be fast, it won’t be easy, it probably won’t even be possible given the political realities. But the status quo is unacceptable and, at one level, suicidal. We have to try to fix this.” – Scott Martelle, You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether [via]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • “It won’t be fast, it won’t be easy, it probably won’t even be possible given the political realities.”
      And the death of those that try is more than a political reality.

    • Guys like this are the reason why this left-libertarian doesn’t trust socialists. Scratch the surface of one and you get a pompous, self-righteous control freak.

      Look at their history. They make common cause with the more libertarian left then stab them in the back the coalition gets any political power.

      This is yet another data point in my theory that socialists crave control and power far more than they care for anyone’s welfare.

      • Your political definitions are perplexing.

        Libertarian is on the Right. You can’t be left libertarian anymore than you can be a free communist. The lie that facism and nazi-ism is on the right apparently persists.

        Extreme left is 100% gov’t power and zero freedom. Socialism, fascism, communism, and any other type of totalitarian gov’t is on the left. Extreme right is 100% freedom and zero gov’t oversight, aka anarchy.

        The ‘classic’ notion that totalitarian communism is on the left, and totalitarian fascism is on the right, isn’t a spectrum that makes sense. It’s a lie concocted by Stalin, marxists, and other leftists to make themselves look less totalitarian. The media and foreigners say D is right and R is far right, but they are both left of where we started as a country.

        The natural tendency of governments is to slowly reach for more power, and slide continually left.

        The fact that the American Left and Right are using different spectrums for the two terms isn’t helping, and any meaningful debate is lost in the name calling.

        • “The ‘classic’ notion that totalitarian communism is on the left, and totalitarian fascism is on the right, isn’t a spectrum that makes sense.”

          Of course it does, when you realize there are two devils:

          The spectrum of the Spirit Polarity goes from Lucifer on the extreme left to Ahriman on the extreme right, with your spirit and my loving Light, of course, in the center. Lucifer is warm, earthy, sweet and sexual, and often mean, brutish and demanding. Ahriman is cool, mental, astringent and rational, and quite detached and judgmental.

          While Lucifer is sly, Ahriman is clever, and they both hate the Mother, but for different reasons. In a face to face battle, Ahriman will always outwit Lucifer, and yet Lucifer will sometimes win with sheer force of ill intent and ‘dirty tricks’.

          At least, that’s what it says at .

          So, yeah, the right and left wing are different from each other, but the same in their intent to dominate and exterminate all opposition. That’s why the flip-flopping all the time. Lucifer and Satan locked in mortal combat, like any of those pairs of fighting guys from Star Trek, being acted out, and Liberty and humanity taking the beating.

          It’s time to release both of them back to the Void.

        • I do my best to not sound like the average republican talk radio head. Left and Right is nonsense. Both parties are socialistic in nature. Both fund socialism whether on Main Street or Wall Street.

          Our tax code is socialistic in nature. A big chunk of the wealth confiscated through income taxes only pays interest on national debt. The Federal Reserve Bank doesn’t mind. That started a hundred years ago Dec. 23, 1913 when no one was watching. Another evil amendment to the Constitution.

          Wealth is redistributed by politicians to buy votes or garner campaign contributions. When the GOP calls Grandma and cons her into donating money, that money is given to candidates you would probably not have get elected which is one reason they have been there for years.
          Listen to Bastiat-The Law

          • All true. I’d say the matter is larger than financial, however, since the GOP leadership has either not opposed or actively embraced the Left’s radical anti-family and anti-religious agenda. Folks like Priebus, Romney, McConnell, and Boehner may pay lip service to conservatism, but increasingly they’re not even doing that. As the bulwarks of church and family collapse under the regulatory, fiscal, and academic assault, the already-oppressive government will grow even faster.

  1. Bring our culture back to what? Tribal warfare? Feudalism? We as humans must accept that evil exists and no amount of legislation will eliminate. With the recent slaying of a ten year old girl by a school employee here I had to explain to my nine year old that evil exists, and we have to watch out for the bad people. Reiterated the old “stranger danger” training. Which really sucks since I grew up in a rural area nobody messed around. Lots of “back forty”s to get buried if you f’ed with the wrong folks.

      • Nailed it!!!!!

        People like Scott play both sides. If their gun control utopia ever materializes, they can claim rock star status for having pushed it. If nothing ever materializes, they haven’t lost anything. I loathe people like him.

      • I’m fairly certain that is what this is all about.

        If I need no one other than myself for my own defense, what else do I really need government for? It is fundamental.

        • We are supposed to need government to secure our rights from large organized entities that a single person cannot successfully take on. Oh the irony that government is often infringing rights rather than securing them.

  2. Ok, so now they are calling for complete bans they know to be impossible, and cdc studies they know are already underway… I have this funny feeling that the article was written to attract pro gun commenters, to hyper inflate their readership. In fact, I’m starting to think that’s what they’re ALL doing.

    • This IS what they’re doing, no question. The media isn’t truly right or left, it’s just so heavily invested in the combative nature of the right-left narrative, it doesn’t know how to be objective anymore. Controversy, and tragedy, sell. And the major networks and newspapers are in business to make money. I suspect that’s why CNN let Piers Morgan out on such a long leash: he was so offensive to American gun owners, it actually boosted web-traffic and viewership with outraged folks falling all over themselves to spew expletives, not bothering to understand they were helping CNN’s ad revenue by doing so. That worked for them for a while. This is the true bias of the American media: they like it when you’re angry and outraged, it makes them more money. It makes TTAG more money. Have you looked at the comments section of (firearms, NOT politics) lately? It’s like a ghost town. This is why we have terms like “white hispanic” and “assault weapon,” neither of which are real things. I’m curious if reporters out there actually do know the difference between .9mm and 9mm, and just add the decimal because they know they can bank on a few extra comments to correct them which they can turn around and sell to their ad buyers as “enhanced reader engagement.”

  3. Ban the First amendment in print or electronic media.
    Make them get a license to practice speaking their mind on subverting the constitution.
    We have to try and fix this.

    • Most statists don’t have much love for the First Amendment either. They use it as a weapon–to force their opinions down our throat. They believe only certain people should be allowed to speak–those certain people being themselves, of course. The rest of us rubes, or really anyone who disagrees with them, should sit down and shut up.

    • I know you probably meant this in jest, but Ted Cruz was on Hannity the other night and he said that the Dems in the Senate are actually planning on bringing a constitutional amendment up to vote that would give the government power to regulate political speech. Which is a SCARY thing to think about. Doesn’t matter what side you are on, EVERYONE should have the right to say what they want without government interference.

      • By and large, I agree.

        Having said that, do we really have a right to say/publish anything? Does someone have a right to publish a “how to guide” that teaches people how to kidnap and molest children without being captured?

        • They most certainly do. Phillip Greaves of Pueblo, CO wrote and sold “The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure”. Amazon even sold it for a while until public outrage persuaded them to discontinue selling it on their site. Made him the most famous child molester in the country for a while. He did end up getting arrested in FL for violating a state indecency law, but his product is out there.

        • Of course they do.

          In fact, such a book actually serves a useful public purpose.

          If the book is accurate in how to kidnap a child, it reveals areas of vulnerability that can be corrected to reduced such kidnappings.

        • Economist and (maybe) libertarian Milton Friedman fielded questions like this all the time. Invariably, his answer was that yes, even idiots have a right to write, say or do idiotic things. If it’s over the line, the people will bring down the punishment through the force of popular opinion. Would you really want the government making those decisions instead of us? Because it’s guaranteed that they won’t limit their meddling to pedophiles and other nasties.

  4. Forget what he’s saying, because it’s not exactly a state secret. Our anti gun reps in Congress have been trying to do exactly this for years.

    No, what we should focus on is WHY he’s saying that. Pay attention to the words.

    “Firearms are a public safety threat…”

    Why does he say that? Because he lives in a city where the only exposure an average Joe has to guns is when something bad is happening. LA ain’t Mayberry, where Uncle Ed keeps a 12 gauge by the fireplace for all to see and town residents don’t lock their doors. Without positive role models for how guns HELP the community, the only thing people in cities have to go on are the negatives.

    It reminds me of a time I talked with a leftist chick in Chicago who wanted to ban cars. She cited accident statistics and how vehicles pollute the atmosphere, etc. I asked in response If she’d ever driven a Corvette or BMW before.

    “That’s not the point” , meaning no. But it was, as shed lived her whole life in a city where mass transit was everywhere, cars were of limited use given traffic problems, and she’d never driven on a dragstrip or on a nice curvy road sometime.

    We need to find a way to make the Second Amendment relevant to the average city dweller , in the way the First Amendment is . The reason the latter is so fiercely protected and the Second ignored, is because people can easily see the value of a free media-while they don’t see the value in having easy access to a Sig Sauer pistol.

    In short we don’t have a legal problem. We have a marketing problem.

    • Exactly right. Unfortunately, we can’t do away with cities either, so what do you suggest?

    • As a semi-frequent visitor to Chicago, their elitist view on cars is almost hilarious considering how bad traffic is there.

      “Nobody drives here! The traffic is too bad!”

      • Just like Yogi Berra who said something similar, “nobody goes to that restaurant anymore it’ss always too crowded”.

  5. Yikes! This may define delusional and disconnected from reality. The human condition is that of an animal basically. We have a greater capability for higher thought and emotional control, but those skills must be developed and honed. Sadly, the leftist culture has made developing and honing those skills unacceptable and politically incorrect. So how will humans be less violent when we don’t dare tell people to control their emotions lest their self esteem get hurt. Eliot Rodger was a great example of this.

  6. At the very least I applaud his honesty. There aren’t many willing to say they want to control so many in such simple language.

    • +1… The only gun control position I respect is the “ban ’em all” position. It is honest, and, misguided though it is, actually springs from a desire to reduce crime. All of the other gun control platforms, including the various flavors of “I support the 2nd Amendment, but..,” are, at best, concerned with security theater (“Even though it doesn’t do anything, we should try something…”), and at worst about punishing political enemies (aka men who like AR’s and vote Republican).

  7. In a really strange, ironic way, I kind of admire people like him. At least he’s saying exactly what he wants and not hiding behind the facade of “common sense”, “we just want to have a conversation” and “we need to do something”. Obviously, he’s wrong, and he’s a fool, but at least he’s being honest about what his goals.

    • Agree 100%. I have a very left-leaning friend who likes advocating for the repeal of the Second Amendment. I think he’s nuts, but I appreciate his honesty more than my friends who disagree with the Heller decision — and, therefore, do not respect that we have a constitutional right — and then try to discuss “reasonable” and “common sense” restrictions with me. If you do not respect that it is a right, then there is no restriction that you would find unreasonable.

    • I may not agree with one’s opinion but yes, just tell me what you feel. Then we can argue.

      On my own forum (not a gun forum but we have a “random chatter” section) the antis dress up their tactics in a barrage of charts and FBI data when you ask them what their proposed solution to the recent unfortunate events is.

      Just tell me you want to ban private ownership of firearms, then we can argue.

    • So now it is past time that we should be honest. The answer to anyone advocating any infringement to the RKBA, should be “Try to take my guns and I will kill you.” This is not a threat. It is a warning. It is not bullying. Bullying is unjustified. Killing to defend Liberty is a patriot’s obligation.
      There is no argument.

      • I would precede your warning with an extremely important comment. It is patently offensive and demeaning that someone tells you what personal property you can own and possess. Whether that someone is a family member, neighbor, mob, or a legislature doesn’t matter.

        Maybe the other person will then understand your warning after explaining the context.

        • Why muddy the waters with more facts that the left will ignore? The warning does not precede the gun control argument. It immediately follows it. The context will be understood with no further room for debate.

  8. Your right, we do have to fix this. I like the plan of removing violent deranged people so they don’t become a danger to other folk. Oh and by the way Scott, just look at Michoacan,Mexico if you think banning guns is a good idea.

  9. It’s weird how you can tell if they are an anti just by looking at them. You don’t even have to read the quote to know what their agenda is.

  10. To me the most telling part of this article is when he hunkers down to ‘debunk’ self defense by claiming there’s ‘no trust worth’ data on it. Read: if the data that doesn’t support my opinion doesn’t count.

    I for one am absolutely sick of the ‘Billy’s eating the paste argument’. On idiot does something wrong or stupid and now EVERYONE must be prohibited from having any ‘paste’.

      • I’ve had anti’s argue precisely that. I was told that my data was ‘biased’. FBI UCR is biased? How?

        That earned me a ban from their FB page.

      • Actually, FBI violent crime data is NOT trustworthy, but not in the sense that comes to mind.

        I believe the FBI is accurately reporting the data that they receive from law enforcement agencies around the U.S. However, there is A LOT of violent crime that victims never report to law enforcement agencies for various reasons. Therefore, the FBI is seriously underreporting violent crime.

        Why wouldn’t a victim come forward you might ask? The victim:
        (1) figures the police are not motivated to solve the crime.
        (2) figures the police cannot solve the crime even if motivated.
        (3) fears retribution and wants to “cut their losses”.
        (4) is an ex-convict and fears the police will arrest them.
        (5) has a warrant for their arrest and cannot come forward.
        (6) was engaged in illegal activity (prostitution) when the assault occurred.
        (7) wants to deliver “street justice” themselves in the future.
        (8) is dead and buried somewhere and no one ever reports them missing.

        When you figure how many people (especially in urban areas) fall under these reasons, I can actually picture that victims choose not to report a majority of violent crimes.

        • Thankfully, the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes not reported to police, also shows that violent crime has fallen precipitously, and that victims who report defending themselves with firearms also report the best outcomes.

        • There is a lot of crime that the police agencies do not report to the FBI. Chicago in particular has been caught cooking the books to to try to show that violent crime has fallen since McArthy took over. I think the NYPD has also “reclassified” crimes to “improve” statistics.

    • It’s not Billy’s fault his parents aren’t providing a nutritionally complete diet. 😉

    they will get their way, constitution be damned. they hate the 1st amendment as well.

    they will just disband the constitution. get your ammo and guns now guys. we know their long term plan and they will stop nothing to achieve it.

  12. I’m really sick of listening to these claims of a “culture of violence”

    These people are outright delusional. Violent crime is decreasing except for gun control “utopias” where a number of factors, not just gun control, does nothing to stop the horrible violence in the streets. In fact, go visit Chicago, talk to some residents. They are oddly resigned to how bad the violence is. Yet because it is limited to a certain part of town they don’t seem to care.

    Tell you what, the deep blue states can’t keep introducing all the gun control bills they want. Just leave those of us who haven’t surrendered our states to the prog agenda alone. I am so sick of California, New York, etc. trying to set the agenda for the rest of the country. We don’t want your problems here.

    • “Culture of Violence.”

      Americans are a warlike people, that’s a fact. However, in this man’s delusion it is that quality that inspires this street violence, and not the war on drugs or his many (I’m sure) recent drug purchases. People with whom he has no knowledge or experience must be to blame for this thing that he actually engages with personally, probably on a daily basis.

  13. How about you just ban stupid people? seriously, the opposing left side continues to make these comments that go beyond ignorance, an land in the realm of stupidity.

    And for anybody who agrees with the gentleman in the article hear this. Firearms have been apart of my life since I was a child. Deal with it. Nobody got shot when the gun just “went off” because we were taught to respect the firearm as a tool. I have owned and carried firearms to include everything from a .40 caliber flock, to a M4, and I currently own 3 AR15s. So please tell me more about how I’m just waiting to commit a violent act, because we both know nobody who is a responsible, mature gun owner, never will. Please tell me I only need 10 rounds in my 9 mm SIG when crackhead Eddie kicks in my door in the middle of the night. Please tell me I only need 10 rounds when I find myself being circles by a group of urban youths who are not looking to sell me popcorn. Tell me who the hell decided that 10 rounds was the magic number and all crime would go away?
    Quit trying to tell me what I can have to defend myself and others. You clearly don’t understand that shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.

  14. I’ll play the Missouri game with him.

    Show me one place where an outright ban on guns has led to less death.

  15. I thought you guys were already trying to do that? Oh well, thanks for the clarification.

  16. The reason anti’s can never win an argument: First they ignore cold hard fats presented to them. Second, they aren’t honest in making their argument.

    The fact is, they all want to ban all guns and repeal the 2nd amendment but they know that wont work so they have to try and package in some way that is “acceptable”.

    • How do you argue with a liberal? You don’t. Like you said, they are dishonest. You can debate facts against facts but when they refuse to acknowledge facts then what are you left to do? Call them a liar? They think they have won at that point. You must be willing to tell the hardest truth. “Try to take my guns and I will kill you”. That is the long version of Molon labe. Don’t give a hint with a Latin meme. Come right out and say it. Say it calmly as matter of fact.

      • You don’t have an argument with idiots. They will just drag you down to their level and beat you through experience.

  17. Scott Martelle is the classic example of a liberal douchebag; so convinced with self-righteous attempts at picking the low-hanging fruit that he completely misses the mark on the deeper historical and current political implications of the argument.

    That’s the problem with these people. They always think the have a quick fix to the problem. They are more than willing to stand up in front of a camera and makes asses of themselves, like Shannon Watts, but when the economy heads in the toilet through corruption in Congress, and US foreign and domestic policies continue to eviscerate our economy at the behest of the globalists, they can’t seem to muster enough enough neurons to connect any dots.

    Yes, Scott, it is all related and had you been paying more attention to the larger picture, you might have crawled out from under that rock you’ve been cowering under long enough to realize that making this world a safer place for our children takes more than showing away the bogey-man; it takes some cojones. Yes, it is getting scary out out there, but that is only because too many people for too long have allowed our world to get this way.

    When we, as a race, are ready to abandon guns it will be because no one is interested in them anymore. Then, and only then, will we be able to sit around by the campfire and sing Kumbaya.

  18. I think this guy is 100% correct. Just to prove his point we banned all guns in our house including the revolver in our game set of Clue. Last night the family sat down to play Clue and there was still a murder. Shit! we followed his advice that someone still got killed. How can this be? This guy was 100% correct but still ended to being wrong. He needs to come up with a better plan.

    Sarcasm alert over.

  19. Violence hits 40-year low, liberal commentator screams for culture to end its self-destructive madness.

  20. I agree we should ban all guns – but only if we enforce the ban on everyone, including every single government agency, and only if the government’s guns were confiscated first!

    Alternatively, I would accept a compromise in which we ban all guns but also ban every federal agency created by and since FDR.

    Somehow, though, I think the gun grabbers aren’t open to my proposals…

  21. Well duh. This has been known to those of us intelligent to see the truth decades ago. The fact liberals want to ban guns is a surprise to me…NOT!!! Murder and violent Part 1 crimes are on the overall DECREASE and have been for years.

  22. Maybe the writer of this idea didn’t know that more mothers HAVE and WILL again kill there children and themselves without guns in the past and present… At least with the guns there is a small chance but at least their would be a chance to catch them before they murder their own children and possibly themselves…

  23. Well, there’s nothing left to ban in California! They have arrived at the bottom of the slippery slope! There’s nothing left to do except overtly banning guns! We said this day would come. Here we are.

  24. Ok, great. Let’s ban all guns. No problem. Every private gun owned to be handed in and destroyed. Done.

    Now, since there are no guns left the police can give up their guns. What’s that? They can’t? Why ever not? Because the people you need a gun to defend yourself from are not about to give up their guns and guns are not the only weapon that can be used to hurt people.

    The antis just blurt out whatever is on their mind without thinking it through. Perhaps it might be an ides for one of them to move into a an area with rampant crime and see if they feel the same way.

  25. People using guns to commit crimes are criminals. According to the civilian disarmament folks the best way to prevent criminal violence is to ban law-abiding citizens from possessing guns. Makes sense, but only if you are insane. Because they are insane, these folks cannot answer “No” to Q 11(f) on Form 4473 and therefore cannot legally have a firearm transferred to them.
    No wonder they want to take our guns away!

  26. This comment is an extinction burst. He and his anti-gun cohorts know they are losing ground…

    Comments such as this are just a last ditch effort to regain ground they feel that they lost.

    An easy to understand example of an extinction burst would be pushing the buttons on an elevator. If you push the up button, but the elevator does not go up, you are not getting your desired result, a desired result which you have a habituated to. So what do you do?

    You push the button again, and again and again, then you start pushing it harder and harder. Eventually, you might even smack or hit the instrument panel, before you finally give up, move on, and find another way.

    The pushing of the buttons and smacking of the panel is the extinction burst. Extinction burst are usually emotional and very aggressive in nature.

    Now, I’m just eagerly waiting for the part where they move on.

  27. “We have a marketing problem.” because guys like this are sought by and published in the MSM exaggerating the available statistics to John and Jane Q. Public to make it appear to them that “gun violence” is a national scourge. The reality is these kinds of spurious exaggerations reach those who are uninformed and not POTG thereby shaping their opinions, while those who speak the truth about the reality of gun-involved violence mainly “preach to the choir” and are suppressed by both MSM and Internet Media escaping the attention of J & J Q. Public. We have a marketing problem because our message does not reach the necessary audience.

    If the MSM would publish regular articles detailing how Armed Citizens successfully defend themselves and others, and decrying and defining the slaughter in the inner cities and the inadequacies of the mental health care system that turns people like the Newtown, CT and Santa Barbara, CA Spree Killers loose, then it would be a different situation.

    Yes, we have a serious “marketing problem”. We have little or no access to the people who NEED to hear what we are saying, and those same people are constantly fed exaggerated, one-sided lies like what this guy got published in the LA Times.

    I know it is tiresome that I keep saying this, but it follows Josef Goebbels axiom perfectly and until we can break this cycle of one-sided spurious spin, we cannot properly present our side of the matter to the general public…EVER!

    For those who don’t know it, Goebbels Axiom:
    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    • your comment is sort of unintentionally ironic, I think. the reason the “war on drugs” doesn’t work is precisely because drugs are banned, not because they are only moderately regulated.

      • You’d think they’d realize that banning guns would have the same effect as banning drugs. but they don’t seem to be making the connection. Lack of forethought? Maybe, but maybe it is also the fact that they like the revolving door at the jails and the court system to keep the money rolling in from all the fines etc.

        I wonder if our economy would suffer if everyone just behaved themselves and stayed out of jail? Yea I know, never gonna happen, but it’s interesting to think about.
        No one wants to pay taxes and suddenly they don’t have money coming in from the courts either, all those thousands of people out of work…It would be great if people could just get along.

  28. Awww…beat me to the cold dead hands. Always messing with ARMED people. Not too bright Scottie!

  29. This is typical of the average libtards inability to think ahead, or outside of the box.
    As long as society muddles along in a fairly civilized manner most of the time, the sheep are fat and content, all is well, you don’t need a means of defense, blah, blah, blah.
    What happens when there’s a major breakdown in society, police are taking care of themselves and their own families, and you have nothing to defend yourself against the savage hordes?
    Disarmament is a one-way street to the grave, as many totalitarian regimes have demonstrated, over and over again.

  30. Right. If the author really wants to see “violent, communal madness,” he should go ahead and actually get a firearms prohibition passed by Congress. That would wake him up to “political realities,” and I bet he’d very quickly realize how astronomically worse it gets compared to this comparatively peaceful and prosperous but apparently “[unacceptable] status quo.”

  31. I am thinking there are several problems one might encounter in banning or even trying to control firearms. The first would be that there are too many guns already in circulation. Very few people would willingly turn their guns in for fear of criminals, government, etc.. This would lead to legislating law abiding people into becoming criminals. Also, bear in mind that many people buy and sell guns breaking the trail of documentation. Secondly, The number of people who would probably rise up the defend their guns would be staggering. This would necessarily involve the military being used on our home soils. The FBI can go after the lone gunman or two, but would not be effective against several thousands of people. Third, and most important is that there are states who would literally side with the gun owning populations of their respective states. See civil war.

  32. Anyone taking an honest look at the governments “zero tolerance” policy with the schools has had to realize they have been planning for some time, and are actively conditioning children to perceive civilian ownership of firearms as unlawful or even evil.

    • Yep – and a whole lotta stupid parents, whose numbers seem to grow every year, were happy with that policy, too.

  33. They tried banning booze in the 20’s. All that did was make men like Al Capone rich and made the under ground economy flourish. Americans will have their guns just like they got their booze. When will these jerks learn. You may have to pay a little more for what you want, but in the end you can get it.

    Got to love Americans!

    • Interesting thing about the Progressive inspired Prohibition is that it passed because everyone thought it wasn’t going to effect them, it was only going to effect someone else. Even some of the Beer companies were initially for Prohibition because they thought it would only ban hard liquor, thus giving them a monopoly on the alcohol beverage market. Kind of sounds familiar doesn’t it.

      • Oddly, even though the insane War on (some) Drugs was apparently a Reich-wing thing (Tricky Dick Nixon), they are practically indistinguishable as to their effects, albeit the victims of the War on (some) Drugs are almost exclusively black or brown.

  34. just as people opposing open carry are doing more to keep bans in place than they wish to admit. after all, open carry isn’t “reasonable” is it……

  35. What I want to say to these people is, show me how this plays out! What is going to happen when you “ban guns altogether?” They don’t all disappear, automagically, you know?! How do you keep them out of the hands of people that don’t obey the laws, anyway?!

  36. This is my surprised face.

    But, he does realize that banning guns is gun control, right? And he also realizes that he says gun control won’t work (which is true), right?

  37. He even acknowledges that the supreme court gets things wrong, but uses that as ‘evidence’ against Heller. His understanding of what is ‘constitutional’ is based entirely on wishful thinking. To push his conclusion that personal gun ownership Ian not constitutional, he had to completely ignore the relevant text!

    This man’s entire world view is based on misconceptions and misinformation. He states that libel and slander laws limit free speech but fails to acknowledge that literally any opinion can be spoken or printed, only false accusations, presented as fact that cause real harm are punishable.

    So let’s break it down, let’s extract the key parts that talk about the right. Just that abstract concept, removed from the items the right refers to; “…The right of the people…shall not be infringed.” That sounds pretty damned absolute to me. To me that sentence means that regardless of what right is being referred to, that right is absolute, and where the first only limits congress from infringing, this sentence limits every one, at every level of government from infringing.

    I think it’s most telling that his analysis is mostly devoid of supporting evidence. He simply cannot risk referencing the actual amendment so instead brings up the relatively recent SCOTUS ruling, then points out that they get things wrong. He essentially negates the only support he presents for his views and then offers his own authoritative opinion to alleviate the confusion this creates.

    What a maroon.

  38. I suppose the fact that shotguns are used in more murders than “assault weapons” never crossed his mind.

  39. I am simply going to say this:

    Look, gun control is nothing more than a marketing ploy to make it look as if politicians are trying to keep people safe, all the while taking guns only out of the hands of the law abiding citizens. They aren’t taking guns out of the hands of criminals by doing this. If you really want to have gun control that actually means something, here’s how you do it.
    The 5 steps to true gun control, without which, gun control will never work
    1. ban and confiscate all weapons World Wide. Including that of the Military & Police
    2. Close all gun shops World Wide.
    3. My Favorite because I get to be called Barbaric, KILL ALL GUNSMITHS and Blacksmiths WORLD WIDE and destroy their equipment & factories!
    4. Destroy all literature pertaining to the manufacture of guns or ammo world wide.
    5. Delete all references pertaining to gun and ammo manufacture from the internet.

    You might ask why would this have to be done exactly this way?
    If you don’t, there will always be someone willing to make one, buy one, sell one, import/export one or trade for one. So, without doing each and every step above, there will always be some idiot out there that has a gun willing to kill someone for whatever reason.
    Now, here’s the kicker. Even after doing all that, you’d still have to wait about 200 YEARS for all weapons you missed (the ones the criminals still have that they didn’t let go of just because they were banned), to become inoperative due to shear age.
    So the next time someone starts screaming in favor of gun control, you might ask them if they are willing to go this far to achieve it, and say, If not, then don’t bother trying because it will never work. It will only go as far as disarming good people that wish to defend themselves.

    I’ll bet anyone their salary for a year, that you wont get past step 1!!


  40. “But the status quo is unacceptable and, at one level, suicidal.”
    Yeah – submitting to the grabbers would mean the death of Liberty.

  41. Gun Control Advocates’ Agenda Revealed:

    Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate.

  42. Funny how they never want to confiscate guns from the military and police, what with governments being the largest agents of wholesale murder, slaughter, and genocide the world over.

  43. Just pointing out that libertarianism does not fall on the left-right political spectrum. Someone said it’s a right wing view but it isn’t.

  44. Just ban guns altogether huh? OK let me count the ways that WONT work.
    1) Very few will comply (only the sheeple will)
    2) As of 2010 there were some 310 MILLION guns in the USA, that same year, there were some 306 Million people in the USA, so that’s basically 1 gun for every man woman and child in the country. Does anyone realize just how big that pile of guns would be? Where would they be stored for destruction??
    How would you prevent theft?
    Are you really willing to start the next revolutionary war to do it? Probably not.

    The only thing left is to make it APPEAR as if they are doing what SOME of the people want and ban a few guns here and there and further restrict guns. Which as we all know does NOTHING to prevent gun violence or accidental discharges due to a 5 year old finding daddy or mommy’s Glock in a sock drawer and playing with it.
    It’s time for people to start getting a clue, that criminals would be an easier target to go after and make them serve time for their actions and hold parents/guardians responsible for accidental shootings when kids get guns that were not properly stored. Especially when $10+ tax could have prevented that shooting by buying a trigger lock.

    • Ah, the “safe storage” mantra.

      Parents need to train their kids about various dangers, and guns are one very small danger compared to all the others (crossing the street, household chemicals, kitchen knives, windows, bath tubs, etc.). As Farago has aptly written: statistically speaking, the death of children from accidental shootings can be rounded down to zero.

      Many parents hardly train their kids at all nowadays – for guns or anything else – because either they aren’t living with their kids (often because they never married) or they are putting their kids in daycare all day. The deaths, injuries, and severe illnesses that result from this widespread neglect should be our focus – not the very rare instances of accidental discharge deaths.

      • Yes that’s true, but as responsible gun owners, and parent’/guardians we need to make the time to at least talk to the kids about those guns that are in the home and make sure they can’t get to them. However, unfortunately, people forget or they say, “well I’m not worried because they can’t reach where its at.” etc. Next thing you know we hear about another unfortunate accident. It’s not hard at all to buy a trigger lock or to put it in a safe or at least teach the kids not to mess with it. Best demonstration I ever saw was a guy that took a 12ga shotgun to a watermelon and then turned to the kids and said uness you want your friends or brothers or sisters brain splattered like that, don’t mess with the gun. Trust me they will remember it for a long time. Yes, unfortunately our society as it s today, a lot of parents either aren’t married, broke up, divorced or whatever and so the one left with the kids has to deal with it. If there is still a gun in the home then that parent should still make sure that the kids understand that they aren’t to be messed with. Yea it may be hard to do with everything else going on, but not impossible 🙂

        • My point is that you’re picking the fly sh*t out of the pepper.

          If you want to save kids lives and improve their well-being, work to make sure they have a married mother and father who raise them.

  45. O.K., let’s see now, let’s give them the 2nd amendment, oh and might as well give them the 1st. Amendment, wait a minute let’s also shut down the 10th. and the 4th., crap, let’s cancel the whole Constitution. Will that make it good for that dumb shit! How come we have to give these fricking people a mention, they do not need our print, I have a place for them and it’s right off a cliff I know of, they won’t survive!

Comments are closed.