Previous Post
Next Post

“It’s nonsensical for the NRA to argue that even if we issue another assault weapon’s ban, the ‘bad guys’ will still find a way to obtain and use a gun for their future crimes. If that’s the argument against gun regulation, then we might as well go forward and legalize marijuana nationwide, and cocaine and heroin, too. Because as we’ve seen, there are not enough penalties the government can enforce to keep drug users from obtaining their illicit substance of choice. But as evidenced by our strict drug laws, in a fight to mute a rampant drug culture, it doesn’t mean we don’t try.” – Brittney Bullock in The Sad Truth About NRA’s Proposal: There’s Just Not Enough Good Guys to Go Around (via HuffPo)

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I can say that about the only thing going for her is she is cute . . . but not the sharpest tool

  2. Actually, I agree with part of what she said. We SHOULD legalize Mary Jane and set the dragon free. End the war on inanimate objects and abstract ideas (and that includes guns).

    • Yes, quite right. Prohibitions on particular arrangements of atoms are idiotic. No “thing” is evil. Only people are.

      • A college “educated” individual actually explained why the war on drugs is as useless as a war on guns would be;

        I don’t know, for me to believe that the restrictions on guns won’t work because criminals would ignore the law, but that the restrictions on drugs will because this law people will obey; it would make my head explode to try to hold these two completely opposed thoughts in my head at the same time.

        I see people who believe in gun free zones as protecting against homicidal maniacs and people who believe that the war on drugs as actually keeping more than a fraction of a percent from actually using drugs as equally delusional.

        • And those people are in our federal government and in our state governments depending on what state they are in.

          Of course in the end it is all about power not logic as it has always been.

  3. The fallacy of this argument, of course, is that the legality of drugs is not protected by the United States Constitution.

      • +200

        She needs to take a step back, and re-analyse her comments, they contradict themselves at every turn.

        Some of these anti-gun people seem to believe that we would be able to get every single firearm in circulation off the street with the right set of laws and regulations, and then…… somehow, we would overnight transform into this utopian world where no one would ever even consider doing harm to another, simply because of no guns.

        It’s so painfully misguided, and unfortunately, I think that a lot, if not most of these people will never change their minds, unless they themselves were in the unfortunate position where their safety or even their life could be saved if only they had a means of self protection. It’s a tragic day when AFTER the attack, they realize that the police are there just in time to take the report and call an ambulance.

    • WRONG! The fallacy of the argument is a false premise…. that premise being that a person somehow has the authority to dictate what another person does with his property. Plants and tools (guns) are merely property, and as long as you are not infringing upon anyone else’s inherent rights, you can use you property as you see fit.

      If we’re going to cite the Constitution, it should be 4A, which protects our inherent right to property… including plants and tools (guns).

      • +1 you can’t argue the constitution with people who don’t believe in natural rights. We can argue on a logical basis that the drug war is also a futile effort that hurts more people than it helps. In addition we know that a lot of “gun violence” is really violence related to drug trafficking.

    • The Constitution is silent on the issue. If we were following the US Constitution, the national drug policy would fall into the 9th and 10th Amendments. If a state wanted to regulate drugs, then they could do so.

      There is no provision in the US Constitution for prohibition of drugs at a national level.

      • There is no provision in the US Constitution for prohibition of drugs at a national level.

        Well, there’s no specific provision, but the power to do so is based on the Commerce and General Welfare Clauses.

        • I believe the intent was to keep the states from ripping one another off, in so many words, not to allow the federal government to tell anyone and everyone what to do, when to do it, and how far to shove it at all times. Unknown space particles affect interstate commerce, we must regulate them!

  4. I totally agree with her. The war on drugs has been an abject failure, and it’s excellent evidence that a war on guns would do the same. Prohibition doesn’t work. Give it up.

  5. jbar is correct. Drugs are not an inalienable right. But what a second gun ban will do is create contempt for the overreaching laws of a totalitarian mindset in D.C. and several states. It may awaken the sleeping giant of freedom in this country and cause a tsunami of civil disobedience that will start Lincoln’s”new birth of freedom”.

    • “Drugs are not an inalienable right”

      I would say this is somewhat arguable, but even so, prohibition inevitably must include fascist type activities, which are bad no matter what. Fewer prohibitions, fewer prohibitors; less oppression, imprisonment and death.

  6. She’s right, prohibition is always a prescription for greater violence and broad disrespect for the law and government. Legalization and minimal regulation is the answer.

  7. It gets better when you read a comment. Someone pointed out, quite rightly, that yes, we OUGHT to legalize these drugs and end the failed “war on drugs” while we’re at it. Her response?

    Brittney Bullock
    24 Fans
    09:38 AM on 01/02/2013
    Right, no doubt the war on drugs is a failure, but I highly doubt we will ever see the legalization or even the decriminalizing of drugs like crack, heroin or methamphetamines. So I was trying to make the point that we have and will continue to legislatively outlaw the use, possession and sale of these drugs. We’re never going to revoke the right of the police to seize a meth lab or break up a chain of heroin dealers and suppliers and to throw those individuals, when we’ve identified them, in prison and away from society bc we’ve decided that their impact on society is too negative to do nothing about. I say that at the very least, we should make an effort to rid these guns from society instead of throwing up our hands or looking in the other direction.”

    I’m still wondering from what source the “police” derive their “right” to seize or arrest anyone?

    • So she is suggesting the police should kick in our doors and imprison us for owning guns. Even better! No, no, totalitarianism could NEVER happen here. This is America!

  8. Legalize ’em and stop wasting money prosecuting and incarcerating people for making what is at worst an unhealthy recreational choice.

  9. So she admits that they’ll never be able to keep criminals from having guns, no matter what laws they saddle us with. So tell me again why we should implement gun controls when all that will do is penalize law-abiding citizens and make them more vulnerable to the criminal element who apparently gets to keep their guns?

  10. Sounds like there’s a libertarian in her trying to come out but it keeps getting beaten back by the idiocy of a frightened and dependent society.

    She’s got the right words just the wrong perspective.

  11. “…it doesn’t mean we don’t try.”

    Yes, it does, you ninny. Remember, it was tried it before, to virtually no effect whatsoever. Why would you do the exact same thing again, with only a few words changed, and think it will magically work this time? It’s nonsensical.

  12. I think she just successfully proved that her argument was wrong.

    The War on Drugs is an abject failure. We should legalize and decriminalize all drugs. Not because they are good, they are not, but because what we are doing now does not work and has enormous negative consequences. Legalize and regulate and use some of the tax revenue to set up treatment programs for people who Want help with their substance abuse problems.

    It would be nice if folks would recognize the reality of the situation. Drugs are part of our world. The intelligent thing to do is find a way to live peaceably with that reality. Locking up people for non-violent drug crimes is not the solution as we have proved so profoundly for the last 30 or 40 years.

    Same is true with Guns. They are around, and will continue to be around. Sometimes they will be used for ill, other times for good. Trying to outlaw them will be counterproductive because despite all of Brittany Bullock’s wishful thinking (and others like her) you cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Bad people will do bad things, they will do them with guns and with other things. Taking an effective means of self protection from the general population is counter productive.

    • No treatment, no rehab, no hand wringing over the addicted. You want your recreational habit-forming, life-destroying drugs, you’re on your own, pal.

  13. So we are not actually interested in finding solutions that work, we’ll just keep doing more of what doesn’t work because we can’t be bothered to try something new.

  14. 1) The second amendment doesn’t say anything about marijuana; it does say something about weaponry.

    2) If I don’t legally obtain marijuana but a criminal does, it’s highly unlikely that it’ll give them an edge over me during a break-in.

  15. Legalize drugs so genpop dopes themselves up and stops caring about every other freedom they are losing?

  16. Her Linkedin profile reads like a perfect example of someone with zero real world skills. Creating overly complicated terms to use for job descriptions seems to be the only way she is implementing that BU education.

    • I’d say they are driven by a lack of sincerity. People who want to solve problems try different ideas, dismiss the ones that clearly fail, and evolve their processes to account for new data.

      Stopping violent crime is not her goal, banning guns is. For whatever reason She doesn’t like guns, they just bother her. So when she sees children killed, her first thought is, how can I use this to justify my preexisting bias towards guns? It’s the guns she’s concerned about, dead children are just a rhetorical means for her and the people like her.

      They have no interest in stopping mass killings in schools, or protecting anyone from violent crime. They monomaniacally hate guns, the way Hunter S. Thomson hated Nixon. The gun is all they can see, and they blame it for everything.

    • I think this is the same impulse that drives most legislation. Legislators think that their role is to solve problems, and so they use the tools at their disposal. The sheep who have been reared to think that the government can legislate their problems away expect it of them.

      Personally, I don’t want legislatures passing new laws just for the sake of it, it or in response to every current event. I welcome gridlock, and I applaud representatives who have the balls to oppose unnecessary lawmaking.

      • “A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures.”
        — Daniel Webster

  17. let’s stop talking to each other on TTAG.

    post a reply to these misguided folks at THEIR site.

    here’s my note to brittney:
    “so, wow, brittney – you think there are more bad guys than good?

    the FBI reports that there were 1,200,000 violent crimes in 2011. 1.2 million – that’s a LOT.

    but there are 315 MILLION of us in the country. that’s way more than “a lot.”

    i’ll keep the math grossly oversimplified for you: that’s a minimum of 300 good guys for every 1 bad guy.

    300 sheep are indeed afraid of one wolf. 300 dogs think one wolf is a tasty snack.

    don’t think like a sheep, brittney.

    join the pack that knows it’s far more numerous than the bad guys – and isn’t afraid to use it’s teeth to keep them in line.

    we welcome you any time.”

    • Well said jmk! My reaction, too, was what does she mean “there’s not enough ‘good guys’ to go around”? As Lolinski reminded us of the definition of insanity…another AWB is just more of the same failed tactics…insane!
      We’ve discussed the so-called War on Drugs failure here on TTAG extensively and seen how it does not work and how it has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths (particularly murdered Citizens of Mexico). [Let’s just mention the US’s “Prohibition” of alcohol in the 1920’s, as well.]

      Refusing to try something else, like the NRA’s National School Shield, is insane, and how many more murdered 6-7 year olds can we bury and adamantly refuse to see there is a better way?

      I hope you posted your response on her website.

  18. Sounds to me like a person who writes and basis their decisions on emotion, not rationale thought. She should learn to follow logic but then again she appears young and immature.

  19. “…might as well go forward and legalize marijuana nationwide”

    Oh sorry, you thought your readers were going to recoil in horror at that? GOOOPS

    • Randy you’ve GOT to learn to use periods and stop signing your comments. That’s not how the Internet works.

  20. I LOVE the comments section, this one in particular.


    Im a former Chicago Police Officer. Ive been to the aftermath of more shootings then I can remember. I hate to tell all of you this, assault rifles are rarely used in crimes. The Chicago Tribune just reported the stats for 2011. Eight people were killed with rifles out of over 400 homicides in the City of Chicago. Roughly eight people were strangled. Far more people are killed each year by drunk drivers then assault rifles..Let’s ban all alcohol and vehicles.

    Here’s another surprise. Most people committing crimes with guns are already felons. They shouldn’t have them any way. Unlike the majority of people on the blog I have been shot at by bad guys with the guns they shouldn’t have. Here’s a little surprise. It sucks! I have talked to bad guys who have been caught with guns. Heres a real big surprise for the safe cozy world people. Do you know what those bad guys are afraid of?? Not furry little bunnies. Their afraid of honest, law abiding citizens with guns.

    Here is the biggest surprise off all. If furry little bunnies had big sharp teeth and spikes on their back, the coyotes would eat more vegetables. Not to mention, they probably wouldn’t want to even look at the baby bunnies.

    Wake up America. Protect your children. Don’t close your eyes and hope the bad man will never come knocking. He always does..

  21. That’s not the whole argument. If you regulate guns more strictly criminals will still be able to get them – and civilians won’t. A civilian doesn’t need drugs to defend him/herself from drugged criminals. But a civilian needs to be armed to defend him/herself from armed criminals. And when 40% of criminals arrested while carrying a gun obtained that from an illegal street source, there’s a lot of armed criminals no matter what regulations and legislation are inflicted on the armed people.

  22. Sorry, Brittney… marijuana went legal (or quasi-legal) here in WA state and potheads aren’t making the streets run with blood. Far from it.

  23. Really great news about the cocaine and marijuana thing, Brittney. We need more out-of-the-box thinkers such as yourse….
    WAIT… you’re against those, TOO? Bet you had a really swingin’ college dorm.

  24. Firearms are constitutionally protected, drugs are not. Anyone who thinks we should wage a war on either is not intelligent enough to be making statements, let alone any policies, regarding public safety.

Comments are closed.