Previous Post
Next Post

“So more gun control basically comes down to confiscation of handguns, which gun control’s more honest advocates acknowledge as their objective. But of course this would disarm only the law-abiding even as the country sinks deeper into poverty with an ever-growing underclass of fatherless and predatory young men. This is why, to the great irritation of the intellectuals, the public remains so opposed to more gun control.” – Chris Powell, editor of

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. File that story under No Shit Sherlock. Gun control is a wonderful idea, just show us how the criminals get disarmed completely first. Failing that, we’ll stay the course.

    • Heck, I’d be impressed with even partial long-term criminal disarmament (as opposed to a short period of inconvenience while they alter their methods). How many gun control laws even accomplish that?

  2. I would like to point out two items

    1) — the rest of the paragraph for those who don’t read the whole thing
    “This is why, to the great irritation of the intellectuals, the public remains so opposed to more gun control. It’s not really what the intellectuals think — that the National Rifle Association, the notorious “gun lobby,” has intimidated most politicians or that so many people are gun fetishists. It’s simply that gun control doesn’t accomplish much; that people would like the chance to protect themselves against the gradual disintegration of society because the police can’t do it anymore, can’t do much more than clean up a crime scene after the damage has been done; and that the old saying remains true: While God made man, it was Sam Colt who made him equal.”

    2) the starting paragraph
    “Maybe if the country could be started over again it would be better off without handguns, as they facilitate crime just as they facilitate defense against crime.”

    I would like to remind Mr Powel of April 19, 1775 — The day the shot was heard around the world. That a gun was the implement that helped start this country, that the colonies had always had guns to protect themselves, that England had come on this day to specifically take guns aways so that they could not defend themselves against their overlords. That great battles where fought so that he could say whatever he wants without being put into jail, and that the gun foremost above crime was and is for the defense of ones self. Ignorance, forgettings ones history, complacency and not voting and being involved is far more dangerous than any gun.

    • x 10. Well done!

      I would add, briefly:

      Prior to April 19, 1775, the British were raiding American weapons caches and private homes to take weapons. All weapons, not just guns, powder and ball, that could be used to “make trouble”. On April 19, the Brits were prepared to raid the American’s largest weapons cache, but were foiled by the American Militias with their privately owned weapons.

      And the guns being confiscated were, mostly, long guns, rifles. Not the handguns modern gun-grabbers fear today.

      • Thank you , Pascal. the prior and subsequent paragraphs considerably alter his point.
        Another thing about Lexington and Concord: the British Regulars were to seize Sam Adams and Alexander Hamilton at Lexington; then on to Concord to seize cannon, shot and powder.
        From Lt. Col. Smith’s report to Gen. Gage: “I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency’s orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c., collected there, which was effected, having knocked off the trunnions of three pieces of iron ordnance, some new gun carriages, a great number of carriage wheels burnt, a considerable quantity of flour, some gunpowder and musket balls, with other small articles thrown into the river.”
        The point being not only was ‘The Shot Heard Round The World’ fired in defense of the principle embodied in our 2nd Amendment; the Patriots were in possession of and felt the need of weapons more powerful than rifles.

  3. The ‘scary underclass’ based on the quoted piece if only one segment to be concerned about even if at present violent crime is down. If there is ever a social/economic/political/plague/food-production collapse then after a short period of time not being able to find food or medicine some currently very polite and wealthy upper-class people (especially if they have children) with graduate degrees could transform into aggressive predators with guns and knives seeking to survive. Even for people raised in a two-parent home, we are witnessing a breakdown in morals and values — and a significant insensitivity of responsibility and accountability to others — over-lapping with and yet separate from the growing underclass issue mentioned. Your average Joe and Jane private citizen is aware of and concerned about these issues who live and work on Main Street, and unlike those elitists who live and work in Ivory Towers, on Wall Street, or on Capitol Hill in Washington DC.

  4. Hmm… I suppose I’m a member of that “underclass” – I’m young, male, fatherless, and below the poverty line. Does that mean I have to return my gun and CC license?

  5. “with an ever-growing underclass of fatherless and predatory young men”

    IMO, posting such a biased and limited view of reality might suggest that the piece at ctpost is sexist…though in all fairness it also hints at the resulting symptom of another major social problem.

  6. I like this guy!

    I think you can summarize this collumn as follows:
    – None of the current gun control laws, or any that have been proposed recently, have succeeded in reducing violent crime at all. No effect.
    – Even if the gun control lobby succeeded in implementing their ultimate (honest) objective, the confiscation of all firearms, this would only disarm the honest law-abiding people, not the criminals. Since it is impossible to disarm the criminals, then mass confiscation of firearms would also fail to reduce crime. In fact, it would probably result in an increase in crime.
    – He personally does not like guns and would like to be a supporter of gun control, but the above facts make it clear to him that gun control doesn’t work. So he has decided to stop advocating for gun control.

    This guy may be a liberal, but he is able to look at facts with an open mind (not one clouded by intellectual ideologies), and this has allowed him to come to a logical conclusion based on those facts. A liberal who can be reasonable – not perfect, but pretty good.

    MikeB302000, you could learn a lot from this guy.

  7. Ok minus a few miss queues on History, I think he gets it.
    He also goes on to point out that the “war on drugs” is a large factor in gun crime. To be honest I am not sure about rural areas, but here in Oakland, and LA I would stand by that statement.
    He also admits the faults of gun control. You can pretty much try and ban just about everything except single shot 22 rifles but the only folks who will suffer are those of us who are not criminals.

  8. “This is why, to the great irritation of the naive, self-proclaimed ‘intellectuals’, the public remains so opposed to more gun control.”

    Fixed that for ya.

  9. At last a Liberal who gets the key argument that the rest of the “effete snob” intellectuals can’t get, namely that (hand)gun confiscation only penalizes law-abiding citizens and turns them into victims in potentia for the criminals (who will obtain guns despite their being outlawed) to prey upon the defenseless, no matter what the clusterf***s in the Law Enforcement agency charged with controlling “outlawed guns” fail to do! Citing the “War on Drugs” as an example of contraband control failure is classic…and true…so very true.
    Hope his Liberal buddies are reading his column, but they’ll probably just want to force him to tear up his Liberal Card…
    There! I just had to write this for no other reason than to vent off my excitement in seeing that there might be just one Liberal who has moments of true clarity in this country, however brief or fleeting…

  10. “So more gun control would disarm only the law-abiding . Very astute. I figured this out back in 8th grade.

  11. Calling gun control advocates who preach confiscation of all guns the honest ones is just a backhand swipe at the majority of gun control folks. That’s not what most of us want.

    Just like, most gun owners don’t want what the extremist gun-rights folks preach. Most people on both sides of the argument are in the middle somewhere.

    The question of whether gun control laws work or not is a good one which someday I hope we find out. Up till now we haven’t tried it. The mish-mash of easily circumvented laws now on the books are inneffectual. What’s needed is a systematic and strict set of restrictions issued federally. That would work.

Comments are closed.