The New York Times is Conducting the Thoughtful Conversations About Guns We Really Need

national conversation about guns

Bigstock

The quote of the day is presented by Guns.com.

When it’s time to have a national conversation about guns, who better to arrange it than…The New York Times? Their stated aim: move the debate about guns and gun violence forward. Translation: gin up more unfounded public fear and put pressure on legislators to further restrict the right to keep and bear arms.

Toward that end, they’ve brought together pairs of individuals to talk about guns. The first pair includes a Philadelphia attorney (Angela) and a retired Army brigadier general (Tom). Both are gun owners.

Angela: AR-15s have been used in numerous mass murders. They’re weapons designed for the battlefield. I’m surprised that you don’t support a ban.

Tom: If I thought a ban would be useful, I would turn in anything I own. The practical solution is the control of magazines. I got my first semiautomatic rifle in eighth grade, a graduation present. If there were a high-capacity magazine, something with more than 10 rounds, in it, it could do just as much damage as an AR-15. If I built a 30-round extended magazine for your Sig, it could do the same. But ARs are black and scary looking, thus feared by the uninformed and loved by kooks who decide they want to shoot people.

Hunting with a 10-round mag is no handicap. Thirty-round mags are offensive implements and should be controlled. But most restrictions on weapons of war came with the National Firearms Act of 1934. (1934!) We need a modernized version of that law.

Angela: I’m stunned at your level of knowledge. I had no idea that these additional weapons and modifications were available. And you’re right, our current legislation hasn’t caught up to what is actually being purchased, modified and used by U.S. citizens.

But our current situation — and your arsenal — seems to go way beyond what the forefathers may have intended. I’m shocked that anyone would need 20 guns. It’s like we are all preparing for a war. And with our ineffective Congress, I don’t expect much to change.

Tom: How ironic is it that all of my guns, except one, are used for hunting, but the gun you own for defense is meant to be used on people? I own various target guns, small guns for small game, larger guns for larger game and at least six that are family heirlooms handed down for generations. Your military characterization of my collection as an “arsenal” feels judgmental.

Rachel L. Harris and

comments

  1. avatar Dude says:

    Okay, so when do we get a conversation with a real opposing viewpoint instead of a pretend one? Of course the Times isn’t interested in that. But this guy was a general, so he knows more than you.

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      I don’t know, “Tom” probably is really a general; he certainly thinks the same way most of them do.

      1. avatar Napresto says:

        He’s probably as handy with a pistol as most of them too…

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        yeah, they wouldn’t make up a fake general. Of course it might be a composite character, i see they use that technique when writing autobiographies or telling stories of oppression and college rape parties.

        It’s not like the NYT would publish a fake story, right?

      3. avatar Dude says:

        By pretend, I mean his viewpoint, not his existence. He’s pretending to have an opposing viewpoint, yet he’s bringing up “weapons of war”, over ten round mags, etc. In other words, he’s pro “gun control”, but they’re presenting it as if he’s so different Angela (don’t judge my arsenal). It’s typical Times propaganda.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          I thought the same thing. Its a fake argument by two pro gun-control people meant to burn the candle at both ends.
          Angela: “Us highly educated people all know the problem is assault guns!”
          General Tom: “No it isnt you ignorant fool! Us super knowledgable military experts all know that the real problem is the 30-bullet clip a second assault magazines!!!!”

      4. avatar Southern Cross says:

        A retired general who thinks Joe Public is even worse than Private Snuffy because they have not been trained and are undisciplined.

        1. avatar Geoff "Run, Bloomie, run!" PR says:

          Being a retired US General is in no way as impressive as it sounds.

          There are currently over 3,000 of them currently living.

          That they found an anti-gun general means *zero*…

        2. avatar Ragnar says:

          Don’t think for a second that BG “Tom” has any less contempt for members of the armed forces than Joe Public. Those same service members would not be trusted with those “weapons of war” outside of tightly controlled environments and with microscopic supervision. Does anyone actually believe soldiers are taking home their issued rifles?

          One thing he, and many others, fail to realize; these “weapons of war” are not the same as the common AR-15 style rifle. My M-4 I carried in the military had three modes on the selector switch; “SAFE – SEMI – BURST”. My personally owned LWRC M6 has two modes; “SAFE – SEMI”. They both look the same, have similar features, but one is legal for me to own and the other, not so much. The U.S. Government has already made the distinction that one is a “weapon of war” and the other is not. This BG “Fudd” Tom knows the difference and is conflating the function and appearance.

          As for the magazine capacity statement; I believe this is purely a fabrication of the NYT opinionists.

      5. avatar Thixotropic says:

        Especially the Retired General Officers at USAA headquartered in San Antonio.

        They have been fighting 2nd Amendment Rights and Concealed then Open carry since the early 1990’s. I have had numerous conversations with Supervisors and Officers of the Company. THEY AREN’T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTIME SOON and I’m NOT going to buy insurance or ANY other product from USAA in exactly that time frame.

        As a Veteran, DO NOT SUPPORT THE CORRUPTION AND USERPATION OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by companies like USAA.

      6. avatar MarkPA says:

        I think it’s clear why the ratifying generation thought it a dangerous idea to maintain a standing army in times of peace. It is just such people as Tom, as officers in a standing army, who need to be held in awe of the citizens who are vested with the sovereignty of the nation.

      7. avatar Sian says:

        Idiotic productions like this is why you never let a General do anything without his Sergeant Major closeby.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Interesting that the discussion completely ignored the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment. Talking about guns for hunting completely ignores the fact that “weapons of war” are exactly what an armed citizenry will need should the need arise to oppose governmental tyranny. Interesting that the “general” (probably some guy from logistics or other REMF support position) completely—and I assume intentionally—ignored the unambiguous logic contained in the 2nd Amendment. Discussions like this are completely useless when they ignore why the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. Those long rifles the colonists used to fight the British were deadly “weapons of war” at the time of the American revolution.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Smart point, but the discussion isn’t useless for their purposes. It’s pure propaganda for the left.

  2. avatar Nanashi says:

    How about we have a thoughtful conversation about the holodomor?

    1. avatar D.T.O.M. says:

      What the radical leftist said “…it’s time to have a national conversation about guns (to) move the debate about guns and gun violence forward…”

      What the radical leftist meant “…AHHHHH ! I can’t control my emotions, or my actions, and now I want guns gone! But you won’t let me, so now I’m going to throw a fit, and try and make your life miserable too !…”

      The debate is OVER! We have given, after you have demand time and time again, all there is to give.

      NOT ONE MORE INCH!
      .
      .

  3. avatar Dennis says:

    The “Times”? No self respecting canary would want their cages covered with that rag!🤮

  4. avatar James Banish says:

    Well the reality is if you start any kind of ban it will just increase the gun violence. Case in point, states with the highest gun control laws have the highest gun violence. D.C , New York , and California. Places that like North Dakota have almost no gun violence by legal gun owners. Look at Mexico, the law abiding citizens can’t own a gun. The cartels are running wild. People can’t protect them selves. The crimminals will always get there guns.

  5. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Wow. That surely wasn’t scripted at all.

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      I noticed that too. Feels like a first year screenwriting student who’s learning how dialogue works and wanted to tackle something “important” for her first script.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      And it flowed so nicely into a narrative they are pushing right now. A real Tony award script.

      “Yeah i’m a gun owner but i only own hunting guns (whatever that means) and a few antiques from my ancestors. Wouldn’t dream of owning tactical rifles or plastic handguns because that’s for the crazy people.”

  6. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Pfeh.

  7. avatar No one of consequence says:

    If “Tom” is a real general he’s an extremely political animal, is just about any officer above O5.

    He’s also an idiot, if he thinks that a handgun can “do as much damage” as a rifle with same sized magazines, especially a 5.56×45 vs 9mm (assumed) matchup. That level of knowledge sure is “stunning.”

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      Depends upon the situation. In close quarters against an unarmed group of individuals, handguns can be very devastating. The Virginia Tech shooter only used handguns and the results were devastating.

      1. avatar Tiks895 says:

        And he only used 10 round ban compliant magazines also

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        There w as a relatively recent mass shooting at a bar in California. The shooter had a Glock. He was unopposed, and took his time picking targets until the police showed. He shot the first cop through the door, then self destructed.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          In Santa Barbara, a violent incel slit his roommates throat, and the throats of two of the roommate’s friends. He then jumped into his BMW with two nine mm pistols, and drove around shooting at random people. He killed six and wounded 14.

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          That incident got California to pass their GVRO or red flag law, which, if it had it been followed if that case, would have still left three dead and seven wounded. Anti-gun activists only hate guns. They don’t care about people.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    Banning the rifle won’t work but banning the magazines, of which there are 10’s of millions more in circulation, totally would work.

    Air tight reasoning there.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      To the average Leftard that makes sense,however reality is a different bird,one they will never be able to catch.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      And because magazines are cheap, small, and don’t have serial numbers there is no chance people would stockpile them. Or import them right through the mail. Or make them in shops.

      Totally workable plan.

      1. avatar GunnyGene says:

        And of course we know that magazines are not refillable, right? So when all the bullets in a magazine are used up you’ll have to buy a new full magazine. Hence the “common sense” restriction on clipazines. ROFLMAO.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          And with a 10 round magazines, there is just no way the mass murderer could kill more than 10 people. These magazines are permanently fixed to the rifle and can’t be changed in 1-2 seconds.

    3. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Yeah, that’s the line that caught my eye:

      “The practical solution is the control of magazines.”

      Way to go, Tom. The FUDDs need to step out of the way and make room for the 3 Percenters who will take care of things when the SHTF.

  9. avatar James Pesnell says:

    Identical sides of the same coin.

  10. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Tom obviously doesn’t know that the psycho who shot up the Parkland school used 10 round magazines because the 30 round ones didn’t fit in his bag.

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      In the same vein the Colorado theater shooter ditched his AR when his knock off beta C mag failed and did the vast majority of his damage with an ordinary handgun and shotgun.

      I’m sure there are many more examples of similar things that put the lie to all of the control myths.

      1. avatar WARFAB says:

        Everyone seems to forget about Virginia Tech when discussing school shootings.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          I thought about bringing up the VT shooter, but I think he had 10 and 15 round magazines. Still not 30 though.

          Bottom line is it takes about half a second to swap mags out with a little practice.

        2. avatar TommyJay says:

          Yes. I recall when I bought my first handgun several years ago. The salesman, a retired Army Ranger, started talking about “speed reloads” and magazine trigger disconnects. “Oh, what’s that,” I said. So he explained it to me.

          Ironically, California regulators supposedly care about “safety” features like mag. disconnects, yet both of my legally purchased 9mm’s don’t have them.

    2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      Always remember: the first ten shots are free kills. They don’t matter, society is totally ok with it! Then we get a short pause to reflect on whether additional people are allowed to be killed. Since most people don’t die with one shot, the first ten shots probably won’t kill more than 3 people, so that means it wouldn’t even be a mass shooting unless they reload. But reloads are cool, they give tons of time to stop the gun. Just like hunting mag limits, liberals consider this good sportsmanship when conducting an attack. 10 rounds equals safety!

  11. avatar WARFAB says:

    Tom thinks the NFA regulates ‘weapons of war’, but the Miller decision that upheld the NFA did so using the rationale that it WASN’T regulating weapons of war because weapons of war are protected under the 2nd amendment. The SCOTUS ruled that the NFA could stand because SBRs, suppressors, and full auto weapons weren’t issued to troops as standard equipment.

    1. avatar LampofDiogenes says:

      WARFAB,

      Glad to see I wasn’t the only one to pick up on that beautiful little lie he threw in there. As we all know, the AR-15 is NOT a “weapon of war” – no military, anywhere, EVER has used the AR-15 as an issue duty weapon – but if it WERE, that would place it exactly within what Miller held WAS legal. Why are anti-gun zealots so universally ignorant, ahistorical and dishonest????

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        Incorrect.
        The Supreme Court didn’t say anything about machine guns or suppressors.
        They specifically ruled that Miller violated the NFA by possessing a ‘sawed off’ shotgun, which had no ‘reasonable relation’ to the 2A, which was incorrect, as ‘sawed off’ shotguns were used by troops in trench warfare.

        There was also no counter argument to the federal prosecutor’s argument, because Miller’s attorney didn’t appear before the Court, because Miller disappeared before the hearings, so his attorney didn’t see a reason to travel all the way to Washington DC.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          HydGuy,

          Since you made it a point to be accurate (which I appreciate by the way), the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the NFA to restrict short barreled shotguns because no one presented any evidence that the militia or the military have or would use them.

          Of course the caveat there is extremely important: no one presented any evidence because no one showed up for the defendant. Had a competent attorney for the defendant appeared before the court, he/she would have provided the necessary evidence which showed that short-barreled shotguns, full auto firearms, and suppressors are useful to the militia and military and the military had, indeed, used them. (I know the military used short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare as you stated and I know the military used full-auto firearms. I am not sure if our military used suppressors prior to 1939.)

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          uncommon: The lawyer for the defendant was an appointed public defender. He was not paid for doing an appeal, nor offered so much as a train ticket to travel to D.C. He was given one week to file a brief with the Supreme Court, which as you may know requires multiple copies of the brief to be hard bound and printed. It was a set up. No attorney could have done any kind of a job in the allowed timeline. Furthermore, his client had not just disappeared: by the time the opinion issued, his client had been killed by his bank robber partners in crime for ratting them out. The case should have been dismissed as moot. The end result was a purely political decision intended to affirm the validity of the NFA as being merely a tax that did not implicate the 2A.

        3. avatar Hydguy says:

          Uncommon: suppressors were not widely in use by the military in 1934, but they are not firearms, and shouldn’t be subject to the NFA.
          That being said, the M-16 didn’t exist in 1934, but i would say that under the actual decision, i should be able to walk into a store and buy one without any restrictions, and because the military does use suppressors quite a lot now, the should also be widely available without restriction.
          If we are going to nickel and dime away a right, its not a right.

  12. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    The vast majority of violent crimes, including mass murders and mass shootings, in the United States are committed by African American males between 15 and 30. Can we have a conversation about reasonable common sense African American control?

    No!

    Why?

    Because individuals have rights. The rights of African American individuals and the rights of individual gun owners can not be violated just because someone else does something bad and happens to fall within their demographic.

    So here is your conversation: We will not comply!

  13. avatar bryan1980 says:

    Obvious fake is obvious, but a conversation between a hoplophobe and a Fudd is not a real conversation, anyways. The only difference between the two is that the latter is willing to compromise with the gun grabbers on firearms “you don’t need for hunting”, in the vain hope that they won’t ever come for his guns.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “…a conversation between a hoplophobe and a Fudd is not a real conversation…”

      Exactly. And then there are those frustrating conversations between a Fudd and a POTG, in which the Fudd can’t/won’t grasp the correct intention of the 2A.

  14. avatar CTstooge says:

    Thanks General Fudd. Your level of knowledge is indeed stunning.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The Fudd is strong in this one!

  15. avatar Prndll says:

    The only ‘thoughtful conversations about guns’ are had in places like this and various gun forums. But not at the New York Times.

    Lol….nearly every word of it

    None of them seem to understand the concept of saving lives by removing threats.

    This is all to avoid the trap the the world watched O’Rourk fall into. That’s all it is, and that’s only because it’s “their marching orders”. Just like the back pedaling Bernie Sanders is doing. They are all just as anti-gun as ever.

  16. avatar Ogre says:

    I don’t trust anything that Pravda-on-the-Hudson publishes (except maybe the sports stories and the comics), so this made-up “dialogue” is pure trash. It might convince other Fudds, but no real POTG is going to believe this.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      The New York Times doesn’t do comics. That’s why I always got the Daily News when I lived in NYC.

  17. avatar enuf says:

    “… But our current situation — and your arsenal — seems to go way beyond what the forefathers may have intended. I’m shocked that anyone would need 20 guns. It’s like we are all preparing for a war. And with our ineffective Congress, I don’t expect much to change….”
    Lisa Tarchak
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/opinion/gun-control-laws.html
    ————————————-

    There is so very much wrong with all she said.

    Arsenal – Does not apply to a personal collection. It applies to a facility for the development, testing, manufacturing, storing and distribution of military arms. All functions are not required to be an “Arsenal”, but to be that the first several elements are mandatory.

    The Founders – Hell yes they intended the private citizen ownership of military arms equal to the current day standing armies to provivde for the fighting of a war in the defense of liberty. That is the core concept, the paired concept that the security of a free state demands the citizenry be free to keep and bear arms of common military utility.

    Quantity of guns owned- I’m shocked that anyone would feel the need to own hundreds of used postage stamps, or autographed baseballs or a collection of golf clubs. My puzzlement of these interests, al perfectly lawful and harmless to the public safety, does not negate the acceptability of them. The ownership of firearms is a natural right enshrined by necessity in our Constitution. The right to express and enjoy one’s interest in these tools, the historic and current designs, the unlimited expression of mechanical art, all of this is positive and of no threat to the public safety.

    Preparing for war – First, hell yes that is the point of the Second Amendment, sort of. It is not to prepare for war so much as to have the capability to react to threats, for the citizenry to rise up in self defense if they must. This is precisely to the point, there is nothing remotely wrong about it.

    Ineffective Congress – Okay, finally a truth. Nothing new about it. Whether or not this is a bad thing depends upon the horse you rode in on.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Actually, the argument of “why does anyone need ‘X’ number of guns in their collection” pertains to the possible lethality. A collection of postage stamps poses no threat to anyone, no matter how large, so I respectfully suggest you use this analogy instead:

      “Nobody needs more than two vehicles. Why in their right mind would anyone need more? Do you realize how much damage and death can result from misuse of a car or truck in the wrong hands?”

      Sorry, Jay Leno. You’re an irresponsible psychopath who owns an unnecessary fleet of cars, trucks, racing vehicles, and motorcycles. Nobody has any justifiable need for such a collection. There must be something wrong with you.

      1. avatar PMinFL says:

        Jay gets a pass…after all he IS from massachusetts. Double down doesn’t he now live in california ?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          He’s lived here in SoCal for as long as I can remember. Decades.

          According to Wikipedia (the source of all things true and correct – /sarc), he owns almost 300 vehicles.

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        I like that analogy, and it also dovetails nicely with another point about the stupidity of being afraid someone has 20 guns. You can’t drive three cars at once any more than you can carry or shoot 20 guns at once so what’s the additional danger? In practical terms someone who owns 50 guns can’t do any more damage than someone who owns 5

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          Well, you could arm 49 of your closest friends.

          That’s what they really fear.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Exactly this.^^

          I can effectively argue to a non-POTG for my need to have an AR. That is, if I’m a good debater. And perhaps the need to have a second one as a backup or for spare parts for the primary AR. All well and good.

          But their eyes roll back into their heads when you go beyond that and ask why they think you shouldn’t have five or ten ARs, or as many handguns, or seven hunting rifles. Why on God’s Green Earth does anyone need more than one or two guns anyway?

          ****
          To arm the entire block of your neighborhood if the SHTF. Do that, and you’ll have friends for life who will have your back not only through the chaos, but after the dust eventually settles as well.

    2. avatar Bruce says:

      What she apparently doesn’t know, but should, is that the model for “Militia” in the 2nd Amdt was the militias that came together from neighboring towns on April 17, 1775, starting in Lexington and Concord, in what is now MA to respond to an attempt by British troops and marines to seize the contents of their town armories (mostly cannon, shot, and powder). As we should all know Paul Revere and two others were dispatched the night before from Boston, once the route of the British became known, and they boarded ships, to rouse the countryside. As history shows, these three riders were successful, and they were able to alert the militias of the neighboring towns, who marched towards Concord throughout the night. Initially, the British, significantly outnumbering the armed colonists, were successful. But as the various town initials filtered in throughout the day, the colonists gained a numerical advantage, the British troops ultimately broke ranks, fleeing back towards Boston and safety, until they were met by a relieving force, dispatched by the British commander when he realized that surprise had been lost. These militia companies, along with militia companies from neighboring colonies that arrived over the next several days, were the foundation of the Continental Army.

      We all know or should know of these fateful battles, the “shot heard around the world”, combined with the “Midnight Ride of Paul Revere”, etc. The militias that fought that day were successful in repelling the British soldiers and marines precisely because for the most part, they had equivalent rifles and muskets and had been training in their use (to become “well regulated”).

      The other thing to keep in mind here is that the same people who were involved in the “Resistance” to the British presence in Boston in 1775 were heavily involved in the Declaration of Independence the next year, drafting and adoption of our Constitution, and finally adoption of our Bill of Rights. By April 17, several leaders who would e prominent in these later endeavors had already fled Boston, including Samual Adams. His cousin John had yet to flee, but flee he did. He worked closely with Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was given the lead in drafting it, because he was the better writer, but Adams had the lead in selling its adoption, because he was the better orator of the two. Both helped with the drafting and adoption of our Constitution, and Adams was one of the most prominent anti federalists pushing for adoption of the Bill of Rights. Adams and Jefferson remained close friends until the latter beat the former in his re-election attempt for the Presidency in the election of 1800. The two never spoke again but died on the same day, July 4, 1824.

      The point of all this is that you cannot legitimately discuss the meaning of the 2nd Amdt without also factoring in both the Declaration of Independence as well as the battles of Lexington and Concord the year before. The Declaration of Independence justifies armed revolution or regime change in the face of tyranny, and the 2nd Amdt guarantees that we have the means to do it. We know that there is a common thread running through all this, because the same people were the leaders all the way through.

  18. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    For the New York Slimes and all other Leftards to dumb to read and comprehend english.

    It’s entitled the Bill of Rights,not the bill of needs,need has nothing to do with it and neither does hunting.

    No discussions conversations or capitulation and for heavens sake Feelz,just NO !

  19. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    If Gen. Tom had any idea of the fates of Gen. James Agnew and Gen. Simon Fraser during the American Revolution he might not be so keen on letting the peasants have their hunting rifles.

  20. avatar GS650G says:

    Let’s have retured generals determine what guns we own and how they are configured. What could. Go wrong?
    And while we are at it lets be as emotional as possible when we make the decisions. Extra points for crying.

  21. avatar Arc says:

    The guns we really need?

    I have wanted a personal fighter jet for a very long time. . . a GAU-19 would be nice too. A few nice suppressors for all my weapons, among other toys.

  22. avatar 2aguy says:

    As if they will stop at 10 round magazines…..that guy is a moron. The banning of anything over 10 rounds will incapacitate millions of hand guns that hold more than 10 rounds…….that is the intent…a back door gun ban. Then, when the next mass shooter uses 10 rounds…they will come for those, and then when they use several revolvers, they will come for those…….this crap has to stop….Gun owners? You need to stop being idiots and understand…any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment….any time you abstain from voting for the republican, you help a democrat win that seat. A republican can be stopped from voting anti-gun….democrats will vote for every anti-gun piece of legislation they can get passed…the days of sitting out elections cause you don’t like the Rino Republican have to end…the time to defeat Rinos is in the primaries….the most important goal is to keep democrats out of office in the first place.

    1. avatar D.T.O.M. says:

      “…the days of sitting out elections cause you don’t like the Republican have to end…the time to defeat Rinos is in the primaries…”

      Agree, to many Republicans want the perfect candidate, don’t vote, and then complain for 4 years about the Dem who did win. Then what happens is the Dems go further left, which pulls the RHINO further left, and the Republican voter sits out another election. Slowly the country moves left, but that Voter says “Well I never voted for this, my conscience is clean.” Congratulations on your clean conscience as the country is now a s-hole.

  23. avatar 2aguy says:

    Discussion….

    I think all guns should be banned…..

    No, I think we should ban guns one make or model at a time…

    See, I knew we could have a meaningful discussion on common sense gun control…

  24. avatar Hydguy says:

    Funny how they seem to focus on senior officers.
    I’ll let this reporter interview me, a former Sgt, as ling as she prints my exact replies to her questions. She will get a perspective that would really wake her up to the truth.

    1. avatar M1Lou says:

      There are more gun people in the officer corps than you may realize. Unfortunately the ones that get to talk in front of everyone are the idiots that never read and understood the constitution. You would think you would actually understand the documents you are taking an oath to support and defend with your life? For some reason many never do.

      1. avatar Hydguy says:

        Never said there were no gun people in the land of Zeros. But every time the left needs a ‘military expert’, they trot out a LtCol or above, who just happens to mostly (usually completely) agree with the radical leftist ideals about ‘gun control’.
        Remember the retired LtCol who couldn’t even control an AR-15 in rapid fire because he didn’t shoulder the rifle properly? Or Mr. Gabby Giffords (Mark Kelly) who believes that he should be able to buy an AR, but not the rest of us?

  25. avatar M1Lou says:

    Herp derp, muh hunting gunz!

    How is a retired general so ignorant of the purpose of the second amendment and what types of weapons it protects and why? It’s not for hunting. Say it with me “Tom”. It’s not for hunting!

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      General Tom is for control of the peasants. Period. Just like any other wanna be control freak.

      1. avatar PMinFL says:

        I thought it was Major Tom…take your protein pills and put your helmet on

  26. avatar PeterK says:

    Wow. That first one is so stilted. It’s like robots talking to each other.

  27. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    That was genuinely insulting to read. Only a person of epic proportions of density would be unable to see that as anything other than a (badly) scripted ‘conversation’ between similar (exactly the same) viewpoints.

  28. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Yeah right. Like your typical retired Army General is all for preserving the 2nd amendment rights of ordinary law abiding American citizens, or is an advocate for the “rank & file” (pun intended) and believes the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Give me a break!

    Seems I recall that just over 4 years ago, another retired high ranking military C O, retired Navy Admiral William McRaven, then Chancellor of the University of Texas, went into frantic meltdown mode alongside a crowd of like minded liberal college professors in shrill opposition when the Texas campus carry law took effect. McRaven actually grew up in Texas but nevertheless dutifully advocated liberal anti gun propaganda and reflexively relied on all the typical anti gun talking points of the left complete with dire predictions of wild west shootouts and blood running in the street once lawful concealed carry of handguns on Texas college campuses became a reality. Time, of course, has proven McRaven was full of $#it.

    Interesting coincidence that only 4 weeks ago yet another New York Times article featured retired Admiral McRaven once again espousing liberal Democrat propaganda and talking points, this time McRaven preached “Our Republic Is Under Attack by Donald Trump”, and of course advocated for impeachment.

    Arrogant @$$holes like retired Brigadier General Tom and Admiral McRaven belong to the elitist class of military bureaucrats advocating “common sense gun control” and part of a culture that keeps U.S. military property like the Washington Navy Yard, a “gun free zone” where 12 were fatally shot and 3 wounded by a racist madman, or Fort Hood Texas where an unarmed populace was easily targeted by muslim terrorist Nidal Hasan, the Army Major turned Jihadist who slaughtered 13 and wounded 30, many who despite being trained combat veterans, couldn’t return fire because the United States Armed Forces Command denies members access to defensive firearms on U.S. military property.

  29. avatar GunnyGene says:

    So let’s just gut the Constitution and get this party started, shall we?

  30. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Regardless of what “tom” said that woman is truly ignorant!!! If clowns limited me to one gun I’d look for a good .338 Lapua, it could always be loaded down for smaller game.

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    I don’t want a “national conversation.” Quite the opposite. I want the Left canceled. Muted. Finished. Done. Silenced. Memory-holed.

    1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

      I’m finished talking with leftists, but more than willing to let them ramble on to condemn themselves.
      Their propensity to lie, cheat, steal, murder children, jeer the mention of God, and expound on the theft of personal property without due process has become tiring.
      They sow the wind and will reap a whirlwind in return. When the day comes my reply will simply be ” you asked for this”.

  32. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    True “needs”?
    Water . Food. Air.

  33. avatar Roger Cain says:

    An awful lot of liberals believe in euthanasia (state assisted suicide) and yet they want to take your guns TO PREVENT SUICIDES!!! This is nothing more than an attempt to destroy the 2nd Amendment. These same people most likely support abortion. They don’t give two shits about the value of a life.

  34. avatar Lee (I'm no longer a fudd and I bought an AR-15, several actually, with 30 round mags and lots of ammo.) says:

    In my experience, officers tend to be liberal anti gun, whereas enlisted tend to be conservative pro gun.
    Tom’s commentary isn’t surprising actually.

    1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

      “Tom” is simply a pseudonym for just another elitist Fudd assh*le who may or may not have worn a uniform.
      The real-life versions exist as male and female, officer and enlisted. In my own personal experience it was a female Air Force lieutenant who actually had the nerve to criticize my choice of reading material in my own house. I embarrassed that POS right in front of her little group of friends.
      That said, everyone knows General Weasely Clark. That SOB was one of Clinton’s hand-picked political boys who later became a Democratic candidate for office. My favorite recollection of him was playing NATO commander and trading hats with a known war criminal during my deployments to SE Europe.

      1. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

        For the record, the choice of reading material happened to be several firearms related magazines lying on a table between us. Where she picked up the moralizing point of view, whether in college or the Air Force, was of no consequence to me but it was the crass ignorance that bothered me.
        I’ve been shot at, rocketed, and mortared and have absolutely zero patience for fools, especially the righteous Libtard versions. They deserve what they get, IMO.

  35. avatar Hankus says:

    Manbearpig.

  36. avatar Kevin says:

    The Democratic Party’s playbook authored by the same sociopath who authored Hillary’s
    paradigm by her own admission.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a social state.
    The first is the most important.
    1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people (The Democratic Party’s most
    virulent agenda incorporating infanticide as population control)
    2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control
    and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.

    3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty. (FDR destroyed the gold standard to facilitate his financing of the “new Deal{s}”
    rendering his legacy of the inflation of a fiat currency we live with today)
    4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state. ( Brought to America in earnest via the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction circa 1865 and subsequently via United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. )
    5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
    (“The Great Society” implemented via JFK/LBJ)
    6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school. (Post Modernism began taking over the tertiary education sector in the late 1960s, currently dominating all the way down to primary )
    7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
    (Post Modernist efforts began the war on Judaeo/Christian ethics in the 1960s with a quote
    “separation of church and state” from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson )
    8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
    (The “identity politic” model defines the Democratic Party’s political infrastructure since the 1960s)

    Everything else you read or hear from these Marxists in waiting is propaganda designed to implement these aspects of control. Lenin, Stalin,Hitler, Mao Zedong, and many other Socialist heroes would be envious at what they have accomplished thus far. The next Democratic Party federal trifecta
    will mark the end of America as we knew it and a 2nd unsurvivable dark age for mankind worldwide.

  37. avatar Jojo says:

    We need to respect each other’s view points not just guns but everything in general the needs for guns is a personal choice for those who don’t want to own a gun or guns don’t buy any .go live in area where people have the same ideas and style of living.the problem that the left has is they don’t respect the rights choices and ideology and will not under any circumstance negotiate the issues to a point where they both can compromise.they don’t understand negotiate or compromise and never will. That leaves us this option separate as a nation if not a civil war might be useful it’s worked many times before and the winner calls the shots or moves out.oh I forgot we can’t fight back because we have no guns and therefore we can’t resist… the lefts perfect world

  38. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    “How ironic is it that… the gun you own for defense is meant to be used on people?”

    What is one supposed to be defending oneself against? It’s pretty much just people who comprise the threats.

    I mean it’s not like Rodents Of Unusual Size actually exi…..AUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

  39. avatar MouseGun says:

    “Let’s have a conversation about guns. We’ll find someone we deem suitable to represent you.”

  40. avatar possum son of turock son of stone says:

    Nanny nanny poo ppo ewe f bee aye suck cockers, iz gots awl kindsa maga zings. Eben sum dirty rounders por eS kay s, they myne and u cant havem

  41. avatar TonyL says:

    Smells like another ghost-written article. All too common these days, news is no longer news, and hasn’t been for a long time.

  42. avatar D L Risley says:

    The writers of the constitution had seen the effect of gun control by the government, thus they wrote Amendment Two to prevent it. Governmental overreach has no limit by time. The amendment IS NOT outdated. When we are restricted from possessing guns, we cease being citizens and become subjects. Subject to those who care only for themselves. We seem to have plenty of them everywhere.
    I seems to me to have laws that provide long term severe penalties for possession of guns by anyone having been convicted of a serious crime. Make them mandatory and ENFORCE them. Do not leave enforcement in the province of liberal judges or elected law enforcement.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email