Previous Post
Next Post


“The Second Amendment clearly states that citizens of the United States have the right to ‘keep and bear arms’ for ‘traditionally lawful purposes.'” Wait. What? The Second Amendment reads “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” And that’s it. Apparently, Stanley G. Buford at felt free to just make shit up for his editorial Why Gun Control Has Nothing to Do With the 2nd Amendment. In the first sentence. It must be said: the author of Not All Teachers Are Parents, But All Parents Are Teachers! sets a new standard for anti-2A FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). And it’s downhill from there . . .

. . . while it’s true that the Second Amendment can just powerfully wipe off all gun control laws in the country, people opposing these laws are missing the point. These gun laws are not an attack on the Second Amendment. They are so much more because gun laws are about regulating the use of firearms in all parts of the country for the sake of public safety. When we say “regulating,” it can have a variety of meanings.

Oh do tell . . .

For instance, before a person is allowed to purchase a gun, part of the gun control legislation may require that person to undergo proper training. People can lose control of themselves and may resort to a destructive nature especially when overcome with an intense feeling of anger and frustration. So to make sure that irresponsible usage of firearms is prevented, proper training on the handling and usage of guns cannot be overly emphasized.

In addition to that, present  gun control laws are meant to make sure that everyone obtains their firearms legally. Notwithstanding the continuous threat of  terrorism, gang crimes, threat of unstable persons acquisition etc.; it pays to have a system intended to correct any unauthorized dealings and usage of firearms.  The Nation Rifle Association would probably not agree that illegal guns are part of the problem in modern society and until we come to grips with that fact we will never get a handle on it.

Is that even coherent? I don’t think so. How does “proper training” stop gun owners from being overcome with anger or frustration?

Present gun control laws may have been meant to make sure all firearms are legally obtained—although anyone with a passing knowledge of the history of American gun control would know that the assertion is complete horseshit—but how’s that working out?

Never mind. Buford is so lazy he can’t even be bothered to check the NRA’s position on illegal guns. I’d love to hear if the writer wrote the headline to this piece and, if not, what he thinks of it. If, indeed, he thinks at all.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. These gun-grabbers are boring with trying to spin everyone’s brains into pulp-fiction. Its been raining all day in Portland and I need to get outside (cabin fever here). Time for a nice long walk to a local gun store to look at Browning and Benelli Shotguns.

  2. This guy has obviously not read the 2nd Amendment…or know anything about firearms at all. Are people really this dense?

  3. He says that gun control isn’t about the Second Amendment, but he also in the article says that laws have been found unconstitutional because of that very same amendment. He claims that the amendment protects “lawful purposes.” Indeed. Such as self-defense?

    His article reads like something an elementary school student would come up with if required to use five vocabulary words in the essay.

  4. I find his arguments strangely persuasive, Perhaps we do need to institute proper training and testing in order to exercise our second amendment rights. After all we need to be sure that people are properly informed and trained before being permitted to own a firearm.
    Perhaps the local Democratic Sheriff would issue the necessary permits?
    Oh wait, that’s been done.
    But I am sure that he would have no problem with a voter “enrichment” program that would verify it voters are aware of the issues and capable of forming an informed opinion on the issues.
    I would suggest a “Literacy Test” that would perhaps be administered by the duly elected Democratic Sheriff to determine who got to properly exercise the important right we call the vote.
    Oh wait, that’s been done too….

  5. Replace Gun with the word Car, knife, ball bat, or any other object which can be misused for crime and you see how this really works,

    • Add books, speech, the press, art, music, science, your religion, your beliefs, what you do in your bedroom with your significant other… yes, his argument is just the same old nonsense.

  6. Wow MichealBNumbers gives better arguments than this guy.
    Forget the fact that he is just plain wrong in many aspects. He seems to fail to understand we have a crime problem not a gun problem. While I believe in training, none of the laws today require it, and I am not for forcing anyone to do much of anything.
    His whole article is pretty much the worst piece of doodoo that I ever had the displeasure of reading.

  7. Why do they always disregard the human factor? Train with the tool, train with the tool. How about training anger control? Or meditation, or introspection? Maybe that could avert “intense feelings of anger and frustration”. But nooo, train with the tool instead. It’s the tool!

  8. The good news is that the comments on the Morons website are 100% pro second amendment. I might be stretching , but I have to assume at least a simple majority would be from African Americans. Maybe progress is moving “forward” after all.

  9. Once you start “requiring” training to purchase a gun, you run the danger of having submitted to de facto licensing of gun owners. The records of who went to that training would have to be kept in a database somewhere to validate the purchase record which then amounts to a nice “end run” around the prohibition in FOPA of retaining a National Record of firearms purchased. The Government may not know what arms you bought, but knowing who bought arms enables providing said Government with a list of doors to knock on to confiscate firearms.

    Since this guy never thought-out anything else he said, there’s no doubt he never thought-out the consequences of “required training”, either.

    • Also, unless this required training is provided completely free of charge, including ammo, it can act as a means test for one’s Second Amendment rights. Oh, sure, you might be able to afford that $150 Hi-Point to protect yourself and your family, but sorry, you can’t afford the half-case of ammo and $400 fee for the required training. No gun rights for you.

      • Agreed. Anyone who might have fantasized this “required training” wouldn’t be used as a tool to discriminate against financially limited Citizens as a way to prevent people from arming themselves in the first place is being naive.

  10. He seems to ignore the fact that the meaning of words changes over the course of time. The meaning of “Regulated” to an 18th century person means “Trained”. Don’t believe me? Go to the Naval and Military press website and enter in “Regulation” (link here);

    The “Regulations” listed are concerned with the TRAINING and Drilling of the soldiers. It wasn’t until the 1840’s that “regulation” of uniforms and rules to control behaviour on a day-to-day basis came into being and gradually the word changed to the present day meaning of CONTROL.

  11. “These gun laws are not an attack on the Second Amendment. They are so much more…”

    Yes, they are so much more. In fact, gun laws and gun control aren’t even really about guns. They’re about removing peoples’ ability to defend themselves against unlawful and violent acts. Gun control makes the criminal king, allowing him to take what he wills without fear of resistance. It’s the ultimate tool of redistribution.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here