Previous Post
Next Post


When TTAG hit the ‘net in 2010, the pendulum was swinging towards gun rights. The country was finally emerging from the dark days after the Civil War, before the Supreme Court’s Heller and McDonald decisions. A time when draconian gun control laws left African Americans defenseless against racist killers. When criminals could mug and burglarize law-abiding citizens safe in the knowledge that the government had disarmed their victims. The battle to defend our gun rights is not over. It will never end. But on this July 4th, I want to give readers a reason to be cheerful . . .

I could cite stats proving that American gun rights are ascendant. This site has more than 5,000 posts making that point. As you know, those who oppose the spirit and letter of the Second Amendment have no more interest in facts than fans of Candice Swanepoel have in seeing the South African model become a latter day Anita Bryant.

Gun control advocates will never rest until the collectivist spirit is expressed—or re-expressed—by the curtailment of our individual right to keep and bear arms.

You don’t have to live in Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, California or any of the other places in America where gun rights are abridged to know the truth of that statement. But here’s another truth that I hold to be self-evident: gun rights have more emotional appeal than gun control. And therein lies our real dare I say eternal strength.

Let me explain . . .

There are two basic human motivations: the desire to secure additional resources and the desire to defend existing resources.

Let’s call the first motivator ambition. It has both an upside (human industry, cooperation and innovation) and a downside (unbridled greed and criminality).

Whatever else you can say about criminals, they have ambition. They use guns as a primary tool to achieve their desires.

But most Americans are not criminals. They don’t see guns as a way to secure money and power. They are a law-abiding people with a deep and lasting respect for the personal and property rights of their fellow citizens.

Gun control advocates try to tie firearms to law-abiding Americans’ “ambition” to live, work and raise their children in a peaceful, harmonious environment.

They would have law-abiding Americans believe that limiting citizens’ access to firearms is key to their safety and security. Restricting the right to keep and bear arms to the state (i.e. the police) will severely curtail if not completely eliminate gun violence.

For gun control advocates, the “fact” that this strategy hasn’t worked is besides the point. If they acknowledge this failure (which they generally don’t), they contend that gun control hasn’t been effective because the state hasn’t been allowed to pursue “common sense” disarmament with sufficient zeal.

According to The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and their ilk, gun clingers hamper their efforts to create the non-violent society citizens seek. We are but a few laws away from an end to gun violence.

Thankfully, gun control advocates’ strategy is inherently flawed.

Most people have very little ambition. They’re not interested in pursuing utopian dreams. They don’t want to “win” anything. They want to not lose.

What’s the best way to defend your personal resources when facing the threat of criminal confiscation? A gun.

Gun rights advocates talk about the Second Amendment as a bulwark against losing freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution—protecting Americans against a tyrannical government. True dat.

But the ascendency of gun rights proves that Americans want guns to protect themselves against face-to-face criminals, not the feds. They want to defend themselves and their families first, the Constitution second. If at all.

Gun control advocates can only gain traction if they convince the voting majority that they’re safer without guns than with. That’s a patently ridiculous idea—unless voters come to political maturity without any personal experience of firearms.

Gun rights groups like the NRA, TTAG and the gun bloggers who’ve gone before us have done much to combat ignorance and welcome newbies to the firearms fold. There is much to be done. But we are doing it. And we will win.

We the People are, after all, people. As long as the gun rights community appeals to basic human nature, and we do, we will protect and reinvigorate the power that is contained within Second Amendment. Thank God for that.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. And they think they can control or ban 300 million firearms, they not only fail, they are fools , In their wisdom they became fools ,, like all lies they teach in of public schools and collage ,, get your kids of of public evil (education) and teach them shooting, hunting, your kids will love you !!!!

    • Oh my. You really should have spent some more time in school. Your spelling and word sense are atrocious. Your venal and misplaced hatred aimed at education makes you seem foolish. I have taught my boys to value education because it is one thing that can’t be taken away from them. I have also taught them how to shoot and reload ammunition. Stop spreading ignorance and please educate yourself. There are plenty of people who love to shoot and who are educated.

      • Fair enough Slim, as long as they are educated rather tan indoctrinated, much of which is going on in our schools.

  2. By now, most of us have seen the video of Eric Holder unearthed from the mid ’90s saying, to the effect, ” … we need to brainwash people into thinking differently about guns, … like cigarettes, … that guns aren’t cool … “

    This shows naivete beyond the point of wishful thinking. It’s child-like.

    Guns are cool. They’re so #%&in’ cool I can’t think of anything cooler. Anybody who doesn’t have a gun, wants one. And the few exceptions are hopeless.

  3. yes, as i’ve said before, i’m old enough to remember the 68 gca and when shall issue was practically unknown. and the scotus had not ruled that 2a was about the individual right, not the collective. what will seal the deal for us is when we get the national shall issue laws. stopping the nonsense in places like ill. calif. nj. and the like. it’s been a tough fight this far but it’s worth the effort in my opinion.

  4. Mr. Farago,
    Think you for your fine editorial today. I agree 100%. In addition, as a black man, I am delighted you pointed out some of the history behind gun control in this country.
    The more this information is shared the more enlightened folks will become about the need for law abiding citizens to be able to bear arms if they so choose. I do not think the cowards in white robes would have gone night riding through poor black sections if they new the inhabitants were armed. Likewise I think the cowards that now prey on the poor in their own neighborhoods would think twice if they knew their potential victims were armed. Thank you for your insights and this fine forum.
    God Bless the USA…..all of us!

  5. Jeez, you guys are all wrong. You see, gun control really does work. Why? Because if we could only believe enough, maybe we could make gun control work. Only problem is you guys are all pretentious and evil and throw facts out the window and don’t want to try gun control. and don’t you dare tell me I’m wrong because you know I’m right and you just can’t handle the truth. And whether or not you’re right, this is my opinion and I’m sticking to it because it’s my opinion. But I think you should abide by my opinion because if you don’t then it’ll make me mad and my opinion is right, and I’ll always stay by my opinion because it’s the only thing I’ve got left after my wife and kids left me.

    P.S. guns are evil.

      • True.
        Thanks for the effort, but …. I’ve read MikeB, rebutted MikeB, at times laughed at MikeB, and you sir are no MikeB.
        Even when he’s over the top, hysterical, moonbat, loonie tunes nuts Mike displays a fine command of the written word and makes an attempt to appear logical. He is in short entertaining, even though wrong.

    • If gun control laws worked, there would be fewer crimes in Washington DC than in Arlington VA. If a frog had longer legs, he would not bump his a$$.

      It is illegal for convicted felons to possess guns, yet many of them have firearms and use them to commit crimes. The criminal knows he can prey on the citizens of cities such as Chicago or Washington DC where the authorities continue to limit law abiding citizens’ access to guns. The gun laws create, in effect, a hunting preserve for thugs.

      Police cannot protect every citizen from criminals. If some group of home invaders breaks into your house, robs you, rapes your wife and daughters, murders everyone, the police will investigate the crime, attempt to determine who the offenders were, locate them, arrest them and turn them over to the criminal justice system. The problem is, whether they are successful or not, you are all dead.

      • People who have guns and are willing to use them to commit crimes are always at an advantage. The only advantage to being armed is that criminals will choose to kill someone else.

        Criminals assume that most people in Chicago are disarmed, but assume that most people in Miami are armed. Yet the crime rates are similar.

  6. On the 4th of July, I think you should at least remind people that this is a discussion of rights, not about whether or no a gun will protect you (it won’t).

    Guns do not protect you from criminals, except indirectly. (If a criminal thinks you are armed, he will choose an easier target. If a criminal thinks all of his potential targets may be armed, then he will kill you first, then rob you. )

    Guns will not protect you from the government. (If the Army comes to take your gun away, don’t shoot at them. It will only make them mad.)

    Guns are only good protection against people who are less capable, and less determined. Since the average person hesitates, the average person cannot defend his (or her) family with a gun. Just as “guns don’t kill people”, guns don’t protect people either.

    The whole discussion, instead, is about rights. You have the right to own a handgun, not because the gun will protect you, but because this is America.

    The argument should not be about how many home owners and store owners successfully defend their lives. It should be about whether or not gun ownership is a right.

    • I definitely agree with your argument that our discussions have to focus on our right to own a handgun, rifle, etc.

      As for your comments that guns don’t save lives, I can see what you are saying because a criminal always has the drop on a victim and doesn’t have to play be any rules at all. That said, please consider a lone armed citizen walking down the street. Even if a criminal walks up and shoots the citizen in the stomach or chest without any warning, that citizen is physically capable of functioning for at least 10 seconds. That is ample time to return the favor to the criminal. Unless the criminal shoots the victim in the head or spine, the criminal stands a very good chance of being seriously if not fatally wounded in the process. And criminals don’t want that. Second, if there are multiple armed citizens walking down the street, even if the criminal shoots one or two such citizens, there is a good chance that other armed citizens will respond and shoot the criminal. Again the criminal doesn’t want that.

      As for the U.S. military coming to confiscate firearms, one person resisting is futile. Hundreds of thousands or better millions of people resisting — especially if they organize into groups — is not futile. Would it be a mess? Of course. It simply depends on how badly either side wants what they want and how far they are willing to go to achieve it. I imagine in such a scenario, any elected officials who order such actions against U.S. citizens for no other reason than the fact that those citizens own firearms will be very unpopular … and those elected officials will find themselves facing retribution from an angry populace.

      Of course none of the above is possible if only a couple people have firearms. On the other hand if about 1 in 2 adults have firearms, it is a whole different ballgame.

    • On the third point:
      Right you are Sir. What makes them think a mere rabble in arms comprised of farmers, mechanics, shopkeepers, fishermen, etc. can hinder the finest Army the world has ever seen, esp. on this of all days. Madness I tell you.
      with apologies to “Gentleman Johnny” Burgoyne

      • Unless, of course, the numbers of the ‘armed militant resistant groups’ are greatly downplayed by the media, the act of forming organized groups is misrepresented as an attempt at a coup, and the police/military response is depicted as righteous and heroic. In other words, journalism is dead. Truth in reporting is dead. If the .gov decides to censor the interwebs, and the MSM stays in bed with the libs, we won’t be able to get the word out about any sort of organized resistance. We’ll all be portrayed as backwards in-bred survivalists who hate the gubbermint, gays, and minorities. Even though we’ll have plenty of minorities among us, the only ones who get any coverage will be the above-mentioned types. Any sort of coup has to start with the media: They purveyors of lies are more dangerous than the authors, because the credibility of the messenger becomes the credibility of the lie.

        • The media is in bed with the liberals? What channels are you watching? That sounds like something I always hear on TV stations that are owned by big corporations.

    • Anyone who doesn’t believe that guns save lives should read the column “the armed citizen,” in American Rifleman which relates stories about people successfully using firearms to defend themselves.

      I shoot 100 rounds a week, carry a concealed weapon, load my own ammunition and have a series of defenses around my house and my person. Anyone approaching my residence will hear the bark of a 65 pound dog; she’s the little one. On every corner of the house there are motion sensors on flood lights with video cameras. There is an ADT sign in front. My weapons are all loaded with rounds in the chambers. My home defense weapon of choice is the M1911. The 1911 also fits nicely between the driver’s seat and the console in my old 328i. It gets me to the trunk where the M1 Garand stays.

      As retired military and a Vietnam veteran, I try to remain at what Colonel Jeff Cooper called Condition Yellow, armed and conscious of the environment. At yellow, if you detect a potential threat, out comes the weapon – Condition Orange – safety off and you make a decision, if X does Y, I will shoot X. At Y – Condition Red – weaver stance, take a deep breath, exhale, finger on the trigger, clear line of fire, first pad of right index finger on the trigger, center of mass on the front sight, add pressure until discharge. Move forward and shoot him again.

      With practice, you can physically go from yellow to red in three seconds. The hard part is the mental conditioning. Shoot at silhouette targets. Make eye contact. Smile. The one who wins is not the largest or the best armed; it’s the one who wants it more.

      • I have no doubt that people can protect themselves USING guns. I just don’t think the gun itself makes you safer. Also, I suspect most people are not as well prepared as you are.

        • During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King’s tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

          Three Percenters today do not claim that we represent 3% of the American people, although we might. That theory has not yet been tested. We DO claim that we represent at least 3% of American gun owners, which is still a healthy number somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million people. History, for good or ill, is made by determined minorities. We are one such minority. So too are the current enemies of the Founders’ Republic. What remains, then, is the test of will and skill to determine who shall shape the future of our nation.

          The Three Percent today are gun owners who will not disarm, will not compromise and will no longer back up at the passage of the next gun control act. Three Percenters say quite explicitly that we will not obey any futher circumscription of our traditional liberties and will defend ourselves if attacked. We intend to maintain our God-given natural rights to liberty and property, and that means most especially the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, we are committed to the restoration of the Founders’ Republic, and are willing to fight, die and, if forced by any would-be oppressor, to kill in the defense of ourselves and the Constitution that we all took an oath to uphold against enemies foreign and domestic.

          We are the people that the collectivists who now control the government should leave alone if they wish to continue unfettered oxygen consumption. We are the Three Percent. Attempt to further oppress us at your peril. To put it bluntly, leave us the hell alone. Or, if you feel froggy, go ahead AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS.

        • Suppose George Zimmerman had kept his head on a swivel, recognized Trayvon Martin as threat, gone to Orange and drawn his weapon. My guess is that Martin would have kept his distance, would still be alive and Zimmerman would not be facing a second degree murder charge. Showing the weapon could not have made it any worse.

        • People compare themselves to the founding fathers even when their actions are closer to Al Qaeda. When people decide to take the law into their own hands, that is one matter. But when people decide to write and enforce their own laws, that is a completely different matter.

          Let’s not forget that the revolution started off as an armed rebellion against a foreign monarch, who passed laws without giving us any voice. The U.S. currently does not have a monarch, and the laws we have are passed by elected representatives.

          If you are talking about rebelling against an elected government, then you are talking about treason. If you are suggesting that citizens should be able to make up their own laws and enforce them with guns, you are describing an action that we usually refer to as “murder”.

        • Agreed. We do have a Constitution and law that protects citizens, and no one I know wants to write their own laws and enforce them. This thread is not about that, I don’t think.

  7. We are at the edge of the cliff to elliminate all gun rights in America. To say they will not win is just delusional. If Barry wins re-election he will nominate 2-3 antigun SC Justices. They will gut our gun rights completely. We already have 4 Justices that have voted we have no right to own firearms. Wake up! We may be done as a free country anyway. With Excutive orders and NDAA we are now in post constitutional America. If Barry gets in again we are done as a free country. We may be done now. Follow current events to their logical conclusions.

    • Sadly the view from this side of the Pond looks the same as you portray.
      If Obama is re-elected then SCOTUS is almost certain to become dominated by socialist members who see freedom as a hindrance to their agenda.
      I can’t say I’m optimistic that he’ll be defeated either when Romney is the one chosen to rally conservatives.
      Scary stuff – even from the point of an Englishman.

      • The NRA is constantly trying to work people up into a frenzy about Obama’s anti-gun policies. I just don’t see it.

        If Obama changes the face of the Supreme Court, then we will likely get health insurance, banking regulation, rational marijuana laws, and the right to choose. Guns are way, way, way down on the list, maybe not even on it.

        Obama has even said as much. His first priority would be to overturn “Citizens United”, which is arguably one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history. Only in america is unlimited corporate buying of elections considered to be a great idea.

        But using the Supreme Court to overturn gun laws? That seems like a Republican scare tactic to me.

        You think the Supreme Court is is only two votes away from overturning the 2nd Amendment? I just don’t buy it.

        • This may interest some,,but guns stop crime , it’s a proven fact. it also makes it very hard to have total control in a police state, as the military does not like to kill family or friends , the military always wants to feel that they are the good guys, food and a paycheck does not make them want to put their life on the line…have talked to many vets… the take over of America will not be by our military, no matter what our Sociopaths in leadership (read FOOLS) think … they are so out of touch with the real world, and think that a total one world government is best,,, NEVER WAS ,, NEVER WILL be… that is why Socialism, communism, always, fail … same for the middle east too… guns are not evil ,,, but are a check , to stop evil in any form of government, the founders were 100% correct… they studied ever form and type of government,, America is great, because the people are good( moral)… and don’t feed us the failed collage lines(fools leading fools)…want truth the Bible say sell your shirt,,, buy a sword ,,, why? it stops robbers at all levels…

        • That’s quite funny. The same thing was said about property rights and eminent domain until the Kelo decision. Now we have municipalities looking to seize property from people and banks due to “bad mortgages” and handing the property over to others.

          You say it can’t happen. Still waiting for proof.

          And as a side note: Citizens United is a just decision. Unless you like telling people how they can spend their money.

        • Are you aware that , perhaps as early as the end of this month, BHO apparently intends to sign a UN “anti gun trafficking” treaty? (ie a treaty banning individual ownership of firearms.):

          Report: Obama Could Sign Anti-Gun ‘Arms Trade Treaty’ with UN by August

          Think Congress will refuse to ratify this atrocity, after BHO signs it? The Democratic-dominated Congress inflicted obamacare on us, in the face of multiple polls showing widespread opposition to it. Obviously Democrats no longer fear voters, or perhaps they think we are nearly at a point where what was once the USA can be openly governed by those who attain power without having to go to the trouble of winning an election-by appointment, cronyism, etc. I see no reason to believe Republicans have any more respect for the Constitution or US citizens than do Democrats : I can easily see this treaty narrowly passing the Senate, AND being upheld by the USSC, despite the clear words of the Second Amendment.

        • LBD,
          You are absolutely correct. There is no way this President or any other POTUS is going to overturn the 2nd A. I am not sure why the NRA keeps trying to stir this up and I am a member. It puzzles me and I wish they would spend more time and effort bringing forth national reciprocity. Something that is needed desperately. I also agree that the media isn’t in bed with liberals or conservatives. We just always need to remember that MSNBC and FOX are not media or news stations. They are entertainment. Anyone that blindly believes anything they report is limiting themselves. Yes we should all continue to voice our support of 2 A. But it is here to stay. Let’s fight for reciprocity! BTW…..TTAG is an excellent forum and I personally appreciate all of the collective wisdom of the editors and the posters…..although I don’t always agree. Keep it coming!

        • Every year we hear these rumors that the United Nations is going to introduce some rule or other that will result in: “World Government” / “Gun Confiscation” / “Sharia Law” / Insert-name-of-boogeyman-here.

          This is just TV news selling commercials. It isn’t ever going to happen, and I can prove it.

          The U.S. is not interested in signing treaties with the U.N. unless we benefit from it in some way. Obama has made some mistakes, but he would never risk his career to introduce a treaty that would cost Democrats 50 million votes.

          He barely passed health care, and that provided insurance for 50 million Americans, so theoretically should have added 50 million votes. Look how well that worked out. People in my neighborhood are threatening to boycott any business that dares provide health insurance for their employees.

          (By the way, welcome to Bangladesh. Our new health care system is “You don’t get any.”)

          He barely passed the arms control treaty that was drafted by Republicans. Keep in mind that ten Republican Senators worked on the treaty for ten years, and then voted against it just because Obama agreed with them

          Now Fox News is telling us that he is going to sneak a gun control treaty past the Senate even though only about five Democrats are anti-gun? Hogwash.

  8. @ Low Budget Dave:

    I disagree about SCOTUS’ decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
    SCOTUS left intact the Tillman and Taft-Hartley legislation that prohibits DIRECT campaign contributions from corporations and unions, respectively. What it did was strike down those provisions of McCain-Feingold that sought to criminalize groups like NRA from excercising rights to free speech, while exemptions were given to TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. Let me illustrate:

    Suppose NRA says something like “Chuck Schumer. He’s bad for your guns and bad for the Second Amendment”, while Schumer was running for re-election. If NRA said that 60 days prior to a primary or 90 days prior to a general election, McCain-Feingold would criminalize that speech. On the other hand, Tom Brokaw on TV could mention without any reprisal, “how Candidate X believes everyone should have a gun”. It was these provisions SCOTUS struck down.

    Of importance, the same justices who voted against the 2A in Heller, also voted in the minority in Citizens United.

    Dave Kopel wrote an excellent article in the NRA mag, “America’s First Freedom,” about the SCOTUS decision in Citizens (Dave Kopel, “Speech Freed”, America’s First Freedom magazine, April 2010). In it, he cites Justice Kennedy clearly saying Congress’ exemptions for TV, radio, and newspapers, while muzzling groups like NRA or the ACLU are unlawful.

  9. In my own family, gun control advocates gained ground through our women. Some of the girls, who became moms, who grew up in left leaning classrooms, were adamant about their children not playing with guns. Thankfully, they have all seen the light.

    • When I was 8, I shot a .22 rifle for the first time at a Summer Camp. The first thing we learned was how to handle a gun safely – keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, don’t touch the trigger, open the action to make sure there is not a round in the chamber and engage the safety. If the schools want to be constructive, they should teach gun safety or survival.

  10. The battle to keep and bear arms for self-defense will not end as long as there are people wanting someone else to do the hard stuff.

    I use “arms” as a term of art, which IMO should be preferred to “guns”, because the issue framed in 2A relates to individual self-defense by whatever means, all considered “arms”. About now, the handgun is the penultimate solution, but it was not always so, isn’t today always so, and when Kirk’s phasers obsolete kinetic energy devices, may not be so.

    The concept, I think, is that self-defense is the key to the other inalienable rights. What good is 1A if you can be shut down by a mob? The other rights? Personal enforcement is part of personal, human rights. The means and the will are both essential, and perhaps more than the law and its vagaries.

    That is what scares people like Mikey Bloomberg, which is why his dietary control edicts focused recently on what the homeless shelters in NYC feed people. This is before the Great Soda Discovery. He could issue his edict because no one can fight b back. Being a small man in so many ways, he picks soft targets or has others lead a charge.

    The battle for individual freedom, and the means to back it up, will never cease. It’s a human thing, i think. Some people wake up afraid, and want someone else to fix it for them, keep them safe. Some wake up afraid, and saddle up, anyway. If you aren’t afraid, at least a little, you don’t understand the problem. It’s what you do with the fear, and there is room for all kinds. As long as those hoping for somone else to do the grotty stuff let them do it, and appreciate the favor. Too many of the pampered are not of that mind.

  11. The Brady Bunch and other assorted damp panty activists need to discover a simple truth:

    An honest man with a gun is still an honest man; a criminal without a gun remains a criminal.

    that is all


  12. While I certainly agree that gun control will never succeed, I disagree slightly as to the end-up reason in TTAG article. True, the personal protection has become very important, but really, really, really, the folks on the street have sensed that a lawless federal government has trickled down to lawlessness on a local scale.

    Consider the Dept. of Agriculture calling in an LASD Swat Team to seize raw milk. Consider the EPA calling in a Swat Team to evict landowners because of riparian disputes. Consider mistaken address no-knock searches by the DEA.

    Guns in the hands of regular citizens give these people pause, and if more citizens had guns, the arrogance of federal and local power would be damped.

    We are not living in the sixties, seventies, et al, to the new century anymore. We live in a time where many LEOs have forgotten that absolute power absolutely corrupts, a time when there’s so much money out there, that immoral cops can take advantage of their power and authority. And this is bred from the top.

    Armed and trained citizens are the last, best defense…

    Don’t get me started on the loose immigration rules that allow the worst kind of terrorists into the country….and nobody’s watching.

    Except us.

    • I am not saying that police power is perfect. I am just saying that I don’t believe our best defense against terrorism is heavily-armed and untrained citizens.

  13. how’s this for a scenario. the military, which is to the right of the political spectrum, decides to topple the leftist government currently in washington to “save” the country. the leftist government then calls on all citizens that have arms to resist this event. what’s the next step. as a veteran i see this as a more realistic scenario of events than the military following orders to turn on the american people at the behest of the obama crowd.

    • I would never believe that the American military, National Guard, or whatever, below the rank of Lt. Colonel might turn on its own people, even to topple a corrupt government. An armed population is the surest defense of free elections and honest government.

      Just knowing the arms exist is deterrent. Look at the most corrupt governments, local or larger, all have strict gun control in place.

      • This is a good point: The military is not likely to get involved in any domestic political dispute.

        I am not sure guns help us get honest government, though. All it means is that any government that wants to prevent violence has to let people own guns.

        That is kind of the original point of the blog. Democrats and Republicans disagree on whether health care is a right, but they agree that gun ownership is.

        As a result, the Congress might take away your health insurance next year, but they won’t ever be able to take away your gun collection.

  14. What a load of nonsense. Gun control is already here and it isn’t going away.

    Try walking through Times Square with a loaded rifle over your shoulder. In reality, US citizens do not have a right to bear arms, and haven’t for some time. If you need a clerk to issue you with permission to bear arms prior to bearing them, then the whole point of the right has been neutralized. The US is post-constitutional and has been for some time.

    • We just have different definitions. In your point of view, the right to bear arms means that everyone in New York should be able to carry loaded rifles on their shoulder. In my point of view, that would be anarchy.

      That right was taken away for the same reason that “free speech” does not extend to yelling “he’s got a bomb” in a crowded movie theater. The potential loss of life by accident takes away other peoples rights.

      All rights are restricted when they start to interfere with other people’s rights. That is why we have laws, rather than just letting every conflict be decided by a shootout.

      Anyway, the best example of a gun restriction you could think of was open carry in the most crowded city in the country? If so, then I think you have proven the original point: Advocates of gun control have lost, and advocates of gun ownership have won.

      The NRA can’t take “yes” for an answer, so they keep inventing imaginary situations where Obama or the UN would take away their guns, but this is just a fundraising ploy. You have won every argument, and gun rights advocates now dominate both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court.

      The only battles left to fight are the Presidency and a few cities here and there. And seriously, if you are voting for the President based on your belief that he is going to try to take away your guns, then you are a single-issue voter, and nothing I say will ever change your mind anyway.

      But think about this: Bankers are determined to change the law so that they can take away your money. Insurance companies are determined to change the law so they can take away your insurance. Every city in every state has already taken away your right to assemble and protest. States have cut so much money from education that America has fallen behind nearly every other “first world” country. CEO pay is so high that American companies cannot compete overseas, and environmental legislation is so weak that “my tapwater is on fire” is not even considered to be worth looking into.

      And yet the NRA believes the biggest issue in America is that people can’t bring their rifles to work? Because seriously, that is way down on the list of problems that I want the President to tackle.

      • +1 ” the NRA can’t take yes for an answer” so very true.
        This is a gun forum but that battle has been won. We will not be losing our right to bear arms. It will not happen.
        Of course there are other issues to consider. My favorite, of course as it relates to guns, is reciprocity. But even that pales when it comes to some of the other issues LBD mentions.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here