Tag Archives: Gun Control

7 Terrible Liberal Gun Control Arguments … And How To Beat Them, by Kurt Schlichter

It’s hard to argue with hysterics, but here’s a pretty good guide. From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:

I argue for a living. I often deal with hacks, liars, and agenda-driven fanatics. But never in a quarter century of being in court rooms have I faced such a blizzard of constitutional illiteracy, technical ignorance, flabby reasoning, and outright lies as I have dealing with people who think our Second Amendment rights are up for debate.

Our rights are not up for debate. But, as a courtesy, because talking is the way a free people should endeavor to solve problems, we should debate them anyway. Rational discussion beats the alternative – many of us are vets who saw the alternative overseas – even if the other side prefers emotional blackmail using articulate infants to bum rush their anti-civil rights policies. So, here are seven (it could have been 50) of the most annoying – and dishonest – arguments you will hear, and how you can fight them.

1. You Don’t Actually Have The Right To Own Guns Because You Aren’t In A Militia!

Nope. That’s wrong right off the line because Heller v. District of Columbia (2008) 554 U.S. 570, holds as a matter of settled law that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms regardless of their militia status.

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, dismissed the argument that this right somehow, despite the clear text, belongs to “militias” and not individuals. Your opponent may not like that, but that’s what Heller says. That’s what the Constitution says.

And, as usual, Justice Scalia’s reasoning was incisive and compelling. He dismissed the militia reference as merely announcing just one purpose of the Second Amendment, not its only purpose. The prefatory clause does not limit the scope of the right, but even if it did that interpretation would not change the nature of the right. The “militia” is, by statute (10 U.S. Code § 246), “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States….” This demonstrates the Founders’ intention that “able-bodied” citizens must protect their communities and Constitution. History teaches, and Justice Scalia observed, that these citizens maintained their personal weapons at home, and were ready to act when needed – whether it was to stop Redcoat gun control activists at Lexington and Concord or to mobilize to defend Korean stores during the Los Angeles riots in 1992.

To continue reading: 7 Terrible Liberal Gun Control Arguments … And How To Beat Them



Mass Shootings Will Never Negate The Need For Gun Rights, by Brandon Smith

It all boils down to the question: do people have a right to defend themselves or not? From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

Though the media often attempts to twist the gun rights debate into a web of complexity, gun rights is in fact a rather simple issue — either you believe that people have an inherent right to self defense, or you don’t. All other arguments are a peripheral distraction.

Firearms are a powerful epoch changing development. Not because they necessarily make killing “easier;” killing was always easy for certain groups of people throughout history, including governments and organized thugs. Instead, guns changed the world because for the first time in thousands of years the common man or woman could realistically stop a more powerful and more skilled attacker. Firearms are a miraculous equalizer in a world otherwise dominated and enslaved by everyday psychopaths.

The Founding Fathers understood this dynamic very well. Despite arguments from the extreme left falsely insinuating that the founders are essentially barbarians from a defunct era that were too stupid to understand future developments and technology, the fact is that they knew the core philosophical justification for an armed citizenry was always the most important matter at hand. Today’s debates try to muddle meaningful discourse by swamping the public in the minutia of background checks, etc. But the following quotes from the early days of the Republic outline what we should all really be talking about:

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

To continue reading: Mass Shootings Will Never Negate The Need For Gun Rights

Liberal Gun Control Narrative Obliterated In One Chart, from The Burning Platform

The brown bars are the rate of per capita gun ownership. The blue bars are the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 population. No correlation apparent here between gun ownership and homicide rates. In fact, it goes the other way.


Tried, Convicted, Executed, by Ol’ Remus

The gun control laws we have didn’t prevent Nikilas Cruz from murdering 17 people, and more laws won’t prevent future massacres. From Ol’ Remus at theburningplatform.com:

Talk of “understanding why” a 19-year-old shot his former schoolmates is just fog and blather. Who cares? All we have to “understand” is who did it, Nikolas Cruz by name. A century ago he would have gone to trial within weeks, and if convicted, publicly executed soon thereafter with hymn singing and refreshments all around. As long as justice was served, anyone was free to peddle their tea time theories.

Those with a weak grip on reality wallow in ghoulish speculation as a sort of group therapy. Gossamar notions like “toxic masculinity” are the juju of our day. By the time the world outside notices their nicely varnished delusion du jour, it’s already been superseded by some other sorry fad.

Even after thousands of years no one has the answer to outrages acts like this. Certainly not gun control laws. People have figured out gun control isn’t about crime, it’s about power. States banning AR-15 style rifles have a compliance rate of five to eight percent, by their own estimate. The inventory is increasing actually, arms manufacturing is going underground, guns are becoming the bathtub gin of the 21st century. Add these to the three hundred million already out there, and an estimated one trillion rounds of ammunition.

Primordial Slack – A stray dog bit me. I demanded that all my neighbors’ dogs should have their teeth pulled.

We don’t know why he did it, but we know how he did it. Deputies were sent to Cruz’s home thirty-some times in the six years prior for domestic violence calls without ever charging him, which allowed him to pass the background check. The school expelled him as too dangerous to be on campus but hushed up the specifics, and the FBI “couldn’t identify” him from a threat posted on his account under his real name and didn’t even pass what information they had to its Miami field office. The agencies charged and trusted to intercept the Cruz’s among us were incompetent, indifferent, or both.

Since the 1930s, gun control activists have gotten the laws they promised would end gun crimes forever. They may be impressed with the results, gun owners aren’t and never were. They’re not at all impressed with having their life depend on someone else’s promises and schemes. Which is one reason they’re gun owners.

Aside: Anti-gun fanatics would have us believe the AR-15 came on the market a few months ago. Colt first sold the AR-15 Sporter in the civilian market in 1964. At 54 years old, the AR-15 predates most gun control activists. About 30 million have been sold since.

To continue reading: Tried, Convicted, Executed

The Texas Shooting Confirms Exactly What The NRA Has Been Advocating All Along, by Duane Norman

Enforcement of existing law would have stopped the Texas shooter from getting his guns, and if semi-automatic rifles were banned, the man who shot the Texas shooter wouldn’t have had the gun he used to shoot him. From Duane Norman at fmshooter.com:

The massacre at Sutherland Springs, Texas occurred around 11:20AM CST, and before the day was out (and the facts surrounding the incident were in), liberals had once again renewed their calls for gun control.  Leading the charge was former President Obama, who waited less than eight hours before restarting the failed gun control push which earned him the title “Gun Salesman of the Year“:

He was hardly alone; joining in his chorus were New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, NBA basketball coach Steve Kerr, and a slew of Congressional Democrats, none of whom bothered to wait until more facts on the incident were available.

As it turns out, there is one thing that could have prevented this incident, and it’s something the NRA (in particular, CEO Wayne LaPierre) has been repeating for years:

They should enforce existing gun laws against the people who commit crimes, and they don’t do it.”

Even after news leaked that the shooter had received a dishonorable and/or bad conduct discharge from the US Air Force (which would function the same as a felony conviction and preclude him from owning a gun)…

…liberals still tried to claim the shooter could legally own a firearm…

…and the next day, the Air Force silenced everyone – the shooter committed a domestic assault against his wife and infant stepson (cracking his stepson’s skull), which precluded him from legally owning a gun.  So if he wasn’t able to pass a background check, how did he get the weapon he used in the attack?

You guessed it – the government didn’t properly enforce the existing laws, just as LaPierre has stated time and again.

To continue reading: The Texas Shooting Confirms Exactly What The NRA Has Been Advocating All Along

Time To Cut the Crap On Guns, by Karl Denninger

In his inimitable style Karl Denninger lays into the gun controllers. From Denninger at theburningplatform.com:

I’m going to make this quite-clear — just in case you haven’t figured it out yet.The US Military failed to adhere to the law and did not report a disqualifying conviction to the FBI, which would have prevented the Texas Church Shooter from buying firearms through legal channels.  That man cracked open the skull of his infant child and beat his wife severely enough that he was tried by court martial, sentenced to military prison and then expelled from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge.

Under the UCMJ the failure to report this to the FBI as required by military regulations and thus cause it to be entered into the NICS databases so civilian agencies have proper notice of a disqualifying criminal conviction is a clear breach of a duty, and that is an offense.

Every single person involved in that failure must stand for Courts Martial or equivalent military tribunal for said dereliction of duty and effectively be made to answer as accessories before the fact to the murders that man committed, and be punished as provided under the UCMJ, including imprisonment for same.

That’s justice folks, and it had ******n better re-appear and be applied not only here but to myriad other scams and abuses including Comey and what we now know he drafted as his “findings” regarding Clinton, which used language that compelled him to issue a criminal referral for her violations of the law relating to classified information.

Now let me point out something else, since those on the left are again screaming about  “gun control” and “gun safety.”

civilian, not a police officer, stopped this attack.  He did so by grabbing his rifle, an “evil” AR-15 the left wishes to ban, engaging the shooter.  He hit him twice and forced him to flee.  He then chased the shooter down at nearly 100mph in a car driven by a second civilian until the shooter crashed at which point the shooter committed suicide (to prevent apprehension, obviously.)

To continue reading: Time To Cut the Crap On Guns

Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear, by Daisy Luther

The gun control laws we have didn’t prevent the Texas church shooter from illegally acquiring firearms and shooting up a church congregation, and the gun control laws the gun controllers want would have prevented the man who shot the shooter from owning the rifle (a semi-automatic AR-15) he used. From Daisy Luther at theorganicprepper.com:

By now, everyone has heard about the horrific shooting yesterday in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in which a man dressed in tactical gear entered the First Baptist Church and opened fire. 26 people were killed and 20 others were injured.

Of course, the tears were still wet on people’s cheeks when the anti-gun folks began screaming for gun control. Chelsea Handler, struggling to be relevant, made this ignorant Tweet:

If the pro-gun control people want to blame someone besides the man in there pulling the trigger, the man who illegally got a weapon, maybe they should look in the mirror. Maybe they should consider their own complicity in making guns more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry. Maybe they should look at their part in this war on guns and gun owners. Perhaps their derision played a part in seeing to it that no one in that church had the means to stop that killer.

If these folks had their way, none of us would be allowed to be armed…except, of course, the criminals who wouldn’t follow the laws anyway. The New York Times published an op-ed solemnly titled, “It’s Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control” immediately on the heels of the shooting. Okay. If that’s what you want, then here’s my side of the debate. And it’s based on facts, not on emotional rhetoric.

Let’s be honest. The person to blame for this tragedy was the shooter.

To continue reading: Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear