The Argument for Guns


Following the latest shooting atrocity in the U.S., the Second Amendment has once again come under fire. Advocates of gun control claim that the easy availability of guns leads to a demonstrable increase in violence and to the kinds of murderous outbreaks we have seen in public schools, as in Columbine and Newtown. Defenders of the right to own and carry firearms argue on the contrary that an individual who is armed is not only better able to resist mortal attack but is also in a position to defend others from wanton massacre.

The debate has now become particularly heated. Witness the exchange between Piers Morgan of CNN and Larry Pratt, director of Gun Owners of America. Morgan contended that America is an inherently violent country with the worst rate of gun crime in the civilized world while Pratt countered that the right to bear arms actually makes people safer. Breaching professional etiquette, Morgan vilified Pratt as “an incredibly stupid man,” to which Pratt calmly responded “It seems to me you are morally obtuse.” Morgan’s statistics are provably wrong, and his comportment was ballistic, hurling verbal loogies at his guest; Pratt pointed out, correctly, that lethal turmoil in Europe and Australia eclipses that in the U.S., and unlike his intemperate host, he spoke with poise and composure. Another case in point: University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis denounced the NRA for having “murdered some more children,” considers it “a terrorist organization,” and wants its Vice President Wayne Lapierre’s “head on a stick.”

Loomis, like Morgan, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, and others of their ilk, refuses to face the fact that crime rates are much lower in areas where citizens enjoy the right to bear arms. According to the Daily Mail, the “gun-free” U.K., Morgan’s home country, has one of the worst rates for violence of any Western nation, 2,034 crimes for every 100,000 residents compared to 466 in the U.S. No matter. The NRA’s chief executive Wayne LaPierre has met with almost universal mockery and horror in the media—“Wacko Wayne,” “gun-crazed maniac”—for recommending that armed guards be stationed in the schools. But the guards are already there, at least in some of the schools. The Washington Post reports that there are currently “in excess of 10,000 gun-carrying police assigned to schools,” citing figures from the National Association of School Resource Officers. Private schools routinely retain the services of armed personnel; indeed,  Sidwell Friends School attended by Obama’s daughters currently employs 11 security guards and is looking to hire more. As AWR Hawkins at Breitbart deplores, “His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.” Virginia state legislator Bob Marshall comments, “The political elite in this city has their children in schools with armed guards…We just need to have the same protection that they have for themselves applying to the rest of America.”

It is not just conservatives who recognize the utility of armed protection for students. We recall that in 2000 president Clinton pledged $120 million in federal grants to place more police officers in schools. And on December 23, 2012, Democratic senator Barbara Boxer introduced an act that would enable the deployment of the National Guard at schools across the country. Where is the liberal/progressive condemnation of these sensible proposals? What we are seeing on the part of those liberals who are driving the gun-control paddy wagon is an unsavory mix of walleyed ignorance, selective moral outrage and calculated hysteria.

True, much of the animus against guns is directed at the proliferation of assault rifles and high capacity ammunition clips. This seems to make good sense until we realize that the situation is not quite that simple. Charles Krauthammer, for example, takes a far more reasonable and mature approach to the issue than most national commentators do. In an article titled “The Roots of Mass Murder,” Krauthammer writes that he has “no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault-weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn’t work…Even the guns that are banned can be made legal with simple, minor modifications.” On the problem of efficacy, Bruce Thornton notes that “murders increased after the 1968 Gun Control act, and later declined after the 1994 assault weapons ban expired.”

With respect to assault rifles, there is yet another issue to consider. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides for states to form militias, and for citizens to organize and train themselves in those instances when the state is found remiss. This ordinance is highly controversial, and its purpose today would surely be different from its original raison d’être. Nonetheless, a citizen militia might conceivably be mobilized to quell anarchic unrest or even as a last-resort resistance against a Federal behemoth drastically exceeding its mandate. A citizen militia armed only with 22-caliber rifles and 9-millimeter handguns would not last long in a guerrilla campaign against overwhelming force. This scenario is admittedly rather farfetched. But as long as Article 1, Section 8 remains on the books, assault rifles must also remain available.

The furor over gun control must be studied in still another light, that is, from the perspective of an ostensibly pacifist Administration that has been anti-gun and anti-American from the beginning of its tenure. It seems credible to assume that the disgraceful Fast and Furious operation was intended by the Obama administration not so much to track the activities of the Mexican cartels as to create the conditions for an attack on the Second Amendment. What better way to influence the public to gut the provisions of the Second Amendment than to craft a situation in which spillover gun violence acquires ever more media prominence? This reading of the ongoing scandal, which the DOJ and the president are doing everything in their power to suppress, begins to make sense when placed in the context of Obama’s disastrous foreign policy, his downplaying of American exceptionalism, and his reduction of American military might through budgetary sequestration.

It is not only that the president wishes to take guns out of the hands of American citizens, aka “bitter clingers”; he is also intent on taking warships out of the water, warplanes out of the skies, bombs out of the arsenals, and advanced weapons technology out of the experimental labs. Guns are only a subset of canons. Obama’s agenda, then, seems to be double-edged. On the one hand, he is rendering American citizens vulnerable within their own borders—criminals, after all, will not surrender their guns, and weapons can always be obtained illegally by those who wish to abuse them. On the other hand, Obama seems determined to render the U.S. permeable to its enemies: he has lost the Middle East, empowered the Muslim Brotherhood both at home and abroad, allowed American personnel to be slaughtered in Benghazi, installed strict rules of engagement in Afghanistan that result in greater American casualties, given China crippling influence over the American financial system, reset relations with Russia on Russian terms, ceded undue authority to a UN run amok, and seen to it that the U.S. as a corporate citizen of the world community is increasingly at the mercy of an international mafia of corrupt aggressors.

To focus exclusively on the liberal and media offensive against the gun lobby is to miss the more comprehensive issue. One needs to perform an act of extrapolation. The target is America itself, in both its civil and global dimensions. It is neither love of country nor moral solicitude that governs the “progressive” mindset. On the contrary, it is the distrust of the ordinary citizen to manage his own affairs coupled with a rancorous contempt for a presumably imperial America that animates our academic, intellectual, media and much of our political elite. The local campaign against guns and assault rifles is merely part of a much larger operation, put in practice by an ultra-liberal constituency and a Left administration, to weaken the U.S. both domestically and internationally. It starts with removing the common pistol; it ends with cutting back on the F-22 Raptor.

This is why law-abiding citizens must preserve the right to defend themselves not only in their homes and schools, but also in the diplomatic corridors of power and the arenas of international conflict. For they are now at risk in both domains.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • pinnie99

    THE SELF ABSORBED ELITE…They get all the protection they need …from Weapons…..WTP'S will continue to fight for our rights under the Constitution
    .
    R KIDS, DESERVE THE SAME PROTECTION BO'S KIDS GET.

    How can it be any different?

    LETS GET IT DONE …AN ARMED GUARD IN EVERY SCHOOL…OR, AS MANY AS NEEDED!

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

      Those who aren't armed are the ones who are least protected. And for the left to control the citizens they must strip them of their 2nd Amendment protected gun rights.
      And it is not for nothing that 'gun free' school zones have increased kiddie murders, instead of arming guards/administrators/teachers to protect their charges.
      But the plan of action is not about the kiddies. Not at all – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/27/dhs-americas-
      As such, watch what goes down re the economy, paying particular attention to Valerie Jarrett's moves, as well as DHS via mama Janet.

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://www.adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • RedWhiteAndJew

    Use of the term "gun control" is committing the fatal flaw of using nomenclature chosen by the opposition. It's like the pro-aborts' misuse of the word choice. The gun grabbers' agenda is people control, not "gun control." Gun control is what every responsible gun owner and bearer exercises.

    Gun grabbers are not pro-"gun control," they are anti-civil rights.

  • tagalog

    I am gratified to see the militia argument used in favor of the right to keep and bear military-style firearms instead of its usual use, to regulate and restrict firearm ownership.

    • Viet Vet

      Yet, even with all this influx of semi-auto "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, the crime rate dropped. There were of course other things in the Crime Bill of 1994, things that the NRA and gunowners supported, such as the FBI Instant Check System (NICS), extra prison time served for using a firearm in the commission of a crime, etc. But probably the biggest crime fighting thing that happened was that individual states began to enact CCW (concealed carry) laws, which empirical data shows significantly reduced these states crime rates, especially the violent categories. 40 states now have CCW laws in place. The beauty of the CCW laws is that criminals don't know who is carrying and who is not. They have to consider that any intended victim might be armed. We also know from criminology study in the prisons that criminals, burglars, home invaders, etc., avoid homes that they know or suspect might have armed homeowners.

      • Viet Vet

        FPM, or more precisely this awful antiquated message software, improperly put this post at this incorrect place.

      • Viet Vet

        BTW, the left (democraps) fought tooth and nail against the extra prison time for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

        • Mary Sue

          I know, right? There's irony for ya.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Of all the demands that anti-gun people have come up with, the only one that has any basis in rationality and reason is the proposed ban on high capacity magazines. Here. they have – if not a firm case – at least an arguable point.

    What bothers me though is this: In proposing to ban "assault rifles", what that means is banning a form of rifle because its appearance offends the sensibilities of intellectuals. This is inherently wrong. All rifles can kill people or animals, that's what they're designed to do. Furthermore, its unlikely that intellectuals would call a Springfield M1903 or an M-1 Garand an "assault rifle", even though the former was the standard U.S. infantry rifle of World War I while the latter, the standard Army issue rifle of the 1943-45 timeframe.

    • dmw

      Seems like the sensibilities of so many many "intellectuals" can be offended more and more easily these days. As to shouldered rifles, there were two periods where the citizenry were far ahead of the military and law enforcement in rifle "firepower". (In fact, the fielding of organized and paid law enforcement "departments" did not start occurring in the US until the late 1800s). With the invention of the Henry Rifle, an almost quantum leap in number of rounds that could be fired per minute or load was achieved. Yet with its introuction and seemingly obvious utility, the US Army — even during the Civil War — refused to adopt it because some General advanced his opinion that it would encourage troops to waste ammunition. As a consequence, I believe I read somewhere that an entire unit from one State in the Union purchased Henrys from the own pay. Then of course there was Custer who was apparently outgunned by the Souix (civilian rebels??). Then there's the story of the Thompson. In a later period just after WWI, the Thompson sub-machine gun could be easily purchased by anyone at a local hardware store for "varmint control" (two as well as four legged varmints apparently). It wasn't until after the 'Roaring Twenties' that police decided to arm themselves with Thompsons after seeing they were being grossly outgunned by gangsters (civilans) with Thompsons and surplus Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs) that were entirely legal to own. Then came "gun control" in the 1930s. So, bottom line, I believe banning certain kinds of firearms is a fairly recent development pushed by the needs of law enforcement to disarm or limit criminals, not ordinary law abiding citizens. Then of course there are the "intellectuals" with agendas.

    • tagalog

      Military rifles and military-style rifles are appropriate for militia use. No matter what your grammatical parsing of the Second Amendment is, they used that "militia" language for a reason. Some courts, at some times, have used the "militia" language to restrict certain firearms, such as a sawed-off shotgun in Stanley v. Georgia for example (although the case was decided between the world wars, and at the time sawed-off shotguns were well-known to be useful as "trench brooms" because they were short and could be used in narrow trenches to "sweep" the area). To ban civilian ownership of military-style weapons would be a direct violation of both the Second Amendement and the classic liberal interpretation of it.

    • Viet Vet

      First of course, for all practical purposes, assault weapons (full-auto, or capable of going full-auto with the flick of a switch) were banned in 1934. The weapons that the left is calling assault weapons are only semi-auto rifles that are no different functionally than any Winchester, Remington, Browning, or Savage semi-auto that hunters and shooters buy everyday at sporting goods stores all over the nation. With the exception in some cases, as you alluded to, of having a detachable magazine, that can be made high capacity. We know empircally that banning anything makes it more desirable. Thus it is with guns and cartridge magazines. We know that in anticipation of the 1994 so-called assault weapons ban, tens of thousands of these rifles were manufactured and bought up, that would not ordinarily have been manufactured and bought. Same with the magazines, hundreds of thousands of these high capacity magazines were bought up in anticipation of them being banned. In fact, so many of these magazines were manufactured, that upon its expiration ten years later in 2004, there were still high capacity magazines on the market that were manufactured prior to the ban (pre-ban).

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "What bothers me though is this: In proposing to ban "assault rifles", what that means is banning a form of rifle because its appearance offends the sensibilities of intellectuals."

      That may be true in some cases, but savvy leftist lawyers know that subjective language can always be used like a wedge or a foot in the door. They intend to expand the definition. That's why they're not precise.

  • Dennis / X-Detroiter

    No where that I can ascertain does the FedGov have the authority to prevent an individual to own a weapon. The 2nd restricts Gov, not individuals. The "Militia" intro is not the validation of the "Right".
    http://www.german-latin-english.com/
    http://www.german-latin-english.com/diagramamend2

    "Apologia pro descriptione mea: The phrase beginning with "a well-regulated militia" and ending with "a free State" is an absolute phrase, a.k.a. nominative absolute. A nominative absolute consists of a substantive (a noun or noun substitute) and a participle and has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence. The nominative absolute is identical with the Latin ablative absolute, except that the substantive component of the latter is in the ablative case."

    NOTA BENE

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      Then of course, there is the little niggle of the phrase "the people." Given the consummate wordsmiths those Founding Fathers were, you'd expect that if "the people" of the Second were different "the people" in the First, they'd denote such.

      I'm also an ex-Detroiter, btw. Pleased to make your cyber-acquaintance.

  • Prof Higgins

    In general I avoid this discussion with the same fear and trembling that I apply to abortion and the death sentence discussions; thinking it a lost cause to argue with those who are incapable of using logic and clear thinking. I keep and practice with my many weapons not because I hunt, I don't, or because I enjoy "target practice" or "plinking". I keep my firearms to protect my family against those of a sub-set who would harm us for any one of several reasons.

    The second ammendment was written as a safeguard for the first ammendment, not as a way to put squirrel stew on the table.

    • tagalog

      The Second Amendment was written to protect the right of the people to own firearms for any lawful purpose whatever. That included hunting as well as defense of self/others as well as Indian fighting as well as overthrowing tyrannical government as well as keeping local militias in proper operation. It also included the right to keep firearms one likes even if one never uses them.

      • Viet Vet

        Yes, all of the Founding Fathers admonished, many times over, the importance of guns in the hands of the American citizenry.

        Fear a politician, political party, or government, that fears an armed citizenry.

        They are privy to the wealth of criminolgy study and empirical data that shows unambiguously that firearms are not the problem. They therefore have ulterior motives in attempting to disarm the American citizenry.

    • dmw

      Precisley, IMHO. The problem with so many LIICs (Liberal Intellectuals In Charge) is that they fail to learn what blue collar Dirty Harry learned and expressed in 'Magnum Force': "A man's got to know his limitations." So too societies, which need to eschew those "leaders" which want to obtain perfection at — as history has shown — the cost of tens if not hundreds of millions of " not perfect" lives. Dissidents and unborn babies = collateral damage for the cause (if thought as "damage" at all).

  • Chap

    Have you actually read the DailyMail article? Crime figures differ greatly also because different classification systems. Now compare violent deaths in USA vs UK, deaths are deaths, anywhere. Well, intentional homicide rate, last year, USA 4.2, UK 1.2.

    • Mary Sue

      oh yeah, because death (homicide) is the ONLY crime EVER committed with a gun! [/sarcasm]

      • Chap

        No, but it is the ONLY one where you DIE. Are you telling me me that the USA has a lower rate of any other crime JUST because people has guns? Other than actual "gun possesion" which is a crime everywhere in Europe.

        Look guys, in Europe guns have been forbidden for ages and you know what, there is 0% support for relaxing gun laws. It is a non issue, NOBODY wants them back. Maybe you are different, but consider the option that you are just dumber.

        • Viet Vet

          You are very wrong about 0% support for relaxing gun laws in eurabia. I have been going to 'gunroom' chat rooms for years, and we have had many people from over there come in the rooms and express their disdain for their totalitarian gun laws, and offer us moral support in our quest to maintain our freedoms here (same with the Aussies). I have also seen them write into various Gun Magazines over the years. There are of course people who don't want or require alot of freedom. But our nation was conceived on the very concept of self-determination/self-government, and while that concept was the cornerstone of our unique republican form of government, Liberty was the entire thrust, the charter. And from our Founding Father's words, the 2nd Amendment was put high in the order in the Bill of Rights (a list of individual citizen rights) in order that the American citizens had a means of protecting and ensuring that Liberty. To offset a standing army and protect against arbitrary government.

          Finally, it is none of your effing business.

          • Chap

            Review your history. Your "unique" way of government was based upon ideas from French philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau. France itself became a republic in 1789, with mixed success, though. In Europe you have Kingdoms, you have Republics (most) and anything in between. None of the 50 or so european countries has relaxed gun laws.

            Of course, you can find the odd individual anywhere, but do keep in mind that you have been speaking to Breivik himself.

          • Chap

            Sorry, you MAY have been speaking… Forgot one word

          • Viet Vet

            Most of the power/rights in the U.S. are left to the citizens, the validity of a purported right and the scope and breadth of said right to be determined in accordance with the collective sensibilities of the citizenry.

          • trickyblain

            Disagree with your other every post on this thread, but +1 for pointing that out to our FPM friends.

            Breivick = FPM devotee

          • Viet Vet

            Our republican form of government was unique because it was the first time so much power had been invested in the people, rather than the government. The cornerstone upon which our unique republic is built is the concept of self-determination/self-governance. Since the Founders considered government as a necessary evil, they gave it very limited power. The drafting of our Constitution had but two purposes: to set up the various branches, and define their duties and responsibilites; and to greatly limit its power. James Madison, considered the father of the constitution, even argued against the incorporation of a Bill of Rights, on the grounds that it was redundant. Because, he said, the federal government has not on bit more power than they had enumerated it in the Constitution. Further, he argued, they couldn't possibly cover all rights and so at some point in the future evil doers may claim that since a right wasn't listed in the Bill of Rights, it must not be a right at all, and try to ascribe the right to the governmnet.

          • Viet Vet

            The American Revolution was fought with the principles of Christianity in mind.

            The French Revolution was quite the opposite.

            Many of the nations of eurabia are weak, vacillating and appeasing entities. They deserve the scorn they receive from this side of the pond. The only way they can even stay economically afloat, given their anemic socialist system, is for the U.S. to provide the military might to safeguard their freedom's (modest as it is) existence.

          • Viet Vet

            Oh my, good ol FPM, censoring again. There wasn't one word in that comment that would have caused it to be censored. FPM is really screwed up.

          • Viet Vet

            Most of the power/rights in the U.S. are left to the citizens, the validity of a purported right and the scope and breadth of said right to be determined in accordance with the collective sensibilities of the citizenry.

          • Viet Vet

            The American Revolution was inspired by the principles of Christianity.

            The French Revolution was quite the opposite.

          • trickyblain

            "The American Revolution was inspired by the principles of Christianity. "

            How so, VV?

          • trickyblain

            History? It's a bit of a stretch to claim that our republic was based on the ideas of JJR and Voltaire. Thier unattainable ideals make for good reading, bet led to internal chaos and mass suffering in practice.
            The French had very little intellectual impact (though their economic and military help was indispensable in the revolutionary era). Locke and his precursor Hobbes deserve philosophical credit, but don't discount the contributions of the US founders — they made it happen. Europeans have reaped the benefits in spades, and yet have the nerve — the utter gall — to act like like they are somehow superior in intellectual and moral dealings. They are not.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Review your history. Your "unique" way of government was based upon ideas from French philosophers like Voltaire and Rousseau"

            You are a silly man. Influenced by is NOT the same as something being "based on."

            "France itself became a republic in 1789, with mixed success"

            I guess details matter huh? But you have a trouble with using salient facts in your arguments.

            "In Europe you have Kingdoms, you have Republics (most) and anything in between."

            Yes…and?

            "None of the 50 or so european countries has relaxed gun laws."

            We don't need to go back in history to remember why we started a new system of government you more-on. We don't have the depth of traditions to hold us back, so we were able to put plenty of thought in to an ideal form of democracy with little need to deal with the baggage of legacy. Can you show any evidence at all, or even a specific rational theory to argue that our constitution is not superior to any other in ensuring liberty and equal rights for all citizens?

            "Of course, you can find the odd individual anywhere, but do keep in mind that you have been speaking to Breivik himself."

            Wow. You obviously can't even think for yourself if that is your conclusion. You're totally programmed by your leftist political leaders.

        • trickyblain

          Wow. It would seem like this intellectually superior European is unaware that the world's worst incident of mass shooting by a single madman was in Norway.

          What effect did your gun laws have on Brevick, dear chap?

          • Chap

            Indeed. It is always very difficult to stop single or small groups of determined individuals. Think of your own 9/11. However it took Breivik years of planning and large amounts of money to cause all that damage.

            The point here is how many other similar tragedies have been prevented by the lack of weapons. Instead of a madman running around with an arsenal you may end up just with a fist fight and a lot of shouting. Or with the police detecting the preparations and arresting the person before any damage is done.

          • Viet Vet

            Fist fights used to be the way things were settled, but then along came liberalism. We've always had guns in this country. The 2nd Amendment dates to the 18th century and semi-auto's date to the first decade of the 20th century.

            The many tragedies that have been prevented are the one's where a armed citizen prevented the tragedy from happening. To the tune of over 2 million times each year (per criminology study, and empirical data. If just 10% of those thwarted criminal attacks had been successful, that would be over 200,000 additional deaths. And these aren't just gangbanger/thug deaths, these would be innocent citizens.

          • trickyblain

            Money and planning are common traits amongst all these freaks, Chap.

            If a smart madman with money and planning really wants to slaughter lots of folks, he will. And won't really mind violating some random law in the process.

            Trying to put it back in the bottle? Only serves is to disarm responsible owners of firearms.

        • Drakken

          In Europe, they are subjects, in the US we are citizens, see the difference? We take personal liberty very personally here. In the US personal protection is a God given right, everywhere else it is the domain of the state.

          • Viet Vet

            Exactly right Drakken. The Founders considered self-defense and hunting as God-given rights. The 2nd Amendment was drafted expressly for the purpose of guarding against a standing army and an arbitrary or tyrannical government.

          • Chap

            So I take you citizens also have easy access to battle tanks and fighter jets… Otherwise your struggle against an "standing army" may be a bit hopeless these days.

          • Viet Vet

            If we get in a big ol civil war, many in the military will come to the Patriot side. The democraps have been screwing military personnel since Viet Nam. Just like the Colonists also had cannons in the American Revolution, the Patriots will have the big stuff too.

          • Viet Vet

            I think the biggest deterent is the big wigs wouldn't even want to get in that situation knowing that many would be taken out by long range snipers.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            " I take you citizens also have easy access to battle tanks and fighter jets… "

            Not even the Taliban need those. Why do people need fighter jets to defend themselves against a tyrannical government? I suppose it might come to that, but the point is not to maintain the best expeditionary forces in the hands of the militia. You're clearly in way over your head and never even considered that your indoctrination might have kept you from getting educated.

          • Chap

            British nationals are "subjects". French, German, Italian, etc are citizens. In practice the rights are the same, it is just a matter of terminology

          • Viet Vet

            It may be, but only as long as the populace stays in line.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "In practice the rights are the same, it is just a matter of terminology"

            The same among EU members, but not equal to the rights of US citizens. With 0'Bama making such incredibly traitorous declarations, I can see why anyone today might be confused on that point.

        • Mary Sue

          Oh and there's never deaths by stabbing, or freaking CURB STOMPING? Guns are the ONLY way to kill people?

          Let me tell you something. the USA has areas where crime is rampant. Guess what? These areas are where guns are HIGHLY RESTRICTED or even outright BANNED. Detroit, Chicago, District of Columbia, New York, most major cities. People are shot to death in Chicago every day by possessors of ILLEGAL guns. News flash: they are not law abiding responsible legal gun owners, they are gang members who could get guns from Mexico if they wanted to (or had to).

          Europe has, guess what, less of a problem than USA does re: "the ghetto".

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Look guys, in Europe guns have been forbidden for ages and you know what, there is 0% support for relaxing gun laws. It is a non issue, NOBODY wants them back. Maybe you are different, but consider the option that you are just dumber."

          With such a simple argument, I'd consider that you are dumber. You don't seem to have read our reasoning. We laugh at your civilization that is only truly preserved in history books. The USA still has a chance to carry freedom forward. In Europe, you're just hanging on to our coat tails. You are all little client states, so don't piss off your benefactor.

          It reminds me of the simplistic debates over nationalized healthcare. European countries do it, why can't the US do it too? Because the USA is the most important source for medical research. Taking away profit motive will destroy future incentives to invest and innovate. We don't have anyone to suck off of.

          I've spent a lot of time in Europe and love it because it's central to important Western history. The people there however by and large are almost entirely taken in by leftist lies. What sad sacks almost every last one of you are.

          You seem to fit that niche perfectly. Watch how you talk to your protectors, you silly little man. We're the only ones still standing and we've got our own potential civil war brewing. Unless you're Muslim, you want American citizens to have their own guns with plenty of ammunition. It may be the last chance you have to avoid sharia enforced on your precious "gun-free" society.

          Swords can be pretty deadly too, and they may not kill you for petty infractions, but you can lose a hand very quickly and with lots of blood and pain. Plus I don't think the new rulers of Eurabia will give a damn about your gun-free zones. You won't get any guns, but they'll have plenty.

        • aspacia

          Europe is failing, and falling to Islamism. The only people who acquire handguns in Europe are your villains. Try reading a few of the UK's more conservative columnists for balance.

          Your courts allow many free to rape and burn autos and homes because of faith. You have 85 Sharia courts which promote violence and discrimination. What about the two UK educated Islamists who tried to murder unarmed civilians using a car in Scotland? There are many in Europe who do want the ability to own arms, but they are not part of your group think. There are also many who are opposed to Islamists, with several wives and children living on the UK government dole and calling for the destruction of the UK. II know because I have many UK relatives as Mum was in a family of 8 during WWII.

          Cars, Knives, rope, box cutters, etc. can all be used as weapons, and frankly a solid Colt 45 is the great equalizer for a 60 year-old woman against an armed 20 year-old intruder.

          We have the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms because King Georgie tried to confiscate our arms and Ammo at Bunker Hill/Breed's Hill. Washington refused to be crowned arguing that we have just overthrown one monarch, why have another.

          What a Twat!

    • Viet Vet

      One has to be careful of the disingenuous left in talking about crime statistics. 63% of all gun related deaths in the U.S. are suicide. The left never subtracts these figures when quoting "crime" stats. Further, 4% of gun related deaths are accidental. In the category of homicide, about 7% are justifiable. Law-abiding armed citizens kill almost as many felons each year as does law enforcement. A good percent of the homicides are committed by thugs/gangbangers killing other thugs/gangbangers. But what isn't in the FBI stats is the number of citizens who save their own or someone elses lives by being armed. Or the crime results of the 40 states who have enacted CCW (concealed carry) laws over the years. However we know what these stats are because of criminology study.
      http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

      • Chap

        Quoted figures are for INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE

        • Viet Vet

          A good percentage of the [[intentional]] homicides are committed by thugs/gangbangers killing other thugs/gangbangers."

          Yep, I addressed that.

          My state which year in and year out has the lowest per capita crime rate in the nation, is chock-full of guns. Almost every citizen has at least one gun, I have many more than one. This state was among the first to enact a CCW (concealed carry) law (1985). There are no permit requirements to openly carry a rifle, shotgun or handgun in my state. Scienfic study has found that all the 40 states that have enacted CCW laws over the years have lowered their already low crime rates. There does however seem to be a correlation between these school shootings and the passage of the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990.

          • Chap

            And I understand that "gangbang" members, even if they were the only sufferers of gun crime, that they aren't, don't matter. They don't have the right to live

            Interesting US-only stats. Guns may be limited in one state but still can do a short hop to the next state and buy a machine gun. Is that representative of a "no guns" situation for stats purposes?

          • Mary Sue

            Criminals don't generally acquire their guns legally in ANY event.

          • Viet Vet

            Sorry, machine guns have been outlawed since 1934. It is illegal to possess a firearm in the states that prohibit them, regardless of where you buy them. How many laws do you wish to ignore and criminals you wish to appease, in order to get to law-abiding citiazens?

          • Viet Vet

            Exactly, they don't matter. They don't have a right to live. Yes, unfortunately they also end up killing innocent bystanders, who get caught in their cross-fire. Even more of a reason to say they don't have a right to live. Them killing each other is the best expenditure of powder and lead that one could hope for.

          • aspacia

            Chap,

            The most violent cities implemented strong gun laws, leaving the law abiding to suffer at the hands of the violent.

        • Mary Sue

          how do you know that? Crystal ball?

          • Chap

            No, wikipedia, that links to the original sources

          • Viet Vet

            LOL@wiki, a most unreliable source for information since anyone can put whatever they want there.

          • Viet Vet

            If you wanted to propagandize, you would set up Wiki. If you were a democrap man and wife team and you really, really, really wanted to propagandize, you would set up SNOPES.

          • aspacia

            Hi Vet,

            Actually, the Wiki sources can often be valid .edu and .gov sites. Wiki itself sucks.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Actually, the Wiki sources can often be valid .edu and .gov sites."

            You have to evaluate them on a case by case basis. It's good to have them, so I appreciate wikipedia in that sense because it can give you leads…but it's not authoritative on its own, that's for sure. When it comes to Israel and Islam, the intense lobbying of the Jews…oops, not really. The intense lobbying of the jihadis makes it very difficult to have balanced pages even when the event being discussed should be clearly full of evidence against Fakestinians and others.

            Some pages are useful, and some resources cited are valid. But, you can't assume anything unless you really follow the leads and authenticate the claims.

          • aspacia

            True:-)

  • JacksonPearson

    I don't see where there's a valid argument to be had on the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Politicians like to knee jerk, and try to flex their muscle, but unless it's totally repealed, there's nothing to be discussed. Perhaps term limits, and a cut in a congressman's perks and pensions would be a better discussion.

    • Viet Vet

      To properly repeal any constitutional amendment requires that Congress vote by 2/3 majority for repeal and then it is sent to the states where a 3/4 majority is required to effect said repeal. Same procedure as ratifying an amendment.

      This is why the left has never attempted to repeal the 2nd Amendment. They know it would never fly. They instead attempt to nefariously defame things in the constitution they don't like and then try to tyrannically legislate away those citizen rights. Or they get leftwing activist judges in place and work to undermine citizen rights via judicial fiat. The Founders would have taken up their muskets long ago and corrected this little problem. The democrap party today is no different than George III, and will eventually illicit the same response the Colonists gave ol George.

      • Viet Vet

        When I say the left, I also mean their sycophant media.

      • JacksonPearson

        They know a try to change the 2nd Amendment would fail., So instead, they dance around the flame attempting to pass laws that won't hold Constitutional muster, or stick. The difficulty the left has with 2nd Amendment is: "shall not be infringed." Those four small, but very powerful words, drives them nuts.

        • Viet Vet

          Well, they know their sycophants in academia have been "teaching" propaganda for decades, so you have both low-information voters and very propagandized voters. I mean, I have no doubt at all anymore that it's going to end in Civil War.

          • JacksonPearson

            I agree, but let's hope it never gets to that point.

  • Thomas Wells

    People are arguing with their wallets-gun sales are up.

  • Ghostwriter

    I don't own a gun anyway. I don't think I'd be good with one.

    • Drakken

      Well isn't it time for you to bloody well learn then?

    • tagalog

      Practice makes perfect. Maybe you'd like shooting. Try learning the NRA Bullseye program. It's demanding at the high end, but you can do well at the entry and middle levels.

  • Seth Bullock

    I'm a preschool teaching assistant, a gun owner, and a good person. These are not mutually exclusive traits.

    • Viet Vet

      Indeed they are not. 99% of all the guns in the country are owned by law-abiding citizens. People who are Boy Scout leaders and Den Mothers. People who are Little League coaches, etc. People who are active in their churches, etc. They are the down to earth ordinary citizens of the nation. Criminology study has even determined that kids who grow up with guns in the house are less likely to become involved in drugs, ostensibly because of the better family environment they grow up in.

  • Viet Vet

    Here is a compilation of the criminology study data.
    http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

  • Jeff Bargholz

    An FPM writer who freely admits that Obama is striving to drag America down to the level of puny weakness most other countries share. Thanks! Keep it up! And point out how he is dead set on strengthening the islamopithecine world, why dont you?

  • anonymouse

    There were 2 armed guards at Columbine… The second amendment qualifies the right to bear arms with the term "well regulated militia" does it not? WTF is 'well regulated' about 300 million guns in circulation?

    Assault rifle defined by its appearance?? Just about the stupidest statement ever made. So a kid's plastic toy is now an "assault rifle". Get your head out of your ass, man.

    Statistics quoted here- "lies, damned lies and statistics" or as my math teacher put it "a person with a foot in ice and the other in boiling oil will, on average feel perfectly comfortable"

  • anonymouse

    n the United Kingdom firearms are tightly controlled by law, and while there is opposition to existing legislation from shooting organisations,[citation needed] there is little wider political debate, and public opinion favours stronger control.[1] The British Shooting Sports Council now believes that the law needs to be consolidated but it does not call for a review.[2] The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).[3]

  • anonymouse

    compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher)
    compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher)
    compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher)
    compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher)
    compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher)

    Have you got it yet?

  • Bimbam

    What I get from this article is the utter frustration the left cannot take advantage of the False Flag operation Sandy Hook and are just MAD AND FRUSTRATED AS HELL that it isn’t working. Much to my delight I might say.

    Because they cannot reason with fact this emotionally charged Sandy Hook FF operation was their only betting card. Now they’ll just have to figure out a another massacre, but let’s hope this time it’s them!