Gun Control, People Control and Thought Control

The gun control debate, like all debates with the left, is reducible to the question of whether we are individuals who make our own decisions or a great squishy social mass that helplessly responds to stimuli. Do people kill with guns or does the availability of guns kill people? Do bad eating habits kill people or does the availability of junk food kill people?

To the left these are distinctions without a difference. If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem. The individual cannot be held accountable for shooting someone if there are guns for sale. Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli.

That is how the left approached this election. Instead of appealing to individual interests, they went after identity groups. They targeted low information voters and used behavioral science to find ways to manipulate people. The right treated voters like human beings. The left treated them like lab monkeys. And the lab monkey approach is triumphantly toted by progressives as proof that the left is more intelligent than the right. And what better proof of intelligence can there be than treating half the country like buttons of unthinking responses that you can push to get them to do what you want?

Would you let a lab monkey own a gun? Hell no. Would you let it choose what to eat? Only as an experiment. Would you let it vote for laws in a referendum? Not unless it’s trained to push the right button. Would you let it drive a car? Nope. Maybe a bicycle. And if it has to travel a long way, you’ll encourage it to use mass transit. Does a monkey have freedom of speech? Only until it annoys you.

The clash that will define the future of America is this collision between the individual and the state, between disorganized freedom and organized compassion, between a self-directed experiment in self-government and an experiment conducted by trained experts on a lab monkey population. And the defining idea of this conflict is accountability.

To understand the left’s position on nearly any issue, imagine a 20th Century American and then take away accountability. Assume that the individual is helpless and stupid, has little to no control over his own behavior and is only responding to stimuli and functions in a purely reactive capacity. Then use that data to come up with a response to anything from kids getting fat to a football player shooting his wife to terrorists firing rockets at Israel. The only possible answer to reactive behavior is to find the thing being reacted to and condemn it.

The final failure of accountability for the left is a failure of moral organization, while for the right it is a failure of personal character. The right asks, “Why did you kill?” The left asks, “Who let him have a gun?”, “Who didn’t provide him with a job” and “Who neglected his self-esteem?”

If you eat too much, it’s because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it’s because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem.

The defining American code is freedom. The defining liberal code is compassion. Conservatives have attempted to counter that by defining freedom as compassionate, as George W. Bush did. Liberals counter by attempting to define compassion as liberating, the way that FDR did by classing freedoms with entitlements in his Four Freedoms.

On one side stands the individual with his rights and responsibilities. On the other side is the remorseless state machinery of supreme compassion. And there is no bridging this gap.

Liberal compassion is not the compassion of equals. It is a revolutionary pity that uses empathy as fuel for outrage. It is the sort of compassion practiced by people who like to be angry and who like to pretend that their anger makes them better people. It is the sort of compassion that eats like poison into the bones of a man or a society, even while swelling their egos with their own wonderfulness.

Compassion of this sort is outrage fuel. It is hatred toward people masquerading as love. And that hatred is a desire for power masquerading as outrage. Peel away the mask of compassion and all that is underneath is a terrible lust for power.

Freedom goes hand in hand with personal moral organization of the individual by the individual. Organized compassion, however, requires the moral organization of the society as a whole. A shooting is not a failure of the character of one man alone, or even his family and social circle; it is the total failure of our entire society and perhaps even the world, for not leveraging a sufficient level of moral organization that would have made such a crime impossible. No man is an island. Every man is a traffic jam.

Social accountability on this scale requires the nullification of the personhood and accountability of the individual, just as the moral organization that it mandates requires removing the freedom of choice of the individual, to assure a truly moral society. When compassion and morality are collective, then everyone and no one is moral and compassionate at the same time. And that is the society of the welfare state where compassion is administered by a salaried bureaucracy.

Choice is what makes us moral creatures and collective compassion leaves us less than human. The collective society of mass movements and mass decisions leaves us little better than lab monkeys trying to compose Shakespeare without understanding language, meaning or ideas, or anything more than the rote feel of our fingers hitting the keyboard.

This is the society that the left is creating; a place filled with as many social problems as there are people, where everyone is a lab monkey except the experts running the experiments, and where no one has any rights because freedom is the enemy of a system whose moral code derives from creating a perfect society by replacing the individual with the mass. It is a society where there is no accountability, only constant compulsion. It is a society where you are a social problem and there are highly paid experts working day and night to figure out how to solve you.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • AdinaK

    To eviscerate the Second Amendment is to exert TOTAL control over the population. And this is why the left is gunning for that 'right' and is destroying the economy in tandem –

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel –

    • Herbster

      You are 100% correct. We must add that without the Second Amendment there will be no First Amendment.

    • JacksonPearson

      There's an old adage Adina: Control the head, and the body will follow.

  • Mary Sue

    Where's Pink Floyd when you need 'em?!

    • Looking4Sanity

      Off making vast sums of money entertaining the lab monkeys.

      • Lucifer Dye

        Wrong, Mr. Sanity — Pink Floyd hasn't performed since 2005. Several of the original members of the band are dead. A benefit for Palestinian children was held in 2010 that included two PFs. So, you see, Pink Floyd isn't off making vast sums of money entertaining lab monkeys — or anybody else.

        • Looking4Sanity

          So you're saying the correct answer is “burning in hell”. K. Good to know.

        • @BlissTabitha

          Roger Waters just performed at the Sandy fundraiser & did some of the Floyd songs. Next best thing to seeing them play now is this (at least the closest thing left). :)

  • crackerjack

    And what exactly is the difference between Left monkey lab and the Right monkey lab?

    The experts of Right Wing monkey lab expect their monkey population to abide by the Right's concept of "traditional" monkey values. The population of this monkey lab are all expected to have monogamous relations in traditional family groups. Monkeys incapable of abiding by this model are marginalized and punished for their unmonkeylike behaviour.

    Sexual relations between monkeys of the same sex are not accepted and a host highly paid of experts devise programms and incentives to reprogramm this unwanted sexual orientation.

    Female monkeys are expected to be the subordinates of male monkeys. The choice of ending unwanted pregnancies is to be controlled solely by the experts of monkey lab.

    Right Wing monkey population is expected to worship a supreme monkey. Which supreme monkes are acceptable or not remains a decision of the experts. Monkeys who reject the concept of a supreme monkey are to be viewed as morally disputable and dubious.

    Right Wing monkey population is also expected to view their monkey lab as exceptionnel and superior to all other monkey labs and its rules as binding for all monkey populations worldwide.

    Right wing monkey lab offers no more freedom to the individual monkey than Left wing monkey lab, just a different concept of how monkey society functions.

    • KarshiKhanabad


      • RedWhiteAndJew

        It's cute when a leftmonkey tries to formulate a coherent statement, isn't it? It's like watching a ferret try to make a Stirling engine out of a pile of spoons.

    • Alex Kovnat

      @Crackerjack: You mention "sexual relations between monkeys of the same sex are not accepted … "

      Let's look at that. I wasn't born yesterday, and I will never forget the deaths of hundreds of thousands of gay men in the AIDS epidemic. The left blamed these deaths on negative thoughts about gays by heterosexuals (especially white male heterosexuals) leading to anti-gay prejudice. I'll admit such prejudices exist. But as a Republican or, should I say, a guy who thinks for himself, I always thought that mass sexual promiscuity on part ot the gay male community created the AIDS holocaust. Blaming Ronald Reagan, or hetero white males, or American society in general, doesn't address the real problem.

      • Mary Sue

        some leftards even blame AIDS on the CIA and think it was genetically modified to kill all teh gheys.

    • rjr

      Right wing monkey does not force anyone to adhere to traditional family groups but does put forth the idea based on sound research that a society is healthier when monkeys are raised in these traditional groups. Left wing monkeys advocate that these traditional groups are "too restrictive". And as a result both right wing and left wing monkeys are left to pick up the tab for all the single monkey households. And also pay the price for the increase in crime that those less restrictive lifesyles proliferate.

      Right wing monkeys couldn't care less whether 2 same sex monkeys have sex. But they feel that not allowing same sex monkeys to marry is not an egregious civil rights violation. Right wing monkeys think predicating a civil right on sexual orientation is not a good thing because of all the sexual permutations out there that may feel marginalized and expect their orientation to be likewise codified.

      • rjr

        Many right wing monkeys believe in God. They find happiness and joy in their belief that tends to radiate out towards their fellow monkeys. And the monkey world is better off for the charitable works that are done by these faithful monkeys. Right wing monkeys feel that if more left wing monkeys had such faith maybe they wouldn't be so grumpy.

        Right wing monkeys view their lab as exceptional because they are free and because of their willingness to sacrifice themselves for that freedom. Not only their own freedom but other monkey populations freedom as well.

        Right wing monkey offers liberty, but it must be earned. Right wing and left wing monkeys have to work to support themselves and be responsible for their own choices in life. They need to be honest and not lazy and not take advantage of other monkeys when they are capable of taking care of themselves. Left wing monkey, alas, does not believe the same thing.

        • crackerjack

          Right wing monkeyhood has no authority to offer liberty to other monkeys and set rules by which it may be granted. Free monkeys are free to live by their own concept of relationship and belief and to promote a society they believe best for themselves and others.

          • Mary Sue

            so, what if said monkeys think allowing rape and murder and theft is a great idea? what then?

          • JacksonPearson

            You're going to confuse him with big words.

    • Dean Weingarten

      False comparison. The right wing does not see itself as master scientists in charge of the lab, able to do anything they want to the lab monkeys without check. The right sees themselves as part of society subject to the same rules as the rest of society.

      The masters of the left see themselves as masters, and believes that there should not be any check on their activities.

      It is the major difference of beliefe in a limited state and believe that the state should be all powerful.

      • crackerjack

        The right wing does see itself as master in charge of the laband expects the population to follow its "traditional" ruels, Even though a democratic majority of monkeys have just rejected these concepts.
        A limited state does not intrude into the private , sexual life or faith of its citizens.

        • Mary Sue

          well we DO appreciate it if people refrain from breaking rules like Thou Shalt Not Murder, unless you think that rule is a bad thing?

    • @BlissTabitha

      Sorry, Wrong!
      The right is anti-statism first & foremost. Many are that way BECAUSE they believe our rights come from God (not government), but there are people on the right of all lifestyles. What sets us apart is we believe in self government. In other words, DON'T TREAD ON US & WE WON'T TREAD ON YOU! Don't ask our Church to Marry 2 men completely outside the ancient definition of what Marriage is & we won't ask what you're doing in your private time & bedroom!
      It's all about not forcing one's beliefs down another's throat . It's the left that is totalitarian & tries to force everyone to be the same. They try to FORCE people to accept something that's against their religious doctrine penned THOUSANDS of years ago. The left expects the right to accept their ancient Holy doctrine be rewritten the way the left feels it should be & marriage redefined the way they want to define it rather than the way God defines it. To do so is not only ridiculous but tyrannical!
      Marriage comes from the ancient Hebrew scripture & is defined as a union between a man & a woman that God put together for the purpose of procreation (that's why it's called natural law). Two men will never naturally make a person together no matter how hard they try!
      I've never known anyone on the right that's had any problems whatsoever with homosexuals having some sort of their own civil union or whatever they choose to define their partnership as for legal or whatever reason they choose… So long as they self govern & respect others to do the same. Just don't infringe on other's beliefs / traditions / etc…………….
      But the left just HAD to usurp the most sacred religious tradition ever created from the right & from God, while forcing the right to accept a brand new definition of it! The left even expects the right to service their brand new version marriage within the right's religious institutions, redefining a 6,000 year old religious tradition created by God, now remade by man into the very thing God said is an abomination to him! How subversive can you guys get?!
      Take care of YOU & leave us alone! That's why the founders came to America. To escape statism by the church – state & be who they were whatever it was! They were considered heretics to the church – state & only wanted left alone to live their lives & worship their God as they chose! That defines conservatism. Just lay off & respect that we're different. Agree to disagree as it were.. But the left simply CAN NOT DO IT CAN YOU?!
      What people like you fail to understand when you call Christians 'haters' for not accepting your version of things is that it's not even an opinion of theirs so they can't be 'haters'. It's the opinion of their God who is above them, the supreme ruler over all things & holds their eternal existence in his hands. They are submitting to & trying to live in obedience to the supreme authority over & creator of all things.Their personal feelings on any matter means zilch, nada, zip! So get a clue, try being responsible for your own life & owning your own mistakes & the right will get along with you just fine. You got a problem with it, take it up with God!

      • JacksonPearson

        Well stated… :o)

    • Patscholar

      Reply to crackpot:
      There is no right wing monkey population. We are all individuals who believe in self responsibility for our actions, freedom of speech, 2nd ammendment rights and all the traditional constitutional values espoused by our founders. No one wants to marginalize gays, we support traditional marriage and are opposed to homosexual marriage, an oxymoron. Gays have the same rights in society as everyone else we only ask that they don't demand marriage to each other. Leftists are the monkeys as Greenfield points out so saliently in this article, swallowing whole massive marxist propaganda from our Marxist government media

    • Ghostwriter

      This is one right wing monkey who thinks for himself. Judging by your statements,a scientist would conclude that you don't know HOW to think.

    • ron

      If you weren't so big on gay sex, you would be able to take this concept and expand it properly.

      Listen, most of us find homosexual sex to be abhorrent and disgusting. Because it actually IS abhorrent and disgusting.

      You should be focused more on whether the STate has the legal right to break down your door and haul you off to jail for doing something abhorrent and disgusting that is none of our business.

    • BillWC

      Cracked jack has is wrong. The Right Wing monkeys don't care if you abide by "traditional values" or if you have a monogamous relationship. You could live in a commune-style relationship if you want, as long as the children are raised to be self-sufficient, responsible contributing adults. Right Wing monkeys don't care with whom you have sex, as long as they are of legal age and consent to the sex.

      Right Wing monkeys don't care if you have faith, worship Buddha, Jehovah, Jesus, Mohammed, Gaia or little blue men from Uranus, or none of the above. Right Wing monkeys do, however, expect you to respect those who do worship a (different) deity and have the intellectual honesty to let others celebrate their faith and historical importance.

      The Right Wing monkeys view female monkeys as partners in a subset of monkey society. The female monkeys, by virtue of what they can do, are held in esteem, protected from harm and recognized as the nurturing, compassionate role model for monkey offspring. The female is uniquely equipped for early education of offspring in self-control, discipline, compassion, love, language development and more. The male monkey ensures the continuation of the family group by providing material and moral support, protection, a home with consistency and by teaching & encouraging the offspring to achieve goals.

      The Right Wing monkey believes in freedom of the individual, but that freedom comes with responsibilities, including the respect of other monkey's freedoms to be different. The Right Wing monkey bases its practices on the basis of evidence that offspring are best served when raised by male and female adults who are reasonably consistent and fair in their discipline. Said adults do not need to be bonded in marriage (though it is believed to be a better arrangement to provide for offspring) nor must there be only one of each.

      Right Wing monkeys object only Left Wing monkeys act like adolescent children trying to either shock elder monkeys or reject all of the wisdom and experience of elder monkeys so they may have the freedom to be self-indulgent or to ignore their duties, obligations and responsibilities to other monkeys and monkey society.

      Left Wing monkeys often confuse traditional, conservative monkeys for monkeys that are devoutly faithful. Such is not always the case. Devoutly faithful monkeys cannot compromise their beliefs and values and remain devout, while conservative monkeys may compromise when empirical evidence shows a positive benefit for it. This also differs from the Left Wing monkey who are quick to embrace the latest, most trendy theories even if they counter common sense.

    • Mary Sue

      Your analysis is lacking in this salient point:

      Your "right wing monkeys" are in fact "Islamist Monkeys".

  • Rick

    Planned Parenthood kills more people annually than guns do.

    • Yephora

      'Planned Parenthood' is their cuddly euphemism masking who they really are:
      Planned Abortionhood.

      • Kuffar

        Make that planned infant murder…

        • Zionista

          you got that right and it's predominantly black babies that are slaughtered, but they think the dems and the left are their friends – some friends.

    • JacksonPearson

      Planned Murderhood.

  • Guest

    The right is about inviting people to consider certain traditions and possibly adopt those traditions – like it's good to be married and have children in wedlock. The reason for the promotion of those values, isn't that they are "traditional" but because they became traditional over thousands of years because they create the best opportunities for productive, healthy, and wholesome individuals.

    Democrats want people as unproductive, and morally compromised as possible so they can manipulate those individuals. Democrats want the leverage over people to control the people because Democrats don;t have healthy bonds with people, so they want to be able to move people around like pieces on a chessboard. Dictating who can go to school and where, what people are allowed to eat – and if chaos ensues as in the case of forced school busing – so much the better they think because people will turn to government in their crisis.

    Liberals have no threshold for failure for liberal ideals. $10 gas – no problem to a liberal. 30% unemployment would only give them more enthusiasm for government debt and intervention. 50% graduation rates in some public schools, or even 30% in some areas only means that more liberal solutions need to be applied: smaller classrooms, more money, bigger salaries for teachers. If there were a 100% drop-out rate, not even then would Democrats admit defeat of their totalitarian ideology which prevents school choice.

    What's going to happen after drugs are legalized and drug addiction rates skyrocket? Democrats will call the legalization a success and demand more money for drug treatment claiming that all those who don't wish to turn 50%-75% of all income over to the government lack compassion for the victims of drug addiction. Addicts are always victims to Democrats.

    We are in an abusive relationship with our government. Imagine a man saying of his wife: " I don't allow her to smoke, I won't allow her to drink large sodas. I limit her fat intake, and make her read the nutritional information on every food she eats. I want her taking mass transit even if she has to carry heavy packages or deal with a sick child. I told her I would decide where she went to school. etc." Would a feminist put up with a man telling her what to do in those situations? But Democrats love to play the role of abusive spouse and then tell us it;s for our own good – like we are 5 years old.

    • Spider

      Great post Guest – Thanks

    • KBR

      To me, any 'progressive' is struggling with a mental illness. More intimidation driven threw disregard.

    • @BlissTabitha

      Amen! Great definition & so well written! Love it!

  • tagalog

    I always thought the lefties among us were very big on determinism, that is, that we humans are hard-wired genetically to be this or that, or to do this or that. For example, homosexuality is inborn, according to modern-day thought; in earlier times, history was going to lead to the working class becoming the leaders of society and bring us into the Classless Society. Much of what we are, and are to be, is predetermined by our genes. No need for free will.

    So it's not surprising that gun control advocacy would contain a large element of blaming the gun. After all, as humans, if we have guns, that means we're going to use them to kill someone. It's inborn in us, a genetic thing. Only government and laws can stop it.

    So how come we can't have government and laws prohibiting homosexuality? The "right" to be homosexual isn't even written expressly into the Constitution, as of course is the right to keep and bear arms.

  • RedWhiteAndJew

    There is brilliant insight in this article. What does an infinitely replaceable gear in the socialist collective need with weapons? A gear than can resist its removal is a liability. We can't have that.

    • billy jack

      You sir, are also brilliant.

  • Cat K

    Tag, if you examine leftist beliefs closely your head will spin around 360 degrees. They hate fur coats but kill unborn humans. They hate so-called gun violence but every leftist/union demonstration becomes violent (as "Occupy" did). They are for the little man but say not one word when their president spends over 1 billion on trips &entertainment. I believe Daniel had an article that detailed more of this and more cleverly than I just did. The point is that they believe in nothing. They are either evil power hungry manipulators or the dupes who have been manipulated. If you are neither then they target you with their hatred.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      If you are neither then they target you with their hatred.

      Right in the X-ring. Bi-polarity is the leftist's hallmark. They want anarchy which leads to hegemony, but of course it's the anarchy of a thousand fists thrust upward in unison, versus the disarmed individual. And it's the hegemony which rules over everything, save how you (mis)use your bodily orifices.

      They are also color- and sex-blind, save when they teach their black- and women's-studies coursesindoctrination sessions, and when it's time to decide who to hire.

    • tagalog

      I WAS a leftist at one time. IWW, YPSL, Young Socialist League. I learned and grew.

      The one most affecting experience was when I had a conversation with a couple of people who had been introduced to me as "Marxist revolutionaries." When I heard that, I thought of Lenin arriving at the Finland Station, of Stalin robbing banks, of Trotsky and his Red Army armored train, of fighting to overthrow the oppressors and all that. I thought the term "revolutionary" had something to do with forced political change, violent overthrow of the expropriators. Accordingly, I asked the "Marxist revolutionaries" to go shooting with me at a shooting range. They were shocked at the notion of actually touching a real gun. I then knew that "revolution" for them didn't include any kind of force, but something else. It was at that point that I knew that there's a big disconnect between what lefties say and what they are actually thinking.

      • @BlissTabitha

        LOL That's great!
        I'm a recovering liberal idiot too, but never got to the Marxist point as I had a family of USAF heros that taught me well about the misery it brings. I was more of a flaky party girl living the rock n roll party life.
        Anyway you are so right about the left & firearms! They hate them more than almost anything & are totally clueless as to why our founders made sure we have a 2nd amendment.
        I'm just so thankful that with all that's going wrong, be it the dollar collapse, bankrupt gov't / austerity or whatever; when the SHTF & the left is rioting in the streets, it's good to know it is we on the right that are well armed & skilled at using our guns. ;-)

    • Maxie

      Hypocrisy is in the Leftist DNA. It's the core of their notorious Double Standard. Their arrogance blinds them to their self-serving $tupid!ty.

  • zalukas

    For uptinth time:

    You lie down with communists, wake up with GULAGs.

    • dmw

      “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .”
      — Alexander Solzhenitsyn

      Self reliance vs Calling 911 (and getting a busy signal)

  • PAthena

    "The right is about inviting people to consider certain traditions and possibly adopt those traditions – like it's good to be married and have children in wedlock. The reason for the promotion of those values, isn't that they are "traditional" but because they became traditional over thousands of years because they create the best opportunities for productive, healthy, and wholesome individuals."
    The values of marriage and having children in wedlock are not "thousands of years" old, but millions of years old, since the beginning of sexual reproduction. The birds that nest on my balcony mate, male to female, and raise their young together.

  • electedface

    Mass shootings = proof that gun regulation is necessary.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      "When you purchase a gun online it must go through a FFL and background checks are done when you pick it up from the FFL."

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      "Hitler used the same techniques as the anti 2nd amendment fascists do today. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the scum who produced this propaganda."

      • Lucifer Dye

        It was legal to obtain and own firearms in the Third Reich. The only people who could not were Jews.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          An interesting parallel to the US, as the gun grabber movement here has its origins in denying blacks the right to own firearms.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      "You should know that this video causes an *instant* loss of credibility for your organization and your cause.

      I mean, really.

      It's frustrating, as I support the rights of people to stand up for what they believe in, even when I do not agree with it. You should at least make the effort to be credible, and to use basic, even elementary logic and reasoning.

      You are likely educated enough to use a computer and editing software.

      How can you actually believe a man with a rifle can strike a plane?"

      • trickyblain

        You can. Provided it's on the ground.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          Yeah, and Steve Crowder struck the union goon's fist with his face.

    • RedWhiteAndJew

      "The 6000 rounds of ammunition that the violent criminal used in Colorado had mostly no part in his heinous crimes. Criminals only need one to commit crime. The fact that he bought ammunition is brought up only to argue against protected Constitutional rights. Shame on those who use victims to push for victim disarmament. This video is nothing more than propaganda, that the American people have come to expect, from self loathing liars that despise traditional American rights."

      • @BlissTabitha

        Thank God some of us have paid attention to facts, history & the words of our founders. Those who believe gun control makes the world a safer place ignore all 3 & live in a liberal fantasy land. The only people gun control makes safer are the criminals & tyrants that seek to harm us.

    • UCSPanther

      You tried that argument in the 1990s, it didn't work them, and it won't work now.

    • tsafa

      How about he mass killings by governments? Crazy people only kill a few dozen at a time. Governments kill millions.

      The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

      The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

      United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons". American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

      The American people still have a lot of work to do with regard to taking back their rights.

      • @BlissTabitha

        Fact- More people have been murdered by their governments during times of peace than the death toll of all wars combined!
        Thank you for educating a liberal useful idiot. :)

    • @BlissTabitha

      A book of Gun Myths & Facts that will refute EVERY talking point / belief you have about regulation helping:
      You will see that to make gun violence & crime rates go down you get a well armed populous. To make them go up you use strict gun control laws. Happens every time. Just look at Chicago & DC.
      Go download the book, it's free & will educate you.

    • Ghostwriter

      While mass shootings are sad,they're not going to go away because we ban guns.

      • Lucifer Dye

        But, Ghost, wouldn't it be rather difficult (if not impossible) for shootings to occur without guns?

    • trickyblain

      India and Norway have extremely strict gun laws. They both have had mass shootings that pale in comparison to anything carried out in the US.

      "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      • Lucifer Dye

        How many mass shootings have occurred in Norway? I can think of only one, although I agree with you that it was a nasty one.

        • RedWhiteAndJew

          An apples and oranges comparison. Violence, of any type, is a social problem. The tools used to commit them are value neutral. If you wish to compare rates of violence ceteris paribus, compare violence trends before and after the liberalization (in a good way) of person-control laws, pertaining to the ownership and carry of firearms. Or, you may even more instructively review violent crime stats after person-control laws RESTRICTING gun ownership.

    • Drakken

      I agree with much of what you say, but, as nature abhors a vacuum, and our melting pot has now become a boiling pot and when it finally boils over, our natural instincts will take over, that is to protect and preserve our own and our neighbors.

    • Mary Sue

      guess what. Conneticut already has laws prohibiting bringing guns onto school grounds. Didn't help much there, did it?

  • Donald DaCosta

    The scariest thing about the Left is that they're winning the "hearts and minds," duping the "low information voters" with a persistent barrage of tailored "news." They've succeeded in creating a major milestone, the so called "critical mass," a voting block of mindless, clueless robots, filled with hatred for all things conservative, swayed, not by overt propaganda, although the Left is expert at using that too, but more now with the dearth of reportage or use of language in any way detrimental to their cause, while they openly and with great pride in their “journalistic professionalism,” report anything remotely negative about their opposition, rephrasing, clever editing or, if the facts are not sufficiently damaging, inventing a few of their own. A classic example of the Left's code, “the ends justify the means.”

    How would it otherwise be possible for a community organizer from Chicago, a closet Union thug, a smug, narcissistic, secretive individual with a helluva lot less “Gravitas” than George W. Bush supposedly lacked and tie ins with the likes of the Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezco, etc., be elected President of the United States? How would it otherwise be possible, given Van Jones, an avowed Communist, Anita Dunn, whose favorite statesman was Mao Tse Tung, the abject failures of nearly every major policy initiative concerning the economy and foreign policy, his denial of American exceptionalism, his infamous “you didn't build that” comment, his “executive order” end runs around Congress, an increase in the federal deficit of $6,000,000,000,000, “Fast & Furious,” the “Green Jobs” debacle, the Obamacare debacle and, in my view, the incident that should have ended his Presidency, Benghazi; how did this incompetent, self obsessed hack, the antithesis of the American spirit, get reelected on Nov. 6th?

    Answer? He is the charismatic darling of the Left who, since the sixties, have infiltrated and assumed control of Academia and turned it into an institution dedicated to merging indoctrination with education, whose graduates now permeate every major communications medium including print, television, the entertainment industry, most especially, Hollywood, and political punditry from which vitriol spews forth denigrating and rendering mute the conservative message while extolling the virtues of the anti-Capitalist, anti-American, “Democrat,” Leftist, Progressive, Socialist, Communist, anti-Zionist, anti free speech, pro gun control, pro Islamic agenda, all aimed at the “low information voter.” Paul Ryan throwing Grandma off a cliff. Mitt Romney, the “heartless bastard” who did nothing to stop a woman from dying with cancer and revealed his true allegiances with that “elitist” remark about “the 47%,” the “bullsh___er” as Obama referred to him, etc. etc.

    It worked. It was close but it worked. That's what's scary.

    • billy jack

      I live in leftist Asheville, NC and many of these low information voters aren't young. They are well-educated, monied leftists who know what's best for you and I—they think. They nurse at the pablum of NPR, HuffPO, MSNBC…..


    Good article by Greenfield, except that I don't think he should have used the term "compassion" when describing the Left, even as "liberal" or "collective" compassion – it's really an ersatz compassion, what Greenfield accurately described as "a terrible lust for power". That is what motivates the Left.

    • Maxie

      My thought exactly! Thanks.

  • knucklehead

    No, mass shootings = proof that there are lunatics out there. Gun regulation won't stop people who are insane, criminal or otherwise anti-social from getting weapons to do bad things with. When are you liberals going to admit that the 2nd amendment and concealed carry have SAVED more lives than not, by a factor of a few thousand?

    • Lucifer Dye

      There's absolutely no way you can know that, Knucklehead.

      • RedWhiteAndJew

        Gun regulation won't stop people who are insane, criminal or otherwise anti-social from getting weapons to do bad things with.

        There's absolutely no way you can know that…

        The evidence is clear for all to see. The subway bombing in England, and the subway gassing in Japan are just two high profile examples.

      • Drakken

        Obviously you feel therefore you are versus , common sense, logic and simple facts, typical lib/progressive.

      • Mary Sue

        Don't listen to Knucklehead then, listen to Professor John Lott in his book More Guns Less Crime.

  • tsafa

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this.

    The term "Well Regulated" in the Second Amendment meant "Well Manned and Equipped " in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term "Arms" refers to "Ordinary Military Weapons". American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The American people still have a lot of work to do with regard to taking back their rights.

    • Andrew Wakeling

      Good! I'll feel a lot safer when I've got something really destructive in the garage (a portable atom bomb?)!. If I get really pissed off I want the freedom to 'press the button'. Good for my 'freedom'. Not so sure about the neighbours' though (?)

  • carrie

    Liberals don't apply morals and responsibility to themselves .

    To absolve themselves from guilt and repercussions they use the blame chain game : a black drug dealer is not to blame for drug overdoses and murders he commits – drugs are brought in by illegal Mexicans ,(with the aid of a mysterious -rich-white-guy who funds drug trafficking ) illegal Mexicans have drugs,break the law and are dark skinned,so they are cool with our drug dealer – so the unknown rich white guy is to blame.
    The guns are next to be blamed ; they are of course made and sold by evil whites and easy to buy (stolen).
    The drug dealers 6 children by 5 different mothers must be taken care of, it's not their fault he is a criminal . So you now have 12 victims of an unknown-mysterious -racist-white-guy.
    Then add in his drug using clientele .

    The drug dealer and his 4 siblings grew up in the ghetto gangs with no father and a mom on crack. democrats blame this on white republicans – no free birth control,free abortions ,not enough welfare,drugs and violence at schools….

    His siblings are just as responsible ,moral,successful and reproductive as he is.

    Democrats declare the problems of our drug dealer and families are the result of some faceless republicans .The poor man only needs sympathy ,compassion ,empathy and billions of $ to solve ,not just his problems , but 3 entire generations of these ghetto dwellers .

    The Clintons promoted single parenthood as a good thing. That was so successful 72% of children are now born fatherless. Obama was a drug user just like our dealer. Al Sharpton is a cokehead,money laundering tax evader. P.Diddy owns the coolest rappers and drug network.

    Not a single person was forced to buy,sell or use drugs. No gun training or legality is suggested. No one created failing,violent ghetto schools but the students ,teachers and parents. No one stops the illegal immigrant drug smugglers /dealers.

    And the entire situation was caused by liberal ideology ,welfare , the moral free society the drug dealer came from ,unenforced laws,and his CHOICES.

  • Thomas Wells

    The most dangerous weapon against tyranny is the sound mind. This is why liberals want to outlaw it.

    • JacksonPearson

      Control the head, and the body will follow.

  • JCS

    Of course gun control works. Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country and also
    one of the highest rates of murder, shootings and other gun violence. Oh wait a minute…

    • tagalog

      Yeah, you got it. The law-abiding don't have guns, which makes it easier for the thugs, who of course have no concerns about the law, to use guns against them.

      If a thug had reason to worry that he himself might get shot while on one of his misadventures, he might think a little more about staying home tonight and getting high on his crystal meth with his toothless main squeeze.

  • Ghostwriter

    I'll tell you this. I'm not a monkey. I'm a human being.

  • BDTR

    While the left is certainly horrible about personal liberties, especially guns, the right uses the same flawed logic when discussing the prohibition of the current list of illegal drugs and free speech.

    • Mary Sue

      Last I checked, guns did not cause mental illness.

    • Maxie

      Oh yeah? Wait till YOU get assaulted on the street by some amped-up coke head who just snorted a noseful. In my case it was the driver of a moving van.

  • CEM

    "……If a thing is available then it is the cause of the problem………Individuals have no role to play because they are not moral actors, only members of a mob responding to stimuli…."

    This statement is equally true about both liberals (the left) and conservatives (the right).

    The liberals use this premise to make laws to control/limit/block access and availability of guns, "unhealthy" foods, tobacco products, etc.

    The conservatives use this premise to make laws to control/limit/block access and availability of alcohol, marijuana, drugs, abortion, etc.

    Both sides desire to limit the freedom of speech when such becomes annoying.

    As a libertarian, I say we should have full, unfettered access to all of these things and free speech, under the pretense and expectation of moral and responsible behavior by all. That is the true definition of freedom.

    • tagalog

      How does criminalizing or regulating the sale and use of drugs affect freedom of speech?

      The manufacture, possession, sale, and use of drugs are all ACTs, not speech. Acts are not covered by the First Amendment except when the acts are a form of expression (such as flag-burning).

      How do drugs express any idea, worthwhile or useless? "I want to get high?"

  • Alex Kovnat

    Re guns, gun control and individual responsibility: I invite everybody to read this link:

    So, here we have a problem in China of cowardly knife attacks on defenseless children in schools, using knives. So, what should China do? What should we do if such a thing happened here? Ban knives? My solution is, let teachers (in China and here in the USA) carry handguns.

    • Jim_C

      I don't know; try to picture your fourth grade teacher packing heat.

      • Mary Sue

        With the way kids are these days they totally should.

  • Washington76

    Innocents Betrayed, The True Story of Gun Control!

    Homeland Security gives UC-Berkeley an ‘armored counterattack truck’ June 29, 2012

  • Jim_C

    I think when mental health services are as accessible and valued as guns we'll be better off. I don't think gun control is any kind of solution.

  • Penny Haulman

    Pink Floyd, "We don't need no education,,,,We don't need so thoughts control! Teacher, leave those kids alone!"

  • Glen Beck

    I am so glad today, after the Newtown Massacre, about what I said some years ago:
    "I went to the movie this weekend with a gun. and surprise, surprise, I did'nt kill anybody:
    so, the massacre is the proof.
    look me up on

    find out on video how clever I am always

  • richard ahern

    We have taken God out of School and Government is the problem, and a generation of Sexular Huminism, and teaching false Hope. We need to repent to a Holy God and ask for his mercy. If we don't learn by history we are bound to repeat it, and that is what has happned. Abortion and pornography must stop or we will have more of the same.

    Government is the cause of the debt crisis. We must downsize government and return to are Constituional Republic. WASTE-FRAUD-MISMANAGEMENT

  • Washington76

    Invisible Serfs Collar "a group which desires to be strong has no use for the man who claims to think for himself."

  • Grouchy Old Man

    The entire problem is societal, not the presence of guns. Switzerland thoughtful provides a military weapon and ammunition to every male above a certain age yet they have a very low murder rate and just recently have begun to see mas killing of the type we have had for years. Conclusion – it's not the presence of guns but people's heads.

    And have you noticed that most of these attacks are done by young adults? This is our first generation raised on first person shooter video games, ultra violent and sadistic movies and unrestricted cable shows. Of course most of my liberal friends would reject this just as a coincidence, not a result of stopping censorship in the 70's and 80's.

    One last question, which my enlighten the whole problem, that of morality and ethics, why is it students "go postal" and not the teachers?