Stopping Violence Isn’t What The “War On Guns” Is About

By Bill Wilson || “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel once said. “It’s an opportunity to do things that you could not do before.” This, in a nutshell, represents government’s response to last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Not three days after the tragedy,…

By Bill Wilson || “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel once said. “It’s an opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

This, in a nutshell, represents government’s response to last month’s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Not three days after the tragedy, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein unveiled legislation banning the sale, transfer, importation or manufacture of any weapon capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Meanwhile U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration was committed to using “executive orders” and “executive action” to erode our Second Amendment rights – no matter what Congress (or, for that matter, the Constitution) has to say about it.

This debate has nothing to do with stopping gun violence, though. Instead it’s about  the political class in Washington chipping away at our ability to protect our families and preserve our property. Make no mistake: These proposed restrictions will do nothing to prevent future school shootings — or any other kind of shootings — but they will go a long way toward disarming law-abiding citizens.

That will lead to more, not less violence.

If Washington were serious about addressing firearm homicides, its leaders would start by acknowledging that America doesn’t have a gun problem, it has a gang problem. Yet instead of declaring war on the hoodlums who have turned our inner cities into third world countries, government has chosen instead to target the suburban firearm owners fleeing these urban terror zones. Who can forget 2008, when then-Candidate Obama infamously referred to these Americans as “bitter,” accusing them of “cling(ing) to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?

Here’s a news flash for Mr. Obama: It’s not the “bitter” people doing the killing, it’s violent criminals residing in cities like his and Rahm Emanuel’s hometown of Chicago, which is the murder capital of America, despite having some of the nation’s strictest anti-gun laws.

Of course, whenever lone nuts perpetrate random acts of suburban madness, the mainstream media obsessively psychoanalyze them, devoting endless hours of coverage to their rampages. Isolated incidents weeks or months apart become “epidemics” of violence. The goal, of course, is for us to eventually accept these rampages as part of a “new normal.”

This “progressive,” politically correct view of gun violence doesn’t square with reality, though.

To start with, one out of every three American homicides does not involve a firearm. Also, more than half of all gun deaths in America are suicides. Of those homicides involving firearms, the vast majority occur in inner cities, where gang activity is rampant.

In 2011 there were 1.4 million gang members (and 33,000 gangs) active in the United States, according to the FBI. Depending on the jurisdiction, the FBI says these gangs perpetrate between 48 percent and 90 percent of all violent crimes in our country.

Do these gangs care about gun laws? Of course they don’t. In fact, the FBI report detailed how gang members obtain high-powered weapons via illegal sales and by targeting “military and law enforcement officials, facilities and vehicles.” In other words, tougher gun laws won’t stop gangs – but they will erode the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

The best way to reduce firearm homicides is to arm the populace. According to a 2011 Gallup poll, gun ownership in America stood at 47 percent — its highest level in nearly two decades. Not coincidentally, the FBI’s 2011 data revealed violent crime in America was down for the fifth consecutive year, hovering near record lows.

So if reducing gun violence isn’t the objective of anti-Second Amendment legislation (and judging by the data, it couldn’t be), what is the goal?

It is to suppress the potential for popular resistance, naturally. After all, if you think government is out of control now, just wait and see what happens when we’ve been stripped of the protections in the Bill of Rights.

Bill Wilson is president of Americans for Limited Government. Follow him on Twitter @BillWilsonALG.  This column – reprinted with permission – originally appeared in The Washington Times.


(Banner via)

Related posts


Murdaugh Retrial Hearing: Interview With Bill Young

Will Folks
State House

Conservative South Carolina Lawmakers Lead Fight Against CRT

Mark Powell

‘Murdaugh Murders’ Saga: Trial Could Last Into March

Will Folks


Charlemagne, King of France January 24, 2013 at 10:00 am

Do your part and participate in “Operation Burning Wires”

Contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office at 2022243542

more info at: reddit.com/r/guns/comments/176tib/operation_burning_wires_the_biggest_battle_is/

Charlemagne, King of France January 24, 2013 at 10:15 am Reply
Zobro January 24, 2013 at 10:41 pm

There are 310 Million guns in America. The guns ain’t going anywhere. Maybe, just maybe you won’t be able to easily or openly buy something for a while or in some places, but we will all have guns whenever or wherever we want.

The real fact: the violent choose the time and location of violence.

Bubba January 24, 2013 at 10:02 am

Well said!

Glocks Rock January 24, 2013 at 11:16 am

Can’t really beat a Colt 1911 or a S&W of about any type if we wish to make a patriotic statement.

However the Glock has proven to be the most practical handgun to rely on in an urban environment to save your life.

Gen3 Glock19 seven thousand rounds without a FTF, FTE or failure to go to battery.

The Vatican security forces covertly carry the Italian made Beretta and that loyalty has nearly cost the life of a pope on two occasions.

I personally like all of the above but put me in a corner facing a fight and I’m bringing Mr. Glock, kinda like hanging onto the F150 but driving the Tundra on a daily basis.

Oh, this was some kind of a discussion about some assholes dreaming about infringing on our rights, pardon me.

Judy Chop, Casual Hero January 24, 2013 at 8:29 pm

Sorry Bubba, don’t like Austria-Plasticus type of pistols. REAL pistols have hammers and not spring fed striker firing pins. All my pistols are metal and have hammers.

I had a Glock 36 single stack .45acp that constantly gave me trouble. I had a Glock armorer rebuild the trigger system and it still never felt right. I must have had the only Glock to ever fail to fire on numerous occasions.

Close acquaintance of mine (his son-in law with N.S.) tells me that the entire squad on SEAL Team 6, that took out Bin Laden, were sportin’ Sigs. And they can carry anything they want.

? January 25, 2013 at 9:00 am

I like 1911’s.

Thing is, they are heavy and they are 8 shots. Last time I price shopped one the best price I could find (a few years ago) was a Rock Island Armory basic GI model and it was still in the $500 range.

I can’t imagine what they are now.

That being said, a G29 is a good gun too and has a some advantages:

1. When rained in during hiking I don’t have to worry about exterior rust.
2. Lighter
3. A couple more rounds(standard)
4. A little less money
5. Much easier CCW

One big Glock disadvantage:

Finding true(not watered down FBI shit) 10mm auto ammo(doubletap, etc.) and consequently the cost of ammo.

As far as it doing the job though on a black bear…I trust that round more then a .45acp

Some of you might laugh and say “black bear”?

I’ve had a run in two times in the Smokey’s, and with 3 brown bears in Alaska-that one could have ended very badly.

A 1911 45acp is a great man stopper, with some great heritage and good design. If I was just collecting guns instead of viewing them strictly as tools I’d buy a Kimber 1911 with all the goodies in a heartbeat.

But strictly as a tool in cost comparison mode and mission in mind I’m happy with the Glock 29. If I was more concerned about ammo cost and not as concerned with penetration in bear I’d probably go with it’s brother the 30 over the 1911 for 45acp use.

The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 10:04 am

I’m a little confused by the mixed metaphor of your pic Will.

Glocks are made in Austria and I’m not sure about the appropriateness of using them as symbols of American Gun rights by portraying them on the Flag.

In Austria, pump action shotguns, semi-automatic and other rifles when considered military weapons are all forbidden and a Glock pistol requires a special license to own. Can you imagine the outcry from legitimate hunters and gun owners if they were required to turn in or register grand-daddy’s pump gun? Wanna guess how many murders were committed with shotguns? Far less than with pistols (about 3% of all murders) and interesting enough, a few more than with rifles(<3%).

How about updating your freaking clip art and showing some real symbols of American freedom and what the debate is really all about. A 1911 and a Ruger ranch rifle (Mini 14) would do nicely.

Charlemagne, King of France January 24, 2013 at 10:11 am


shifty henry January 24, 2013 at 11:04 am

…. good ideas

Smirks January 24, 2013 at 11:09 am


USC Student January 24, 2013 at 11:13 am

For the record, there are many Glock pistols made in Smyrna, GA. They are not exclusively Austrian-made.

The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 11:43 am

USC Student is correct, Glock has a plant in Smyrna – they built it there to get around state and federal laws regarding foreign made weapons for the military and police. But I don’t want a freaking Italian Berretta made in Maryland any more than I want a plastic Austrian Glock made in Georgia.

I want a Colt, made by Colt Manufacturing Company in Hartford, CT, USA. (But I might be convinced to take a H&K USP Tactical in .40 S&W or .45 ACP)

.45 ACP – Famous for putting down bad guys since 1911

shifty henry January 24, 2013 at 1:00 pm

…… Recently a police chief gave me lesson on shooting a .45, and his comment to me was that if one of his officers couldn’t stop a threat with four rounds he was in trouble. Threat is the official term his office uses for the paperwork.

The pound pressure(?) for the first trigger pull was about 5 because his policy is that when an officer makes a conscious decision to pull the trigger it cannot be called an “accident.” Officers should fire twice which should stop the threat.

I didn’t do too bad shooting at a human torso target at 25 yards – got eight rounds into the body mass. Of course the target was standing still and not shooting back.

I was also given a lesson about how fast even an inexperienced person could pull out a weapon and pull the trigger.

His officers also have three safety measures, especially for traffic stops on unknown persons. The first is to unsnap the holster, the second is to rest the hand on the butt keeping the pistol on the side away from the person stopped (still in the holster), and the third is the safety on the gun. This safety can be flipped while holstered as I remember. They are not supposed to pull out the weapon unless there is immediate danger in the area.

Another lesson he showed me was that even a half-second hesitation could be deadly for the officer.

Possessing a firearm is serious responsibility. Everyone I know who owns firearms is both responsible and safety conscious.

shifty henry January 24, 2013 at 1:06 pm

…. I really like the .45 because of the feel, the weight, the power, and when someone is on the receiving end they know what they are looking at.

Smirks January 24, 2013 at 1:18 pm

I’m partial to .40, mostly because ammo for it is a helluva lot easier to find, but also because it still has a decent amount of stopping power behind it.

The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 1:39 pm

A properly designed pistol has two effects:

The first one is the intimidation effect – “…holy crap that is a big freaking gun…” It should be something like the racking of the slide on a pump shotgun, that sound will stop anyone who knows what it is and most people who don’t from doing whatever they’re doing. My grandfather was the sheriff of a rural county in Georgia and carried an ivory gripped, chrome plated, Colt 1917 (a military revolver that fired .45 ACP) that he kept polished purely for the intimidation effect.

The second effect is the hydrodynamic shock – of the round impacting the target. The math is simple, the bigger the round the greater the effect all other things being relatively equal. Smaller calibers make up for throw weight with round velocity.

5 pounds is a lot of weight for a paper puncher (target gun) but about right for a well trained shooter carrying a “combat” gun (think policeman). Interestingly, many police departments insist on heavier trigger pulls (a Glock is about 6-7 from the factory) with the thinking that it is “safer” because of the “deliberate intent” idea and the lack of training for their officers. What they forget is that the increased trigger pull weight contributes to a lack of accuracy for poorly trained shooters resulting in the “…45 rounds fired two innocent bystanders hit…” stories we get from NYC and Boston.

I firmly believe the majority of American who view firearms in a negative light would change their opinion if they knew the fist thing about them – even my liberal friends smile when the bust their first skeet or blow up their first (full) soda can.

carl January 24, 2013 at 11:11 am

I stand with Smirks on this one…

The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 11:12 am

Here Will – this is what I’m talking about


The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 11:12 am

Crap – it hasn’t taken yet…

BinxBolling January 24, 2013 at 11:14 am

Ahhh…so this is a conspiracy designed to allow the government to take our property and/or separate us from our families, or to suppress resistance. Gotcha. Opportunism at its finest, I guess.

So what’s coming up next? I mean, if we’re slowly seeing our rights stripped away, and we won’t have our guns (because the sneaky political class is certainly going to get them all, right?), and everything is crumbling around us…what happens when we carry out this argument/thought experiment? Totalitarian regime? Forced labor? Takeover of our property? Agents knocking on your doors demanding all of our weapons?

I’m curious about what proponents of this line of thought truly foresee in the coming years. And I don’t mean what sounds good in blustery op-eds, etc. I mean, what are you actually preparing for?

Glocks Rock January 24, 2013 at 11:24 am

Hey Binx,
I want you to know that you are entitled to your 1st amendment protection, however, the government has decided that some words have been abused and caused people to incite violence and rioting in the streets so those words are now banned.

Feel free to go to any church you wish, however the government has decided that there are a few churches that must be abolished since they have misled their people, causing great harm to the general public.

Oh, while we are at it, go right ahead and assemble anywhere you wish. However, in the year 2020 professional soccer and professional football will only be shown on television since there were some incidents where the crowds stampeded and crushed a few hundred people to death. And, buried in that legislation was a small sentence that also outlawed live concerts that could be attended by more than 1000 people, same reason. NASCAR died that day too.

Shall I go on?

Glocks Rock January 24, 2013 at 11:30 am

And just to finalize the absurdity of it all,

When the 15 round magazine is banned, what law will prevent someone from carrying two pistols, one in each pocket, with a 7+1 on each side. Maybe a pc on the ankle with 5 or 6 rounds.

Let’s see, Jimmy John is headed down to the local community college to massacre 20 people. Is Jimmy John really concerned with the penalty for purchasing said weapon on the black market without a license. How many guns can a crook strap on, place in a backpack, trunk of a car?

Gambling = illegal = corruption = wealth for the corrupt
Drugs = same equation
Guns= they are everywhere, always have been, always will be.

Democrats have always controlled the first two. How they would love to add the illegal weapons market to their portfolio.

shifty henry January 24, 2013 at 12:22 pm

…. within the last 5 days two people killed with shovels and one with a hammer

shifty henry January 24, 2013 at 12:26 pm

….. and I’ve lost count of the people killed by being killed by being pushed in front of subway trains in the last three weeks – once I protected myself by pointing my finger at someone and told him my entire body is a lethal weapon

Bonner January 24, 2013 at 12:49 pm

True everything you’ve said so far Glock.

BigT January 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm

Wonder if Obama will try to push gun bans in Benghazi????

Freaking Jesus January 24, 2013 at 5:59 pm

Nah, just paranoid assholes in the homeland.

baker January 24, 2013 at 1:08 pm

I believe the headline is entirely wrong. Proposed gun control measures absolutely ARE about stopping violent acts and mass murder. They might or might not be the most effective approach possible. But this junk about President Obama and “progressives” wanting to take away rights to defend yourself and your property — as in that being their primary objective here — is just silly.

The idea that we can stand around and watch mass murder after mass murder and not consider the role of high-capacity weapons is absurd — and I think extremely disrespectful.

Again, an assault weapons ban might or might not work. Armed guards in every school might just be the way to go. Mental health spending may need to be increased. Various other efforts might be part of the equation. But to say that cutting back on the availability of guns that can kill people quickly and in huge numbers is nothing more than a devious plot to use tragedy for political gain and for the purpose of making people less free is really, really cynical and wrong, in my opinion.

Smirks January 24, 2013 at 1:23 pm

Even if the motive is to stop gun violence, though, the overwhelming evidence, especially from the last assault weapons ban, and from the fact that plenty of mass shootings have happened without the use of assault weapons, should tip people off to the fact that some of these proposed ideas won’t do jack shit.

One can claim the motive of their actions is something, but if all evidence says that it won’t solve the intended issue, it is a really weak basis to justify their actions.

Charlemagne, King of France January 24, 2013 at 1:27 pm

if it was about stopping violence then the discussion would be about increasing police presence

how many gun homicides were there in england last year? 11?
how many legally registered assault rifles are ther 0?

I rest my case, England has an infinitly higher ratio of gun violence/ownership to america.

PZZep January 24, 2013 at 1:38 pm

“Again, an assault weapons ban might or might not work”. There is more proof against an assault weapons ban working than probably any other idea in existence. We have 10 years worth of proof that a ban will do nothing to curb violence. Yet this is what Diane leads with.

This “we have to do something” crap is just that…

The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Charlemagne – the gun homicide rate in the UK was 155 in 2010, the last year reported by the WHO. What Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey have to do with this I don’t know…

The incident of murder is 1.2 per 100,000 vice 4.8 per 100,000 in the US.

However, the rate of violent crime, rape and drug offenses is actually greater in the UK.

Charlemagne, King of France January 24, 2013 at 2:29 pm

I wasnt talking about the actual crime per capita stats, but i appreciate that input. i was talking about the number of gun crimes to the number of registered guns ratio.

The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 2:47 pm

I know you weren’t I started out to correct the 11 gun homicides number and just kind of kept rolling – diarrhea of the keyboard…

? January 26, 2013 at 4:52 pm

“The idea that we can stand around and watch mass murder after mass murder and not consider the role of high-capacity weapons is absurd — and I think extremely disrespectful.”

Well, if we are concerned with saving lives and worried about mass murder maybe we should first do what would save the most lives first.

Makes sense, right?

1. Pull our troops from Afghanistan/Iraq and you save WAY more lives a year than the other ways people are dying here in the US.

Then, before you get to assault weapons you should ban the things killing more people before them.

In order:

“Personal Weapons”(Hands, feet, etc)
Blunt Objects
and finally “rifles”(including assault rifles)

Assuming you don’t care about personal responsibilty or freedom then that is the logical order by which things should be banned to save lives.

Although if you don’t qualify those things done purposefully in terms of killing others, cars obviously should be first.

If the argument is that we should ban assault weapons because even though they kill less than all those thing above them, they kill more people at one time.(20-30 at a time on average)

Then I say to you that you are restricting the freedom of 330 million people over the death of .000001,(or 1/1000 of 1%) in yearly batches.

That is the very definition of both absurdity & insanity put together to form some new word in the English vocabulary.

xx chromosome January 24, 2013 at 2:34 pm

@Fits – Would you please make copies of this and distribute at the YMCA Soccer field to my stupid “soccer mom” friends?

Soft Sigh from Hell January 24, 2013 at 6:25 pm

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

Too true.

911 —> Invade Iraq

Belfast January 24, 2013 at 6:29 pm

Being very familiar with the troubles including fundraising for the cause in NYC during the early 80’s please let me point out that the IRA has been blamed for many deaths at a time when guns were supposedly unavailable.
That was war not terrorism on the by and by.

Two points: First, there are plenty of guns in the UK, have been, always will be.

Second: Petrol bombs are much deadlier and are the result of the difficulty of finding arms – people will always become industrious and innovative when determined to find alternatives.

May God grant us peace.

The Colonel January 24, 2013 at 6:37 pm

The UK is a far more violent place to live than the US. The Republic of Ireland seems to be significantly less so.

baker January 25, 2013 at 1:14 am

Smirks — I’m not sure I agree with the premise that “all the evidence” points to anything in particular. Has everything within reason (I know that we don’t all agree on the meaning of “within reason”….obviously) been tried? Closing loopholes? Assault weapons plans paired with better mental health care and with better law enforcement? Assault weapons buy-back efforts?

I’ve acknowledged that there may not be any sure or simple answers. But I do not concede that we have “all the evidence” necessary.

When a guy can go into an elementary school and kill 27 people, one by one, methodically, with multiple shots in about 10 minutes, I would argue that we should be looking at ALL angles. Yes, more police. Yes, mental health. Yes, background checks. And yes….the kinds of weapons that are evidently extremely available to whacks.

Smirks January 25, 2013 at 8:21 am

Weapons bans, if they worked, would only limit mass murderers to a somewhat smaller selection of guns. That wouldn’t stop mass shootings. People forget that the Virginia Tech shooter did not have an assault weapon:

Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun.


Let me link you to some pictures of these weapons. First, the Walther P22:


This thing is quite a small gun. Not only that, but a .22 doesn’t exactly have much stopping power, although it can be deadly just as any other gun. This is the kind of gun that I’ve seen suggested for women to conceal carry because it has little recoil and can easily fit into a purse.

Now, the Glock 19:


Decent handgun, and very common.

Also from the Wiki article:

In a backpack, he carried several chains, locks, a hammer, a knife, two handguns with nineteen 10 and 15 round magazines, and nearly 400 rounds of ammunition.

This not only shows how worthless an assault weapons ban can really be, but it also shows how dumb a capacity ban is on magazines. Who gives a shit if you limit him to 15, or even 10 round magazines? He’ll just carry more magazines. Shooters can find cover for the whole 5 seconds (if that) it takes to change mags. You haven’t made them any less deadly, you’ve only made it slightly more inconvenient.

Considering how many people Cho was able to kill with these two guns, and that they aren’t even assault weapons, banning assault weapons is NOT going to stop this kind of violence, nor is it going to render attacks like these to be any less deadly.

When a crazed shooter walks into a crowded, dark movie theater, it doesn’t matter what weapon he uses. He can open fire and be guaranteed to hit just about anyone. He’d likely have ample time to reload as well, even if his clip size were limited. The bad part is, the theater is crowded, which would make it hard for anyone to feasibly fight back without hurting innocent people, plus it is dark, making it harder to accurately shoot anyways.

When a crazed shooter walks into an elementary school, there isn’t much anyone CAN do. Children can’t fight back, they can’t defend themselves, they can’t really outrun the shooter. The best hope is for someone to be armed, the best choice being a trained resource officer, but keep in mind shooters in the past have worn bulletproof vests. Either way, there’s not much difference between an assault weapon, a shotgun, handguns, anything.

Taking away a person’s right to legally own an assault weapon isn’t going to stop these crimes, nor is it going to necessarily lessen them. All it does is fuck over people who haven’t done anything wrong.

If you want to improve the way we diagnose and treat mental health in this country, that’s great. If you want to close some loopholes so that it is less likely for someone to sell their gun to a criminal, fine. If you want to improve the way those background checks are run and make them more accurate, that works too. You can do all of this without putting an undue amount of burden on the rest of gun owners.

However, you aren’t going to stop senseless violence from happening, nor are you going to significantly drop shooting deaths in this country, with those kinds of bans.

9" January 25, 2013 at 5:21 am

‘Also, more than half of all gun deaths in America are suicides.’

Ballsack Dirt Blogger January 27, 2013 at 8:15 am

Captain Hook died of tetanus — he wiped himself with the wrong hand. Beware 9″ what you put near that perverted ass of yours!

mph January 25, 2013 at 8:28 am

“The best way to reduce firearm homicides is to arm the populace.”

“they will go a long way toward disarming law-abiding citizens.
That will lead to more, not less violence.”

“If Washington were serious about addressing firearm homicides, its leaders would start by acknowledging that America doesn’t have a gun problem, it has a gang problem.”

Several instances of opinion, usually poorly thought out ones, masquerading as fact.

Oh, and there’s this tin foil hat nonsense.

“It is to suppress the potential for popular resistance, naturally.”

Right, Bill, this is part of a larger conspiracy to take your guns and eventually…sorry, I’m not capable of figuring the rest out. I guess subjugate the populace like Stalin or Pol Pot.

This is just embarrassing.

This is why you nuts can’t win elections. Nobody can take you seriously.

Charlemagne, King of France January 25, 2013 at 9:44 am

they cant address the gang problem without addressing drug prohibition, they cant address drug prohibition without admitting its not working and creating gangs. they cant do that without admitting they were wrong.

so lets set up another straw man

Brigid January 25, 2013 at 10:07 am

That’s exactly what they said in Europe in 1938 when Hitler banned Jews from owning guns. Only Churchill was alert to the impending danger of Germany, and they called him a nut as well, then the planet was plunged into WWII. Funny you bring up Stalin and Pol Pot, responsible for the deaths of millions, while simultaneously dismissing them. You not only undermine your own argument, but also sadly reveal how uneducated and deluded leftists are about history and human behavior.

? January 25, 2013 at 11:50 am

I think you make good arguments Brigid.

mph January 25, 2013 at 11:00 am

Brigid, your points are all too idiotic to address individually so I’ll simply say this – seek help.

Hitler and the Holocaust, Stalin, Pol Pot and Dianne Feinstein. Ha! Nobody can take you cranks seriously.

mph January 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm

“That’s exactly what they said in Europe in 1938 when Hitler banned Jews from owning guns.”

First, who is “they”? Second, they said what? It’s hard to follow.

“Only Churchill was alert to the impending danger of Germany, and they called him a nut”

First, who called him a nut? Second, you’re telling us that Churchill was the lone voice warning that Hitler was a danger? That’s ridiculous. By 1936, both France and England were rearming and preparing for war. The Soviet Union, likewise, was aggressively arming themselves before the war.

“Funny you bring up Stalin and Pol Pot, responsible for the deaths of millions, while simultaneously dismissing them.”

I dismissed them how exactly? I dismissed the notion that limiting the size of gun magazines is the first step in creating a totalitarian regime, which is nonsensical point that Wilson was making.

“You not only undermine your own argument, but also sadly reveal how uneducated and deluded leftists are about history and human behavior.”

Ironic considering the tenuous grasp you have of history as evidenced by you placing limited gun control, the Holocaust, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Dianne Feinstein in the same historical arc.

But otherwise, solid points.

A Humble Chef January 25, 2013 at 2:06 pm

I have rifles, I have handguns, and I also have a sweet little stainless steel number I sometimes carry in my waistline that was made in Yonkers, NY, USA. American made protection from criminals that would do me harm. Damn it feels good to hold.

There are many just like them, but these are mine.

I don’t care what laws they pass, I paid for my property and nothing will change the fact that I am keeping my guns. They can get on tv and wail and gnash teeth about guns all they want. They can’t regulate simple drugs (even the legal ones), so I don’t believe the guns will end up any different.

This entire discussion is barely more arousing than Te’o’s imaginary girlfriend the MSM won’t STFU about……or is it just me that simply doesn’t care about the personal lives of football players?

SCBlues January 25, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Dear Mr. Bill Wilson –

If you’d apply some Rogaine (sp?) to the underside of your tin foil cap maybe you could grow some hair back.

Aren’t the colums by Bill Wilson and Howard Rich basically interchangeable?

junior justice January 26, 2013 at 8:53 am

We each have our opinion”

Glocks———-11.30 am
Smirks———-08.21 am
Mph————-08.28 am
Charlemagne—–09.44 am
Humble———-02.03 pm
Pzz————-01.38 pm
—————————–voices of reason

Binx———-11.14 am
Baker———01.08 pm
————————-call me from the camp

baker January 26, 2013 at 2:15 pm

I am no gun expert, so some of you folks (including Smirks, I reckon) can talk circles around me about different weapons and their capacity for killing.

But, generally speaking, it seems obvious to me that we are talking about drawing lines. What level of power or possible shots-per-minute or whatever would you people agree is too much? A bazooka? A ground-to-air missile? A grenade?

Honestly, if you buy the arguments about civilians arming themselves against the government, and if you buy the argument that the “original intent” of the Second Amendment applies to guns beyond muskets, then do you think ANY weapons should be off-limits?

And, if so, again: Which ones? Where should the line be drawn? WHat killing capacity is too much? Any?

Mr. Dixie January 26, 2013 at 6:40 pm

The government drew the line long ago when they banned fully automatic weapons. The American sportsman has been using semi-automatic technology for over a hundred years. Now, the government is trying to draw another line. I can remember when you could buy dynamite from the hardware. The government is good at drawing lines. I have some stumps I have to remove so I can build a drive way. I sure could use a little dynamite now. You can’t even buy blasting caps now – they sure were good for cat fishing.

Judy Chop Casual Hero January 27, 2013 at 8:23 am

Mr. Dixie I can show you how to make Dynamite-like product using heavy cardboard tubes and some other goodies all readily available. Don’t need any fancy blasting caps either. Using a little green florist clay we can make it waterproof for fishing too.

Stump busting be my business or I can make your pond a little deeper and wider, too. Kaboom is my middle name. Nothing like the smell of cordite in the morning!

Calvary lt. February 8, 2013 at 2:57 pm

Ten hut!!! Everyone listen up to this mans truth telling us how the devilcrats and Obakma are trying to systematically destroy the second amendment rights found in the constitution! And after that what?? Our great country will be destroyed piece by piece!! NEVER EVER TRUST A DEVILCRAT!! They have an anti gun anti American communist agenda! Speak up and loudly against their efforts! Now is the time before us citizens are turned into subjects(peons) and subservient slaves! What a nightmare! What their doing to America literally makes me sick!


Leave a Comment