Controlling Guns, Controlling People

A new history shows how gun control goes hand in hand with fear of black people—and The People.

Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, by Adam Winkler, W.W. Norton, 361 pages, $27.95

I first learned about the contradictions of gun politics when I was about 10 years old, growing up in the radical milieu of 1970s Berkeley. My mother and stepfather were members of a revolutionary organization called the International Socialists. Although the group’s members were mostly bookish nerds with little taste for violence, their inspiration was Leon Trotsky, who led the Bolsheviks’ armed insurrection in 1917 and then headed up the Red Army, which killed hundreds of thousands of the Soviet regime’s opponents in the ensuing civil war. Because my parents’ politics were primarily an exercise in middle-class intellectual fantasy, I was never exposed to real violence or even violent rhetoric, and they never owned a gun. 

My stepfather’s best friend, Jeff, who lived in a cottage behind ours, was a member of the Spartacist League, a rival Trotskyist organization that was less shy about the violent implications of its rhetoric. The Spartacists were known for physically attacking strikebreakers and Klansmen and for rumbling with Maoists over the imagined turf of the Bay Area’s revolutionary working class. One day I happened upon Jeff cleaning a pistol at his kitchen table. Despite the fact that his and my parents’ hero was one of the greatest perpetrators of gun violence in the 20th century, I somehow saw guns as not only scary but also right-wing and politically “bad.” I told Jeff I hated guns and wished they all would be rounded up and melted down. “But we can’t have a revolution without them,” he said with a sanguine smile.

As an adult I continued to fear and hate guns and to generally align myself with the gun control cause, but Jeff’s suggestion that the regulation of people’s access to guns is essentially conservative nagged at me, unresolved, until I read UCLA law professor Adam Winkler’s stunning new book Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. At the heart of his narrative, Winkler convincingly argues that the people who began the movement against gun control operated not out of the National Rifle Association’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., but out of a nondescript two-story brick building three blocks from where I sat staring at that pistol: 3106 Shattuck Avenue, in the heart of radical Berkeley. It was there, in 1967, at the headquarters of the Black Panther Party, that Huey Newton and Bobby Seale planned an armed march into the California State Capitol that “launched the modern gun-rights movement.”

Despite my feelings about guns, even as a child I admired that the Panthers made their name shortly after their founding in 1966 by patrolling West Oakland streets with rifles and shotguns and confronting police officers who were detaining blacks. It seemed to me that there was no more effective means of curbing the daily police brutality being meted out to the residents of Oakland’s ghetto. But I did not know until reading Gunfight that the Panthers’ armed patrols provoked the drafting of legislation that established today’s gun regulation apparatus, or that the champions of that legislation were as conservative as apple pie. 

In 1967 Don Mulford, the Republican state assemblyman who represented the Panthers’ patrol zone and who had once famously denounced the Free Speech Movement and anti-war demonstrations at the University of California at Berkeley, introduced a bill inspired by the Panthers that prohibited the public carrying of loaded firearms, open and concealed. As Winkler puts it, the text of what became the Mulford Act “all but pointed a finger at the Panthers when it said, ‘The State of California has witnessed, in recent years, the increasing incidence of organized groups and individuals publicly arming themselves for purposes inimical to the peace and safety of the people of California.’ ” The law made California the first state to ban the open carrying of loaded firearms.

Shortly after Mulford introduced his bill, a contingent of 30 Black Panthers arrived in a convoy of cars in front of the Capitol in Sacramento. They loaded ammunition into .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols, then brought the guns up the steps of the statehouse, where Bobby Seale read a statement denouncing the Assembly’s attempt “at keeping the black people disarmed and powerless at the very same time that racist police agencies throughout the country are intensifying the terror and repression of black people.” Seale concluded that “the time has come for black people to arm themselves against this terror before it is too late. The pending Mulford Act brings the hour of doom one step nearer.” With that, the Panthers marched with their weapons through the front doors of the statehouse and into the viewing area of the Assembly chamber. Carrying loaded guns into the Capitol building was perfectly legal—until three months later, when Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford bill into law.

The Panthers weren’t the only black people using guns for political purposes. Two months after the invasion of Sacramento, riots erupted in response to instances of police brutality in the black sections of Detroit and Newark. From rooftops, windows, and doorways, gunmen fired on police, National Guardsmen, and Army troops sent to quash the rebellions. Congress responded by passing the Gun Control Act of 1968 and its companion bill, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Although Winkler chastises “extremists” on both sides of the current gun control debate who characterize their opponents as totalitarians, he does note that while drafting the 1968 bills, Sen. Thomas Dodd (D-Conn.) had the Library of Congress provide him with an English translation of the gun control regulations that the Nazis used to disarm Jews and political dissidents. 

The 1968 legislation, which underlies the modern system of federal gun regulation, prohibited interstate sales except among licensed dealers and collectors. It also banned gun sales to “prohibited persons,” including felons, the mentally “defective,” illicit drug users, and anyone who, like many black radicals at the time, “has renounced his citizenship.” These laws “marked Congress’s first attempts at serious gun regulation since the 1930s,” Winkler writes, “and, like California’s law, they also represented a backlash against armed blacks who were seen to be undermining social order.”

Winkler shows that Mulford, Reagan, and Dodd weren’t the first political elites to attempt to quell popular resistance through the regulation of guns. The Founding Fathers advocated the forcible disarmament of not only slaves, free blacks, and people of mixed race but also of whites who refused to swear allegiance to the cause of independence. The Loyalists whose guns were confiscated during the War of Independence “weren’t criminals or traitors who took up arms on behalf of the British,” Winkler writes. “They were ordinary citizens exercising their fundamental right to freedom of conscience.” More important, despite their reputation as freedom lovers, the Founders proved to be “perfectly willing to confiscate weapons from anyone deemed untrustworthy—a category so broadly defined that it included a majority of the people.”

Although contemporary gun control moralists such as Michael Moore portray their cause as being on the right side of history, Gunfight establishes that the first gun control organizations in the United States were the posses that terrorized freed slaves after the Civil War. Many freedmen came into possession of guns that were confiscated from former masters and Confederate soldiers. But organizations with names like the Men of Justice, the Knights of the White Camellia, and the Knights of the Rising Sun roamed on horseback across the South, shooting, hanging, and disarming blacks. “The most infamous of these,” Winkler reports, “was the Ku Klux Klan.”

Winkler found that in the allegedly gun-loving outposts of the wild West, gun confiscation was commonplace. “Frontier towns handled guns the way a Boston restaurant today handles overcoats in winter,” he writes. “New arrivals were required to turn in their guns to authorities in exchange for something like a metal token. Certain places required people to check their guns at one of the major entry points to town or leave their weapons with their horses at the livery stables.” Further confounding the notion that gun control is a people’s cause, Winkler reports that guns were taken away not just in the interest of public safety but also to promote what leftists now call corporatism. Because the political leaders of frontier towns wanted to attract business investors who would spur economic development, they chose to follow the dictum of a newspaper editor in the cattle town of Caldwell, Kansas: “People who have money to invest go where they are protected by law, and where good society and order reign.”

The next surge of gun control legislation accompanied the progressive movement of the early 20th century, when New York state adopted the Sullivan Act of 1911, the first law in the United States requiring a permit for the possession of a firearm. Winkler notes that “enhancing public safety by regulating guns was of a piece with the progressive ferment that pushed for minimum-wage laws, child labor laws, and food quality legislation.” He does not mention that—at least according to many historians of progressivism—gun control and minimum wage laws were also of a piece with the progressives’ overarching desire for social control. 

Similarly, Winkler fails to connect his argument that gun control historically served the interests of political elites with his analysis of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who as president launched a massive campaign against the right to bear arms through the Bureau of Investigation. According to Winkler, “the New Deal for Crime” was designed merely to protect innocent citizens from gangsters and their guns. Yet his main source for this section of the book is Claire Bond Potter’s War on Crime, which presents a scholarly case that Roosevelt’s Bureau of Investigation helped establish the supremacy of centralized government over individual rights and social movements in mid-20th-century American culture.

Despite Winkler’s apparent fondness for modern liberalism and consequent blind spots, he presents a history that turns on its head the modern liberal’s conceit that those who side with gun control necessarily side with the people.

Thaddeus Russell is the author of A Renegade History of the United States (Free Press).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tony||

    Well, gun proliferation now has the effect of black people killing black people in large numbers.

    There were strict gun controls in place well before Reconstruction. This "gun control is racist" thing is kind of nonsense. For much of the history of the US, the entire legal system was set against blacks, including gun laws.

    That is pretty much irrelevant to a discussion of the prudence of gun regulation in the 21st century, where black people are overwhelmingly likely to be victims of gun crimes. One thing has been constant, however: armed self-defense of one's home remains an extremely rare thing. I bet you're more likely to be robbed when you're not home and have your guns stolen and taken to the streets.

    Obviously extreme liberalization of gun rights has won out over gun control. As guns are machines designed to kill people, it's not beyond reasonableness to discuss how to properly regulate them just like any other dangerous thing. I for one am tired of having some of the worst murder metrics in the world in order to protect the Rambo fantasies of paranoid white guys.

  • sarcasmic||

    Well, gun proliferation turf battles over the black market for politically incorrect chemicals now has the effect of black people killing black people in large numbers.

    ftfy

  • Tony||

    True, but all else being equal wouldn't it be better if they had baseball bats and knives instead of guns to fight their turf battles?

    I say let the rednecks have their hunting toys, but different jurisdictions have different needs. Hiding behind a relatively novel interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an excuse to ignore the practical reality of gun proliferation is not responsible.

  • Matrix||

    Yet the guns they kill each other with are often illegal. So banning them has done nothing to stop their use or distribution..

  • ||

    The Patriot Act and the recent Send Americans to Gitmo Act wholeheartedly endorse Tony's comments.

  • sarcasmic||

    Wouldn't it be better if Prohibition ended and they had nothing to fight about?

  • Goon||

    all else being equal wouldn't it be better if they had baseball bats and knives instead of guns to fight their turf battles

    Yep. It's easier to "teach someone a lesson" with a baseball bat.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony, if you took your head out of your ass and did a tiny bit of research, you would find that the places in this country with the highest murder rates have the most restrictive gun laws.

  • Tony||

    So are you asserting that strict gun laws cause higher murder rates?

    Or perhaps the causation is the other way around?

  • Tim||

    He's asserting that you are an ass.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm saying that strict gun laws don't stop lawbreakers from carrying guns.

    If you're planning to commit murder, is a law banning guns going to stop you?

    Really?

  • Tony||

    It may stop me from committing murder with a gun, which is, after all, a machine designed to commit murder.

  • sarcasmic||

    It may stop me from committing murder with a gun, which is, after all, a machine designed to commit murder.

    If you are already involved in the black market for illegal drugs, you will have easy access to illegal guns.

    So that comment is really stupid, lacking in thought, or dishonest.

  • RoboCain||

    It's also a machine designed to prevent murder. Which is what happens much more often.

  • ||

    It may stop me from committing murder with a gun, which is, after all, a machine designed to commit murder.

    This is often stated, and always bullshit.

    A firearm is not designed to murder, it is designed to eject a projectile using a propellant. Nothing more, nothing less.

    The act of murder with a firearm requires a conscious decision to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger.

  • Tony||

    it is designed to eject a projectile using a propellant

    Which just happens to have the effect of ripping apart tissue and organs.

  • ||

    Which just happens to have the effect of ripping apart tissue and organs.

    Step in front of a car. Your tissue and organs will be torn apart.

    Does this mean cars were designed to murder people?

  • Tony||

    No, cars are not designed to murder people, but guns are. They're not noisemakers.

  • ||

    Are you stupid or just being difficult?

    Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought.

    Inanimate objects can't be designed to murder. They lack the ability to have malice aforethought (or any kind of thought for that matter).

    I own several dozen firearms. None of them were designed to murder another human.

  • sarcasmic||

    Swimming pools are designed to drown people.

    Spoons are designed to make people fat.

    Matches are designed for arson.

  • Tony||

    If guns aren't designed to kill people, then why would you get one for self defense?

  • ||

    It is a tool designed to kill, as you say here, not a tool designed to murder, as you say elsewhere.

  • STEVE SMITH||

    STEVE SAY YOUR PENIS IS A TOOL DESIGNED FOR RAPE! RAPEY RAPEY RAPE!

  • TheCrimsonMane||

    And yet, cars kill more people annually than firearms. Guns must make for shitty murdering devices.

  • thirtyandseven||

    Which just happens to have the effect of ripping apart tissue and organs.

    Exactly, which is why we need to outlaw dinner plates. Last time I tried to munch on a few shards of a broken one, it had the exact same effect on me!! Clearly, this is it's designed purpose.

  • Paul||

    It may stop me from committing murder with a gun, which is, after all, a machine designed to commit murder.

    That is a lie, Tony and you know better.

  • ||

    “It may stop me from committing murder with a gun, which is, after all, a machine designed to commit murder.”
    Then true murder was not your intent in the first place.
    Since your Progressive Liberal Mind seems to be set on slow.
    A gun is a tool it can be used for many things, hunting, target shooting, self defense, defense of an innocent.....and in some cases when used by criminals yes little tony even Murder.
    Stop spouting the Liberal dogma that guns are evil. A gun is a tool that is an inanimate object and there for by definition has no feelings and no intentions. Those two things are Human in origin and that is where those things remain. It takes a human bent on killing to commit murder. The gun happened to be the tool in some of the cases.
    If your Progressive “ideals” are so pure and wonderful, then maybe you and a group of “enlightened” friends can sit around a camp fire and “fix human nature” then no one would ever commit a crime.
    But my guess is you and your Liberal Progressive chugger buddies will just cry and stamp your feet while bitching that there “Needs to be more LAWS”
    Get over it the Government has never and will never fix humans with laws.

  • Llama||

    I agree with Tony. It's way better for society that people only get murdered by knives and baseball bats.

  • Unarmed Brit||

    I second that.

  • vb||

    tony can call 911 and scream loudly and grab the proverbial golf club to protect himself and a family if he has one. i will call 911 as i load a round into my glock, thank you very much.

  • Please Don't Start This Again||

    Perhaps.

  • sarcasmic||

    Higher population density combined with a market for illegal drugs creates more deadly competition.

    It's the market for illegal drugs that causes the violence, not the guns.

  • Drug Dealers||

    Thank you Tony for trying to push another product we can sell on the streets our way. We will make billions from the illegal sale of firearms once people like you get them outlawed. Whats great, is that like our drug business we will have no pesky concerns about selling guns to kids or crazies. Also, being able to deal directly with terrorist arms dealers means we will be able to provide options for the discriminiting criminal that they cannot get at the local gunstore (grenades, rpgs, etc). We would like to fully endorse your proposal to ban legal sales of firearms to law abiding citizans. Our customers thank you as well because it will make their jobs much easier and less dangerous. We promise to direct at least some of our profits to the DNC election campaigns to take care of our friends. Thanks!.

  • fish||

    True, but all else being equal wouldn't it be better if they had baseball bats and knives instead of guns to fight their turf battles?

    Yeah because blunt trauma injuries and severed arteries are so much nicer than those unsightly gunshot wounds! Tool!

    I do have grant you though that there would probably be less collateral damage.

    ...but different jurisdictions have different needs.

    Oooh! Racist code language....nice work Tony!

  • k2000k||

    Tony you do know that a gun shot wound is generally less lethal than a knife wound right? Or that an injury from a gun shot wound probably has less long term health rammifications than getting your head smashed with a bat, right?

  • ||

    Or how about the fact that far mor people are killed each year with knives than guns. Although both pale in comparison to the most deadly weapons of them all; bare hands and cars. Compared to those two, knives are a distant third, followed by the good old "blunt object." Guns are a piddly 14th on the list of weapons for homicide.

  • Brubaker||

    "a relatively novel interpretation of the 2nd Amendment"

    What part of "the right of the people
    to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." do you believe has been interpreted in a novel fashion? That statement seems quite clear, and the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that view. Deal with it.

  • Jordan||

    Yep. Tony wants to pile on another injustice to correct the effects of another injustice (the Drug War). Because, just as in the case of campaign finance reform laws, that's what liberals do.

  • Matrix||

    Statists (left and right) always want to add more laws to correct mistakes by making laws to begin with... 'cause only government can solve government problems.

  • UCrawford||

    ^This.

    It's amusing how often liberals mistake the symptoms for the disease.

  • irwin mann||

    Niggertown Saturday Night Special
    that weren't made up by the Negros.

  • Matrix||

    I'm sure if some gay hating shit-head decided to try and do a "fag drag" on you, you'll wish you had a gun to drop his bigotted ass.

  • sarcasmic||

    No he won't. He'll wish there was a policeman on every street corner.
    Because only the government should have guns. This way guns will never ever be abused.

  • Tim||

    In time we can replace the cops with automated camera/guns. Oh wait they already have those flying over Pakistan and they want to bring them here.

  • ||

    Replace Pakistan with North Dakota

    CB

  • Matrix||

    Assuming the cops even care to stop it.

  • sarcasmic||

    I was being sarcastic.

    Chances are the cop is friends with or related to the gay hating shit-head.

  • Matrix||

    Or it is the cop that's perpetrating the attack.

  • David Koresh||

    I beg to differ.

  • Tony||

    In a world where anyone can have a gun, I'd be tempted to have one too. How far does the arms race go, though? I'd much prefer neither of us have a gun. I can handle myself in that situation.

  • sarcasmic||

    In a world where anyone can have a gun

    Anyone can have a gun. Laws are not magic.

    I can handle myself in that situation.

    Even if the other guy has an illegal gun?

  • Little Old lady||

    I'd much prefer neither of us have a gun. I can handle myself in that situation.

    I can't.

  • Matrix||

    In Tony's world, you have social security and Medicare to protect you. Oh, and the cops will always be there to save the day!

  • ||

    And the cops will never abuse you or allow themselves to be the tool of a totalitarian regime! Never ever!

  • The Cops||

    When seconds count, we'll be there in milliseconds!

    Wait...is that how that saying goes? Fuck it, time to go beat a homeless woman to death.

  • Tony||

    Whereas in your world, ridding the world of SS, medicare, and cops won't result in more people dying.

  • ||

    Cops do not keep people from dying now, they mostly investigate crimes after they occur, and solve less than half. Doctors keep people from dying. Medicare increases medical costs (at least to those without it and those paying for private insurance) and SS pays out drastically less than the average person puts into it, meaning that it hurts more people than it helps, imagine what a man making $30,000 a year his whole life and investing his own money could do with instant access to several hundred thousand dollars (maybe open a business and earn even more while creating jobs?)

  • 117 lb Woman||

    I don't know about you, Old Lady, but I felt totally secure that time some drunk guy tried to break into my house when I was home alone with my two kids sleeping upstairs. I was completely confident that I could handle myself perfectly fine while I stood guard on their door with a pair of scissors for 18 minutes waiting for the cops to show up.

    Of course, by the time the heroes came to save me the drunk asshole had staggered away once he realized that the stupid fucking c*** that he was going fuck up if she didn't open the door lived somewhere else. The cops didn't treat me like a stupid, hysterical female at all either.

    Happy ending- Because I live in a state with permissive gun laws, I bought a gun two days later which I keep in my night stand, locked and loaded with one in the chamber. I sleep much better now.

  • ||

    Scissors! That's it, we need stricter scissor control! Don't you know you could have hurt someone with those?

  • Rocco||

    Especially if she tried to run with them.

  • Tim||

    In Bosnia only the Police and Military had the guns, and they turned them on their own people.

  • Typical Tony||

    Tim|12.21.11 @ 12:45PM|#
    In Bosnia only the Police and Military had the guns, and they turned them on their own people.
    -----

    Our government would NEVER do that... You're just a paranoid conspiracy nut!

  • Tim||

    The problem with Yugoslavia was that they were socialists, with free healthcare, education and stuff.

  • Tony||

    It could do that, but you won't be able to do anything about it no matter how big your arsenal. The US has the biggest arsenal in the world.

    And I'm not sure how responsible it is to allow people to own arsenals in perpetuity on the threat of government oppression. Extremely high gun murder rates are an acceptable price to pay for that?

  • sarcasmic||

    Extremely high gun murder rates are an acceptable price to pay for that?

    Extremely high gun murder rates are the price of relegating the drug trade to the black market.

  • Matrix||

    I work for the military, and there are a great deal many troops who will lay down their arms if ordered to use them on their fellow Americans.

  • ||

    But those are exactly the ones I want to KEEP thier weapons!

  • Jordan||

    Extremely high gun murder rates are an acceptable price to pay for that?

    That's the price we pay for the War on Drugs.

    It could do that, but you won't be able to do anything about it no matter how big your arsenal.

    Wrong. If about 20,000 Iraqis can stave off 200,000 U.S. troops, without being able to attack vulnerable civilian infrastructure and rearward bases that support them, then 300 million Americans can easily fend off 2 million troops (most of whom serve in non-combat roles) in a country many times the size, especially considering that at least some of those 2 million will refuse to fight or actively aid their countrymen.

  • Matrix||

    especially considering that at least some of those 2 million will refuse to fight or actively aid their countrymen.

    Funny thing... some troops actually take their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" seriously... whodathunkit?

  • ||

    Yes, the Constitution, not the Government.

  • RoboCain||

    "That's the price we pay for the War on Drugs."

    It's also the price we pay for gun control. More gun control means more murder.

    Obviously, racists like Tony don't care if people of color in urban areas can legally defend themselves.

  • ||

    "And I'm not sure how responsible it is to allow people to own arsenals in perpetuity on the threat of government oppression."

    Unless it's Republican government oppression, right? The only kind of government oppression, right?

  • Juice||

    The US has the biggest arsenal in the world.

    And that's why they have complete control over Iraq and Afghanistan right now, right?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    And they have populations smaller than many states, of which the subset that is involved in action against the military is even smaller.

    We have about 150 million gun owners in the US.

    At some point, sheer numbers will make a difference against superior firepower. Not to mention that, philosophically speaking, most in the military are conservative minded and likely either lay down arms, or, more likely in many cases, commandeer military resources to use against the military.

  • Old Salt||

    Mad Libertarian Guy, your referral to the hundreds of millions of gun owners is one of the reasons I find zombie apocalypse movies so uninteresting. Sure, I love the idea of zombies running amok but the fucking NRA alone has more members than the entire US Military combined (4.3 million to 2.9 million). Any force (real or imagined) trying to attack America's civilian population would be at an EXTREME disadvantage.

    Remember, the only reason Teddy Roosevelt created National Parks was so that there would still be wildlife left to hunt down and kill!

    If it wasn't for hunting permits, the only things left to hunt for sport would be the homeless!

  • Alan||

    My Bosnian friends say that everyone in Bosnia has guns now - and Bosnia is peaceful now.

  • Alan||

    My Bosnian friends say that everyone in Bosnia has guns now - and Bosnia is peaceful now.

  • Angry Afghan Tribesman||

    Your country is spending itself into collapse trying to control us. They call my country "the grave of empires".

    I'd call that effective resistance. And I'm an illterate goatfucker.

  • k2000k||

    Our murder rates are only high when taken out of context and aggregate to nations with low murder rates. Luxumborg has a murder twice what ours is.

    FACT: Since the implemenation of Conceal Carry and the Sunset of the assault weapons ban murders are at the lowest point they have been since the 1960s. Guns aren't the problem.

  • ||

    And the US military will take the side of the gun grabbers? Dream on, draft dodger. I've been in the military, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that the day the president orders the disarmament of the American people is the day of the first coup d'etat in the USA.

  • ||

    Methinks you've stumbled on the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. The Framers knew who to fear when the front door comes crashing in.

  • Matrix||

    Well, farmers need guns to protect their livestock. And I'd rather have a gun in my own home to protect me if an intruder breaks in with a knife. I don't need to risk personal injury. I'll just drop him before he has a chance. **** being on equal grounds. I'm aiming to survive, not be fair to my attacker.

  • Old Salt||

    The only "fairness" you should worry about is how quick a death you can serve up to the sorry bastard...

  • tarran||

    Guess what, Tonykins, you live in a world where anyone can have a gun.

    Or, someday you might be right, and the guy in the wrong is Mike Tyson and he wants to use his body rather than his words to resolve the issue.

    God may have created men equal, but it took Samuel Colt to make 'em equal

  • Brett L||

    "God created Man, Sam Colt made each man equal."

  • ||

    Really, so where do you live? I, and a couple of buddies would like to come to your place with our swords to take your stuff. Think you can handle that? A Viking we will go!

  • Restoras||

    I can handle myself in that situation

    Really? How do you know?

  • vb||

    he doesn't. my martial art instructors - both ex military and trained to box, kickbox, grapple, and kill at will with bare hands - both carry .45s at all times.

  • ||

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the you know what,

    Well, gun proliferation now has the effect of black people killing black people in large numbers.


    Sure, because blacks would not find other ways of killing each other otherwise.

    There were strict gun controls in place well before Reconstruction.


    So? This Appeal to Common Practice is not a valid argument.

    This "gun control is racist" thing is kind of nonsense. For much of the history of the US, the entire legal system was set against blacks, including gun laws.


    See how the sockpuppet first makes and assertionand then goes right ahead shooting it down, thinking he's being clever. See next:

    That is pretty much irrelevant to a discussion of the prudence of gun regulation in the 21st century, where black people are overwhelmingly likely to be victims of gun crimes.


    In other words, laws back then were racist but laws now are not, ergo gun laws are not racist. This is what in recourse we call NON SEQUITUR.

  • Paul||

    Well, gun proliferation now has the effect of black people killing black people in large numbers.

    So you're arguing that Progressives were right all along, black people are too stupid to have guns?

  • ||

    Any time you feel the need to disarm me, feel free to try, draft dodger.

    Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're too much of a COWARD. Just like your draft-dodging comrade Ladd Everitt, who wants his goons to put all gun owners in death camps while he remains safely in his gated community.

    In the future, anybody not carrying a gun will be rightly seen as not fulfilling their societal obligations, and will be accordingly punished.

  • ||

    Well, gun proliferation now has the effect of black people killing black people in large numbers.

    Damn those guns, roaming the streets in their white hoods, looking for darkies to kill!

  • Tim||

    Tony is saying that blacks are dangerous and ignorant killers who we can't trust with guns. Otherwise he would have written:
    "gun proliferation now has the effect of people killing people in large numbers"

    Tony you must be KKKidding us!

  • Tony||

    No, blacks are more likely to live in poverty and thus have all the social issues that come with that.

  • Rephrasing, ...||

    ... gun proliferation now has the effect of poor people killing poor people in large numbers.

  • Tony||

    If you don't want me to talk about the specific issues blacks face with respect to guns, don't make an argument that gun control laws are inherently racist against blacks.

  • UCrawford||

    Gun control laws aren't inherently racist against blacks. It's just that racists supported them because they were an excellent way to strip black people of their rights.

  • Paul||

    Gun control laws aren't inherently racist against blacks. It's just that racists supported them because they were an excellent way to strip black people of their rights.

    If Tony can't see this basic element of the equation, we're wasting our time.

  • Restoras||

    we're wasting our time

    You're always wasting your time with Tony. He comes here just to troll. He isn't interested in seeing another side of an arguement, of challenging his own views. Tony is a progressive, in the same mold as those in the 20's and 30's that though Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were great visionaries.
  • Cliff||

    You can't reason someone out of a corner they didn't use reason to get into.

  • Tim||

    No, poor blacks are taught to rely on the government for food, shelter and safety and the government leaves them in misery.

  • UCrawford||

    So you're saying that being poor means you're morally bankrupt?

    Way to stereotype, you conservative racist. :)

  • Tony||

    Poverty has the effect of making morality less of a priority. Conservatives think they can solve poverty by pointing the moral finger alone, because they are stupid and don't understand cause and effect.

  • Tim||

    Bullshit, some of the nicest people on the planet are poor. You marxist twit.

  • ||

    While liberals ignore the contribution of personal responsibility. Is it because they are equally stupid and don't understand cause and effect? No, it's just that personal responsibility is against their political ideology to a degree. Plus, the poor are a major voting bloc/base for the Democrats and they aren't going to spurn the base; in fact, they need to cultivate the existing conditions to enlarge the bloc.

    I don't agree with your politics, Tony, but to me your worst fault is buying into this "Republican=Evil/Democrat=Good" meme. It blinds you.

  • Tony||

    The claim that bad morals cause poverty seems absurd, and I'd certainly like to see some evidence for it before I change my mind about that.

    The weird thing is, if you assume that people are poor because they are just built to be poor, isn't that even more of an argument for social help? Or do we treat certain people as undesirables and let natural selection take its course in this country?

    Personal responsibility is an obsession that completely misses the point. Wait around hoping people will learn how to be personally responsible if you like, but I think the only way you benefit is by being relieved of the burden of caring about poor people, since you feel you can blame them for their problems.

    Why people become poor is an interesting sociological question. But government shouldn't be in the business of moral nanny, it should be in the business of protecting the vulnerable. We give more rights to accused murderers in this country than conservatives often think we should afford poor people.

  • ||

    You misunderstand me. I'm simply trying to point out that you are guilty of the same thing as you are accusing the conservatives of.

    Personal responsibility can play a major role in digging people out of poverty, depending upon the conditions, which are not always conducive in aiding someone to escape poverty. But I also believe that some people simply are not going to be able to get out of poverty in their generation for one reason or another, and I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help them (provided it is done so efficiently, which it isn't). I believe that our welfare state is perpetuating poverty, though. I think if Democratic politicians would start promoting personal responsibility (while continuing to help financially) instead of perpetuating the "you are poor and need me and will always need me so vote for me" it would, over time, aid in ending generational poverty.

  • Tony||

    How do they "promote personal responsibility"? What does that even mean?

    Because it sounds a lot like cutting off benefits and letting them fend for themselves, hoping that the extra starvation will motivate them rather than make them even more vulnerable.

  • ||

    You didn't finish reading, did you??? Read it again. Wait- don't. I don't want to dislodge your "All non-liberals want poor people to starve" belief system.

  • Tony||

    You just said they should promote personal responsibility and I asked what you mean by that.

  • ||

    And you also added:

    "Because it sounds a lot like cutting off benefits and letting them fend for themselves, hoping that the extra starvation will motivate them rather than make them even more vulnerable."

    Which shows that you didn't read all my post. But hey, why bother? I'm not a liberal, therefore I must be evil.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the clueless numbskull,

    Poverty has the effect of making morality less of a priority.


    That would make India a cesspool of criminality and chaos. So far, that 3,000 year old society has not collapsed into ruin as your hypothesis would suggest.

    Conservatives think they can solve poverty by pointing the moral finger alone,


    I don't know about conservatives. One thing I *see* is that throwing money at poor people doesn't work very well either.

    What I certainly don't see is how taking their guns away is going to improve their lot. But then again, I'm talking to you...

  • Paul||

    Poverty has the effect of making morality less of a priority. Conservatives think they can solve poverty by pointing the moral finger alone

    Pointing a moral finger... and I'm reading all your posts on guns...which suggest we can solve murder by pointing a moral finger at gun owners. Rich, very rich.

  • Restoras||

    Have you ever travelled anywhere with real poverty? Do you have any idea what you are talking about, at all?

  • tarran||

    Hey UC! How are you doing?

    Long time no see!

  • UCrawford||

    Hey man, what's up? :) Been too long. Yeah, my blogging dropped off a lot after I got a new job working for the gubmint as a contractor. :)

  • Tango Mike||

    Did you ever think that they may have the social issues first, and that is what leads to poverty? It seems you've mixed up the cause and the effect.

  • Tony||

    That being said, I'm ready to admit defeat. I just attended "the largest gun show in the world." These are decent people but are seriously paranoid that Obama is moments away from taking all their guns. That this is nothing but partisan fearmongering just makes it sad, but they're not going to get over their paranoia any time soon and any attempt to regulate guns will send them over the edge.

    Southern white men have stood in the way of common sense for centuries and they're not going to stop any time soon. So I'm sure we'll continue for the foreseeable future having federal policy that placates the whiny, entitled, paranoid Southern white tough guy.

  • Tim||

    Yes only enobled elitists like you are fit to guide the coloreds on the road to civilization.

  • Hitler, Stalin, Mao||

    We love gun control!!

  • Tony||

    That's the responsible conversation I'm talking about.

    Obviously we need unlimited access to guns, or we're just like Hitler.

  • Hitler, Stalin, Mao||

    Not at all. Just sayin'.

  • ||

    There's six million dead Jews who might just have preferred unlimited access to guns.

  • Matrix||

    Dean, why do you think I'm so pro-individual ownership? I won't go down without taking as many of those bastards as I can with me. Haul me off for execution because I'm not part of your master race? **** you! Eat lead, nazi pig!

  • tarran||

    RC, it is damnable negligence to make that comment without linking to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

    Consider yourself chastised.

  • Paul||

    There's six million dead Jews who might just have preferred unlimited access to guns.

    We're only talking about Reasonable Restrictions.

  • Murderers, Rapists, Thugs||

    Tony, you're our hero!

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, responsible conversation like this:

    Southern white men have stood in the way of common sense for centuries and they're not going to stop any time soon. So I'm sure we'll continue for the foreseeable future having federal policy that placates the whiny, entitled, paranoid Southern white tough guy.

    Go fuck yourself.

  • Tony||

    Did Southern white men do something to earn the right to be taken seriously between 1) starting a civil war to maintain the right to own black people, 2) fighting against racial integration, 3) enabling the Bush administration, 4) generally being on the wrong side of every issue, ever?

  • Jordan||

    Yes, clearly it was exactly the same people who did all of those things. Life expectancy in the South is pretty damn impressive.

    Did Progressives earn the right to be taken seriously between 1). Advocating gun control policies to keep minorities down, 2). Advocating eugenics to prevent minorities and other "undesirables" from proliferating, 3). enabling the Obama administration, 4). generally being on the wrong side of every issue ever?

  • Tony||

    The difference here is I don't get my history from Glenn Beck U. Seriously weak.

  • ||

    Slavery was a foot note on the civil war Tony. It started the "fued" but the war was about control of the "union" and your all about control so you must have known that.

  • Brandon||

    Feud

  • Restoras||

    No difference, Tony, you are the one offering the weak sauce and weaker rebuttals.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    Southern white men didn't start the war. Lincoln was the one calling up troops and invading.

  • ||

    no, the south initiated hostilities by attacking ft. sumter.

  • Underpants Gnome||

    You are a hate filled bigot. I find that kind of amusing. I think you hate southern white men more than I've ever hated anyone in my life.

  • Tony||

    FTR I am a white southern male. I don't hate anyone, though some I pity.

  • Restoras||

    I don't hate anyone

    Liar. You said you hate Republicans.

  • ||

    Southern white men like Bill Clinton and Al Gore certainly were on the wrong side of every issue.

  • ||

    Tony, I can speak about items 3 and 4, but regarding items 1 and 2, you should know that it was southern white DEMOCRATS who were mainly responsible for these things. Don't paint with too broad a brush there!

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Didn't southern white men pioneer the concept of gun control, mostly to keep guns out of the hands of blacks so they'd stop defending themselves against lynch mobs?

  • Cliff||

    Tony,
    In one comment you ask for responsible conversation while just having posted comments about "Southern white men have stood in the way of common sense for centuries and they're not going to stop any time soon. So I'm sure we'll continue for the foreseeable future having federal policy that placates the whiny, entitled, paranoid Southern white tough guy."

    You are out of touch with reality. There have been studies that show that there is no "average" gun owner. For you to claim that gun owners are paranoid white southern tough guys would be akin to a KKK member claiming all crime is committed by "colored folk". Your arguments (both yours and the KKK members) are both made invalid by your own ignorance.

  • ||

    How do you feel about a right-wing conservative theocracy, Tony?

    My whiny paranoia over any government authoritarianism, whether from Team Red or Team Blue (I know, it will never happen because liberals are incapable of totalitarianism) ensures that I have plenty of ammunition.

    By the way, Tony, how you like our little pseudo-police state Team Red and Blue have been cultivating for years? No problems?

  • Tony||

    If the federal government ever came after you, it doesn't really matter how much ammo you have. You do get that right? They will always have more! Besides, you don't have a legal right to commit treason, so sorry about that.

    I don't like our nominally antiterrorism policies one bit. What, do you suppose, is the main enabler of those policies? If it's not a population so paranoid of brown people they're willing to tolerate nothing less than the most authoritarian chest-pounding possible from the people they elect, I don't know what it is.

  • Tim||

    Yeah! How'd that work for the British? Fucking colonists had no army, no ships of the line and no cannons. Just some muskets and rifles.

  • Tony||

    Do you suppose the balance of power might have shifted somewhat given advances in technology?

    Not saying guerrilla-style fighting can't defeat the US government. It has before. I'm just not sure our gun regulations should be based on a paranoid narrative like that or tacitly endorse the right of the people to commit armed treason.

  • Tim||

    The second ammendment says that the American People can commit armed treason. It's RADICAL. They had just driven out King George. You don't get it.

  • Tony||

    No it doesn't. The NRA and gun lobby would like you to believe that, but it's an absurd claim. Treason is still illegal in the US. The 2A, recent supreme court opinions notwithstanding, was never about that, but of the right of the people to be armed against insurrection or foreign invasion. The constitution does not include a provision granting people the right to overthrow it via violence.

  • Tim||

    They had just completed a violent revolution. Forget the liberal revisionism of history. Of COURSE modern statists don't want anything to exist that can allow or encourage the people to revolt.
    It's also spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

  • Brandon||

    Define "Treason."

  • Mitch||

    Define "Treason."

    Not fully supporting anything that Tony supports. Hes perfectly willing to put you down if you disagree with him, using government force of course.

    Hes too much of a sissy to do it himself.

  • ||

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    Unless you're a souther white male, in which case the Northerners will declare war and engage in the bloodiest conflict in American history to keep you from separating...

  • ||

    "....paranoid narrative like that or tacitly endorse the right of the people to commit armed treason."

    Unless there is a authoritarian Republican in office, right? I remember when the liberals were muttering about treason being patriotic when Bush was in office. No treason is once again treason. Fucking hypocrites.

  • Tony||

    That's not an argument. You're lumping me in with allegedly real people and calling me a hypocrite for allegedly agreeing with them, when you have no evidence to that effect.

    The problem back then is anyone who opposed Bush policies was called a traitor.

  • ||

    As opposed to people who criticize Obama's policies? They get called all sorts of names, starting with racist and ending with anti-government lunatic.

    I am lumping you in with people who's outrage over issue X is dependent upon whether or not their Team is in office.

  • Tony||

    It's not my fault most vocal opponents of Obama are racist antigovernment lunatics.

    Go to a liberal blog and read some real criticism of the president. I'm sorry conservatives can't think clearly when a D is in the oval office, but that's not my fault.

  • ||

    "....most vocal opponents of Obama are racist antigovernment lunatics."

    See?? Republicans are evil. Democrats are good. To criticize Republicans is virtuous; to criticize Democrats, who are good, is therefore evil.

    A pox on both of their houses.

  • Tony||

    Poxing both houses has the effect of forgiving Republicans for being BY FAR the worse offenders on everything. I refuse to commit that dangerous fallacy. It plays right into the hands of Republicans, whose strategy, in case you hadn't noticed, is to fuck up government as much as possible then say "See, government can't do anything right! Vote for us!"

  • ||

    ---"It's not my fault most vocal opponents of Obama are racist antigovernment lunatics."---

    If I'm no mistaken, you just called me a racist antigovernment lunatic.

    You do not know me at all. FUCK YOU, TONY. 1!1!!!!1111!!

  • ||

    See?? Republicans are evil. Democrats are good. To criticize Republicans is virtuous; to criticize Democrats, who are good, is therefore evil.

  • Restoras||

    Poxing both houses has the effect of forgiving Republicans for being BY FAR the worse offenders on everything

    Citation needed.

  • Restoras||

    It's not my fault most vocal opponents of Obama are racist antigovernment lunatics

    Citation needed.

  • ||

    The problem back then is anyone who opposed Bush policies was called a traitor

    Not true I opposed Bush then just as much as I oppose Captian O now. Basicaly they both have the exact same amout of suck a tude , just for differnt reasons.

  • ||

    Fuck-headed anti-American, anti-constitutionalist, retarded revisionist is fuck-headed.

  • tarran||

    An armed citizenry does not have to wage guerilla war, Tonykins.

    In 1946 the citizenry fought a pitched battle against the police in Athens GA... and won.

    AND NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED!

  • ||

    See, Tarran? The tea-bagging scum have been around since Dear Leader Whose Substance Is Of Eternal Glory And Infallible Ideology, Unto His Soul Be God's Righteous Praise, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved the country from the forces of irrationality and capitalistic greed. They've been trying to destroy our greatness! And you're COMPLICIT! GUILTY OF INSUBORDINATION TO THE STATE'S WILL! DIE, SCUM!

  • Tango Mike||

    "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." - Declaration of Independence. We were founded on armed treason.

  • ||

    Not saying guerrilla-style fighting can't defeat the US government. It has before. I'm just not sure our gun regulations should be based on a paranoid narrative like that or tacitly endorse the right of the people to commit armed treason.

    like it or not the Government MUST fear the people Tony. Or we end up with people like you in power.

  • Tony||

    The government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people.

    Treating a legitimate democratic government as a tyrannical threat is not something everybody is supposed to do. Paranoid white southern racists, maybe.

  • Mitch||

    "Treating a legitimate democratic government as a tyrannical threat is not something everybody is supposed to do. Paranoid white southern racists, maybe."

    So when you are in Gitmo, you going to still support that statement?

  • Llama||

    Who says it's legitimate? You? You're one guy. Does the government get to say whether it's legitimate or not? Seems like there might be a conflict of interest there.

    What the fuck is that statement even supposed to mean, other than another opportunity to work southern white racists into the conversation?

    Stupid isn't my first language, so pardon me if I'm not understanding you correctly.

  • ||

    Treating a legitimate democratic government as a tyrannical threat is not something everybody is supposed to do. Paranoid white southern racists, maybe

    That would be true if we still had a legitmate Government as it is susposed to be run. Even as short minded as you are Tony you know that the system has been tilted on the side so government has more power than the "people". But yet some how it does not have enough for "you".

    When are you going to grow a set and be your own man instead of asking the Government to "fix" it all for you?

  • Matrix||

    History shows that if enough people band together with guns to combat their governments... they can win. This isn't about the individual's fight against government, but the masses of armed people can fight against an out of control government.

  • Tim||

    Also our glorious subjugation of Iraq. We settled those savages right quickly...

  • Tim||

    And our victory in Vietnam.

  • Tim||

    ANd Moammar Khadaffi's crushing of the recent uprising with his army.

  • ||

    Yes, I get that, Tony. It's called resistance. Would you, in the face of a totalitarian right-wing theocracy, go willingly to your death because there would be no chance of you "winning?" If so, I don't understand you. I reserve the right to defend myself, no matter the outcome. And treason? *shrugs*

    Paranoia of brown people? The militarization of our police started long before our little terrorism problem. See? Your hatred of anything Republican seeps into every aspect of your worldview.

  • Tony||

    I hate Republicans for a lot of reasons beyond the national security state, though they're mostly responsible for that too.

    If the paranoid fantasies of Southern white men ever came to pass, I would defend almost any regime over one controlled by paranoid Southern white men.

  • ||

    But would you defend yourself? And with what? And why?

  • Tony||

    I just don't spend a lot of time wondering about how I would respond to such a situation. I'm doing my best to prevent it in the first place. Once it happens, by definition the outcomes will be hard to predict. And I'm certainly not going to base my gun policy priorities in normal times on the possibility of an authoritarian usurpation. That is a good way to get bad gun policies.

  • ||

    Right. Unless Bush III takes office. Then you'll give it lots of thought like all the other liberals. We have always been at war with Oceania.

  • ||

    I don't think Tony even knows which end of the gun to point at the target. He'd singlehandedly fuck up the struggle of whichever pinko revolutionary group he joined up, so I'm all for it, dude.

  • ||

    You are a wittingly authoritarian quasi-socialist with feverish, ravenous fear and disdain of any and all of the aspects of our society that may be justifiably construed and demonstrated to improve life, liberty, and happiness. The only thing you're "doing your best to prevent" is a restoration of genuine prosperity and liberty. Fuck off and die.

  • Tony||

    Actually I just think Republicans are wrong about everything and the best thing for the country is for them never to have control of it and for undereducated people who vote for them because they think they'll protect them from gays, blacks, muslims, and mexicans to stop being equally victimized by them. But if you think not agreeing with you that promoting gilded age economics means I'm against freedom, you're entitled to that opinion.

  • ||

    and for undereducated people who vote for them because they think they'll protect them from gays, blacks, muslims, and mexicans to stop being equally victimized by them.

    So any one who is not a Progressive Liberal bag lapping line toe'n card carrying "member" in "undereducated"

    Nice to hear you "believe" your so much smarter that "us"

  • Restoras||

    I just think Republicans are wrong about everything and the best thing for the country is for them never to have control of it and for undereducated people who vote for them

    You seem to be saying that only smart people, or only the right people, should be allowed to vote. Scary stuff - right out of a totalitarian playbook.

  • Tony||

    Absolutely not. Vote suppression is what Republicans do. I think stupid people should be educated.

  • ||

    "I think stupid people should be educated."

    And your idea of "education" is what a nice happy liberal art degree?

  • Lord Flashheart||

    You actually aren’t sure if you would defend yourself?

    No fuckin’ way!

    The obvious answer to PaulR’s questions:

    1. YES!
    2. With whatever I could lay my hands on!
    3. To live!

    It’s responses like this from you that still leave me undecided as to whether you’re a hyper-partisan dipshit or a troll of the highest order.

  • Thomas Jefferson||

    Yeah, well fuck you.

  • George Washington||

    I agree. Fuck you, Tony.

  • Bill Clinton||

    Fuck you, Tony.

  • Woodrow Wilson||

    Fuck you, Tony.

  • Jimmy Carter||

    Fuck you in the ass, Tony.

  • Lyndon Johnson||

    Fuck you, Tony.

  • James Madison||

    Go fuck yourself, Tony.

  • Harry Truman||

    Fuck you, Tony.

  • Joseph Stalin||

    You're the man, Tony!

  • Adolph Hitler||

    Ich möchte Ihre männlichen Hoden lecken.

  • ||

    I would defend almost any regime over one controlled by paranoid Southern white men.

    So, if there had been an armed insurrection during Clinton's Presidency, you would have manned the barricades?

  • Restoras||

    I hate Republicans

    This is why I fear progessive assholes like Tony. They actually hate a whole class of people for their political views. Sound familiar? The 20th Century was rife with governments controlled by people like Tony and they ended up murdering tens of millions.

  • Tony||

    Whereas you take liberals on a case by case basis, no doubt.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the clueless numbskull,

    If the federal government ever came after you, it doesn't really matter how much ammo you have. You do get that right?


    And this is how far Tony drives the canard that government gets its 'legitimacy' from people exercising their democratic power.

    Besides, you don't have a legal right to commit treason, so sorry about that.


    And 'treason' is defined by the guys with the more ammo. See how that works, PaulR? In the mind of the leftist brute, these contradictions are a never mind for him.

  • ||

    Oh, but put Bush back in office and Tony will be calling for the formation of Freedom Militias.

    The political ideology of American voters (Red & Blue) is totally subjective and depends upon which Team holds the White House. This country is doomed. *sobs*

  • Tony||

    Bush is constitutionally barred from being president again, and we can all be thankful for that.

    I'm confident that one more Republican administration will finally convince the American people that Republicans don't have their best interest at heart, and they'll finally stop being fooled into voting for them. I'm usually the one defending regular democratic order on these boards, after all.

  • Mitch||

    Tony just admit it....you would love to put your hated republicans into the ovens.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "If the federal government ever came after you, it doesn't really matter how much ammo you have."

    If I take out just two, I will be ahead.

  • ||

    Just think, that comment will be illegal sometime in the near future. Cherish it while you can.

  • vb||

    tony YOU are a self-proclaimed "tough guy." you can handle yourself man on man right?

  • ||

    Tony, in Switzerland the authorities require you to have a gun at home. REQUIRE! And guess what, Switzerland has almost zero burglaries.

    Sometime I wonder why Americans who argue over gun control do not mention the Switzreland model.

    Armed society is polite society. Even the Swiss know that. And Texans too...

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Fuck Reagan.

  • Murderers, Rapists, Thugs||

    We love gun control!!

  • Tony||

    Only a bigot would have a problem with murderers, rapists, or "thugs." They are standing up against the right-wing power structure.

    I personally have no problem with some hip person, who doesn't spend all day pretending the Sixties never happened, acts out against some brain-dead suburbanite who never even studied Marx. Similarly, if women don't like being raped, perhaps they should get with the Sexual Revolution and stop Republicaning out their private parts to the highest bidder, and instead sleep around and enjoy life.

    Oh, and "thugs" is right-wing jargon meaning minorities.

  • ||

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ^^^This is awesome. I'm e-mailing it to my wife. She has been firm about no guns in the house. This may give her a different perspective. Thanks for posting it Res.

  • ­||

    Why, is she black?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Yes.

  • ||

    Out of curiosity, is she opposed to guns politically, or does she just have an apolitical fear of guns?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Her brother blew his brains out seven years ago. Media coverage of incidents/atrocities. A general mistrust in my ability to responsibly handle a firearm. I'm sure there are more reasons.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Take gun safety courses.

  • ||

    Sure -- it greatly summarizes the logic of the decision, and the nature of gun control. I hope your wife changes her mind. :P

  • ||

    From "Tony's Book of Facts"

    "And in the beginning were the elven kind, the Democrats, healers and weavers of peace and justice. But among them crept the orcs, the foul ones, the Republicans, beings of pure evil who sought to destroy everything." (Pg. 5)

    "It is also a well-known fact that Republicans are responsible for all incidences of worldwide cancer, despite the many healing spells cast by Democrat Healers." (Pg. 431)

    "And if anyone among you is not a Democrat, he is evil no matter what lies spill from his mouth, and you shall expel him for the good of all beautiful and sacred things." (Pg. 112)

    "Republicans can do no right thing. If they do something which appears to be right, do not trust your own eyes; you shall condemn them all the same." (Pg. 322)

    "Any problem that befalls the beautiful beings of Light is always the fault of the Republicans. When you rise, you will say unto yourself, 'Republicans are evil' and when you lay down to sleep you shall say 'Democrats are good' and you must never allow one among you to say that Republicans may not always be evil nor Democrats not always good, for these thoughts are of the Republicans." (Pg. 444)

  • juris imprudent||

    I swear I think Cesar is in charge of the Tony identity these days. That is some first-rate trolling.

  • ||

    More from "Tony's Book of Facts:"

    "And if a war should arise, it is of the Republicans. However, if there be any Democrats and a war arises, believe not your own eyes, for it is not a war that you see, for Democrats do not start wars." (Pg. 234)

    "You shall not raise your hand against your master, unless he be a Republican. For how shall you raise your hand against your Democrat master when Democrats do not hold slaves and therefore your friend and not your master." (Pg. 409)

  • NotSure||

    Tony the buffoon, continuously lecturing his morals, somehow claiming that he is not lecturing morals.

    If you follow how guns in Britain (and probably other places) were first regulated, and then utterly banned, you will find exactly the same shits like you making the argument, "oh its just paranoid, we just want a little regulation".

  • illini||

    Interesting perspective. While I appreciate the detail and the historical references and examples (which do make sense), I fail to see the connection to the "black" thing as the headline conveys. It wasn't because they were black, it was because they were an organized group roaming openly with loaded firearms announcing their intent for violence. I also don't see the connection to "conservatives" being the first to enact gun control. Unless of course anyone who discourages the random roaming of Oakland's streets by armed posses shall be labeled "conservative". Besides, isn't Oakland still 40 years later being roamed by armed posses only now called "gangs"? So, in summary, it's an interesting perspective but overall a really fucking stupid article. Author must've been struggling to come up with something to write about this week. "Oh no, someone owns a pistol. That must be bad". Gimme a break!

  • Alan||

    Robert F. Williams deserves a shout out in this discussion.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Tough day in the comments; MNG, Sodesky, Tony, and rather are all back. I was really enjoying the last week or two of vacation we got from them.

  • Matrix||

    I'm guessing the areas they were protesting with OWS was too cold for their widdle tushes, so they had to come back online and stay warm. Winter is a capitalist conspiracy.

  • Pip||

    "A new history shows how gun control goes hand in hand with fear of black people—and The People."

    So Obama and Holder fear black people?

    Epic. Fail.

  • ||

    Someone has never known any black people.

  • Pip||

    To reiterate: So Obama and Holder fear black people?

  • Brandon||

    Do you think there was no gun control before Obama and Holder were in office?

  • NotSure||

    It would be epic if you actually read the article, but since you did not, the only epic thing is your low iq.

  • primeonly27||

    No they do not fear black people they are racist, but don't know how that could be? When you hate everyone equally and yourself. It is hard to be called a racist.

  • ||

    Tony is:

    a. A twenty something kid, just out of indoctrination...er...college who's parents were school teachers, artists, __________________ (insert liberal profession here).

    b. A troll who doesn't believe a word of the garbage he types here, but gets off spinning us into the ceiling.

    c. A complete fucking idiot.

    d. Other

    Discuss.

  • Matrix||

    Gotta go with C. I know people this f***ing stupid.

  • ||

    I gotta go with a & c. Definitely not smart enough for b.

    I'd love to know his background. Be interesting to hypothesize how someone gets that messed up.

  • ||

    "I'd love to know his background. Be interesting to hypothesize how someone gets that messed up"

    I have a theroy....Two cousins taking their "Art" classes at NYU in the 80's fell madly in love got high had sex and we got Tony.

  • ||

    So, what you are sayin is, we are paying for the irresponsible behavior of liberals...YET AGAIN!

  • ||

    So, what you are sayin is, we are paying for the irresponsible behavior of liberals...YET AGAIN!

    Yes and this one "thinks" he has all the "answers" to "fix" then masses. He has been told all his life that the Government is the answer for all problems. Fan-friggin-tastic.

    To bad mom did not swallow Tony.

  • Restoras||

    Yes, I'd go with A and C as well. Not smart enough for B.

    Anyone wanna bet he went to Brown?

  • ||

    He mentioned the First Law of Thermodynamics a few days ago. I was kind of astonished he'd ever heard of it. A misguided engineering major perhaps? The engineers I went to school with weren't all that liberal though.

  • Restoras||

    Isn't that something that's covered in high school physics? It was when I took it - not that I remember that much.

  • ||

    I don't remember it from HS. I'm pretty sure it was college level, but that was a long time ago. Maybe they are teaching it earlier now.

  • k2000k||

    probably b. Here is why

    a: can't be true because the average twenty something from college can't be bothered to read/visit sites that don't conform to their worldview. I think Peter Schiffs videos on OWS confirmed that. There was that one twenty something out of dozens that was actually willing to listen and you saw the cogs start to spin in his head, it looked like it hurt.

    c. Would be too busy watching anything by Bill Mahr or Michael Moore. Might have visited Reason during the Bush years but would have quickly vacated once they realized that Reason wasn't a hard core liberal rag. Would say things like "Reason used to be good but then it was coopted by the conservatives" or some shit to that effect.

  • Mainer||

    He admitted once that it's b.
    Some garbage that he's using the Socratic method.

  • Brother Grimm||

    I call "A." This is the reusult of years of inbreeding/brainwashing. This kind of damage was not done overnight.

  • paul hughes||

    How to interpret this article? As part of Reason's drift toward oxymoronic "left libertarianism"? You simply have to ask yourself, right now, whether you stand a better chance of owning a gun in the future if Democrats or Republicans are elected. Does anyone imagine that leftists who need guns for a revolution would let you have a gun afterwards?

  • k2000k||

    PICS OR YOUR A LIAR

  • first||

  • ||

    Okay porn-bot, well done. We'll be expecting links for all your posts from now on.

  • ||

    Hegre's early stuff was much better than the pro-model soft porn he puts out now.

  • butters||

    from his first post everyone here should have realized that Tony was either fucking clueless and plain obnoxious and deserving of nothing more than insults and sarcasm. Nothing he has said is even worth addressing, doing so only gets us more off topic as Tony clearly didn't even read the article (as shown by his completely irrelevant arguments). He is a fucktard and if we just ignore him, he will go away. If he doesn't, well its the fucking internet anyways, and he'll look way dumber if nobody responds to any of his comments.

  • Mitch||

    And to top it off Tony would be the first one to volunteer to help out in "republican" purges if he had the chance.

  • ||

    kennblanchard.com is another great read. This site gives you the history about gun control's ties to Jim Crow.

  • ||

    "An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlien.
    'Gun Control' laws only disarm Law Abiding folks - if one can Vote, they should be able to possess (include Carry) Firearms. If I can't trust someone with a gun, why should I trust them to vote responsibly (and vice-versa). Gun training (including target practice) should be taught in Schools.
    Gun control laws generally precede (government sanctioned) genocide, they worked in WWII Germany - especially against Jews. If each Jew sent to concentration camps killed one SS troop, Germany would have run out of SS troups long before 6 million Jews were killed.
    The USA quietly passed a resolution to allow UN troops to 'control' American citizens (because US Troops might refuse to shoot civilians) - Why ?

  • ||

    when I went to school, it was. The NRA came to our grammer school every year and taught gun safety to the 6th grade class. The Sheriff's dept also came every year and did a trick-shooting exhibition.

  • ||

    Doctors:
    (A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
    (B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
    (C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
    Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services

    Now think about this: Guns
    (A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
    (Yes, that's 80 million)
    (B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, 1,500.
    (C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188
    Statistics courtesy of FBI

    So, statistically, doctors are approximately
    9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

    Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

    FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT
    Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
    This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by
    a doctor as by a gun owner!!!

    Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
    We must ban doctors
    before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!

    Out of concern for the public at large,
    We withheld the statistics on lawyers
    for fear the shock would cause
    people to panic and seek medical attention!

  • Kevin Carson||

    Governors in martial law regimes during the Copper Wars out West also commonly engaged in gun confiscation.

    In the UK, the impetus for gun control picked up after the General Strike of 1926.

  • NL_||

    Also worth noting that gun control in NY was pretty explicitly aimed at Italians, who formed the bulk of the early arrests under the law.

  • ||

    Isn't there a site called "Unreason" which could have published this amateur trash?

  • ||

    Gun control should be implemented straight away and comprehensively. It's a simple move and works like this. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one. Don't like guns? Don't buy one. The end. Want to prevent others from owner as many as they want? Go to hell. Own as many and as of any variety.

  • Corey Mondello||

    Id say, all those white conservatives that sell guns at gun shows, who do not want to have to check the background of the buyers, are much to blame and cause more death and violence than any group of black people. "White crime" literally and figuratively, always effects more people economically, socially, and cause violence and death the most.

  • ||

    Tony, are you really so deeply dogmatic that you refuse to acknowledge the truth even when it is staring you in the face or are you just extremely stupid? I remember a "progressive" woman who called me a racist because I didn't completely share her views on abortion - that a woman has SOME moral responsibility with respect to becoming unwantedly pregnant. What made me racist was the fact that, apparently, black women have more abortions than white women so any notion that there should be ANY restriction on abortion, right up to the moment of birth, made me a racist.

    You see, apparently, blacks are such primitive creatures, fresh out of the jungle dontchaknow, that any notion of them accepting any responsibility for their behavior like the rest of us fully human people - well, that makes one a racist. On the other hand, thinking of black people as our little black brothers - the white man's burden and such - that's all noble and progressive and all.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement