Anti-Gun Group Tries to Whitewash History

Rep. John Barrow of Georgia is a pro-gun Democrat who touts his support for the National Rifle Association and who voiced opposition this week to President Barack Obama’s proposal for a new federal gun control scheme. Not surprisingly, this stance has made Barrow a target for anti-gun activists, and as Jim Galloway of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has just cut a new video juxtaposing Barrow’s statements in support of the Second Amendment with footage from the Sandy Hook tragedy.

Classy, right? But the hatchet job actually gets worse. As Galloway explains at his Political Insider blog:

Here’s the problem: The CSGV has done some selective editing in its video. In its version of the ad, Barrow displays a pistol and says:

“Long before I was born, my grandfather used this little Smith & Wesson here….”

It cuts the Augusta congressman off there. How did Barrow finish the sentence in the original, and what did the CSGV choose to omit? This:

”…to help stop a lynching.”

Around here, those five additional words make a big difference.

Indeed they do. Many civil rights activists carried and used guns for self-defense, including non-violent activists who allowed themselves to be beaten and harassed during the day as part of a sit-on or other protest, but then relied on guns in the night in case the Klan paid them a visit.

This is a part of American history that tends to undermine the gun control agenda. So it's both ugly and revealing to find a prominent gun control group trying to whitewash this history away.

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.

  • John||

    But remember the NRA is evil for pointing out the politicians and rich people keep their children under armed guard. God these people are disgusting.

  • RightNut||

    They truly are. I don't even own a gun and I'm both disgusted and angry at the sheer idiocy and gall of the left. Funny how this whole gun control "debate" wasn't even mentioned until 7 weeks after the election.

  • Tim||

    And in private schools.

  • Delroy||

    there's gotta be a stronger word than "disgusting".

  • John||

    evil.

  • some guy||

    Bingo. That's the word I've been using most when listening to coverage of this issue recently. There are only two reasons these people could hold these views: Ignorance and evil. Ignorance explains a lot of the rank and file, but the people who make it on TV and the radio are not rank and file. They know what they are doing and they still do it anyway.

  • John||

    Singling out people for collective guilt is about as evil as it gets. And that is what these people are doing to gun owners.

  • sarcasmic||

    Liberal progressives fall into two categories: the manipulators and the manipulated.

    The latter are guilty only of ignorance, while the former are pure evil.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    there's gotta be a stronger word than "disgusting".

    'T O N Y'

  • JohnD||

    That's the word I was looking for.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not far off.

    ton·y also ton·ey
    adj. ton·i·er, ton·i·est Informal
    Marked by an elegant or exclusive manner or quality: a tony country club.
    [From tone.]

  • AlmightyJB||

    "ugly and revealing"

    You forgot "typical"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Many civil rights activists carried and used guns for self-defense...

    Yes, but the Klan is gone, never to return as a threat, and we're all protected by civil rights legislation and, more importantly, the police. We don't need guns anymore. But you can't put all that into an ad, so it's easier to just cut away any mention of legitimate self defense history. Also, leftists have best interests at heart so everything is justified.

  • John||

    If we had just declared the Jim Crow South a "Gun Free Zone" things would have gone a lot better.

  • An0nB0t||

    Gun-free zones would have unraveled the Gordian knot had they only existed two millennia ago.

  • Torontonian||

    "...we're all protected by civil rights legislation and, more importantly, the police. We don't need guns anymore."

    When every second counts, the police will be minutes away.

  • Tim||

    Pick a target and demonize it.

  • NoVAHockey||

    but i'm the racist. fucking assholes.

  • T o n y||

    To be fair you're kinda whitewashing the present away, what with the US having the highest rate of gun deaths in the civilized world.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    To be fair you're kinda whitewashing the present away, what with the US having the highest rate of gun deaths in the civilized world.


    The U.S. is 28th on gun related homicide in the civilized world, unless you fucking arrogant gringo asshole wants to assert that places like Honduras or Colombia are not part of the "civilized" world.

  • T o n y||

    Well bully for us.

  • JohnD||

    Tony is an idiot. Does he not realize that most gun violence is gang related? Does he care. Nope, he just wants to join the liberal chorus that whines about gun violence.

  • DJK||

    It doesn't fit the narrative. And facts only matter to Tony and his ilk if they fit the narrative. It's called intellectual dishonesty and he's been practicing it on these boards for quite awhile.

  • Monty Crisco||

    "Well bully for us."

    That's it? That's your argument. You are WRONGWRONGWRONGWRONGWRONG and THAT is your response? You have LESS credibility than Barack OBama and THAT is your response? You lied and got called on it IMMEDIATELY and THAT is your response. You don't know your ass from a fucking hole in the ground and THAT is your response? You are UTTERLY ignorant of ANY facts on the gun issue and THAT is your response?

    You are a fucking moron and have demonstrated WHY you have no credibility and why no one should give any time or concern to any of your moronic "arguments".

    You are such a sad fucking loser....

  • OldMexican||

    Sorry, the U.S. 28th on gun violence (crime committed with a gun). It is still number 4 in gun homicide, behind South Africa, Colombia and Thailand.

    Either way, your contention is totally wrong, to the point of being a purposeful lie.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Well bully for us.


    I just showed you that you lied about the U.S. having the highest gun death rate in the "civilized" world. Is that all you're coming back with? You're one dishonest little creep, Tony.

  • T o n y||

    Civilized is a subjective term. You're evading the issue, as usual.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Civilized is a subjective term. You're evading the issue, as usual.


    "Subjective" as in "Moving the goalposts when I am handed my ass in a plate"?

    Fuck you, you little weasel.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    He is a bigot, OM. Those brown people can't be considered "civilized" to the likes of him.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Unless they vote Democrat.

  • sarcasmic||

    Either way, your contention is totally wrong, to the point of being a purposeful lie.

    Of course it is. Remember that according to Tony there is no such thing as right and wrong. There is only consensus. So if the consensus of liberals says it is acceptable to lie in order to further the liberal agenda, it is not morally wrong.

    Honesty is for chumps.

  • T o n y||

    You didn't make it to college, did you?

  • John||

    Yeah Tony, tell us more about how societies who sanctioned the killing of children were not really immoral. Wow are you a morally degraded and sad person.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah Tony, tell us more about how societies who sanctioned the killing of children were not really immoral.

    Hey now! If consensus at the time said it was OK then it was not wrong! Same with slavery and rape! In Muslim countries they execute rape victims, and because consensus says it is OK it is OK! Don't you know anything?

  • T o n y||

    The United States sanctions the killing of children, as long as they're overseas and brown. Is the US an immoral society?

  • Jordan||

    Yes.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Yes.

    That fuckwit has once again proven he knows fuck-all about libertarianism. It's like explaining partial differential equations to a goldfish.

  • John||

    You are the one who loves Obama Tony. You tell us.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    That is an immoral act. But you don't consider it such, because the POTUS has a kill-list compiled and read and everything.

  • John Henry||

    The United States government sanctions the killing of children, as long as they're overseas and brown. Is the US an immoral society?

    Only the part that supports the US gov and its policies.

  • sarcasmic||

    John Henry, you forget that progressive liberals do not draw a distinction between government and society.
    Especially Tony. He hates distinctions.

  • Harvard||

    The United States sanctions the killing of children...... as long as they're little toes are still inside the birth canal.

  • JohnD||

    And the liberals sanction the murder of babies in the womb. So yes, most of the US is immoral.

  • carol||

    No, Tony, the US is not an immoral society. The government and its supporters, such as yourself, are immoral.

  • Cavpitalist||

    The United States sanctions the killing of children, as long as they're overseas and brown. Is the US an immoral society?

    Fuck. Yes.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I would be curious to see what would happen if you broke the U.S. down by voting precinct into two countries, one with only R precincts and one with only D precincts. As in, where would each "country" end up in the rankings.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    That wouldn't be fair because population density is much higher in D precincts, so naturally crime of all types is going to be higher.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Notice he said gun deaths, which are mostly suicides.

    If we're talking about homocides, I don't get how a knife homocide or a bludgeon homocide is less problematic than a gun homocide.

  • some guy||

    2/3 of US gun deaths are suicides.

    Over the past few decades gun ownership is up, but gun violence is down.

    The previous "assault weapons" ban had no measurable effect on gun violence, nor did its expiration.

    There is no significant difference between weapons classified as "assault weapons" and those not so classified.

    The problem in the US is with certain sub-cultures, not with guns in general.

  • T o n y||

    Yes I meant to ask when the topic of blacks favoring gun control came up in another thread. Is this yet another case in which white people know better than black people what's best for black people?

  • John||

    Yes Tony, smug white liberals living in their gated communities sending their kids to armed guarded schools lecturing black people living in poor areas sending their kids to undefended and dangerous schools is about as low as it gets.

    Good to see that you are finally realizing your white supremacist views and your problem with racism. The first step to solving a problem is realizing you have one.

  • T o n y||

    The claim was (and I don't know if this is true but I suppose it is) that blacks largely favor gun control.

    Is this because they are too stupid to know that if only they had more guns they'd be able to defend themselves better?

    Or perhaps it's the case of rural white hillbillies not understanding the nature of the dangers of living in cities, just as, I will grant, us smug white gated community liberals don't understand the necessities of living in the middle of nowhere, where clearly you must shoot varmints to survive and there is an inexplicably high risk of thuggery to be defended against.

  • John||

    Let it out Tony. Show us how hateful and irrational you really are.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The claim was (and I don't know if this is true but I suppose it is) that blacks largely favor gun control.


    A fact that is irrelevant. Prop 8 in California (the anti-gay marriage amendment) passed with overwhelming support from blacks. Does that mean it is right to preclude gays from marrying? Your contention seems to suggest so.

    If you were at least a bit more principled, you would have to accept the idea that blacks have a special insight on all topics, not only those you find convenient, and thus accept that blacks are also right about gay marriage. or maybe they're "too stupid to know better"? Hmm?

  • sarcasmic||

    Suppose someone with a gun came into your house, tony, would you want gun at that moment?

    Tony would rather die with a phone in his hand than live with a gun in his hand.

  • Monty Crisco||

    Tony would rather die with a phone in his hand than live with a gun in his hand.

    I can only pray that you are right.

  • T o n y||

    I don't live in a house, I live in an apartment 300 feet above the ground. It's quite safe.

    Armed invasion of occupied homes are quite rare occurrences, I believe (most robbers tend to prefer the owners be away).

    We must at least use the facts of the real world and not made up scenarios when discussing appropriate policies.

    There is simply very little evidence of successful armed self-defense being prevalent enough to justify the large uptick in accidental and homicidal deaths that result merely from guns being present.

  • John||

    Armed invasion of occupied homes are quite rare occurrences, I believe (most robbers tend to prefer the owners be away).

    In the US that is true. They are quite common in the UK. The fact that there is little danger of the occupant being armed in the UK might have something to do with that.

    For a group sock puppet, my God you people are fucking stupid.

  • Clano'6||

    But if saving ONE CHILD from being murdered by an intruder.....

  • sarcasmic||

    There is simply very little evidence of successful armed self-defense being prevalent enough to justify the large uptick in accidental and homicidal deaths that result merely from guns being present.

    Depending on where you get your statistics, guns are used in self defense anywhere from 60K to 2.5M times a year in the US. The stats are difficult to come by because the vast majority of these instances go unreported.

    However I do understand that you would rather a woman submit to rape than defend herself.

    You would rather a mother be killed in front of her children than defend herself.

    I understand.

    You are a sick fuck, Tony. Sick.

  • John Henry||

    Depending on where you get your statistics, guns are used in self defense anywhere from 60K to 2.5M times a year in the US. The stats are difficult to come by because the vast majority of these instances go unreported.

    How dare you allow facts to get in the way of the narrative. You MONSTER.

  • Jordan||

    Defensive gun uses number in the millions per year, according to the evidence presented in the Heller arguments, vastly outnumbering illegal uses.

  • RightNut||

    There is simply very little evidence of successful armed self-defense being prevalent enough to justify the large uptick in accidental and homicidal deaths that result merely from guns being present.

    Could make the same argument about cars, television, ect. What you consider unjustifiable I consider easily justifiable. Which is why I would kindly ask you to mind your own business in regards to others guns/cars/televisons/paint.

  • DJK||

    I like this. Car accidents killed 30,000 people last year. There is an epidemic of car violence! No one needs an SUV. I recommend that all cars be limited to 4,000 pounds GVW. And that none be black or having 20" chrome wheels or tinted windows. Those menacing features make them more deadly, after all.

  • Clano'6||

    Wow. I'm sure those few rare people who managed to fend off attackers by taking advantage of their second amendment rights will feel much better knowing they should have just laid down and died because statistics show they are in the minority and being unarmed is so much better for the general populace.

  • DJK||

    Let's use the facts of the real world, Tony. In the twentieth century, governments murdered a quarter billion people. That's what the 2nd Amendment is designed to protect against. Tyranny which, by definition, can only be engaged in by governments. This website has chronicled the legislative history of the 2nd Amendment many times and I know that you have read every single one of those articles. So it really is just intellectual dishonesty.

  • carol||

    Not to nitpick, Tony, but we rural white hillbillies prefer the term "rednecks". Do try to express your bigotry in more PC terms next time.

  • Clano'6||

    Hick and hayseed are also acceptable. Does anyone use hayseed anymore?

  • carol||

    In Ruskin we rednecks refer to the hicks in Wimauma as hayseeds. Perfectly acceptable terms.

  • Brandon||

    No Tony, blacks don't get to decide what individual rights are to be abridged to make themselves feel safer any more than whites do.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Or perhaps it's the case of rural white hillbillies not understanding the nature of the dangers of living in cities

    Cities populated by black gang-bangers. Shut up, Tony.

  • Jordan||

    It's a case where rights are not negotiable. Race is irrelevant.

  • T o n y||

    How convenient for gun fetishists that their "rights" are nonnegotiable.

  • John||

    How convenient free speech fetishist have their rights nonnegotiable. Let the mask slip further Tony. Come on, show us your whole repulsive character.

  • T o n y||

    Everything is negotiable. The constitution doesn't say "Thou shalt never amend this document under any circumstance."

    Of course speech doesn't kill with the regularity and massive scale that guns do, so it's rather beside the point.

  • Jordan||

    I don't see you proposing a Constitutional Amendment. I see you trying to do an illegal end-run around it, i.e. the usual Progressive M.O.

  • T o n y||

    I've been clear about my support of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Since that's an impractical course of action, regulations within the allowable post-Heller range are OK with me. Which of course means I want to put Jews in death camps, ipso facto.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Which of course means I want to put Jews in death camps, ipso facto.

    Naw, just kulaks, wreckers, counterrevolutionaries, and other enemies of the people's glorious revolution.

  • Jordan||

    Of course speech doesn't kill with the regularity and massive scale that guns do, so it's rather beside the point.

    No, actually it's not.

  • RightNut||

    The bill of rights mostly codifies natural rights. In other words, rights that existed and exist beyond the constitution. So even the left somehow managed to repeal the 2nd amendment, they would be violating people's rights instead of violating the constitution AND people's rights.

  • T o n y||

    And you get to decide what constitutes the scope of natural rights, naturally.

  • DJK||

    You clearly don't understand the moral and political philosophy behind the Constitution, Tony. It was written with the understanding that rights are derived simply from the condition of being human. They are not to be adjudicated or legislated away. But that's the big difference between us. I believe that the rights of the individual are fundamental. You don't. Thus, I believe you are morally reprehensible and I will never change my opinion based on an argument I find to be ground in evil. You'll do the same.

  • T o n y||

    It's hardly fair to find me evil for simply being unwilling to believe in magic.

    See the problem with natural rights is that you get to define them however you want, and if anyone objects you just say "How dare you object to what is clearly a natural right!" You don't have to prove it, which is good because you can't possibly prove something like that.

    I believe rights are legal constructs that often have taken decades or centuries of struggle to invent and secure. That means they're extra precious to me, not like the goodies delivered by the Easter Bunny as you treat them.

  • Cavpitalist||

    It's hardly fair to find me evil for simply being unwilling to believe in magic.

    You mean like government Jesus feeding the 300 million?

  • enoriverbend||

    "speech doesn't kill with the regularity and massive scale"

    You're kidding, right? Or does the vast depth and scale of your ignorance have no bounds?

    One example: Free speech on radio (and print) was the MAIN TRIGGERING EVENT behind the Rwanda genocide. At least 500,000 people killed, mostly by machetes, but without radio or print, the damn thing wouldn't have gotten nearly as far.

    I suppose you want machete control, now, too?

    Ignorant twit.

  • T o n y||

    On the contrary enoriverbend, Rwanda is the example I cite when I advocate deporting Rush Limbaugh and shuttering FOX News.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    How convenient for gun fetishists that their "rights" are nonnegotiable.


    Yes, pretty convenient. Just as life fetishists and free-speech fetishists would argue.

    Again, you're a creepy weasel.

  • An0nB0t||

    Hey Tony,

    Would you be willing to email me your identity? I won't reveal it, or even comment on future comments you offer, but I'm dying to know who you are. Scout's honor.

  • John||

    Tony is a sock puppet franchise run by several deranged brown shirt leftists sent here by the DU or daily KOS to fuck up the threads and destroy the conversation. It is the same group that posts as Shreek and Mary Sack.

  • An0nB0t||

    I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Tony is one of the regulars.

    He puts up a good facade, but there's some subtle quality of his writing that's too obvious and too literate to be a true believer. I have him narrowed down to about a half dozen candidates, but it's hard to tell, given all the wit and farce that makes a home for itself on this board.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Better that than turning this place into The Agitator.

  • An0nB0t||

    I stopped frequently Radley's page regularly once he went to HuffPo. I'm glad that he's making more cash, but I just can't stand the idiocy of the commentariat.

  • T o n y||

    How could my identity possibly be of interest to you? You do realize there are millions of liberals in this country who believe roughly the same things I do. We walk among you.

    Ironically, though, I am Leonardo Dicaprio.

  • John||

    Leo is actually an interesting homosexual. And everyone who pays attention knows that there is no "Tony". Just a group of fuckheads who post as a sockpuppet.

  • An0nB0t||

    I'm being serious. Go for it. You know you want to. I won't tell Welch.

  • Cavpitalist||

    You do realize there are millions of liberals in this country who believe roughly the same things I do.

    Yeah, we know. There are piles of brown baby carcasses to prove it.

  • Chris Mallory||

    If it is negotiable, then it is not a right.

  • Gray Ghost||

    And everyone who pays attention knows that there is no "Tony". Just a group of fuckheads who post as a sockpuppet.

    My thought has always been that he's either one or a bunch of Reason employees, driving clicks to their site.

    I've no idea why you all love shoveling troll shit as much as you do.

  • some guy||

    Tony:

    Yes I meant to ask when the topic of blacks favoring gun control came up in another thread. Is this yet another case in which white people know better than black people what's best for black people?

    Where did I mention race? My post was meant to show that I am well-versed on the recent history of guns, and you are the one doing the whitewashing. Why do you still favor gun control when there is no evidence that gun control even correlates with gun violence, much less directly affects it?

    For more evidence you can look internationally. In France for example there is about 1 gun for every 3 people. In other words guns are commonplace in France. Yet their gun homicide rate is less than 1/100 the rate in the US. This is yet more evidence that gun violence is driven by culture, not guns. In fact, all violence is driven by culture, rather than inanimate objects.

  • some guy||

    EDIT: France's gun homicide rate is less than 1/10th the US, not 1/100th.

  • RightNut||

    I'm curious how much of the US's gun violence/crime rate is due to drug laws. I know drug legalization wouldn't end the problem of gun crime, but I bet it would do more good than all the gun laws passed have done.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Yes I meant to ask when the topic of blacks favoring gun control came up in another thread. Is this yet another case in which white people know better than black people what's best for black people?

    Actually you immoral little prick, the quote you are referring to came from this David Frum article:
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/.....index.html

    The statistics he refers to can be found here:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/159.....pikes.aspx

    It actually only breaks the population into White and Non-White. So the original assertion that Blacks favor gun control more than the general population is speculative, at best. My personal interaction with blacks are that they are just fine with gun laws as they exist.

    Thanks for trying to deflect the thread from the fact that you are an immoral little racist douchebag. Fuck you.

  • An0nB0t||

    "Over the past few decades gun ownership is up, but gun violence is down."

    That might be the most charitable thing that Tony has ever heard.

    Gun violence is not only down, it's down at historic levels and across all demographics. The reduction of crime in the modern era is historic.

    Which just goes to show you how evil and corrupt the baby boomers were, after all.

  • Torontonian||

    Or gun violence could be down because the US has 2.3 million people incarcerated.

    If you remove criminals from the population, what do you expect to happen to the crime rate?

  • Clano'6||

    Which would make the point that criminals are the leading perpetrators of gun violence and cracking down on those who obtain them legally won't solve the real problem.

  • An0nB0t||

    Errrr...

  • ||

    You do realize that a pretty decent chunk of those 2.3 million are in jail for victimless crimes like smoking pot and getting paid to give a blowjob right? Not exactly hardened criminals committing armed felonies.

  • John||

    A good argument is terrible thing to waste on a sock puppet

  • Anonymous Coward||

    To be fair you're kinda whitewashing the present away, what with the US having the highest rate of gun deaths in the civilized world.

    Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%)
    were suicide deaths.

    Fuck off, you dishonest, bootlicking, piece of shit serf.

  • T o n y||

    I've heard no good argument why suicides should be excluded from discussions of gun deaths.

  • Jordan||

    Because people determined to commit suicide would just find another method, as demonstrated by South Korea, Japan, and Sweden, among others.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Because the discussion is about "gun violence"

    S. Korea and Japan have hugely strict "gun laws" and much higher suicide rates than the US. But it is the guns than make people kill themselves and need to be demonized.

  • T o n y||

    Suicide is often a heat-of-the-moment type thing. Most don't follow through or at least can be saved with intervention, and then go on to live their lives. With a gun present it pretty much settles the matter in that moment.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Again, Tony w/spaces is being a duplicitous shitweasel. Suicidal people generally don't just become suicidal, they grapple with it for years. They receive therapy and drugs so that they can resist the urge to kill or harm themselves.

  • ||

    But shouldn't America have higher suicide rates too then? And if you want to excuse the suicide rates by citing cultural differences, why do you object when people use the same as an explanation for gun homicide rates?

  • Liberty||

    People don't kill themselves. Guns come to life and kill people!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Because if those same 19,392, decided to hang themselves, you'd be calling for a ban on rope, being the principled actor and defender of life that you are, right?

  • T o n y||

    Look if a gun isn't an especially efficient means of killing, then why is it worth protecting as a useful method of self-defense?

    I know you don't realize it but you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Look if a gun isn't an especially efficient means of killing, then why is it worth protecting as a useful method of self-defense?

    Who said it wasn't?

    I know you don't realize it but you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

    Project much? I know that in your tiny mind intent doesn't matter, but without intent, acts generally do not happen.

  • KDN||

    Project much?

    Projection? From a leftist? Surely you jest.

  • Jordan||

    No, he's not. He didn't say that a gun was not an efficient means of killing. Learn to read.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Look if a gun isn't an especially efficient means of killing, then why is it worth protecting as a useful method of self-defense?


    Because it is an instrument that is very easy to master, compared to other instruments or methods that are more unwieldy or require a much more protacted period of mastering like swords, knives, baseball bats or karate.

    Guns are especially good for women as self-defense instruments because these obviate the clear advantage in strength and size that male attackers have.

    But I understand that you hate women enough not to want them to have the instruments that can better help defend their bodies and lives. I get it, Tony; I get it.

  • ||

    You know, I was going to just post those monkey's screaming but FUCK YOU!

    You are a disingenuous piece of shit.

    Our homicide rate is 3.6 per 100k. The only reason "gun deaths" are so high is because that's the method of choice for suicides.

  • ||

    To be fair you're kinda whitewashing the present away, what with the US having the highest rate of gun deaths in the civilized world.

    But of course, disarming (at gunpoint, haha) the people who don't commit the crimes is going to help lots and lots, right?

    Of course it won't. You know this just as well as I do, as do the people in power who want to disarm us. But then, it's never been about ending gun violence, has it? No, it's about gaining a monopoly on gun violence.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Around here, those five additional words make a big difference.

    "Two wrongs don't maker a right! Neener neener."

  • Tim||

    The way I see it, about five minutes after they succeed in banning assault rifles, the powers will suddenly discover that statistic about them being used in a tiny percentage of crimes. Then we start on handguns.

  • Gray Ghost||

    This has been my thought too, Tim. Then we will be in for it, because while I don't think an ugly black rifle ban or high-cap ban will start civil disorder, going door to door to grab handguns will.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We shouldn't be celebrating the lawless vigilantism of this guy's grandfather, when he should have sought assistance from duly authorized police officers. I suspect there were several law enforcement professionals present at the time; it was just hard to identify them under the sheets.

  • John||

    Violence, even when done in self defense, never solved anything. Don't you know anything Brooks?

  • sarcasmic||

    That's not true. Cops using violence in self defense has solved things. Violence isn't the issue. The issue is who is using violence. According to liberals, only agents of the state may use violence. That is why rape victims are expected to shut up and take it, then call the cops. Taking the law into their own hands and defending themselves is a sin against government.

  • John||

    Fair enough. Violence definitely solved the Kulack and the Jewish problems.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Yes I meant to ask when the topic of blacks favoring gun control came up in another thread.


    So what if black Americans favor gun control? Rights are not infringed based on popularity, otherwise you would've kissed the 1st Amendment goodbye a long time ago.

    Besides this, you seem to totally ignore the long history of civil rights and guns. Blacks were precluded from having guns legally by white racist politicians in the South and even in the North, so even if many blacks do not want guns that does not mean the government gets to take the choice of having one away from them.

  • Torontonian||

    I'll post this again for Tony's benefit:

    "All the adherents of the Führer must know this: the Reich will be secure only if no foreign military force exists West of the Urals. The iron law must be: none but the Germans shall be permitted to bear arms... only a German has the right to carry a weapon; no Slav, no Czech, no Cossack, no Ukrainian. "

    Adolf Hitler - 1941
    (From the Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 7)

  • T o n y||

    What is the argument behind this Gowdwin, may I ask?

    Is it that Obama wanting to ban high-capacity magazines is a slippery slope to death camps?

    Or is it that if only the Jews were allowed to have guns, they might have defended themselves against the Nazis? (Which rather comically misses the point, don't you think?)

  • RightNut||

    I'd be more sympathetic if "high-capacity" magazine wasn't defined by the left as "a magazine with more bullets than I think you need". Dianne Feinstein believes that number is 11, Gov. Cuomo, 8. Apparently for many liberals that believe the 2nd amendment is about owning muskets its 2. That sounds like a pretty slippery slope to me.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Let's be honest here. If NY's ban affects handguns---I think it does---the only reason they picked that number is that it doesn't affect a bone-stock 1911. Which also happens to be the semi-auto pistol that a card-carrying Fudd has at home. If he didn't care about alienating every gunowner, he'd have tried to have their legislature push through a total semi-auto ban.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    But it was all legallyish and the Germans had a consensus and everything!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    What's strange about the recurring claim that "Black people favor gun control" is the number of black men and women with a military service background.

    At least their opinions (whatever they may in reality be) are not entirely based on ignorance, unlike the Tonys of the world.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I've heard no good argument why suicides should be excluded from discussions of gun deaths.

    I have heard no good argument as to why suicide is properly the business of the State.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Jordan||

    You're property of the State. Committing suicide is stealing from the State.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Dead people can't pay their fair share.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    there are millions of liberals in this country who believe roughly the same things I do.

    What more compelling argument against government schools could there be?

  • KDN||

    Is this going to veer into Gambolman territory? God, I hope so.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Are we free to gambol?

  • ||

    I am interested in what you have to say and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I've been clear about my support of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.


    The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would still not give the government power to take guns away from people, Tony. Owning guns is a fundamental right just like is owning your own body - both stem from the self-ownership principle. The second amendment is meant only to place a restraint on government to pass any law that would infringe on that right, but the repeal would not mean you lose your right to own a gun. You can still sue the government for infringement of the 4th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, but thanks to the 2nd Amendment, you don't have to - that's all.

    Since that's an impractical course of action, regulations within the allowable post-Heller range are OK with me.


    That is, you favor politicians reneging from their oath to defend and comply with the Constitution. I am sure you would have NO problem if your landlord applied the same standards of compliance and compromise to your rental agreement.

    Which of course means I want to put Jews in death camps, ipso facto.


    No, it means you would out the Jews in death camos, not that you want to.

  • OldMexican||

    That would be: "put the Jews in death camps, not that you want to."

  • T o n y||

    Blah blah blah... whatever OldMexican says is a right cannot legitimately be undermined by any government, because OldMexican says so.

    Once and for all, though, can you tell me how exactly you became enlightened as to the extent and nature of what rights human beings possess naturally? Because I admit it's a bit bizarre that there exists--in nature--a right to own a piece of machinery that was invented sometime in the past few decades.

    It is perfectly constitutional to regulate guns. The Supreme Court said so. Or does the same magical rights oracle who delivers to you all the special wisdom of what constitutes natural rights also adjudicate constitutionality in the United States, above and beyond the SC?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It is perfectly constitutional to regulate guns. The Supreme Court said so.

    Remember back when the Supreme Court said is was perfectly constitutional to own other human beings?

    Good times. Good times.

  • T o n y||

    So... who decided what's constitutional again?

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The people who wrote and subsequently amended the document, rightly or wrongly.

    Then again, I don't hold to the fallacious notion that the Constitution "confers" rights so stuff that particular strawman back into your closet.

  • T o n y||

    But they're all dead.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    I wasn't aware death was a refutation of one's political position.

  • DaveSs||

    How do we know that humans have the right to bear arms for self defense? Easy.

    Humans have the natural right to protect their life and the lives of others under their protection from immediate threats to their lives.

    Humans also create and use tools. This of course means humans naturally have the right to use tools to aid in defense of their lives. We call this type of tool 'arms'

    Throughout history, most of these tools called arms took great strength, exceptional skill or both to wield effectively. This of course limited effective defense of life to those who could dedicate years developing the skills necessary to wield those arms, the strong, the young, or the wealthy who could afford hire and train the young and strong.

    The invention of the firearm changed this paradigm. The firearm does not require exceptional skill or strength to wield effectively.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh, and guess what else?

    You only oppose gun control and our murderous Dear Leader because you're racist.

    First of all, first of all, first of all he is a black. And as a black person being the President of the United States, that’s something that they still cannot get over. They couldn’t get over the first election. They’re still shell-shocked at the second election – to use a pun, shell-shocked – and so that’s the first thing.

    Jesus Harold Christ, why can't this level of dishonesty and stupidity be fatal? You know, like ten seconds after uttering such fucking nonsense one's head explodes in a brilliant display of blood, brains, and light.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm going to the range to kill some paper, ammo shortages be damned.

    Jesus.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh fuck me, this is that goddamn guam tipping over guy.

    Hey, guam tipping over guy...

    Please do society a favor and kill yourself, it would be a help to raise our average intelligence. You're dragging us down, racist guam tipping over guy.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I don't get how "shell shocked" is a pun in that context.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Oh, I see, shotgun shells. But he's not talking about banning shotguns (yet).

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Dear Leader because you're racist.

    Obviously Johnson is in the thrall of Son of Journ-O-List (call them racists!).

    NEVAR FORGET.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    First of all, first of all, first of all he is a black.

    This is (a) stupid, since he's equally white and black, and (b) pretty much the definition of racism.

  • DaveAnthony||

    Someone call politifact!

  • DaveAnthony||

    In this case I'm sure they would give it a "Stretching the truth just a little bit for a good cause" rating instead of "Monstrous Fucking Dishonest Lie & Grotesque Distortion" that it deserves.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    You only oppose gun control and our murderous Dear Leader because you're racist.

    Well, DUH.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    This is worse than a whitewash, it's a calumny.

  • GroundTruth||

    Talk about an inconvenient truth!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement