Sometimes when reading through news stories and Op-Eds involving firearms and the ongoing debate over private gun ownership I have to stop and think, “Wait, did I really just read that?”

Such was the case concerning a recent Op-Ed written by Brian Lyman and posted at blackbeltnewsnetwork.com. The headline, “Gun legislation likely jammed in the chamber because firearm fantasies likely cloud real tragedies caused by guns,” was fairly cute, what with the “jammed in the chamber” play on words. But it didn’t reveal just how ignorant the rest of the Op-Ed would to be.

Author Brian Lyman is the editor of the Alabama Reflector, part of States Newsroom, touted as the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization. And while Lyman is certainly passionate about the topic he is addressing, it’s clear that he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to firearms.

Lyman kicks off the piece talking about how dangerous AR-style rifles are, using the anti-gun source The Washington Post to “bolster” his argument. Then he focuses on one of the criteria used in most so-called “assault weapon” bans—able to accept a grenade launcher.

“And that’s what stopped me,” Lyman writes. “In Alabama, you can own a rifle that fires a bullet every two seconds. One that, when modified, can fire explosive devices. I don’t know why someone outside a war zone would need a grenade launcher. If you have no other way to take down a deer, let someone else do the hunting.”

Setting aside the fact that he stole the lame deer hunting example from President Joe Biden’s often used flak jacket remark, in reality modern semi-auto rifles can fire more than a bullet every two seconds. And according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, rifles of any kind are used in less than 5% of violent crimes.

Lyman then takes on the state’s majority Republican legislature, using a term that I’m sure he thinks is catchy.

“But our Legislature is filled with those “gundamentalists,” he writes. “Most have either bowed to or embraced the firearms industry. They’ve stripped away permit requirements for gun ownership. They’ve treated the most innocent attempts to improve gun safety as Stalinesque assaults on individualism and personal liberty.”

In talking about “permit requirements” he links to a story about the state passing a constitutional carry law. In fact, that has nothing to do with the “evil” AR-15s he loves to loathe. The law simply did away with the necessity to get permission from the government and pay a fee to practice the constitutionally protected right of carrying a firearm for self-defense. As for “Stalinesque,” Soviet citizens were allowed to have firearms until 1929 when private gun ownership was abolished. The repressive and brutal régime of Joseph Stalin emerged at the same time that firearm ownership was outlawed.

He continues: “I suppose some of these folks think that owning these weapons means they can take down a bad guy with an assault rifle. Others, perhaps after gorging themselves on conservative media, might imagine that they’re on the brink of war with the federal government. Visions of militias dance in their heads. But God forbid you get into any of those situations. Because however heavily armed you are, you’re going to lose. If someone confronts you with an assault rifle, the odds are they’ll have the drop on you. No amount of firepower will change that tactical fact.

“And if you think a semi-automatic rifle will allow you to rebel against the federal government, let me introduce you to the concept of air power. Unless you can slap an F-22 on that gun, good luck.” 

In fact, one of the reasons the Second Amendment was written was so that regular citizens could be armed should the government try to tread on their other rights. And if someone confronts you with an “assault rifle,” having a semi-auto of your own will go further toward evening the odds than just standing there and letting them kill you. And concerning the F-22, that’s another one stole from Biden and has nothing to do whether or not you should be required to have a permit to own an AR-15. 

Lyman continues, “‘A firearm is an object used to kill’ should not be a controversial statement.” He should discuss that with the hundreds of thousands of skeet, trap and sporting clays shooters who break clays with their guns, along with many sport shooters who enjoy a day at the range or are involved in various rifle, pistol and even multi-gun competitions. In fact, the vast majority of guns owned by lawful Americans must be being misused since most have never killed anyone, despite Lyman’s opinion otherwise.  

Lyman concludes by bringing grenade launchers back into the equation, even though it’s unlikely any mass murderer in the United States has ever had a grenade launcher attached to his or her gun.

“But it says a lot about how far we have to go that a bill that would require permits for guns with grenade launchers will go nowhere in the next legislative session,” he concluded. “The fantasies about what we can do with a firearm distract us from the tragedies that guns are creating right in front of us.” 

I’ve only hit on a few high (or maybe low) points here. If your interest has been piqued, head on over and give it a read. I’m sure the website will be thankful for the clicks.

If Lyman wants to make his point more effectively, he should spend some time studying up on the topic at hand rather than writing about an important matter in a wild-eyed, purely emotional way. In this case, however, he didn’t, and anyone who reads his Op-Ed will be a little bit dumber for it.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

48 COMMENTS

    • Attention Author Brian Lyman editor of the Alabama Reflector! Your childish busy body concocted fear mongering about firearms pale in comparision to Gun Control which FYI is in any shape, matter or form a History Confirmed Agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide.

      I mean pathetic ignorant sneaky word salad ratbassturds like yourself should pull your heads out of your behinds and observe how throughout history evil has treated the Defenseless whether the Defendless is at school, in their homes, on the street, in a restaurant, etc. And evil uses anything from fists to vehicles.

      If you want to be an unarmed dumbfuk incapable of defending yourself, your family or your neighbor that’s fine. But mister your azz is cruising for a bruising if you think for one second you and your ilk are disarming America. I see Gun Control aholes like you no different than I see murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, tyrants et al.

        • [chuckle]

          You know, my Dad could cuss something/someone for 10 minutes straight without repeating himself or using mindless profanity. He wasn’t academically learned (I was the first to go to college), but he knew men and machines. I’m sure learned some colorful sayings from his father (who died when I was 12), but he was a union construction laborer for 38 years and likely perfected his repertoire while working concrete and steel. Well, to be honest, we boys provided some opportunity for growth. “I swear, you boys could tear up an anvil with a rubber hammer!” “Let’s go! We’re burning daylight, and you act like you’re going to your own last rites!” We had to be careful not to laugh, because the tirade would go into overdrive. He didn’t have a vein on his forehead that was on the verge of popping like some guys do, but he did control the allocation of pie, and that was a big lever.

          Some of what Debbie writes reminds me of my Dad (except for the mindless profanity bits). Seven years gone, and I still miss him.

    • There’s a saying to never argue with drunks or zealots. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

      Samuel Clements said better to close your mouth and be thought a fool than to open it and prove beyond doubt. Lyman did the latter in his diatribe.

  3. Rhetoric is rhetoric. Take a look at the record if you want to see where the violence with firearms really comes from. ‘Newsflash’…it’s not the right.

  5. The US military and it’s “air power” fought the Taliban in Afghanistan for 20 years…and failed (miserably) to defeat them. In fact, in the end, they only made the Taliban stronger buy loosing $80 billion dollars worth of weapons and hardware to them during their retreat.

    Russia thought their superior forces and “air power” would prevail against Ukraine…but after nearly 3 years they have suffered defeat after defeat by the armed citizen/farmers of Ukraine.

    But hey…it is what it is.

    • Afghanistan ultimately turned into Vietnam 2.0. Another war the Left did not want to win.

      Air strikes are headline-getting and flashy, but if they’re not bringing down major assets or being followed up on by lots of boots on the ground, they’re the warfare equivalent of bug bites.

      • I remember a quote from an early 80s documentary called “Soldiers”, hosted by the author Frederick Forsyth.

        “In war posession is nine tenths of the law, and infantry are the bailiffs men.”

        The Vietnamese said their aim was to last one more day than the Americans.

        Air power did help in WW2, but it was the ground forces that secured the victory.

      • TTC – NOT disagreeing with your basic premise but remember that the most deadly critter on earth is a lowly insect known as the mosquito.

  6. Strange how the vaunted power of the US military has not managed to win a war in 75 years.
    But the forever wars have made the bureaucrats ever more powerful and made the war pigs vast amounts of money. Seems the rice farmers and goat herders involved have managed to defeat the mighty US military several times just in my lifetime. Perhaps this foolish author should spend less time reading the leftist propaganda and crack open an actual history book.

    • But history is (something or another)ist! My (insert nonsense here) studies degree fully qualifies me to speak with authority on this topic……..and only slightly paraphrasing from stuff I hear every now and again at work.

    • Moreso than past decades but ……yeah would not want to be anywhere in the chain of command if they start droning civies armed or not.

  9. Alex Jones was very correct. There is an “information war” going on. And for a very long time now.

  11. I just can’t get past his name – the unfortunate relationship to a well respected name in firearms and the fact that it is produced Lie-Man. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

  12. I just can’t get past his name – the unfortunate relationship to a well respected name in firearms circles and the fact that it is pronounced Lie-Man. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

  13. Pretty sure I could knock off a shot every 2 seconds with my single shot .410 with a bit of practice. Also pretty sure a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan or rice planters in Viet Nam or any other third world and above group can defeat the U.S. Government regardless of F-22s.

    • Note his careful and insidious wording – “In Alabama, you can own a rifle that fires a bullet every two seconds.” See, it is the *rifle* that fires every 2 seconds, not the shooter. (I know that for any semi-auto that is somewhat slow and meaningless but so, apparently, is the author). By blaming it on the rifle he gets to call for legislation that regulates the rifle, not the guy shooting it. These types never mention the fact that whether or not the gun itself is legal, it is still illegal to shoot it at anyone except in very limited circumstances.

      I’m sure you could get to around 1 shot every 2 seconds with your shotty but that is not this guy’s point. He wants to get rid of the gun, he doesn’t give a sh*t about you, or me or anyone else.

  14. ALL weapons in the category of ARMS are protected by the second amendment. Marxists and leftists use the militia prefatory clause of the second amendment as an argument to limit 2A rights and at the same time argue that military style weapons are not protected.

    You can’t have a militia without the people keeping and bearing military-grade weapons.

    • No, they just twist that arouund and claim the “militia” is The National Guard/Army Reserve/etc.
      Sorry boys, but after fighting against The King and his armies, the last thing The Framers intended was having the Militia under ANY central government control.

      • Pb – yep they always claim that the ‘well regulated’ phrase is directly tied to the NG (reserves of any type seldom come in to play) which wasn’t even around until the aptly named “Dick Act”. The last thing the Founders wanted was fedzilla to have control over any aspect of the militia which is a state entity.

        • “The last thing the Founders wanted was fedzilla to have control over any aspect of the militia“

          The United States Constitution says otherwise:

          “Article 1 Clause 15.
          The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

          Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.‘

          The constitution only grants to the states the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress and the appointment of the officers.

          • Keep trying to sell that weak-@$$ lie, MajorLiar,

            SOMEHOW (conveniently, perhaps???) you managed to elide over the whole “. . . such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States . . . ” part of it (as usual). So, for those of us who are not so erudite as you and other Leftist/fascist idiots, please explain how that applies to the “unorganized militia”, and contrast, compare, and analyze how that squares with the original Militia Act of 1792. Your brilliant and learned discourse is urgently needed . . . you lying, ignorant (historically AND factually) sh*tweasel.

  15. “They’ve treated the most innocent attempts to improve gun safety as Stalinesque assaults on individualism and personal liberty.”

    “…rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” – Thos. Jefferson

    That single precept is the basis for which this country was founded.

  16. This is what happens when they stop teaching US History in school and would rather have other subjects in its place.
    It is also a testiment of the writer to effectively and efficently research the topic and make sure it is based on fact. But it was an OP -Ed so the writer can have their opinion. The OP Ed is exactly that an individual opinion. Such an opinion that is far from the truth or fact. So just treat it like an opinion.

  17. Some things that could be modified to accept and use a grenade launcher: A 1770s musket. A rubber ducky. A Democrat campaign sign. Lyman’s rear end. – all it takes is duct tape.

  18. Given the new historical test used by the Supreme Court, it is absolutely legitimate to bring up grenades. While grenades are currently illegal, I certainly believe the Court as is could strike that down.

    That’s a reasonable concern.

    And if the Court did such a thing, I’d be willing to bet TTAG would cheer it.

    • Illegal? You do realize for most states it’s only a destructive device stamp and a background check right? Or how retardedly easy improvised versions are? I swear you fall semester astroturf are getting worse by the year on knowledge base.

      • Technically correct, but it’s essentially a moot point since it’s extremely difficult to buy one.

        A Supreme Court ruling would change that so they’re as easy to obtain as a rifle — meaning suppliers would be readily selling them en masse.

  19. This artical recounts all the idiot statements, without pointing out that the US military has lost every war since 1945, often to opposition without an airforce, and lacking tanks and heavy artillery. Also, again avoided, the prime reason for the Second Amendment – fighting a rogue, tryannical, authoritarian national government…with whatever weapons the public can acquire, or build.

    However, the public has permitted government to impose tryanny well beyond what the founders would have tolerated. Franklin laid down the challenge, yet here we are.

    There ain’t gonna be no boogie, Lou.

    I think the leftists and authoritarians figured that out.

    • The problem is it would only take 1 to maybe a dozen to shut down the entire eastern sea board for months in ways I detailed in my exit interview. Would only be mildly surprised if they used it to justify something else. May not be a big igloo but riots starvation and death by exposure/lack of medical access are not too far from possible.

      • I understand your theory, however……

        We are too comfortable as a nation to confront tyranny in a meaningful way, outside the ballot box. Nothing profound about it: it is the way of empire. Ours likely to prove to be “nasty, brutal, and short.” To underscore, “In the end, there can be only one”, and it ain’t the US.

        • Confront tyranny? No think more along the lines of malicious depopulation from ambiguous actors. I am thankful some are starting to take it seriously after nearly 2 decades but there are nightmare scenarios that don’t involve nukes or civil wars.

          • “confront tyranny” in the sense of recognizing that it is upon us, and rejecting it at the box office; re-asserting the founding principles by voice and vote. all that is just too much effort, when there is an NFL, or WNBA game to attend, or watch on television.

  20. I am prouldly gonna start referencing myself as a “gundamentalist” !

    And all of us are equipped with a still very useful grenade launcher – a decent throwing arm !

Comments are closed.