R
◀Previous Post

While it is true many gun owners tend to lean more conservative in their overall political views because the Democratic Party today overwhelmingly supports more legislation limiting gun ownership, there are still people of every political stripe and walk of life who enjoy shooting and support the Second Amendment. But it can make it tricky navigating the political landscape with so much divisiveness on key issues where one party may be good for one issue you are passionate about, but you just don’t agree with their position on another. Unlike most gun writers, I’m not a Republican or a conservative. I do agree with conservatives about a number of important issues, but on others, I either side with the Democrats or side with almost nobody. I’m an independent, and I make my decisions about policy on a case-by-case basis, and not based on what fellow political tribal members are saying.

Sadly, this often leads to conflict with people. Good people sometimes see me agreeing with them on something like LGBT rights or drug legalization, but then see me disagree with them on gun control. Or they see me agree with them on gun rights, but maybe not on some of the other issues. For people accustomed to the two-party system, seeing a mix of agreement and disagreement is either baffling, viewed as politically impractical or even seen as an attack of some kind.

In this article, I’d like to lay out my non-conservative defense of gun rights, mostly so I don’t have to type it over and over again every time I come across someone who can’t understand gun rights from any other angle. Hopefully, it will prove helpful to others who want to make better arguments against gun control.

The Futility Of Gun Control

Without needing to get into the Constitution, natural rights, God-given rights or even self-defense, which are all excellent arguments, there’s a much simpler way to look at gun rights: inevitability.

Even before 3D printing technology entered the chat, guns have been an extremely difficult thing for governments to control. People arguing for gun control like to point to stable European countries as success stories, but at the same time there are also countries like Mexico that have even more strict laws but rampant violence, and mostly with guns that don’t come from the United States. I’ll come back to this issue in a bit.

Even when extreme measures are taken to round up guns, it often just doesn’t work. For example, New York City officials saw that a near-ban on firearms wasn’t working, so they decided to violate the Fourth Amendment along with the Second with “stop and frisk” searches. Absent probable cause, people were randomly searched on the street for weapons. Criminals didn’t respond by giving up on guns, instead they became better organized and stashed rental guns throughout the city.

Today, we’re seeing guns pop up all over the globe (they always have actually), and with 3D printing, there are even more avenues for restricted people to easily build and obtain their own firearms. Even in low-crime countries with strict gun laws, people have been caught building their own guns. Without denying basically every other civil right including free speech, freedom from searches without probable cause and internet privacy, it’s basically impossible to keep people from obtaining guns. There are much stronger ways to work to prevent crime than mere gun control. Because guns aren’t the problem, violent people are.

The Availability Argument Isn’t Supported By The Evidence

As I mentioned previously, gun control appears to work in stable countries, but it fails miserably in others. Gun control proponents try to blame the United States for violence in places like Mexico, but they often cite faulty statistics about the origin of crime guns there. Sure, most guns submitted to U.S. authorities for tracing end up being found to have come from here, but Mexican authorities don’t submit most guns to the U.S. for tracing because they know they are stolen Mexican Army guns, guns from further south, guns built in Mexico, etc. Guns have always been available in Mexico despite their laws and the country wasn’t the ruthless pit it has become. So, what changed? It’s because of the drug trade, human smuggling, the rampancy of crooked officials and police willing to take bribes and payoffs to look the other way and an otherwise depraved underclass who will commit unimaginable levels of violence to protect their piece of the pie with each generation becoming more indifferent to the suffering they bring to their communities. That’s what changed. But that’s just Mexico. What about other countries around the globe? What about the United States?

On top of the varying international experience, the availability of firearms either obtained legally or on the black market, along with the advent of 3D-printed guns raises other questions about the efficacy of gun control. Plans for reliable guns with metal barrels and even ammunition that don’t require any regulated components are widely available and require minimal skill. Guns are popping up everywhere, even in places touted as gun control success stories.

But, in developed nations with stable governments, relative prosperity and basic human needs largely provided for, nobody’s printing guns up and committing violence and there are even fewer cases of mass shootings. Gun crime has not risen despite this new availability of weapons (though some other crimes have). But blood is not running in the streets the way gun control proponents often predict.

So, it seems pretty clear that the availability of weapons is not to blame for gun violence. It’s a more complex problem than that, and correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

The Issue Goes Beyond Guns

I don’t want to point out the impossibility of enforcement and the problem with the availability argument and just stop there. Pointing out that gun control is not a good answer doesn’t solve the very real problem we find ourselves facing in the United States with mass shootings, gang violence and other deaths that none of us want to see continue. Everyone cares about this, regardless of where you stand on the gun issue.

I think the examples of Mexico and the possibilities of more and better technology in the future that makes 3D-printed guns more commonplace (they still make up less than 2% of the overall guns traced in crimes by the ATF) give us a clue to the answers. Simply put, stable countries where people are well taken care of don’t have gun violence problems, even when guns show up. But, even with strict gun laws, unstable countries experience violence. In other words, happy and healthy people don’t engage in violence.

If we want to get rid of violence, we need to consider measures that increase societal stability, which involves a myriad of ways to improve opportunity and a sense of self-worth in our communities. This doesn’t mean we need to instill some massive Euro-style welfare state in the United States. That’s never going to happen. It’s simply politically untenable. But we do need to use our imaginations and come up with innovative ways to improve our society instead of attempting to slap the false Band-Aid of gun control over much deeper wounds.

◀Previous Post

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

97 COMMENTS

  2. Nicely written, but at the end of the day if you don’t cast your vote for Trump in November then none of what you wrote matters because you are fueling gun control. And in spite of your other views, I would argue that the second amendment is the most important thing in the world right now. If we lose our guns we lose everything else and become the hell that is the UK. (or worse)

    • To help locate a Political Center X allow me to condense similiar omni directional word salads that are played everywhere on a loop…

      1) The Second Amendment is one thing.

      2) The criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, fists, feet, vehicles, etc. is another thing.

      3) History Confirms Gun Control in any shape, matter or form is a racist and nazi based Thing.

      No matter how you slice and dice it, to vote democRat is to own stock in the party that owns the Legacy of Slavery.

  3. “If we want to get rid of violence, we need to consider measures that increase societal stability, which involves a myriad of ways to improve opportunity and a sense of self-worth in our communities.”

    I agree on that point.

    Note that Democrat inspired government entitlement programs work exactly AGAINST improving opportunity and self-worth.

    How entitlement programs work against opportunity:
    Those entitlement programs suck a huge percentage of our income away in taxes that we would otherwise spend on goods and services which … wait for it … business and jobs (not government) provide. Thus taking our money away via taxes simply to give it to “poor” people decreases total spending on goods and services which decreases business which decreases opportunity in our communities.

    How entitlement programs work against self-worth:
    The other nasty side of Democrat inspired government entitlement programs is they suck away self-worth from the recipients who cannot point to anything productive or worthwhile about themselves. Instead, they are parasites who mooch off of others. That does not increase a person’s self-esteem.

    If you really and truly want to increase opportunity and self-worth in our communities, you will stop supporting Democrats and end their entitlement programs–along with the income tax they collect to fund those programs. That extra money translates to more demand for goods and services which drives/creates more businesses and jobs to deliver those goods and services. And that creates more opportunity for people who would otherwise mooch off of the rest of us to work, which increases their self-worth.

    • “we need to consider measures that increase societal stability….”

      Neither party will address the root cause of black fatherlessness.
      Truly the third rail of politics since the day that Democrat icon Patrick Moynihan tried to touch it in the 1960’s when black fatherlessness was at 20% (now days approx 80%).
      At least the Republicans don’t repeat the evil lie of saying black problems are due to “systematic racism”. Heck even Black Jesus (B.H.O) repeats the lie.

  4. I don’t care about any of the issues in the article. I couldn’t care less. “shall not be infringed. That’s all I need. Anything is superfluous.

  5. The reality is this. Politically we can all point to people on both sides who fail the basic test of Government. That test is when they know the constitution and the restrictions on Imperial Government intervention and still start with “Should the Federal government …..?” To which my answer is NO.

    The system was set up with states and local governments (much more responsive to the citizenry) supposedly having a much larger impact on daily lives than an unaccountable, federal system hundreds or thousands of miles away.

    There are certain rights established by the result of our birth that area recognized and were recognized by our founders. The most important RIGHT is our right to operate within the laws of society without a faceless agency telling us what we can or cannot do.

    Guns, abortion, drugs, alcohol, right of association, religious association etc. are mostly or primarily personal decisions, AS LONG AS we do not ask another Citizen to support it or eliminate their responsibility for their actions.

    This does not in anyway support the Sovereign Citizens movement (who seem more than happy to participate in our society while denying any responsibility for their actions).

    Protection for citizens from government overreach was the first and primary design of our nation and should be the main question for each law.

  6. You can save what you want. if you are voting for a Democrat? You are supporting gun control. Your family tradition of voting democrat is simply more important to you. Or
    getting “free stuff” from the government. Such as “free” condoms, “free” abortions, “free” college loan money.

    And yes the farmers and ranchers are in line waiting. For their “free stuff” from the government too.

    But those folks want to keep their rights. The others are willing to give them up .So life for them will be more “comfortable.”

    The people in the uk gave up their guns. They didn’t fight for them not really. They thought they would have peaceful slavery.

    Well, they do have slavery. But it’s not very peaceful. Just look at what is going on now, in our former mother country.

    ps

    There is another option. You could vote for the gun toting h0.m0se.xu.al libertarian c0m.munist.

    Or you could vote for R.F.K who’s campaign is run by the central intelligence agency. He swears he’s changed his mind about the second amendment . If you want to believe him.

    • RFK said he would ban ARs. He’s a Democrat after all. “Pro-2A” Joe Rogan just endorsed a gun grabbing Democrat.

  7. Now that the author demonstrated why Democrats are wrong on firearms and I demonstrated why Democrats are wrong on entitlement programs–which happen to be two of their most significant Party platforms, let’s move on to another significant Democrat Party platform: life and families.

    Life and families are the foundation of society. Policies which promote and strengthen life and families are good for society. Policies which discourage and weaken life and families are bad for society.

    Bad Democrat policy #1 for life:
    People are parasites and we should decrease our population.

    Bad Democrat policy #2 for life:
    Better to keep the masses defenseless and enable violent criminals to reduce the population than allow the population the most effective means of self-defense (firearms).

    Bad Democrat policy #3 for life:
    Protecting, promoting, and celebrating homo$sexual relationships reduces hetero$exual relationships. Thus promoting homo$exual relationships and reducing heter$exual relationships reduces the number of children born.

    Bad Democrat policy #4 for life:
    Protecting and even promoting moms to kill and remove the babies in their wombs reduces the number of children born. While Democrats will screech that they ardently support “choice” and therefore killing and removing babies from the womb is about choice, they ardently oppose choice when it comes to requiring COVID masks and “vaccinations” and shutting down business and worship. (Democrats will claim that people who refused to wear masks and get COVID vaccines were negatively affecting the health and lives of people near them which removed the “choice”. And yet Democrats insist on giving moms the choice to negatively affect the health and life of the baby–another person–inside them.)

    I can do this all day–show with simple facts how virtually all Democrat Party platform items are destructive with respect to families, life, opportunity, and self-worth. I can also show how some Republican Party platform items are destructive as well, although on the whole Republican Party platform is much better for families, life, opportunity, and self-worth. What we really need are quality people in government who have a modicum of intelligence and truly want our society to be better. Sadly, there is a severe shortage of such people who can actually win elections.

    • Such people are out there but they can’t win elections because neither republicans or democrats would ever allow it.
      To quote Alice Cooper we need a new party, a third party, a wild party

  8. Interesting how the drug tobacco, doesn’t cause a kind of violence that the drug fentanyl does. And the drug tobacco doesn’t cause the type of violence, that the marijuana drug business does.

    And yet the drug tobacco is extremely demonized in our society.

    btw
    My former boss at seven eleven was robbed at gunpoint for packs of cigarettes. They didn’t want the cash. They just wanted the cigarettes.

    But that’s what happens when you become a drug addict.

  9. if you vote D you are for gun control, period. Stop acting as if taking a side against it matters, it doesn’t and nobody cares about stupid ideological posts like this anymore. Vote accordingly if you dont like being called a gun grabber.

  10. Some good points and you made me think! Never thought of the quality of life influencing gun violence. i do think the quality of life is pretty good here, but the thought and emotional violence perpetrated by the leftist media creates a violent thought culture here leading to violence in action at times. The Marxists who have hijacked the democrat party see everything in society in terms of conflict and work hard to seed conflict between groups, which is NOT an American value. The democratic party have based their whole existence and meaning on actively sewing discord, and using violent and victimizing rhetoric to fan support. While we can all support the ending of discrimination and abuse against any group or class, the dems ramp it up way beyond what’s real, so they can put themselves squarely in the position of being rescuers and saviors. That puts them in the non useful and even dangerous category, especially with their nonrational fanaticism.

    • Sure Jennifer sure. BTW DJT never started anything bad about HaPpy y folk. Sorry I merely saw the byline and. thought”comments”. Have a swell day🙄

  12. arghhh. Well, here’s my take on all the “control” issues. To me, it doesn’t matter what the issue is, our government is and has been way over stepping it’s authorities. The job of our government is basic. Keep it’s citizens safe, to make certain that all of our rights are enforced and upheld regardless of all the seporative naratives, keeping our boarders secured and all the basics. I can not think of everything. What I also would like to remind people of, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to make sure We the People keep the government in check and that we control it. My take on gun violence is very simple. When a person uses any tool to invoke violence upon another, the penalty should be swift and severe. Too many times violent offenders either get a light penalty or walk with nearly any penalties at all. Oh and let’s not forget, our land of laws were built upon Christianity with real morals. If you support any democrats in these times, you are supporting the beginnings of communism and it’s ultimate ways. If you hate your country, then you should leave and move to the country of your preferences.

  13. What a self justifying load of absolute bullshit The majority of the CIVILISED manages to control GUN OWNERSHIP very well indeed so to even suggest it cannot be done is willfully ignorant And in spite of the rhetoric there are actually very few Nations on Earth than BAN the Personal ownership of FIREARMS including the oft quoted UK But neither do they have an absolute right of OWNERSHIP, In most instances it all boils down to LICENSING CONDITIONS applied on an INDIVIDUALBASIS,
    But what it is important for AMERICANS to appreciate is that GUN OWNERSHIP in the UK or many other Nations is very very seldom has any POLITICAL Dimension because the vast majority even those that do have access to personal Firearms are in broad agreement with GOVERNMENT Policies in the matter . It is very much the same on the subject of LEGAL ABORTION -it is not a matter of POLITICAL discussion. And unlike the USA we have alot of freedom to make our own lEGALCHOICEsin the UK but not one to use schollkids for TARGET PRACTICE .

      • It seems to run in his family – check out the comments by the London police chief relative to brit online speech laws… Rowley is his name, iirc.

    • Hello, Hamshite. Control, you say? WTF are you to control anything? How is it that YOU should decide what I do, say, think, feel, or own? Who died and left you god? Hamshite. You’re the reason people wear rubber boots when we slop the hogs. I don’t need a license to own hogs, I don’t need a license to own a firearm. Now, you need to go back to your wallow, plop into the mud, and wait for your masters to throw some slop into your feed trough. Stop annoying us savage Americans, or we may just turn you into bacon.

    • sir albert of nuttingham…History has determined Gun Control is Hazardous to your Health. Especially if you were a Gun Controlled Jew in nazi germany or a Gun Controlled slave in the US or recently Gun Controlled defensless children in the UK who were butchered by an insane 17 year old using a knife. You have more in common than you realize with slave masters, nazis and child murderers er al.

    • “…the vast majority even those that do have access to personal Firearms are in broad agreement with GOVERNMENT Policies in the matter…”

      I hate to break it to you, but it might look like “agreement” because the government has all the guns and British subjects (emphasis on “subjects”) have no option BUT to agree.

      Anyway, you are welcome to your UK knife-crime hellscape if you prefer it. I will pick the USA and the 2A any day. If it was good enough for 1776, it’s good enough for 2024.

    • Sir Albert Hall of Dipshit,
      Why does a lowlife scumbag like you even troll around here. You’re a loser. Eff you and your royal hind-ass attitude. If you’re an American, Eff you without any lubrication. If you’re not, eff you and the subhumans that bred to create you. You are beneath the slime left by a snail.
      Have a nice weekend.😊

      • You better be careful. The London popo chief sez he be gonna extradite folks what violate UK speech laws online. Like that Elon Musk guy. He was actually critical of da UK gummint immigration policy – boy, is he in trouble! Extradited!!!

        l am wondering what other countries have speech laws we must obey. .

        • A wise man once said that guns are for keeping the king of England out of your business. Since the USA has a healthy second amendment, I guess they’re welcome to come and try it.

    • Seriously Albert, what kind of hallucinogenics are you taking?

      Everything in your comment is 100% pure false.

  14. A couple of points that no one else seems to have remembered: IIRC the highest ‘body count’ by an individual ILLEGALLY using a firearm was in Norway a few years back. And while France has extremely stringent ‘gun control’ laws, the terrorists who murdered a female police officer on the sidewalk before shooting up Charlie Hebdo apparently had little difficulty acquiring automatic rifles. OTOH, the guy that used a semi to kill 84 and injure/maim countless others didn’t even use an ‘evil’ gun of any type. MAYBE it isn’t the tool used but the evil actions by individuals/groups. Perhaps that is the issue that needs to be addressed.

  15. Good people sometimes see me agreeing with them on something like LGBT rights…

    Serious question (yes, really). What’s an LGBT right? If it’s something that doesn’t apply to everyone, then wouldn’t it be a privilege? I see this often, but I’ve never gotten an explanation.

    • LGBT rights include the right to pummel female boxers at the Olympics, in view of boxing fans around the world. What we used to condemn as misogyny, today we celebrate as gay rights.

      • Paul I wondered that myself. Where are all the feminists? Why are there no NOW riots burning down cities?

        • Women, in typical female fashion, have relinquished their self-worth and stepped aside for men pretending to be women.

          Women say they want autonomy, power and to be valued but they’ve demonstrated the only way they will hold onto any of that is if a man makes the space for them. And while the man is making and holding that space for women to be empowered the women are attacking that very same man for doing exactly what they want him to do.

          Women are mentally ill.

  16. Its not “gun control” – its “right control”.

    The 2A is the written codification expression of a natural inherent right, its not granted by government, its your personal individual ‘property’. You are born with that natural right as an American citizen, all humans even not American citizens are born with this right. All humans have a natural inherent right to keep and bear arms for defense. Its an inherent natural part of you as much as any body part is. Phrasing it as ‘gun control’ is saying “we the government get to control what is yours.” – its saying “we the anti-gun folks get to control what is an is not yours.”

    Its the same thing for the other rights, the first 10 were created to make that clear – that those are your rights, they are not subject to control by government or others.

    Talking about it as if its a ‘political issue’ or ‘social issue’ is leaving out that its not a right and relegating it to being something to be decided by others or government. It doesn’t matter what you think of guns or the 2A… it doesn’t matter because you don’t get to control or decide how one may legitimately exercise their own inherent natural right.

    Should we apply the same thing to the 1st amendment and call it ‘speech control’ because someone doesn’t like whats said? Or how about the 4th amendment, should we apply it there if we are not happy that someone will not let the police into their home without a warrant and call it ‘entry control’? No of course not, and why? Because they are natural inherent rights that do not belong to anyone but the individual and were not given by government so the government can not decide to just take them away or infringe them.

    How about if you had to pass a government background check if you purchased a computer or phone or locks for your home door? How about if you had to get a permit to use your computer or phone or carry your phone in public? Food is a life thing (as in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) so how about if you had to get a permit to buy food? Medial attention is a life thing (as in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) so how about if you had to get a permit to receive medical attention that could save your life?

    Well, that’s what ‘gun control’ is about – its about controlling you and whats inherently and naturally yours, your rights, and if the precedent is set for the 2A the rest of our rights are not far behind.

    Notice how these anti-gun politicians and people always frame it as ‘control’, they call it ‘common sense’ to make it seem acceptable but its not common sense to allow a government to have control over what is not theirs to begin with and that’s your inherent natural rights. Notice how these anti-gun politicians and people never talk about preserving and protecting your inherent natural rights without always coming back to ‘control’ over them.

    Their whole message comes down to be all about ‘controlling’ you by controlling your rights.

    • correction for: “Talking about it as if its a ‘political issue’ or ‘social issue’ is leaving out that its not a right and relegating it to being something to be decided by others or government.”

      That should have been…

      Talking about it as if its a ‘political issue’ or ‘social issue’ is leaving out that its a right and relegating it to being something to be decided by others or government.

  17. “What’s an LGBT right? If it’s something that doesn’t apply to everyone, then wouldn’t it be a privilege?”

    Exactly. Sub-groups have powers, the total body of individuals abiding within the sovereign entity USA have rights. Power begets privilege…

    • The right to marry the person you love, the right to be recognized for the gender you are, etc. No special treatment there.

      • If the “gender” you imagine you are is different from the sex you actually are, we don’t have to recognize it. We don’t have to buy into your delusions. You, as a man (going by your avatar), also have the right to marry a woman, just like everyone else, because marriage means a union of a man and a woman.

      • No you don’t have the right to marry who you love.

        If George wants to marry Jacqueline and Elizabeth, at the same time. They will all be arrested. So no.You can’t marry whoever you want to.

        Maybe some day the racist intolerant hom.0sex.ual community will become more inclusive.

      • Thanks for the answer S_V. But I still don’t understand. I think pushing the idea of “LGBT rights” is really something that’s meant to divide us up into factions which benefits TPTB. It might even make a gun rights advocate consider voting for gun-grabbing Democrats. My understanding:

        Marriage has always been open to everyone because everyone is either a man or a woman, and marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for thousands of years before our government even existed. When our country was founded, the government merely recognized the existing institution of marriage.

        Our society began to officially (dictionaries) redefine marriage about fifteen years ago. The SCOTUS then redefined it to fit the “modern” definition. Then Congress officially codified it in US law. Saying you’re fighting for that now would kind of be like saying you’re fighting for a woman’s right to vote or a slave’s freedom. I think it’s safe to say that one (marriage) doesn’t apply, for multiple reasons.

        That only leaves “the right to be recognized for the gender you are, etc.” Of course you should be recognized for what you are. It would be crazy if the DMV insisted on labeling a male as a female. I feel certain they wouldn’t be allowed to do that. We would sort it out, one way or another. But what if some man demanded that I refer to him as a woman, or two spirit, winkte, or whatever the new gender of the week is? Should he have the right to force me to say something that I know isn’t true? That sounds like a privilege, a very dangerous privilege.

        Now I’d like to know what gender identification has to do with LGBT. You don’t have to be gae*, bi, or a crossdresser to identify with a gender that doesn’t correspond to your biological sex. Let’s be honest. LGBT is really code for everything that isn’t traditional or the norm. It’s a tool used to bring more people into the Democrat victim alliance. Everything is a faux civil rights battle for the ever-expanding victim alliance. That helps to rally the troops, so to speak.

        In the below video, I don’t think the clerk was trying to antagonize the man by calling him sir. His brain noted that he was a man. It’s something you say without thinking about it. I was dealing with a man dressed as a woman just last week at a store. I caught myself almost saying sir because that’s how I talk to people (and I knew he was a man). I wouldn’t call him ma’am either. I would personally avoid it altogether.

        I think this ideology is often a set up to fail (which benefits TPTB). They’re sold this as a cure for unhappiness. Then they spend their lives being angry at the world for not playing along with their fantasy. (Cue the latest “civil rights” fight.) Should they have the right to force me to play along? That is already happening in some countries.

        *avoiding moderation

        • Analogous to arguing that Afghanistan has religious equality because everyone has the equal right to practice Islam.

          Marriage throughout history has included polygamy, so appeal to the “traditional meaning” requires a narrow definition of tradition.

          • That’s a terrible analogy. Multiple major religions have existed in Afghanistan for thousands of years, predating Islam. Forcing people to only follow Islam isn’t religious freedom, as you know.

            Same sex marriage wasn’t officially defined in our society until about 15 years ago. We have the ability to look back on the historical definitions. It didn’t include same sex marriage because the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman. Polygamy has also been officially defined in our society (and before our society existed). We can look back at the 1828 Websters dictionary and find that polygamy was defined.

            Polygamy (1828)

            POLYG’AMY, noun [Gr. many, and marriage.] A plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; or the having of such plurality. When a man has more wives than one, or a woman more husbands than one, at the same time, the offender is punishable for polygamy Such is the fact in christian countries. But polygamy is allowed in some countries, as in Turkey.
            https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Polygamy

            Same sex couples didn’t need the state’s permission to have a monogamous relationship. Some people wanted certain legal protections that come with a legal marriage. Like Chris said, Trump was the only president who came into office being for same sex marriage. Obama was specifically against it when he came into office, but he did say they could do a “civil union” (not marriage). Look up Joe Biden saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.

            That’s a brief history of the matter. None of that matters because dictionaries began to change the definition. Then we had a SC ruling. Then we codified it in US law. Where is the fight for “LGBT rights” S_V? You got same sex marriage. Mission accomplished?

            It can’t end because the point was never to redefine marriage. The point was to have a never-ending “civil rights” movement. The point was to manipulate as many people as possible into joining a political movement that benefits one of the major parties. The point is to make anyone who can fit into the ever-expanding intersectional victim alliance ignore everything other than fighting for [fill in the blank] rights. Believe in the Bill of Rights? Like low inflation? Like affordable energy? Like peace and prosperity? Like having three equal branches of government? People will ignore all of that if they fit into the intersectional coalition. People will ignore logic and reason because they’ve been brainwashed. I still haven’t gotten an answer to my question. What is an LGBT right?

            • H.om.os.exu.al marriage is not normal. But polygamy is very normal. So why do Hom.osexu.als and ath.eists want to interfere in consensual heterosexual relationships???

              Answer

              Because they hate the traditional het.erosexu.al family. Ath.eists and ho.mosex.uals are big supporters of the Welfare Industrial Complex.

              They believe a woman with 5 kids from 5 different men is just a life style choice. Which they believe should be supported by the state.

              They have loudly and publicly stated a father is not necessary in the home.

          • In america, polygamy has been made illegal. And the intolerant hom.osexu.als and ath.eists, who support gay marriage like it that way.

            But the rest of the normal world disagrees with those narrow minded s.ocial.ist pr.og.ressiv.e types.

      • Donald Trump has been having gay and racially mixed marriages in florida, at his facility since the early 1990s.

        He supported gay marriage before the republicans or the democrats. Or even the libertarians. Before the clinton’s and before the obama’s.

        But he never gets credit for that.

        Because the people who support h0m.os.exual marriage are also s0c.iali.st pro.gress.ive in their p0l.itical 0rient.ati0n.

        https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/03/exclusive-gay-couple-weds-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-beyond-our-wildest-dreams/amp/

      • Ha ha ha. It used to be “we were just born this way” now it’s a fluid spectrum that can change whenever the mood strikes us. It used to be “stay out of our bedrooms” now it’s im bringing my bedroom to your children’s schools. Degenerates all. Get bent

  18. A well reasoned argument. Ms Sensibia alludes to the biggest issues without actually truly identifying the major issues.

    I’ll offer this link to a map that offers insight into the issue.

    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.statcdn.com%2FInfographic%2Fimages%2Fnormal%2F5369.jpeg&tbnid=0V0zaKMrwLqApM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.statista.com%2Fchart%2F5369%2Fmurder-rates-across-the-world-visualised%2F&docid=MNM9CKAkY8_PMM&w=960&h=684&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F2&kgs=22df65acf8b35dc8&shem=abme%2Ctrie

    Back in the day before Senile Sock Puppet President Biden was installed in the oval office, the FBI would collect and collate detailed crime statistics. These statistics were then published on paper or on line so that the public could access the information. The annual Supplementary Homicide Reports (a computer printout about a thousand pages thick) were particularly informative.

    The bottom line is that African Americans who comprise only one-eighth of the population commit well over half of all homicides and nearly two-thirds of gun homicides. Hispanics also commit homicide at a extremely disproportionate rate. If we were to ignore homicides committed by these two groups, we would find that the homicide rate in America is about equal to homicide rates in Europe. I’d also point out that many of the European countries are cooking the books to conceal their true homicide rates, but that is another issue.

    The FBI-SHRs document an EXTREMELY important factor that influences homicide rates. As Professor John Lott exhaustively documented in his book MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, there is an extreme correlation between low arrest rates and high murder rates. My own research documented this correlation at an international level. My research also established that the great surge in homicide rates in America that occurred in the middle 1960s, 1970s and into the 1980s was proceeded by then concurrent with a precipitous decline in clearance and arrest rates for homicides and other violent crimes. Interestingly; the great surge in murder occurred BEFORE criminals began to favor semiautomatic weapons.

    • “… the great surge in murder occurred BEFORE criminals began to favor semiautomatic weapons.”

      A violent attacker who ambushes his/her victim can murder said victim just as easily with an old-school revolver as a modern semi-automatic pistol. For that matter, a violent attacker who ambushes his/her victim can murder said victim just as easily with a knife.

      When an attacker has the element of surprise, ambushes someone, and therefore “gets the drop” on that someone, that someone has very poor chances of prevailing regardless of what item / weapon the attacker uses.

  20. The long and the short of it is not about Gun Control but People Control. Dictators take firearms so the people cannot fight back. Same is true of open borders. They are open not for humanitarian reasons but so Democrats can get votes they don’t deserve (illegally by alllowing illegals to vote).

  22. You can’t say you oppose gun control…and then vote for people trying to impose gun control.

    Well, you can. But it just proves that you’re an annoying hypocritical little twatwaffle.

    • Independent and democrat gun owners lie to themselves, and they lie to republican gun owners all the time.

      That is why civil rights are going away in the areas, that are controlled by democrats.

      Because democrat gun owners always vote for gun grabbing democrats. They just can’t help themselves.

  23. A vote for Democrats is a vote for gun control.

    It really is that f*ing simple. Everything else mentioned in this article is meaningless fluff.

  24. Without the gun you have nothing.
    It’s the single issue. The only issue. Everything else is made up irrelevant nonsense.

  25. Nice “think piece” Jennifer, maybe put it on VOX or Huffpo. Oh they would never allow it there. Nobody and I mean nobody cares about your “orientation” you are responsible for where we are.

  26. Guns not allowed in the State Fair of Texas after a shooting last year.

    Oh those gun control nuts of the Lone Star state. Maybe you should move to Russia

  27. Well, Jennifer, after all the other responses, above, I can’t really add anything new, but I will summarize the major reasons why your editorial is AT LEAST insuffient, and to a large extent plain wrong.

    1. First, and foremost, YES the political/rights argument DOES matter, and matters most at it very core. While I have MORE than a few issues with the Republican Party (or, as I like to refer to it, the party of congenital losers, who can always be counted on to (i) not support large swathes of their election rhetoric in actual practice, and (ii) make “deals” that limit, restrict, or sacrifice our INHERENT rights (like the RKBA), Republicans have lately MOSTLY been at least making an effort at stopping FURTHER erosions of those rights. The Dimocrats have NO respect for actual individual rights (only identitarian “group rights” count in their Victimhood Olympics).

    2. Yes, “gun control” is not simply unfeasible, it is impossible. “illegal violence control”, which is the PROPER way to frame the question is difficult, but not impossible, for in general, the types of persons most likely to commit ANY act of illegal violence (violence in self-defense or defense of others is not illegal, nor should it be). But that impossibility is not limited to guns – as I’ve frequently posted on this site, I can walk into any Home Depot, garden store, and most supermarkets with a Benjy in my pocket and walk out with the components to build a functioning firearm, a nerve agent, an improvised explosive, or a toxic or severely damaging chemical agent (even a biological, although that one’s tougher). Why limit your illegal violence control by focusing on “guns”?? Oh, because the indentifiable, predictable “usual suspects”, for some strange reasons, seem to be constituent groups of one party. I wonder which one that is???

    3. While I am aware of “Dimocrats” who believe in SOME (usually limited) “gun rights” (how GENEROUS of them!!! /s) – “gun rights are OK, so long as I agree with the extent and scope of those ‘rights’. “Rights” on such terms aren’t “rights” at all; they are government permissions/dispensations. Overall, and particularly over the last 10 years (but dear Debbie would be happy to remind us for the last 140 or so years, at least) ALL Dimocrats favor at least “limitations” on gun rights, if not outright banning many categories of guns. That dog don’t hunt.

    4. Finally, yes, your focus on “rights” and “benefits”, particularly as a means of elevating “disadvantaged communities”, while favoring ANY flavor of serious individual rights (like RKBA) is deeply schizophrenic. One of these things is not like the other, as Sesame Street would say. The government CANNOT grant rights; they are inherent. The government gives ‘permissions’ (styled as licenses) or ‘benefits’ (with MY tax money). Some folks manage, despite being substantially economically disadvantaged, to grasp and maintain the concepts of legality vs. illegality and evil vs. not evil. That some do not says nothing good about those having that inability, or of society for tolerating it. No matter HOW you slice and dice it, ANY government permission or ‘benefit’ is ONLY provided by (i) borrowing money and/or printing it, or (ii) using taxes. Taking money (largely, in this day and age, from the top 50% of income earners) from ANYONE by taxation to provide ‘permissions’ or ‘benefits’ from the government is simply theft at (actual or implied) gunpoint.

    Like that Simpson’s meme, I am taking the “At Least You Tried” cake I baked you, and throwing it in the trash. Being “reasonable” =/= being RATIONAL and logically consistent.

  28. I actually appreciate that this author is given a platform here at TTAG, and it’s good to hear alternate perspectives, but as others have said: if you vote for the left, you are voting to have your rights stripped away. Not just 2A rights, but 1A, 4A, 5A, and many others. This is no longer even hidden. The leftist desire to curtail free speech, civil liberties, self-defense, and so much more is in the headlines of mainstream news organs every day.

    You cannot support the left and be pro 2A. Full stop. That would be like being pro-life while performing an abortion or being a free speech activist while applying duct tape to the mouth of anyone who disagrees with you.

    Leftists and Democrats have a long history of lying about who they are. Sometimes they even lie to themselves.

    • The Bill of Rights is the reason I am alive. I consider the Left to be a much bigger threat than the Right, but all the angels are in heaven, dont cha know…

      BTW, your previous comment on video games will age well, I believe.

  29. I have been collecting a variety of armaments my entire adult life. At present I have a number of non firearm weapons, as well as a fairly extensive collection of firearms. Running from matchlocks to modern semi auto rifles. Even a small number of artillery pieces.
    Used to have a few full auto weapons but have sold them off and let the classIII license expire.
    Still have the C&R license.
    I would like any one of those pro regulation to pro control folks to explain exactly how their proposals will have the advertised/desired safety/anti crime effect. Murder and other violent crimes have been illegal for quite some time. Have those prohibitions ever prevented the crimes?
    It seems to me the only effect of civilian disarmament is to protect the politicians/wannabe dictators/tyrants and common criminals from the righteous anger of the law abiding citizens.

  30. Jennifer, I doubt you care much about what I think, so I will keep this short. The people you vote for will destroy not only the Constitution, but they will do everything in their power to divide and destroy the nation. They are no longer shy about telling us exactly what they want to do. I fear they will happily start a bloody civil war that will leave thousands dead in its wake and this nation damaged beyond recognition.

    • You think she’s a Trump supporter??? He has specifically said he’s entitled to suspend parts of the Constitition, will be a dictator (for at least a day), will fix things so Christian nationalists won’t have to vote again, orchestrated an attempt to disrupt the constitutional transfer of power, etc., etc.

      • Nice rundown of MSM talking points. There’s a reason they use certain talking points. You’re proof that they work. We already know what a Trump presidency is like because we lived through it. We also know what a Harris presidency is like because we already lived through a cookie-cutter puppet presidency. To pretend otherwise is being disingenuous. I expected more from you. You usually come across as a reasonable person.

      • Do you actually have no understanding of hyperbole and sarcasm? If so you should not vote as you lack the requisite comprehension skills. If not that then you’re intentionally dishonest. Are you actually arguing today, in 2024 that voting democrat protects the constitution?

      • Don’t worry. The fearless ath.eist Obama said all he needed was an ink pen. He said he didn’t need Congress to approve of what he wanted to do.

        And he was reelected by the [email protected] pr.ogres.sive h.om.0sexu.als and atheists.

        So I guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

        btw
        Obama is an ath.eist. His time in the Rev Jeremiah Right’s church, was just his use of camouflage.

  33. ARRESTED For A Social Media Post… “Misinformation” Is Being Weaponized Against Freedom RIGHT NOW. (and at 5:13 in video watch the part about Tim Walz)

  36. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS INSANE MODERATION!

    Sorry for yelling, but it seems no one listens because the spammers can still post links to sites that have malicious, fraudulent, malware content while the regular users get their comments frequently moderated.

    I got posts I made yesterday that went into moderation under this crazy random moderation thing that have not yet appeared as of this morning.

    Its like having a discussion with someone, and then two days later you get to participate in the discussion after its already over.

  37. Bla-bla-bla…there’s an echo in here. Just vote your convictions or you’ll be having one.

    Only explanation for Sensiba here is because she works free or gets paid by number of comments…

    Trump 2024

  38. I admire the attempt at introspection, but these days the dichotomy between the two sides could not be more clear. If you don’t think pornographic images belong in school libraries, you’re now on the right. If you don’t think children should be subjected to “gender affirming” hormones and surgeries, you’re now on the right. If you don’t think completely unchecked illegal immigration is a good thing, you’re now on the right. If you don’t cheer openly at the idea of replacing Americans with foreigners, you’re now on the right. If you think parents have the right to know if the school is gender transitioning their 6 year old, you’re not just on the right, you’re a right wing extremist. If you believe the second amendment affords you any personal right of firearms ownership whatsoever, you’re a right wing extremist and possible domestic threat. If you go to a church that isn’t flying rainbow flags from its steeples, you’re a possible terrorist according to the FBI. If you think we shouldn’t be putting illegal immigrants up in 5 star hotels while American citizens die on the street, you’re now right wing. I can go on, and on and on to no end. My point being, we may disagree on tax rates, or entitlement reforms, or marijuana proliferation, but if you are on our side on any of the above issues, we are in fact on the same team, because the left hates you. You might think “I’m conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues” or “I hate organized religion”or other such nonsense that makes you “not conservative”, but If you like guns, the left hates you and would like to see you silenced, jailed or eliminated. The end. You better figure it out quick, our big red tent is wide open and there’s room for you over here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here