Joe Nocera (courtesy writing.upenn.edu)

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera jumped on Guns & Ammo-gate lickety-split. Duh. Joe is the Gray Lady’s leading proponent of civilian disarmament, through his own personal context-free zone (Gun Report) and regular editorials. Joe starts this morning’s anti-gun piece When a Gun Advocate Dissents with a simple statement: “It’s not as if Dick Metcalf was some kind of gun control fanatic.” You see what he did there? With one sentence Nocera paints gun rights advocates as intolerant fanatics. The rest of the polemic follows entirely predictable lines, especially this bit . . .

When people like me read an article like that [claiming mandatory training is not a Constitutional infringement], it seems momentarily possible that gun advocates and gun control advocates might be able to find some common ground. Much in the way that many gun control activists have come to accept the legitimacy of the Second Amendment — something that hasn’t always been the case — here was a man on the other side of the divide saying that some sensible regulation didn’t necessarily lead down a “slippery slope” to confiscation. If we are ever to have a sane gun policy, we desperately need people from both camps to meet somewhere in the middle.

As I explained to Joe on the ‘phone yesterday (before he wrote this column), there is no middle ground. The right to keep and bear arms in a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. The Second Amendment specifically prohibits any government infringement. As in regulation. None.

In the course of our conversation, I asked Joe whether he would be in favor of mandatory training for journalists. “No I wouldn’t.” Then why do you support mandatory training for people exercising their right to keep and bear arms? “C’mon,” Joe said in his collegial sort of way. “There’s a quantitative difference between a newspaper and a gun. A gun kills people.”

And there you have it: the liberal elite’s rationale for regulating firearms. They’re dangerous. No really. Here’s a comment exchange underneath a cnn.com editorial Gun violence is a public health epidemic that called for universal background checks. 

vrage UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS TO EXERCISE A RIGHT…..ok, I want a universal background check before people are allowed to vote to ensure they understand how our gov’t works, that they are a citizen in good standing and that they speak/understand American English. I want a universal background on all news agencies to ensure they have NO political bias and report the news events truthfully and factually. I want a universal background check on all persons wanting to exercise any of their US Constitutional RIGHTS . . .

kbtrpm Oh yes, because voting, like speaking English and reading newspapers, is lethal activity. One mistake and somebody dies. One fool and dozens die.

vrage What you fail to understand is whatever you allow the evil dictators in DC do to any one of the US Constitutional RIGHTS, you must be willing to allow them to do the same or similar actions to ALL your US Constitutional RIGHTS as you have allowed them to set the precedent to do so. Get it yet?

I didn’t take that tack with Nocera. I pointed out that knives are dangerous too. That car accidents claim the lives of 40k Americans per year. “That’s why I hate talking to you people,” Joe responded. “The conversation always devolves like this.” “You mean you don’t like it when people start talking about common sense and logic?” I replied.

At that point we both agreed that it would be a good idea to discuss gun control over a beer. Besides, Joe had an anti-gun rights advocates’ column to write.

But when people like me see the reaction from gun advocates to Metcalf’s tame proposal, it all seems hopeless again. Robert Farago, who maintains a blog called The Truth About Guns, started the ball rolling by linking to — and denouncing — Metcalf’s “diatribe.” He went on to describe the article as a “bone-headed, uninformed, patently obvious misinterpretation of the Second Amendment.” Other bloggers piled on. On the Guns & Ammo Facebook page, subscribers demanded Metcalf’s head, even as they canceled their subscriptions.

Well, it was. And I explained my reasoning to Mr. Nocera. But Joltin’ Joe had another agenda: taking a baseball bat to the gun control advocates’ bête noire, the NRA.

If you want to understand why so few gun owners are willing to stand up to the National Rifle Association, even though the majority disagree with the N.R.A.’s most extreme positions, here was a vivid example. Straying from the party line leads to vilification and condemnation that would give anybody pause.

Sure. The NRA are a bunch of jack-booted thugs looking to name, shame and defame anyone who goes against the “most extreme positions” of their “party line.”

That said, like all good propaganda, Nocera’s condemnation of the NRA contains a kernel of truth. The gun rights org is antagonistic to those who would compromise on Americans’ Second Amendment protections—in the same sense that the Democratic party has no tolerance for those who oppose income redistribution.

In fact, I wish the NRA was more antagonistic to gun rights waverers within its ranks. NRA Veep Wayne LaPierre’s call for the feds to fix the current FBI background check system before expanding it is the worst kind of appeasement. The NRA should declare itself opposed to background checks as a clear violation of the Second Amendment. Period.

Of course that’s not going to happen. Any more than gun control advocates are going to stop trying to portray themselves as reasonable, rational, open-minded—even as they work to undermine and destroy the right to keep and bear arms.

My guess is that Dick Metcalf always knew what he was in for — all the more reason writing his article took guts. In the aftermath, he was the only one who could still hold his head up high. On a blog called The Outdoor Wire, he wrote a lengthy response to his critics. He didn’t back down one iota. Describing himself as “disappointed” at the reaction to his article, he added, “If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer’s voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and Internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue…then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause.”

Maybe there’s hope yet.

And maybe there isn’t. But here’s something you can do. Joe said he didn’t include defensive gun uses (DGU) in his Gun Report column because he couldn’t find them. When you see a DGU in the media—a good, “clean” one—click here and send him a link. Nothing else. Just the link. What else is there to say?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

149 COMMENTS

    • Good analogy, Jozan. People walk into movie theaters and public schools all the time with circular saws, and chop innocent people into kindling. If only everyone was armed with a good Dewalt!

      • People walking into movie theaters and public schools with guns and shooting innocent people is extremely rare.

        While I’m typing, regarding universal background checks. Putting aside we’ve had an expanded national system of background checks for the last 20 years, how many mass shootings were committed with legally owned guns that did not go through a background check? Can anyone name one?

        The same goes for violent crime. How many murders were committed with legally owned guns that did not go through a background check?

        I don’t mean guns that were stolen, straw purchased, or obtained through other illegal means. Those guns were already illegal.

        Even if you want to pretend you don’t know what words mean, that it’s not an infringement on the Second Amendment. And you ignore that those intent on crime could care less about the law, and are likely to use another means or weapon, or obtain guns illegally. At most, that’s the tiny percentage of gun crimes that “Universal Background Checks” could possibly effect.

        • As far as the numbers go, you could say the exact same thing about an AWB or mag limitations. If we really want to get down to the actual numbers of the anti’s favorite targets, the amount of people in this country killed by a murderer carrying a semi-auto rifle is less per 100k than the often repeated UK gun homicide numbers per 100K. Using the FBI 2011 numbers, there were 323 people killed with all long guns. If we (wrongly) assume that all of those deaths were by semi-auto rifles, that works out to be about 0.11 deaths per 100k or 0.14 per 100k less than all of the UK’s 0.25 per 100k number (it’s probably more like 0.04 – 0.08 per 100k for semi-auto rifles alone). Of course the anti’s use the full number of gun related homicides and suicides to make their case for an AWB and mag size restrictions, but in the end, all long gun deaths are statistically minuscule. Which then leads to the question of why ban them? We all (both pro gun and anti gun advocates) know incrementalism is the answer to that question.

        • Expanded, re-written, better-enforced anti-2A laws will only result in the same thing we got from prohibition and the War on Drugs. Criminals will realize a greater profit from dealing in these products and will be willing to take greater risks to supply them to the public. Instead of controlling law-abiding citizens’ access and use of guns they will be providing incentive to criminals to provide full-auto, hide-outs, cane guns, grenades, and whatever else they can sell. If any gun you could by legally now is as illegal tomorrow as the gun you REALLY want, why not get the ideal, you’re already branded a criminal.

          By the way, and I plan to keep repeating this, can we stop allowing them the use of the term “gun control”? All of their proposals, laws and regulation are “Second Amendment control” or “Civilian Disarmament”. They have no intention of controlling guns, their goal is to destroy our Second Amendment RKBA and confiscate ALL of the guns. Call it what it is: Second Amendment control, Coalition to Stop Second Amendment, etc. Take back the language!

        • Bzzzt!! Sorry, you are incorrect. Japan has 2x the suicide rate yet minimal civilian ownership of firearms. When I was checking the state numbers, it turns out that TX is well below average which seems odd for a state that is consistently labeled as being full of gun owners.

          The only generalities I could make about a state’s rates is that the farther north you go, the higher the suicide rate to a certain degree. This correlates with Scandinavia’s higher suicide rate in Europe.

      • Good point. Perhaps what he meant was chain saws. I hear they are quite portable and do an admirable job on zombies. Little noisy, though.

    • Newspaper stories aren’t dangerous?! I seem to remember something about Hearst and the Spanish-American War. Lots’a blood there.

      Old song lyric, just for fun:

      “McKinley called for volunteers, so I got my gun.
      First Spaniard I saw comin’, dropped my gun and run
      from that war, that crazy war.

      Why are you runnin’, are you afraid to die?
      The reason why I’m runnin’ is because I cannot fly
      from that war, that crazy war.”

  3. Joe – I am going to make it my mission to publish your HOME ADDRESS and then put signs up around NY indicating that you don’t have a gun and am proudly defenseless.

    Wonder how long you will buy into that restriction thingy. . . . .

    as for newspapers don’t kill . . . seems to me that Hitler used the press to his advantage too. And so, I guess we can now claim you are anti-Semite, too? Or wait, let’s call you a racist instead. Yeah, I like that better. Because you like seeing Black people defenseless and dependent on the gov’t. . . . you are the new slavemaster. Like how this works?

    • You think you’re being clever, but all you’re doing is giving the guy ammo… literally.

      With enough documented specific threats, e.g. creeps like you posting his home address online, the NYPD will grant a high-visibility journalist like Mr. Nocera a “special carry” permit.

      So get over yourself.

        • NYC permits expire and require resubmission of documented threats. How much do you want to bet that he includes your comments on TTAG as additional proof that he has demonstrable need?

          You are an enabler, despite your denials. Enjoy the thought of sharing responsibility for Nocera easily renewing his carry permit while millions of other law-abiders are denied.

      • I was set to lambast you for using the word ‘literally’ to mean ‘metaphorically,’ but I see what you did there…

      • “With enough documented specific threats, e.g. creeps like you posting his home address online, the NYPD will grant a high-visibility journalist like Mr. Nocera a “special carry” permit.”

        As Dirk says, “That would be irony of the first class!”

        And we should not tome down the rhetoric. Specific threats aside, the Anti 2A industry does not need anything we say or do to use against us. Even if we say or do NOTHING, which they would dearly love, they will make things up out of whole cloth. We must not be intimidated by these people! Defensive tactics have NOT worked to protect our Second Amendment RKBA. It’s try to work up a new strategy.

        By the way, if having your address posted on line as being a documented Gun Free Zone is by default a “threat” of some sort, doesn’t that make our case pretty thoroughly?

    • There is a good reason Julius Streicher was hung as a war criminal though he never wielded anything more dangerous than a pen

  4. Voting in politicians that have killed thousands of innocents in other countries as well as led to the deaths of many in our military… yeah that’s not dangerous at all.

  5. Call me a filthy traitor if you like, but I’m willing — in theory — to accept a certain level of regulation of firearms that might include some that aren’t currently law. In the same way that I’m willing to accept being asked to show ID before I vote.

    The problem is that, quite frankly, I don’t trust the anti-self-defense side to say what they mean, mean what they say, or even stick to the same definition over time. We’ve already seen California’s attempt to reclassify my late father-in-law’s squirrel gun as an “assault weapon” — an act that finally turned my wife strongly against them. We’ve seen the willingness to twist words and alter meaning in the name of what they believe the right outcome is, whatever the spirit of the law may be.

    When the anti-self-defense side is willing to admit that owning, carrying, and using a firearm of modern design in the defense of yourself, your family, or your country is a civil right, and one that is every bit as nonnegotiable as the right to vote, the right to speak freely, the right to choose one’s own religion, and the right to control one’s own body and medical decisions — and willing to admit it without a “but” or an insistence that this doesn’t apply to firearms commonly carried by individual soldiers or police officers as duty weapons — then I will be happy to listen to their requests for further regulation. I can’t promise I’ll find all of them acceptable, and I may insist that other extant regulation which has outlived its purpose or conflicts with the above admission be repealed as part of any agreement for more. But when I am confident that people asking for regulation have enough in common with me that I can trust them to mean what they say, I’ll listen.

    I’m not holding my breath for that time to come.

    • I see what you mean but I feel it should be a business decision. If I owned a firearm store I would check the ID and would make use of an optional NICS check. I should then be able to make my own decision on whether to sell or not then. If a store doesn’t check IDs and consistently sells to violent felons who go on to commit crimes then they can be boycotted to oblivion. I wouldn’t support such a store and firearms manufacturers would not want their products sold through such firearm stores.

    • the main thing is the continual demand for “compromise,” in which ee are expected to give up an increasingly significant slice of our rights, and in return for what? what do we get back? we get to keep the remaining slice, and that’s our half of this “compromise?”

      I have stated several times in various anti-gun debates that I might be willing to give in to “universal background checks” – that is IF the other side makes a real solid offering in exchange, such as eliminating all restrictions on short barreled rifles, shotguns, and automatic weapons.

      what’s the problem? everyone will be getting a background check, right? so criminals won’t be getting their hands on those super dangerous NFA guns, right? so, it should be OK for them to be legal to own without extra strings attached, right?

      right???

      I have NEVER received a single response from ANY anti-gunner to my “compromise” proposal. none at all.

      they’re not interested in genuine compromise. we will NEVER get anything offered to us. it’s all on us to give, give, give.

      • “what’s the problem? everyone will be getting a background check, right? so criminals won’t be getting their hands on those super dangerous NFA guns, right? so, it should be OK for them to be legal to own without extra strings attached, right?”

        That right there is outstanding. I will shamelessly use that as often as possible.

    • The Evolution of Gun Control:

      Legislation
      Registration
      Confiscation
      Extermination

      Now that I’ve said that, I want to pay my respects to all the veterans out there, from World War II to Iraq War II:

      Thanking you for your service to our nation.

      All gave some….

      Some gave all….

      • I’m sorry we lost in Vietnam. Everybody hated Nixon for losing Johnson’s war, but at least he was man enough to resign.

    • He got it from his poll. The idea that the NRA members don’t agree with the NRA gave him a stiffy.

      • Gentlemen, ANY poll that purports to show a majority of NRA members supporting stronger gun-control measures, universal background checks or disagreeing with the NRA, is completely bogus. Why? Because NRA doesn’t sell its membership lists to anyone. So if Joe Nocera, Gallup, Roper , Quinnipac or any other pollster claims otherwise, they’re flat out and out lying with oily, greasy, pinguid tongues.

  7. My problem with the anti-gun advocates is their idea of ‘compromise’ is skewed. If I were to suggest a ‘compromise’ like those that they put forth, I would be calling for constitutional carry of all firearms, including machineguns but excluding grenades. See? I compromised.

    Now, if we were to actually have one trade for another… like national carry reciprocity in exchange for, I don’t know, a national background check for those permits. Even though I might not think one should need a background check and permit, I would be willing to entertain the measure if we would get something good in exchange. That would also avoid the “becoming Australia” model, as they soon would have nothing left to exchange in a true compromise. But instead the “gun safety” folks offer nothing but demand more restrictions and claim it’s a compromise because they’re not (yet) demanding the full monty.

    That said, I’m not afraid to hear views in opposition, though I question when a publication like “Runner’s World” decides to step in it…

    • That’s right. They always like to use the word “compromise” instead of “more restrictions.” In 1900 there were no restrictions. In 1934 there was the National firearms act, in 1938, the federal firearms act, In 1968, the gun control act, 1972 – ATF formed, 1986 – LEO protection act, crime control act of 1990, brady handgun violence prevention act of 1994. Is it just me or do these “compromises” seem to go in one direction only? I don’t see any of them rescinded… what compromise??

      • Which is specifically why you don’t let them steer the conversation into “compromises”. When they get to define the rules of the game, they win and we lose.

      • Excellent point! If the “Universal Background” bill had passed the Senate this past April, its backers would have said it’s only a first step – even as they tried to say this bill would not create a national registration scheme. But it was voted down, which is why Obama had that hissy fit in the Rose Garden.

        A lot of people think this bill only involved Sens. Manchin and Toomey. WRONG!! The joker in the deck was Schumer, whose prints were all over this bill, too. That should tell you everything.

        In 1986, there was legislation passed, that restored some gun-owners rights; by removing many onerous restriction of the Gun-Control Act of 1968. I think it was called Firearms Owner Protection Act, and the main movers were ex-Rep. Harold Volkmer D-MO) and Sen. James McClure (R-ID). But to the best of my knowledge, that was the only pro- Second Amendment legislation enacted, until the Tiarht Amendment. Then, the Brady Bunch AWB was allowed to sunset, and then the SCOTUS decisions in 2008 and 2010 were handed down.

    • I’ve always thought the correct interpretation of the 2A was that it allows any individual weapon in common use with the military, as well as weapons in common use by civilians.

      I’m a huge John Ringo fan – I love the thought of an amendment that requires all military surplus infantry arms to first be offered for sale at cost-depreciation to the civilian market before any other means of disposal is allowed.

      • “I’ve always thought the correct interpretation of the 2A was that it allows any individual weapon in common use with the military, as well as common hunting weapons.”

        This is wrong. The 2A doesn’t “allow” anything. It expressly forbids any government entity from taking ANY action that would restrict or limit our Creator-given, natural, civil, Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear ANY arms.

        The way I understand it, they wanted the greatest number of people to be well-armed and well-trained in case it’s necessary to call up the Militia (us) to defend the country from aggressors, so maintaining parity is a necessary part of it. And yes, that means military-grade “assault” weapons, machine guns, rocket launchers, and so on.

        There’s also a misunderstanding of what “well-regulated” means. It really means, “kept in good working order,” the way our 120V, 60.0000000 Hz electricity is “well-regulated.”

      • Well, (if my memory is correct) the DoD rules stipulate that excess materiel is supposed to be offered first to other branches of the military; the police; charitable/non-profit organizations such as the Red Cross and the Scouts; then sold to the public. This opens some interesting possibilities…

  9. “The Second Amendment specifically prohibits any government infringement. As in regulation. None.”
    I’m not aware of any part of the constitution that specifically equates regulation to infringement whether in life, liberty, speech or arms. This argument will probably work well online but it seems like the wrong way to structure the argument.

    • Pay attention to the details….. the *government* shall not infringe. That would be the Feds, the States, the County, City, or Borough.

      If Starbucks wants you to leave your gun in the car they can make that a condition of doing business with them. They are not the government, they can infringe on your rights. If you don’t like their anti-gun stance, don’t shop there.

      If the Post Office wants you to leave your gun in the car, they can not make that a condition of doing business with them because they are the Government, they are prohibited to infringe on that Right. Well, they are *supposed* to be prohibited from infringing which is what all this argument is really all about.

      • I see your point but I’m not sure how that has any bearing on my point that the Constitution does not explicitly equate regulation with infringement, which was the OP’s point.

        • Please explain how regulation, of any sort, is not “infringement”. Once you start putting limits or qualifications on things, that is a regulation / restriction / infringement.

        • What does a dictionary have to do with it? We’re talking about the Constitution, not about dictionaries.

        • in·fringe·ment
          inˈfrinjmənt/

          noun: infringement; plural noun: infringements

          1.
          the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation.
          “copyright infringement”
          2.
          the action of LIMITING or undermining something.
          “the infringement of the right to privacy”
          To me “regulating” is “limiting”. How can you “regulate” any right without limiting it?

    • I am truly hoping that you are posing an honest question here because the definition you seek and the meaning as expressed in the Second amendment are extremely clear. Here is a link to the source of the definition on line, and a brief excerpt from that definition:

      http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infringed

      INFRINGE
      verb; break, violate, contravene, disobey, transgress…
      infringe on or upon something; intrude on, compromise, undermine, limit, weaken, diminish, disrupt, curb, encroach on, trespass on: It’s starting to infringe on our personal liberties.

      There is absolutely no doubt that the intent of the men who INSISTED on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights before they would agree to sign the new Constitution of the United States of America knew exactly what they were writing and what that was intended to mean. They were all highly educated men and native English speakers. They intended the Second Amendment to give the PEOPLE the right and the ability to defend themselves and their new country. They intended that the new government would have NO AUTHORITY to infringe on that natural, civil and now Constitutionally protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms because the possibility of needing to bear arms against the excesses of that very government is precisely what they were seeking to protect against, as evidence by their inclusion of the prefatory “A well regulated militia…”

      Unlike many other subjects addressed by the Constitution, the specific rights enumerated in the first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, were known and agreed to be natural rights inherent to the people that the government (any government) had no authority to infringe upon, especially since it is those rights that to a great extent gave the people the ability to create and control their own government and their own destinies. Without the ability to defend yourself and your property from predators up to and including your own government you are not and never will be a Free Man (or woman, I am NOT a misogynist).

    • Which is a stronger prohibition?

      A. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      B. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be regulated.

      If A is a stronger prohibition, and its language certainly indicates it’s a stronger prohibition, then it can’t be more lenient that B. The stronger statement cannot be weaker than the weaker statement.

      • Well, yeah. It’s the militia who need to be regulated, not citizens’ guns. In fact, an armed populace is part and parcel of that regulation of the militia – when they come for a no-knock search, we can (theoretically) tell them, “Not so fast, Bucko!”

  10. He’s right, the news doesn’t kill people… not physically/directly.

    I might be more than willing to listen if the other side would at least admit that this is less about criminals getting guns, and more about the anti’s just hating guns and anyone owning one. Then again… I guess a criminal to them is anyone who walks in to a gun store who isn’t police/military.

    Also, concerning Dick’s editorial, if there really should be ANY regulation of firearms for ANY reasons, I personally don’t want the government (city, county, state, and/or federal) doing the regulating.

    • Coe: “He’s right, the news doesn’t kill people… not physically/directly.”

      How can anyone who calls themselves a journalist make this statement with a straight face? Jut as a most egregious example, I’m pretty sure even in liberal journalism schools they study William Randolph Hearst and his exploitation of the Spanish-American war.

      Wikipedia: “The Morning Journal’s daily circulation would routinely climb above the 1 million mark after the sinking of the Maine and U.S. entry into the Spanish-American War, a war that some dubbed, ‘The Journal’s War’ due to the paper’s immense influence in provoking American outrage against Spain…”

      Coe: “Also, concerning Dick’s editorial, if there really should be ANY regulation of firearms for ANY reasons, I personally don’t want the government (city, county, state, and/or federal) doing the regulating.”

      Assuming the free exercise of our Second Amendment rights (which, by the way, refers to “arms”, not “Firearms”), firearms are Self-regulating. That is to say, if each person was allowed equally the right to keep and bear arms, rather than leaving that right only to criminals, as it is now, then those criminals would be well regulated by the law-abiding citizens ability to shoot back and reduce the numbers of criminals and/or the incentive to take up that profession. This would work equally as well in controlling mentally deranged persons with guns or persons who cannot control their actions or tempers.

      The intention was for each citizen to retain the ability to take responsibility for their own destiny, just as the American revolutionaries took that responsibility in throwing out the British.

      • “criminals would be well regulated by the law-abiding citizens ability to shoot back ”

        This was demonstrated in spades not too many years ago. In Florida, either the state or some local jurisdiction abolished some gun control law, and suddenly there was a drop in muggings of citizens and an increase in muggings of unarmed foreign tourists. OK, I guess it was a long time ago, because the MSM actually reported it.

        • I believe it was ten or twelve years ago, Rich. I recall that with the increase in CCW in Florida the muggers were having a difficult time making a living. Someone got the bright idea that if you paid attention you could spot the decals on the bumpers of all the rental cars and you would know that they were tourists and unarmed. This was especially a problem for foreign tourists. The solution quickly adopted was to scrape all those stickers off the bumpers. Pretty much the equivalent of taking down your “Gun Free Zone” sign.

          An alternative solution I hadn’t thought of until just now would have been for rental car agencies to pay Floridians to put the stickers on their cars and let the crooks worry about which was real and which would get them shot.

        • A few years ago, the city council of Kennesaw, GA enacted legislation that every household therein, have a gun. Crime rates decreased there, as well.

  11. If the NRA is so dangerous, why don’t we read stories about NRA representatives invading people’s homes in the dead of night, stealing their money, raping the women and killing the men?

    Come to think of it, I haven’t seen many stories about NRA SWAT teams assaulting the wrong person’s house, killing family pets and holding children at gunpoint.

    Nor have I read any stories about NRA writers being fired from their employment for plagiarism or worse, making sh1t up.

    Then again, no NRA member has ever won the Nobel Peace Prize and then gone on to kill thousands of people with drone strikes.

    I guess that the NRA has a lot to learn from street thugs, government and newspapers.

  12. You might remind him newspaper articles have killed before. They’ve started wars.

    “Remember the Maine”, anyone?

    And what about the serial killers and mass shooters who do it because they know the media will make them famous?

    You could argue the first amendment is responsible for a lot more violence than the second.

  13. I always like the argument that the 2nd Amendment is “out dated”. The founders never envisioned “assault weapons” and “machine guns” that ANYONE (haha) can own.

    I usually will go to the first Amendment and state that the founders never envisioned: television, computers, blogs, chat rooms, Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, inter web news 24/7. If the second is out dated so must be the first. The Founders obviously intended only to protect the spoken word or the word that was written on paper with ink and quill.

    I usually get a confused look and “they’re not the same” (or “Whatever!”) response. And please stop telling me that the written word (as well as Twitter, Facebook) has never caused death (Twitter bullying, etc) or incited mobs. That is just plain BULLSHIT.

    If you are OK with applying restrictions to the 2nd then you can’t complain when they apply them to ALL.

  14. So Mr.Metcalf and Mr.Nocera why don’t you take your cases up with California,New York,New Jersey etc ,who totally piss on the 2nd Amendment by enacting COMPLETLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS in which they have ABSOLUTLY ZERO authority to do! All the while their gun murder rate spirals out of control and their politicians live in a fog that crooks obey laws.As police will tell you what stops the threat of a gun is a threat of a gun.New York columnist? Give me a break you live in Murder Central.Crook laugh at you as they rob and attack people at gun point.As one of you retards commented about subway travel on CNN’JUST CARRY MUGGING MONEY’ Sorry lame brain I carry mugging BULLETS, as is my Constitutional RIGHT to do so!You liberal idiots get raped and robbed,NOT US!

  15. “Oh yes, because voting, like speaking English and reading newspapers, is lethal activity. One mistake and somebody dies. One fool and dozens die.”

    Voting is a lethal activity. More innocent people die per year (generally as “collateral damage”) by the President’s orders than by guns in this country. How about the amount of dead service men and women in the wars over the last 12 years. Being that I find anti’s give lip service to soldier deaths, shove the 170k – 1 million dead innocent Iraqis in an anti’s face every time they give you the “voting isn’t leathal” line. Or our President’s love of drone attacks that kill dozens at a time in order to kill 1 or 2 people. Whether you agree with the policies or not isn’t the issue, it is uncovering their absurd notion that deciding who runs the country doesn’t have consequences after they cast a ballot.
    Furthermore, as a contextual argument of government regulation, 4th Amendment protections (according to our oh so trustworthy government) are such a danger to the welfare of the citizenry that they have granted themselves the legal right to spy on Americans, set up “boarder” checkpoints more than 50 miles from the boarder, hold American citizens indefinitely without probable cause (a violation of multiple BoR protections) and now Congress is currently trying to define who is privileged enough to be granted 1st Amendment freedoms.

    One fool in the White House or on Capitol Hill and dozens die… every day. People like the CNN blog poster and Joe Nocera put those fools in office. Deal with the blood on your hands you sanctimonious ivory tower hypocrites!

    • You forgot to mention the most obvious error in this reasoning – Chicago and New York.

      How many innocent victims have died in those two cities alone over the last 20 years (or more) because their elected officials refuse to recognize or allow the exercise of the citizen’s natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and ear arms? Five hundred in one year in Chicago. Three hundred or more per year in New York. Voting kills! be sure you vote for the guy who is at least intending to kill people who need to be dead.

      • I didn’t forget. Progs tend to point fingers at other “less enlightened” parts of the country that traffic “illegal guns” into their gun control Meccas. It’s always “our policies would work if we could just (insert idea for more federal government control here)”. The argument I put forth is directly related to the powers of the federal government and how people do in fact die due to the policies and orders issued by those in office.

        • Point taken. And it’s exactly like the World Socialist Organization (I did some research on socialism a few years ago). They state in their manifesto two important points: 1) socialism hasn’t worked in the past because they were doing it wrong and we know how to do it right, and 2) Socialism will only work if it is adopted by every society, all over the world, at the same time.

          Same as the anti-2A states. They blame their lack of success on the fact that they have not been able to convince or force every other state to match their unconstitutional laws. There’s that damn liberal “victim” card again!

        • Good point. Michael Bloomberg never tired of blaming the crimes committed in New York City by criminals; on what he considered “lax gun laws” of states like Virginia, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi.

  16. By the way Mr.Nocera, when can we come over to your house and post your’NO GUNS ALLOWED IN THIS HOME’ sign ?Since you are so opposed so shall you believe,and of course, ACTIONS ARE LOUDER THAN WORDS,so put your money[and safety]where your mouth is! Or SHUT THE HELL UP![Sorry just executing my 1ST Amendment rights].

    • My bet is that he lives in the nice cozy cocoon of Westchester County. Armed. Without a permit. Anti-gun newspaper people have a bad habit of doing that. See Carl Rowan in DC. Screw the little people.

  17. totally off topic, but do y’all think $120 for 450rds of 12g a target loads is a good deal? and the ammo isn’t new, it is like from the early 2000s, but it still works. just a hypothetical question :).

  19. “There’s a quantitative difference between a newspaper and a gun. A gun kills people.”

    That’s really funny coming from the New York times lol.

    One could argue they were absolutely instrumental in at least one war–and they’d be right. (And some might argue for the war in Iraq as well, though I wouldn’t).

    Also, there’s the whole covering up for Stalin’s mass murder bit. Yeah. But to their credit they did give back that Pulitzer prize the guy got for that…oh, my bad, LOL…of course they didn’t!

    I really don’t even understand how people can take the NYT seriously. Simply because of that whole…you know…covering up mass murder and mass starvation–(and even sticking up for it!) thing…

    I don’t care how long ago that was, if that happened to a newspaper I owned, I’d at the very least change the freaking name. lol. The thing is though, most people at this point seem to know it. In most places if the NYT is attacking you, it’s an endorsement.

    • “(And some might argue for the war in Iraq as well, though I wouldn’t).”
      Well I for one would. They were one of the biggest cheerleaders. I used to read screed from them all the time in the Early Bird.

  20. <quote>
    “It’s not as if Dick Metcalf was some kind of gun control fanatic.” You see what he did there? With one sentence Nocera paints gun rights advocates as intolerant fanatics.
    </quote>

    How exactly did you get from “not … some kind of gun control fanatic” to “paints [us] as intolerant fanatics” in one breath? I don’t even see the connection.

    In my little pea-brain, saying “You don’t seem to be ‘A'” isn’t the same as saying, “You must be ‘B’.”

    • By using the allusion that since Metcalf is not (in his opinion) a “gun control fanatic” and we attacked him then we are by contrast “anti-gun control fanatics”. In these sorts of screeds it is not what the writer says, precisely, but the impression he is trying to leave with the reader. A basic tenet of propaganda.

  22. Well that didn’t take long… Great job arming the rabid frothers, Dick and crowd.

    Their little open THEORETICAL discussions about how new regulations ‘aren’t all that bad’ are already being used against us. Hell, they might as well have posed behind an NVA AA gun.

    We don’t live in a theoretical world. This is reality. And reality is that there is a full-blown, well-funded, liberal media-supported campaign from a crowd of rabid, frothing, anti-gun nuts that tell bold-faced lies with a smirk and a wink in order to accomplish their ideological mission of disarming the populace by any means necessary (because it would make them ‘FEEL’ a little safer)

    Anyone who would TRUST the rabid, frothing anti-gun crowd enough to make any deal with them – to give them ANY NEW MECHANISM by which they can further infringe on our RKBA – is a naive FOOL, as it would soon be augmented and twisted and manipulated and used as their new tool to restrict gun ownership to the point of practical disarmament.

  23. Also notable, comments there are “moderated” (i.e. censored and judged for ideological purity) and, currently, shut of for that article.

    Oooooo, irony, it tastes like chicken!

  25. “many gun control activists have come to accept the legitimacy of the Second Amendment”. So long as the person remains a ‘gun control advocate’ it is impossible that the person accepts the legitimacy of the Second Amendment. “Shall no be infringed” is mutually exclusive with “gun control”.

    • many gun control activists have come to accept the legitimacy of the Second Amendment

      Gee, how wonderful of them. Let the media boys know that I’m beginning to accept the whole First Amendment thing. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled.

  26. If Dick Metcalf pull what he done at Guns & Ammo over at Motor Trend car magzine againt cars instead of guns they fired him to. There was very slipyer slope that Dick Metcalf slide way down in statements he made at Guns & Ammo. That once you given just little bet to those want take way all are gun rights away than give those who want take all are gun right away one step closer doing so. What brave act did Dick Metcalf do it seem he leaving Guns & Ammo at end year so was so brave in what he did there???

  27. What we all need to ask ourselves is “why do anti-gunners invest so much political and monetary capital in gun control? Is it for safety? Is it for the children? Or, is it for something more nefarious?”

    After all, we have established through facts and history that there are other items that cause as much if not more fatalities than guns, but there are not people demanding a prohibition on them. We have also established with those same facts and history that in the absence of firearms, there is still violent crime, murder, mass murder at or more than the rate of places where firearm possession is common place. So why is so much effort placed on banning certain guns with cosmetic features or making the possession of a firearms so costly or bureaucratic it stops people from owning them?

    I believe that when it comes to gun control there are three kinds of people…

    1. The ignorant person. These people believe that a+b=c. That is that if we ban guns, there will be no more gun crime and we will live in a utopia. These are the people that have their hearts in the right place, but the minds are no where to be found.

    2. The vindictive person. These are the radical leftists that want gun control for nothing more than to punish their political opposition and show that the mighty government is the center of all mankind. These people often have little or nothing to gain by gun control other than to be mean and use the power of government to enforce their will on others.

    3. The insidious person. These are the most dangerous and the most powerful. These are more often than not, politicians who look at civilian gun ownership as a obstacle to absolute power over the citizenry. They do not care about crime, children or safety. They care about power and maintaining that power. Especially when they pass tyrannical and oppressive laws or enslave the population by various means. These people will lie about their intentions and use the other two kinds of anti-gunners as useful idiots to further their cause.

    This is why I think Bloomberg, Obama and Feinstein invest so much into gun control. They know that one day they will cross a line and the people will revolt, but without guns, the politician will remain safe behind the walls of security, guarded by the same guns they banned. History has proven this out many times.

    • Jason, that’s a pretty good breakdown of the anti-gun movement, which I view slightly differently.

      Hoplophobes are afraid of guns as if firearms had a mind of their own. Hoplophobes are ignorant and we’d like to teach them, but they (mostly) do not want to learn. They are happy in their ignorance. They are only dangerous because they vote.

      Anticulturalists hate gun culture and wish it to be destroyed. The guns are secondary. We are their target, and they’d hate us even if we were disarmed. The hatred of us is palpable. Listen to their language. They use phrases like “gun nuts” and far worse to deride our culture. They would exterminate us if they could get away with it, but they can’t. Most of the anti-gun crowd are anticulturalists fighting this culture war. It’s positively tribal.

      Gungrabbers are statists. Whether they are politicians or servants of politicians, they want all the power and all the control. They do not hate us per se, but they hate the fact that we — or anyone but them — have power. They’ll kill you if you don’t go along with the program, and they have the means at their disposal to do so and get away with it.

      We have our own tribe, but it’s peaceful. All we want is to be left alone. If we were violent, we have the means to cause a great deal of destruction. We don’t because our aim isn’t to take anything away from anybody. We just want to hold on to our culture and our guns.

      • Very well said and I agree 100%. You and I are on the same page and I think describe the same thing, but you just do it better than me. =)

    • “History has proven this out many times.”

      It’s as if the tyrant du jour always says, “Gee, every time this has been tried, it has failed, but when I do it, it will succeed, because I know how to do it right.”

  28. Joe Nocera really doesn’t matter. I’ve never met anyone who has the time or inclination to read his column, and most of my friends and family are suburban liberals. Perhaps his family reads it? Apparently RF does.

    Joe isn’t serious. He’s just another kiss-rich-ass toad. Let Joe confront on a daily basis this reality, that his favorite politicians of the moment hail from a corrupt city, Chicago, broken by mob-mentality unions and unconstrained gangs, little street gangs built on the model of Chicago city government. Nah, he’s not interested. Because he’s soooo concerned with magazine capacity limits in Omaha.

    Face this reality, that even Mr. Intense Liberal, Rahm Emmanuel, can’t budge Chicago. The big unions don’t want to reduce violent crime. They don’t want to fix Chicago education. They just want their f’g money. More of it. Lots of it. In Chicago’s one-party paradise they don’t even lock up guys caught with illegal guns. There isn’t room in the jails. If Joe were serious about crime or corruption, he’d be writing about corrupt Chicago every morning. He doesn’t. No surprise. He’s just out pimping page views.

  29. “Much in the way that many gun control activists have come to accept the legitimacy of the Second Amendment…”

    Ummm, what? Oh, how benevolent of them to finally come to accept the legitimacy of our the civil rights, which have been in place for over 200 yrs. What a pretentious f^cking statement.

  30. Okay, I have had enough of this garbage. The next time someone tries to shame us into “compromising” or accepting “regulation”, hit them with this parallel.

    A man walking down the street sees an incredibly attractive woman. And he really, REALLY, REALLY wants to have sex with her several times a day for the next several years and demands that she comply because he really, REALLY, REALLY wants it. Of course she has absolutely no interest in this stranger. Therefore the man demands that she compromise with him because he really, REALLY, REALLY wants it. So what is a satisfactory compromise? Is it okay if the man forces her to have sex only once a day for several years? How about once a week for several years? Once a year for several years? The obvious answer is that any forced compromise is a crime against the woman.

    A rapist is repugnant because he regards a woman as a peon … something to be used, abused, controlled, exploited, dominated, and manipulated at the pleasure of the rapist. In the same way, gun control rapes the dignity of a person who desires to purchase and possess a firearm. Gun control is repugnant because it tells the citizen who wishes to be armed, “You are a peon. Government will use, abuse, control, exploit, dominate, and manipulate you at the pleasure of the government.” And the worst part? Government is nothing more than bureaucrats and elected politicians who are doing the raping.

    A woman should never be forced to “compromise” to rape. And a citizen should never be forced to “compromise” to gun control.

    • What if the woman’s a hooker?? I mention it because gun rights, like damn near everything else in this world today, are for sale. Meaning the NRA NSSF and others give money to legislators or spend money in the courts to try to regain some gun rights and expand others. The antis do the same thing only they spend boatloads more to convince the unthinking majority guns are evil.

  31. Man, what happened to you, Bob? You used to be an awesome car writer. I read your blog every day. You were smart, literate, a treat. Now you’re pandering to the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, gun nuts. A real shame. Not to mention you’re going to straight to hell when you die. Double real shame.

  32. New York Times columnist Joe Nocera is a registered Democrat. His columns never mention the following:

    •In 1863 a Democrat named John Wilkes Booth shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
    •In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States, who later died from the wound.
    •In 1963 a radical left wing socialist named Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
    •In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
    •In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
    •In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
    •In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
    •In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
    •In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria.
    •In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
    •In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
    •In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US.
    •In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
    •In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people at the Virginia Tech University.
    •In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others in Tucson, AZ.
    •In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
    •In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
    •In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
    •In 2013 a registered Democrat with mental issues and an Obama supporter named Aaron Alexis fatally shot and killed 12 people in the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.

    Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns, but the NY Times cannot see the pattern.

    SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

    • They don’t need a law. Picking up a gun blisters their hands, much the same way a crucifix will burn Dracula.
      </sarcastic joke>

    • 188 bodies! No wonder these people are hoplophobes – if they can’t trust wonderful, inclusive, peace-loving liberals with guns they fer damn shur can’t trust us evil, greedy, racist, patriotic conservatives with guns!

    • Errata: Frank, Garfield was shot by a disgruntled Republican office seeker, Charles Guiteau.

      Addendum to you list:

      In 1901, William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist, Leon Czolgosz.

      In 1932, anarchist Joseph Zarenga shot at FDR, but killed Chicago mayor Anton Cermak.

      In 1950, two Puerto Rican nationalists attempted to kill Pres. Harry S Truman.

      Not sure if Arthur Bremer was a Democrat, but he shot George Wallace in 1972.

  33. I saw this gem in a foxnews article (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/09/shakeup-at-guns-ammo-after-gun-control-editorial-backfires/):
    “Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told FoxNews.com that Metcalf should not have been fired, but added that the termination was not shocking.
    “The central thesis of the piece — that all constitutional rights are subject to reasonable regulation, including the Second Amendment — is so point-of-fact and obvious that even grade school kids know it,” Everitt wrote FoxNews.com in an email. ”

    Think a little about that…
    This is the scary stuff, that the rights can be regulated and everybody should be ok with that.

    • All kinds of constitutional rights are subject to limits: The First Amendment is regulated; try shouting “fire” in a crowded theater and see what happens. The right to be free from search and seizure is limited; just ask any non-lilywhite person driving through Texas. The right to vote is subject to various restrictions; just ask any black person born in the last 100 years. And the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; just ask those 25 kids shot dead in Newton how that worked out for them.

      • “All kinds of constitutional rights are subject to limits”
        No, they are not. You can get into legal trouble using a right, as it doesn’t allow you to harm or directly endanger others.

        “The First Amendment is regulated; try shouting “fire” in a crowded theater and see what happens”
        The same already applies to firearms, if you shot at someone, you will get into legal trouble.

        We don’t outlaw the word fire, or the letters F I R E because someone may use them illegally in a theater and we shouldn’t outlaw guns because someone may use them illegally.

      • How cute! Another progressive legal scholar trying to make the same points that have been debunked over and over and over again. I guess you still believe that if you repeat the lie enough, it must be true. I’ll play along though:

        First: Do we remove a person’s vocal chords before they enter a crowded movie theater simply because the possibility of falsely yelling “fire” exists? Furthermore, read Schenck v US for where your argument comes from. You might be surprised that this case was overturned by SCOTUS over 40 years ago.

        Second: Are you advocating racial profiling? As seen with AZ’s SB 1070, those laws have been generally deemed unlawful… unless you’re in NYC where ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ specifically (and unlawfully) targets minorities.

        Third: Are you advocating voter ID laws? I don’t, but see my above post about how there is blood on your hands.

        Fourth: I fail to see how a lack of regulation denied the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the 20 children and 6 adults that were murdered that sad day in Newtown. The state of CT had an “Assault Weapons Ban” in place prior to the shooting that was similar in language to the 1994 federal law. The XM-15 Lanza used was registered with the state of CT, per CT law. Furthermore, background checks were passed to buy all four firearms found at the scene. If anybody, besides Adam Lanza, is to blame for denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to those victims, it was by people who believe “gun free zones” save lives.

        Please come back soon with more BS talking points that are easily debunked.

        • ” If anybody, besides Adam Lanza, is to blame for denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to those victims, it was by people who believe “gun free zones” save lives. ”

          +1E+16 !

    • Well, I think that entitles Mr. Ladd Everitt to his very own UNregulated “Gun Free Zone” sign for his front door.

  34. Regarding compromise, it’s a horrible idea when dealing with antis/political types.
    For example, Connecticut passed a “flat” 4.5% income tax back in 1991, and lowered the sales tax from ~8% to 6%, with the intent of balancing the budget. Not surprisingly, that didn’t work. Since then, the “flat” tax has been abandoned for a 6-tiered system with a top rate of 6.5%, the sales tax rate is like 6.35%, but it applies to a whole host of things it didn’t apply to 22 years ago.
    Moral of the story? Don’t give them an inch, because once you acquiesce to a little bit, be it income tax or “universal” background checks, there is almost no chance of going back. Most likely, they will continue to take more and more.

    • Good points. It is also good to remember that the genesis for a national income tax was Prohibition, which was estimated to cost the US Govt almost $100M in revenue from liquor excise taxes yearly. Hmm… if that was the case, then when Prohibition was repealed, wouldn’t that have eliminated the justification for the income tax? Well, of course that was during the great depression and times were tough and the government needed the money…

      • The income tax was instituted many years before Prohibition.

        Both required Constitutional Amendments.

        The 16th instituting an income tax took affect in 1913.

        The 18th Amendment starting Prohibition took affect in 1919, and was proposed in 1917.

  35. Question:
    Would mandatory safety training have prevented any of the following:

    1) Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown CT
    2) Aurora CO movie theatre
    3) Columbine
    4) The DC Naval Yards
    5) Rep Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Arizona

    Answer:
    No.

    That’s why all of these so-called “common sense” gun control regulations are opposed by gun owners.

      • No, mentally ill gun operators. That were previously identified to the authorities. Who did zero. Until it was time to count the casualties.

      • And guns!

        But I don’t think the guns were at fault. Unless they are the kind of guns that do bad things on their own.

        • They cast a magickal hypnotic spell over those fine upstanding lads, dragged them to a posted gun-free area, and forced the guy to put his finger on the trigger while they pulled it themselves.
          </sarcasm>

      • They were also humans, who breathed air, and had mothers.

        Should we outlaw humans, air and mothers?

        Why should people who are not party to a crime be punished? Does your sense of collective punishment extend to other areas?

      • Sorry, deranged as he was, Adam Lanza was a man on a mission and that mission was to kill as many people as he could at that school. If you do not think that absent the firearms his foolish mother left accessible to him he would not have done as much or more damage with a couple of two-liter Molotov cocktails then you do not know what drives these people to their demented state. If he couldn’t arrange the cocktails he could just as easily waited for school to let out and run down as many as possible in the crosswalk or forced a school bus off a bridge. The gun is not the problem, it is just the most efficient tool for the infamy they seek. But make no mistake, they will find a way, gun or no.

  36. Metcalf’s article WAS ignorant and uninformed and arrogant as ever. He talked about the phrase “well-regulated” arrogantly, as if it was clear as day that it referred to modern government regulation and thus gun rights proponents are being silly to oppose gun control laws, which showed a huge amount of ignorance on his part. He also showed stupidity IMO. Requiring one to have to do mandatory training in order to exercise a right only makes it a right on paper. And secondly, requiring mandatory training could be abused in any number of ways to infringe on people’s rights and prevent them from being able to exercise them. There is nothing “moderate” about mandatory training.

  37. “There’s a quantitative difference between a newspaper and a gun. A gun kills people.”
    ——————————
    And the pen is mightier than the sword!

    Not because the pen is directly more lethal, but because the pen can inflame public passion to lethal ends.

    Julius Streicher was sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials, it wasn’t because he was a member of the military or helped directly in the planning or execution of the Holocaust, but because he helped lay the foundation of the Holocaust with his words and speeches. As the trial concluded;

    “For his 25 years of speaking, writing and preaching hatred of the Jews, Streicher was widely known as ‘Jew-Baiter Number One.’ In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution… Streicher’s incitement to murder and extermination at the time when Jews in the East were being killed under the most horrible conditions clearly constitutes persecution on political and racial grounds in connection with war crimes, as defined by the Charter, and constitutes a crime against humanity”

    Millions of men, women and children, rounded up and executed simply because of who they are, and this slaughter egged on by journalists instilling hatred into the minds of the populace, and Joe Nocera doesn’t think words can be lethal.

    Nor, is this an isolated example, all mass slaughters have been proceeded by words designed to dehumanize the group, to harden the hearts of potential murderers so the killing can take place, the genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda was proceeded by months of propaganda, in both print and media, to encourage the Hutu population to violence.

    Without such words, it’s hard to imagine such slaughters ever taking place, yet Joe Nocera thinks words are harmless.

  39. The subject of Universal background check should be applied only to the highest office in the land. That being the President of the United States. With his social security number he cannot pass an e-verify background check. With his BC online a proven fraud, we have a Commander-In Cheif with his finger on the big red button and not one man or women from this country is willing to call him out. He has no clothes. We are a sick lot on this Veteral Day. Their sacrifice has been in question because we have let this happen.

  40. Let me explain something about a well regulated militia. It is the gun owners who advocate and furnish gun safety; gun control fanatics refuse. It is the gun owners who are first responders in many, many cases just as the reporting party is often a first responder turning in an alarm request for aid. It is the gun owners who are the Good Samaritans while the gun control fanatics urge that you vomit, break wind, turn your back on your attacker or something else instead – anything but stand your ground.

    This is what is meant by well-regulated: self-regulated, the core of our self-rule. It is the gun control freaks who announce to the world that they have no self-worth – that they do not believe they nor their loved ones are worth protecting in the absence of police.

Comments are closed.