Gun grabbers are often very clever in how they argue about the right to keep and bear arms. However, their rationalizations for gun control policies are often confusing. In reality, they either don’t quite fully realize, or don’t care to admit, the true reason they favor gun control laws regardless of the practical impacts.
Proponents of federal gun control have seized upon the most recent shooting to advance their agenda, predictably trotting out the same worn narratives.
Chief among these we find the argument that the Second Amendment was only intended to protect a “corporate” right of the “people” to keep and bear arms, and that it was meant to apply only to militia service. Continue reading No Federal Power over Guns, Even if the 2nd Amendment Never Existed
In Episode 29 of the Brion McClanahan Show, Brion considers the following questions, and more: what did Second Amendment mean and what was it designed to do when amended to the Constitution? He also delved into the definition of the militia and its role in the founding era. Continue reading The Original Meaning and Purpose of the 2nd Amendment
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
Most of the mass killings by gun in the United States in recent years — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Newtown, Charleston, San Bernardino and now Orlando — took place in venues where local or state law prohibited carrying guns, even by those lawfully licensed to do so. The government cheerfully calls these venues “gun-free zones.” They should be called killing zones. Continue reading In Defense of Self-Defense
Just when you think gun control advocates couldn’t get it more wrong, they always surprise you.
According to Daily Caller, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety has put out a video trying to shame men for owning firearms while encouraging women to join the gun grabber club.
Dubbed “Singled Out,” the campaign website curiously seeks to drive young women to the gun control cause by way of disparaging men who own firearms. To Everytown, gun-owning men are predominantly “gunsplainers,” a derivation of the term mansplainer, which is a man who attempts to explain something to a woman in a patronizing way. Therefore, a “gunsplainer” is “a man who repeatedly and condescendingly explains to a woman why she’d be safer with a gun.”
Among the ridiculous things said in the video is the following:
“Why bother strengthening our gun laws, criminals will find ways to get guns anyway!”
“That’s like saying why outlaw bank robbery? Bank robbers are always going to steal.”
This is what we call reframing. Notice they don’t deny the fact that criminals don’t obey laws. I know that may sound obvious to you but to Bloomberg’s people, a firm grasp of the obvious is needed.
Bank robbery is a victim-based crime. It’s not prohibited due to its perceived social utility, i.e. making society better. It’s because it’s stealing. It’s not there to prevent bank robberies, per se, but to acknowledge the property rights of the bank owners and the depositors.
In comparison, owning certain types of firearms or ammunition is not a crime unless the government makes it one by outlawing them. But then who is the victim if they break only that specific law?
The second claim is also wrong; bank robbers are always going to try to steal. What deters or stops them are either good security measures or, wait for it, armed guards.
What this statement is really saying is that we should pass gun laws not because they’re effective, which they’re not, but on principle.
Americans tried following that logic during the 1920s. Criminals don’t obey liquor laws, but hey, it’s the thought that counts, right? Nevermind the bootlegging and the mobs and huge crime wave that followed.
It’s disturbing that they would try to shame men for encouraging women to protect themselves from bodily harm by owning a firearm.
And shaming men for owning firearms? Good luck with that.
Besides, women don’t need to be patronized like little children to buy firearms. They already figured it out for themselves, which is why the number of female applicants for concealed licenses have risen dramatically across the country.
It doesn’t much “gunsplaining” to see the benefits of packing heat. A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center found that between 2007-2011 there was a 146 percent increase in the number of Americans who now have permits to carry concealed weapons, while at the as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.
If anyone needs some “gunsplaining” to do, it’s the people who think that there is something wrong with a person wanting to be able to protect themselves and who encouragse those they care about to do so as well. Meanwhile, Bloomberg can finally “gunsplain” why he thinks he needs armed security guards if he believes ordinary citizens shouldn’t have them.
To quote Bloomberg himself, “Uh, we’ll get right back to you” when he does, if ever.
I recently spoke with ‘The Dignitary’ Jacob Isbell about the constitutionality of federal gun control legislation.
A couple of noteworthy takeaways: Continue reading Gun Control and the Constitution: There are No Exceptions to “Shall Not Be Infringed”
A common political stereotype in this country is that gun rights is a cause championed by the Republican Party and for whatever reason gun control is strictly confined to the Left. Continue reading Gun Rights Are Not Just for Republicans
After every mass shooting in American there are calls by gun control advocates to implement stricter gun control laws and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms under the rationale that it is necessary to prevent similar murders in the future. Continue reading Gun Control Is Not Meant to Stop Mass Shootings
Once upon a time, there was a criminal who lived in an utterly fairytale land. Continue reading The Fairytale of the Criminal Who Didn’t Pass a Gun Background Check and Ceased Being a Criminal As a Result
A common phrase you’re likely to hear during a debate over the right to keep and bear arms is “gun safety.” Groups like Blomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety love to use this phrase, and it’s no wonder.