Tallahassee Newspaper Runs Worst Anti-Gun Editorial in the History of Anti-Gun Editorials

November 24 2014
by GSL Staff
Share This Post

Guns Save Lives is not supported by ads and is ran as an independent project. If you support this project please consider supporting us on Patreon. Registration takes just a moment and even $1 is a massive help in continuing our work. Thank you so much.

stock gun bb

Wow. Just wow. Sometimes, you actually feel dumber after reading something. This is one of those times. A Tallahassee newspaper has run one of the most ludicrous anti-gun editorials I’ve ever read.

Here are a few key quotes. I’m going to break them up and address them point by point.

How is it that the supposed greatest nation on earth refuses to stop the unholy availability of guns?

Because the citizenry having the ability to protect ourselves from tyranny is exactly what makes this the greatest nation on earth.

I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks.

I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

So we’re fully aboard the crazy train here. Got it.

The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted. It says guns are permitted to a “well-regulated militia.” That means trained citizen soldiers called into action for emergencies — because in colonial times every able-bodied man was required to be a member of the militia. It does not mean everyone with $50 and a driver’s license is entitled to own a gun.

Where are these $50 guns you speak of?! Anyway, well-regulated, in the sense of the Second Amendment, means well-armed, or well equipped, not subjected to regulations. If the found fathers wanted regulations they could have added them to the Constitution when they wrote (you know, that document that is basically a list of regulations). Also, I don’t see anything about soldiers being called into emergencies in the Second Amendment. Maybe I need to reread it.

Gun freaks insist we need to arm more people. They glibly say shooting sprees happen in “gun free zones,” like schools and universities, where gunmen could be stopped if everyone had a gun. That theory is absurd.

Police and military train for years to use a gun competently in stressful situations – and even they don’t always respond correctly. Think Ferguson, Mo. Think Charlotte, N.C. Think New York City in 2012 where two cops shot nine bystanders as they wildly tried to shoot a man who had gunned down a co-worker.

The idea of 500 students in a college library or a dozen teachers in an elementary school pulling out guns to shoot a gunman is ludicrous. They would wind up shooting each other.

Gun freaks? Glad to see we’re keeping this civil. Thanks. Anyway, we have a database of thousands of incidents in which private citizens were able to use firearms just fine under stress.

One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:

We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.

Actually the President has said in recent years that he supports reinstation of a federal “assault weapons ban” and seeing as how almost all of the guns I own and/or plan to procure in the future would fall under that ban, then he absolutely has said he wants to take my guns.

As for your comment – cool, all you need to do is repeal the Second Amendment (which takes basically 3/4 of the entire country to agree to it) and then confiscate the 300-400 million privately owned guns in the country.

I’m also assuming when you say “We’re coming for your guns” you mean armed police officers sent by politicians who are protected by guys with guns and not yourself personally.

Disqus Comments

comments powered by Disqus