The Right Opinion

The Left Bullies the NRA

By Ben Shapiro · Dec. 26, 2012

On Christmas Eve, seven people were shot in the city of Chicago. The media made little mention of the shootings, since they're now routine in Chicago – the city has seen some 500 shootings in 2012 alone. The vast majority of the shooters are black, and the vast majority of the victims are black. Many of the victims are under the age of 18: Anton Sanders, 15, shot on Jan. 20; Deshun Winfert, 15, shot on Feb. 5; Damion Rolle, 14, shot on Feb. 21; George Howard and Albert Guyton, both 15, shot on Feb. 27 and Feb. 28; the list goes on. A few are under age 10. You've never heard of any of them.

But when an evil white person with a history of mental instability shoots up a school, killing 20 children, most of whom were white, the media is suddenly concerned with gun control.

Perhaps that's because the media is racist. Or perhaps it's something else. If the media pays attention to the shootings in Chicago, it will have to talk about the fact that Chicago is heavily gun controlled. It will have to discuss the fact that guns are illegally flowing into areas of heavy gun violence. And it will have to talk about the impact of social ills like single motherhood, gang recruitment and poor public education.

Instead, the media focuses on Sandy Hook, Aurora and Columbine. Focusing on such statistically aberrant scenarios rather than the more widespread gun violence that plagues our cities allows the media to target one of its most hated groups: the National Rifle Association.

This is what the left does: they pick a target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. They use individual cases as a baton to wield against groups they hate. The Trayvon Martin case was used as a club against the American Legislative Exchange Council for their support of “Stand Your Ground” laws – even though George Zimmerman never claimed “Stand Your Ground.” The war on women was used as a club against Komen for the Cure – even though Komen cares for more women than Planned Parenthood ever will. The left uses specific cases to destroy important institutions. It makes their future battles far easier.

That's what they've done here. The left's attack on the NRA is ludicrous. Neither the Sandy Hook massacre perpetrator, Adam Lanza, nor his mother, Nancy Lanza, was a member. The state of Connecticut has long rejected the NRA's legislative influence. The NRA takes zero – zero – tax dollars. Yet somehow, the NRA has been targeted as the root of all evil.

Why? Because the NRA represents the strongest single proponent of gun rights in America. And if the left can use Sandy Hook to bash the NRA, to make it unpalatable to the American public, they will. That's why the execrable Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC spouted that the NRA had “blood on its hands” despite any evidence to support that proposition. That's why Piers Morgan of CNN labeled NRA head Wayne LaPierre “dim-witted” and “dangerous” for suggesting that schools ought to have armed police, but said nothing when Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck said the same thing. David Gregory of NBC was only too happy to bash LaPierre over that proposed policy, but send his kids to a school with 11 armed security guards.

So what does that have to do with Chicago versus Sandy Hook? The media knows that in all shooting scenarios, the conversation quickly polarizes into two positions: ban guns or discuss other myriad social and legal issues that lead to shootings. In communities plagued by high levels of social ills like Chicago, the second position is the more obvious one. In cases of placid communities getting shot up by a nutcase, the left can talk gun bans more easily.

And they can label the NRA the culprit more easily, too. When gang members shoot each other in Chicago, it's obvious to everyone that there are no NRA members involved. When people in Connecticut own guns, the media has made the case that they must be NRA members, even if they aren't. And so the NRA, with no relation to Sandy Hook, becomes the problem.

It's far harder to stop Sandy Hook than it is to stop violence in Chicago. But the left doesn't like the possible solutions in Chicago. They prefer to destroy their competition. So the shootings in Chicago will continue. So, in all likelihood, will incidents like Sandy Hook, thanks in large part to the left's focus on destroying its enemies rather than preventing acts of evil.



Old Desert Rat in Las Vegas, NV said:

Extremely well-thought out and logically presented argument. It will be interesting to see how many of the MSM pick it up and run it uncensored. I'll bet none. But don't give up because you are quite right.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 12:29 AM

Adam in NY said:

The "Left" actually IS trying to prevent acts of evil. They want do this by getting legislation passed which bans the sale of assault rifles etc. and the only thing standing in their way is a bunch of wealth lobbyists at the NRA. Just because the crazy in this case wasn't an NRA member doesn't mean the NRA's existence isn't still compounding the overall problem. Ending evil is a long process, but first things first.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Rick Deckard in WS NC replied:


I'm sure you are aware that crimes committed with military style rifles make up less than 2% of all gun crimes. I will refrain from attacking you personally like most liberals tend to do with conservatives. I'm just curious why you aren't calling for the ban of alcohol. Alcohol kills MANY more people each year than guns, but yet that is acceptable. Is it because that the vast majority of the people that consume alcohol do it responsibly? The same could be said for firearms. Like most liberals, you're a hypocrite.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 1:51 AM

Adam in NY replied:

(So much for refraining from attacking me personally.)

I will refrain from lying about things I will do in this response. One thing I will do is not quote statistics without sources; in a similar vein, I promise to ignore statistics you quoted without sources (although allow me, just this once, to question if the fact that more people are killed "by" alcohol than by guns due in part to the higher number of users of alcohol than guns?).

Very well, lets take your reductio one step further. Why require licensing and background checks on guns? We don't require that for alcohol!

Why limit the sale of other kinds of explosives or drugs? They can be used safely to blow up rocks in my ranch's backyard.

So first of all, like I said it's a long process. Removing much of the danger from the gun market is pretty doable. Removing much of the danger from the alcohol market is much more complicated. I'm not expecting 100% success, only improvements. So you can't call me out on being a hypocrite for trying to improve things gradually.

But more importantly, what you fail to see is that alcohol is not the direct cause of the death. Alcohol + a car. Alcohol + a gun. Alcohol + other drugs. Removing alcohol from the picture would still allow someone to crash their car, shoot their relative or overdose. Alcohol just makes them stupider (and they have plenty of online comments that will help them accomplish that already).

Guns are the direct cause of death in shootings. A crazy that runs into a public place and forgets his gun at home isn't much of a danger at all. So while you can try and minimize the motives for killing and psychological influences of people, cutting off their weapons is clearly the best first move.

In the end though it comes down to our being a democracy. We impose restrictions on ourselves by majority vote when we see fit to better ourselves overall, which means constant cost-benefit analyses. It seems clear to me (and many many other liberals) that the benefit gained by allowing some people who never found anything better to do for fun then kill animals to continue to do so at the risk of continued mass shootings is just not worth it. Alcohol use on the other hand has a significantly higher benefit. But that judgement call I leave to the polls.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 4:18 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

I believe we are a constitutiional Republic instead of a democracy. Banning guns will never stop violence in our society. When some idiot decides to kill people he/she will find a way. I noticed you never mentioned Chicago in your comments. That city has one of the most restrictive gun control ordinances in the country but also has one of the highest murder rates. Apparently gun control isn't working there so why are we to believe it would work nation-wide? I forgot, its only when whites get killed that we talk about gun control, not when black thugs are killing black children. I guess its alright to kill those black kids because the thugs aren't members of the NRA. God save us from irresponsible media who only report on those things that drive their agenda.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

"Apparently gun control isn't working there so why are we to believe it would work nation-wide? "

Hasn't before .....

The Human Cost of Gun Control:

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Bill Brandon in Orlando FL replied:

I own a LOT of firearms, a mix of rifles and pistols. Can you explain to me how registering them and licensing me (and those like me) will PREVENT crime? I will be the first one on line with my guns in tow to get them registered if it will PREVENT crime.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Robinius in Broomfield, Colorado replied:

Adam, In this country you don't have the right to tell other people what they can or cannot do. It is not up to you. You associate people who " never found anything better to do for fun then kill animals to continue to do so at the risk of continued mass shootings." So hunters are a risk of future mass killings. This is a preposterous statement and is unsupportable (you offer no sources for your "reasoning"). I assume you are a vegetarian, as the steaks and other meats found at your grocery store were once animals and were killed for a profit motive. As a "rancher" you should know this. And while it may be clear to you that "cutting off their weapons is clearly the best first move," it is not clear to me. Guns are not the only weapons available to someone who wants to kill. Lanza could have killed just as many with a couple of sharp knives - there was no one to stop him. I would like to know how alcohol has a "significantly higher benefit" to society than hunting does. In an earlier post you referred to "my ranch's backyard." As a "rancher" you never used a gun to get rid of pests? I think you need to understand that your opinion is just that, an opinion, and it has no more value than mine does. I also think you have a very high opinion of yourself, as all liberals do (my opinion). BTW "stupider" is not a word - "more stupid" is correct; and look up the difference between "then" and "than" please.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Adam in NY replied:

Well done Robinson! You have shown that Conservatives know how to utilize logical fallacies better thAn Liberals.

Take you ad hominem attacks at the end (my splelinng affects how you should view my position?) or your straw man (I never said the hunters are going to become the killers) or your red herring (even without banning knives one could ban guns; see my first post above about consistency, progress and opportunity costs) or your poisoning of the well (FYI I am not a vegetarian).

(I'll wait while you check Wikipedia for what those are.)

The fact is that in this country there are restrictions placed on what people can do all the time. It is a country not an anarchy.

Lanza could have killed hundreds of people with a spoon if he tried hard enough but the fact is having a machine gun (or whatever it was; I'm sure you know the specifics) made it easier to kill that many so quickly and with so little opportunity for defense before the cops showed up.

So in short, my opinion is of more value than yours because it seems you can't communicate a logical argument (or even a collection of true sentences). I await to see myself proven wrong on this last point.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 3:36 PM

JJ in WV replied:

Adam I must comment to you on your math skills. Alcohol+car does not make it fatal - it is poor gas mileage as alcohol has a lower net fuel value. However, alcohol+ car+person does have potential to do as you say. You have a blind spot for the third component in your argument. The person that is involved. That person is assumed to be a responsible person. When that person is not is when the trigger to take away their freedom to participate in that activity become applicable. I note that you offer no suggestions on how to restrain the operator of the dead hunk of material that actually performs the action that takes someones' life. It appears you don't want to have a moral decision on personal responsibility for actions. I learned that individual freedom is the right to do whatever they wished - as long as it did not infringe upon the right of someone else to do exactly what they wished. Law is the social agreement to control the interface created by the above statement when two parties conflict over their freedoms. The above statement is the individual freedom so you can also rationalize why a great number of law abiding citizens - with freedoms equal to yours - should be penalized to obtain your solution to the perceived problem rather than dealing with the underlying cause - the operator of the instrument.
I also note that since you do not believe in statistics without references you do not include any in you arguments. I was not aware that we were having a philosophy discussion on the relativistic morals of gun ownership. Philosophy allows you to have valid opinions about anything - practical government requires that you offer some substantiation that your suggestions will be effective.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 10:58 AM

JJ in WV replied:

We had a ten year ban on the weapons in questions and there was no statistical change crime or murder rate attributed to the ban. Prohibition does not eliminate something. In the 1930's prohibition eliminated alcohol - we had gangs and gun violence that subsided when it ended. In the 1970's we had the war on drugs - which is still going - and we have not stopped or changed anything - except a militarization of nations' police forces and the expenditure of vast sums of money better spent elsewhere. We have also seen the corresponding increase in weapons violence associated with the illegal activity. Do really feel (since this is a philosophy argument) that banning weapons will make them go away or simply create a vast pool of targets for the then illegal operators to exploit?
I think that you need to talk about what to do about the operators of the tools and not the tools or the appearance of the tools. That is what we all need to talk about. What ever you come up with should work for any kind of tool that is used by an operator that has the potential to hurt a number of people - note this includes cars, airplanes, trains, trucks, and even lawnmowers when used around a crowd of people.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

Wealth lobbists at the NRA? I would like to know how the NRA is compounding evil? The millions of NRA members who never commit a crime or kill anyone are now guility by association. What a great concept of democracy! If you belong to an organization(Rotary, Lions Club, etc) and a member kills someone then that automatically makes you guilty too. I belong to the Vietnam Veterans of America and I'm sure some Vietnam veteran has killed someone this year so now I have that blood on my hands too. I love the liberal way of looking at things.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Adam in NY replied:

Please excuse my typo: I intended to write "wealthy".

And I "love the conservative way of looking at things" if that way means ignoring what I wrote (that the issue is the lobbying) and then striking down a straw man (that I blamed members of the NRA who don't do anything wrong). I only assume that's what the conservative way of looking at things is, as you presented the opposite way as liberal. (Funny, you'd think most conservatives would actually know first hand what a straw man/scarecrow is.)

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA replied:

I do know a straw man when I hear from one and you fit the bill to a tee. When all the so-called assault weapons are taken away then the criminals and psycopaths will continue to kill with whatever weapon is available to them.. Then what comes next? Ban anything that could be considered a weapon? Good luck with having a more peaceful society and few mass killings.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Adam in NY replied:

Criminals only commit crimes given an opportunity. If the only way to kill someone was with a rusty spoon, some criminals would chicken out. If the only way to kill a bunch of people took hours to accomplish, more criminals would give up from the outset.

I never said my way was perfect. Only an appropriate step towards an unacheivable perfection.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 3:47 PM

MIResident in Michigan replied:

Crackpot criminals chicken out when other guns show up - that's why they target 'gun-free zones' to start their murdering.

I give you credit Adam for posting to a conservative site - but you also need to bring the entire discussion, which includes the socials issues and mental problems as part of the solution before you think of changing the 2nd. Those 500+ shooting victims in Chicago are mostly due to our social system breakdown and not lax gun laws.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Ed Shipley in Amarillo, Tx said:

I think your article shows that it is safer in Afghanistan than it is in Chicago.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Ed Shipley in Amarillo, Tx said:

I think your article shows that it is safer in Afghanistan than it is in Chicago.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 2:24 AM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia said:

Three wide eyed Nut-jobs and an Islamic jihadist psychiatrist will not define the law for the rest of America's law abiding citizens.

The AR-15 is not a military assault rifle. It lacks the critical component - select fire - that permits burst fire and full auto. Essentially all modern rifles and shotguns (with the exception of bolt action, muzzle loaders, and breech break guns) operate the same way. The AR-15 is the muzzle loader of 1776. We have them so we can protect our selves against people like Adam who will try try to tell us what we can and cannot do based on the actions of crazy people and criminals. We can use them to hunt and target shoot if we want, but God and the Constitution made sure that we have them to discourage tyrants.

One of the first things tyrants do before they start the genocide is to limit and then take away the guns. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler et al.

I understand that some people do not like guns - but for God's sake relax like you do on an airplane when you know there is an armed "air marshal" on board to protect you if something goes bad. If it works in airplanes, and people feel secure - why not elementary schools?

Those who put up "Gun Free Zone" signs and then fail to protect those inside - should be held partially liable when the nut job who does not obey law , shows up. Mayor Bloomberg is a perfect example. He should be held liable, for gun crime in NY, just like the Aurora theater that excludes guns and leaves the back door open.

Funny how the left does not want to infringe on the rights of crazy people, but is willing to violate the 2nd to make themselves think the world is really a safe place.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 3:15 AM

Adam in NY replied:

Is that a death threat? If so, then who you callin' crazy? And please don't conflate Gun Free Zones with places without security. Just because they don't let in random shmoes doesn't mean they can't have an armed security guard. Like on airplanes, remember? You can't bring your personal guns in there either, but they have an air marshal. Trust me I feel more comfortable with their guns on the plane and not yours.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 4:24 AM

RLS in Oklahoma replied:

Adam, I read your first reply to Rick Deckard with interest. I seriously thought about what you had to say. But in the subsequent post when you reacted to Timms with that question about a death threat you unsettled me. I'll try to explain why.

My first thought was desire to murder is not triggered by ownership of a gun. It seems to me the number of grisly murders will go up as soon as guns are not readily available. Axes, arson, and purchased or handmade hand grenades are just as available to a criminal as a hand gun or a combat weapon. There will always be "crazies" but the police are NOT always there.

Did you ever read "Blown Away: American Women and Guns" by Caitlin Kelly? Take time to read "Negroes with Guns" by Robert Franklin Williams and imagine if that community had not had guns. Would you have supported their gun ownership? Guns assured their freedom individually and as a group. If you think times are different, I would believe you have no idea how young this country is.

Do you know of the disarmament of law abiding citizens in the wake of Katrina in New Orleans? They did not disarm looters, they disarmed anyone! Using steadily restrictive laws or a natural disaster as an excuse to disarm a population - what's the difference? Freedom is being ended.

I cannot see you as an enemy, just a fellow American who disagrees with me. My fear of you is simply how you will vote. Perhaps we each think of the other as insufficiently educated on the issue. The big difference I see between us is that I've always felt secure as an American until legal changes in the last decade or so. I did not change, but my status with regard to the law is changing. You are advocating another such a change.

Even if you don't own a gun and never want to, YOU WILL HAVE LOST A FREEDOM! You should think about how rare such freedoms are in the whole world and all of history.

Something's wrong when the definition of you or I as a patriotic and trustworthy American of good character is being redefined by laws supposed to restrain mass murderers and other criminals.

Feeling alarmed when the law prevents me from defending myself? Sure. But why would you feel alarmed or even paranoid ("death threat") when law-abiding citizens have guns that they might use to save your life? A man fearful enough of others to feel his life is threatened often acts crazy. You're fearful of Timms? Seriously? THAT is unsettling to me.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 2:59 PM

Adam in NY replied:


Thank you for your reply. I admit I have not read the books you cite, but I will try to look into them further.

I just want to clarify that the death threat I saw related to the line: "We have [guns] so we can protect our selves against people like Adam who will try try to tell us what we can and cannot do based on the actions of crazy people and criminals." He said he has a gun to protect himself against my advocating legal reform. Perhaps he was exaggerating, but that seems like a death threat to me.

I agree that not every gun owner is a mentally deranged murder. And I understand I will be losing a specific freedom (not one I often utilize, incidentally, and perhaps one I will be replacing with the freedom of a safer society (at least in my perspective's scenario)). But like I said above it's a question of cost benefit. Perhaps our votes will just have to cancel each other out :)

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:


At one time I only owned a semi-automatic Browning A5 16 ga. shotgun with a serial number that told me it was manufactured around 1937. The gun was chambered for 2-9/16" shells. A family heirloom. My father, back in the 60s's, had it re-chambered to 2-3/4" we could continue to hunt using modern shotgun shells.

This was the case (one gun) up until a couple of years ago. What changed was my wife and another couple all pushing 60 years old were in Little Rock for a wedding. On the way home the car hit a center lane barrier and a tire blew. They swerved into another car. No one was hurt. After both cars stopped the occupants exited. The other car held 5 youths about 20 years old. The situation became threatening with the youths verbally assaulting my wife and the couple with words similar to "We're gonna beat the shit out of you three."

911 was dialed and my wife and the couple locked themselves in their car as defensless occupants. The youths continued to circle the car making threatening advances. A very long 10 minutes later the police finally showed up.

Long story short it won't happen again. I now know that when seconds count, the police are minutes away at best. I am now one of the honest citizens who has taken responsibility for my own safety and choose to carry a concealed weapon for the protection of my own life and those of my loved ones. I am not a vigilante, I am not a cowboy, a wanna-be cop, or a wanna-be killer. I'm just like you except my wife and friends have been threatened and I now realize that life and family are worth protecting in a dangerous world. I want to have a fighting chance should crime come unbidden to me. By so doing, I protect not only my own life but the lives of those around me. I do this by being a deterrent to those who would do us harm.

The licensing process was long. Background checks alone took 9 weeks but I am now licensed to carry not only in Arkansas but 37 other states.

So now I own two guns. Not an arsenal by any means. It is said beware of the man with few guns as he probably knows how to use them very well.

BTW had I been at the scene I described above and licensed to carry at that time I probably would not have drawn my weapon. If those youths kept their distance and only hurled verbal threats then my weapon would have remained concealed with a very wary eye.

Another book worth looking at is "Dial 911 and Die."

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 4:47 PM

MIResident in Michigan replied:

"I agree that not every gun owner is a mentally deranged murder." - Even making that statement is a statistically ignorant belief. With over 280 Million guns owned in the US, those that would fall into the 'mentally deranged murder(er)" category is statistically insignificant.

Your note about gun-free zones are correct - however, the 'mentally deranged murderers' almost always go for the declared gun-free zones - we as a society have to question why.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

"..and perhaps one I will be replacing with the freedom of a safer society (at least in my perspective's scenario)). "

Adam: I am reminded of Ben Franklin's quote:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 7:51 PM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia replied:

Your implied accusation of a "death threat" reflects your inability to deal with reality. The reality is that you are advocating a change that would deny gun owners a right that is described as protected - "Shall not be infringed" - by our Constitution. The Constitution is not a living document - or it would have been killed by progressives a long time ago.

The Constitution is a Rock, and the wisdom of those who wrote it far exceeds that of today's interpreter. While it is true that the founders did not foresee the design features of AK-47, the M-16, these are modern "small arms" similar but less powerful than those carried by today's soldier, much as the musket and pistol were the soldier's weapons of the period. It is clear that the founders intended for the populace to be armed primarily as a means of defense against a tyrannical government - with which they were familiar, and hopeful of preventing again in the future.

Similarly, the educated founders, could not have for foreseen the ignorance of the modern progressive leftist, yet they included the right of free speech in the very first Amendment, believing it to be essential to liberty. You have the right to express your opinion, including your desire to strip the Constitutional rights of others - presumably by legal means. That does not give you the right to accuse me of threatening your life, by my simple statement that I have a Constitutional right to defend myself against those tyrants who would deny my Constitutional rights.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 8:50 PM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia replied:


It is clear that you have little knowledge about firearms and the responsibilities of gun ownership. It is probably best that you do not chose to have a gun, and simply hope that when your life is truly threatened, that there will be a concealed carry permit holder nearby who will be willing to intervene to save your life. It happens everyday, usually without a shot being fired. Recently, at the McClamas Mall in Portland, a CWP holder presented pistol, but did not fire at the madman who was using a stolen weapon. But the Shooter saw him, retreated and committed suicide, ending the ordeal without further loss of life. You probably did not see that story in the media, perhaps because of a shooting in CT where there was no CWP holder present when another wild-eyed nut-job under psychiatric care, decided to attack, using a stolen gun.

I honestly hope you will think about the example of the "Air Marshal" and the role of Concealed carry guardians in our schools. I have trained with many of these people and I would gladly pay to have them in my child's school.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Adam in NY replied:

It's interesting to me that you think the writers of the Constitution were something along the lines of Prophets. You treat it like a book of Scripture. Few books of Scripture that I know of (and I confess to being poorly versed in the New Testament) have internal instruction as to how to change the book. (Although perhaps I'm missing something that Christians see, because they did tack on a whole new covenant.) IAE maybe we can all agree that the writers of the constitution just happened to live at the right time and are not necessarily the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement. Is that so controversial?

Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 12:40 AM

JJ in WV replied:

They were not perfect - note the argument about counting slaves - how can you count a man as part of a man if you do not recognize that they are men. Another time on that subject - but let us say that any black man who wants to legally own a gun has my support so we never go there again.
The constitution is not a perfect document (see above) but it does have an authorized way to change it contained within it. If it is time to change that then let us go there in that forum and have the discussion. You comment earlier about the founding fathers not foreseeing AK-47s is not exactly true. Historically at the time of the writing there were three arms of land combat - cavalry, infantry and artillery. Cavalry involved horses and more often then not pistols, swords and lances - Things the average person could obtain and maintain. The same for infantry which used muskets and bayonets. Artillery was deemed the "Queen of Battle" at this time due to the overwhelming and indefensible impact of the solid shot weighting pounds. The point behind the tedious (I am sorry) lecture is that the argument around the second amendment was about the private right to own cannon - not the average weapons.

The goal was parity with the weapons of the government to prevent the tyranny of the government. Our founding fathers were a very untrusting lot and they wished a small federal government with the responsibility for care of the citizens held by the individual states. I believe that ended with the end of the civil war and reconstruction excesses after the war.

Our current crop of social experiments (recreational drug regulation, personal alcohol consumption regulation) all started with Woodrow Wilson. Progressive taxation started with FDR. History is the foundation for our current problems - no matter where you look.
The current outstanding problem is still what to do with people who do not or will not accept their responsibility to interact with society in a non-violent manner - whether they have the capability (the tools) for violence or not. I maintain that restricting weapons access by type or capacity subverts the original intent to prevent tyranny without increasing anyones' personal security.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM

MIResident in Michigan replied:

Small note on military style assault weapons - even today's M16 doesn't have full auto - only 3 round burst and single fire.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Bill in Texas said:

@Ben - Great Article. Very interesting read and breakdown of how the Media treats organizations that are not directly linked (ie, taking tax dollars, etc.) from the Federal Government.

@Adam in NY - You are playing with fire my friend to say that the Left is trying to prevent acts of evil. Preventing evil is to say you can catch Lighting in a butterfly net. Will never happen. To say that Assault weapons are to be baned may sound like a good idea, but (Heaven forbid) the military is turned against We the people, it will become a pretty one sided fight when we have handguns and they has full auto guns. Also, I will point out that with the use of the internet any any good search engine, there is no reason that you cannot verify the "facts" supplied by others in their comments, and the counter argue with "facts" that support your beliefs as well. Lastly, sane Americans who choose to own guns in the first place do not by Assualt weapons to hunt, shoot other people, etc. They buy them because they like them, or they served in the military, and trained with it, or fought with it. Case and point, I choose not to own guns, and that has alot to do with my wife being deathly affraid of them. No personal idea why she is, but she is and her piece of mind is all that matters to me. If I did own guns, I would personally own an M-16 with out the grenade launcher attachment. I would own one since I like the look of it, and to me it is great looking piece of American Military weaponery. Fight the good fight based on your beliefs Adam. For the sake of statistics, let me know which has a per average lower casualty number: 1 shooter in a enviroment that has no guns, or 1 shooter who crosses paths with a person who has a right to carry permit/concealed handgun license. My gut tells me that the carry permit would save alot of lifes when the permitted has the courage to stand against a shooter. My gut is my personal best source for stats, but let me know if I am wrong.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

"My gut tells me that the carry permit would save a lot of lives when the permitted has the courage to stand against a shooter. "

Some examples where an armed citizen made all the difference:

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

Kevin, the nut job that killed the two volunteer firemen in Webster, NY spent 17 years in prison for killing his grandmother. He assaulted her with a hammer. Say wasn't that an assault hammer? What we need is assault hammer control. So if you go to Sears, Lowes, Home Depot, etc. to buy an assault hammer a background check is needed. He also spent time in jail for various other crimes. How come he was allowed to walk the streets? He should have been in a 6x8 room or better yet assumed room temperature for killing his grandmother. I wonder if the anti-gun fools also thought he should be able to live among normal people.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA replied:

As a felon, it was illegal for William Spangler (the nut-job) to possess a firearm. Further evidence that criminals will not obey laws. Which is why they are criminals. The only people who will obey the gun laws are the law abiding citizens.

Spangler also left a note: "I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down and do what I like doing best - killing people,"

I wonder if he served a full sentence for killing his grandmother.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Tapdaddy in Indiana said:

It's too bad that the left thinks that it is more caring to elect a black man than it is to save a black child.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Allen in Indy said:

Shapiro redeemed himself a little bit with this article. He has spouted anti-gun comments here before, which were removed after the backlash from the readers.

Nobody should respond to "Adam in NY", because he is nothing but an Internet troll, living in his mom's basement, trying to piss you guys off by spouting his nonsense.

I believe we have reached a tipping point, just like we did on 9/11/01. We now have reached a point that the media attention has cemented the fact that if you shoot up a school, you will get your 15 days of fame. This means that we will from this day forward, have many more psychos deciding that they can shoot up a school and get the media coverage just like Lanzo did. What that means is that we have no choice but to post armed guards at ALL OUR SCHOOLS now. It's a sad situation, but it is what it is.

Banning some weapon or some magazine is not going to change that. Making some bullet illegal is not going to change that. It's time for us to 'man-up' and protect our children.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 11:25 PM

M Rick Timms MD in Georgia replied:

They will not get media publicity if they are stopped first by a concealed carry trained and permitted "guardian" who is unmarked but vigilant. It works on airliners and it will work in the schools. The armed guards in high schools are there to prevent the "kids" from fighting each other. We are talking about something entirely different. Undercover protection for the little kids.

The NRA has offered to train them, FrontSight Firearms Training Institute in Nevada has offered to train 3 people from every school in America, and they can do it - they train 600 people every 4 days.

Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 12:23 AM

Adam in NY replied:

Hi Allen! Allow me to assure you that I do not live in my mother's basement. In fact, neither of my parents live anywhere near New York.

I suppose I'm not surprised that you are trying to remove me as you seem proud of how you helped remove some of Mr. Shapiro's previous thoughts.

Who again were you calling a troll?

Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 12:42 AM

WT in AZ said:

Adam in NY wrote, " I understand I will be losing a specific freedom - perhaps one I will be replacing with the freedom of a safer society". How can that possibly be a logical argument when statistics (not skewed, manipulated studies) show that countries, states, and cities (e.g. England, Connecticut, Chicago, Washington D.C.) with the most restrictive laws have greater levels of gun violence not less. Those laws have not provided "a safer society". Current laws and any new ones will be adhered to by law abiding citizens, but not by those who have no regard for any laws. Who does that put at risk? Adam Lanza reportedly had computer skills. If he had no access to guns, he could easily have produced an effective IED with common chemicals and on-line instructions. A hundred new laws wouldn't have prevented the CT tragedy, but current news items cited here by the readers prove the NRA is right, "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

Friday, December 28, 2012 at 12:10 AM

Adam in NY replied:

Hi WT!

If "the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", then is the only thing that will stop a bad guy with an IED, a good guy with an IED? If not, then you seem to be arguing that even a good guy with a gun could not have prevented the CT tragedy.

Saturday, December 29, 2012 at 8:20 PM

RLS in Oklahoma replied:

Adam, Guns and IEDs seem a different situation. Planting an bomb can be done in secret. A gun-wielding murderer is vulnerable. I like having good guys with guns around me, but never ANYONE with an IED.

I hope you get to read the books I suggested but I had not realized you may not have read the Bible. The only 'unalienable right' I believe our Creator gives us is the right to choose to believe Him or not.

I became a Christian at 35. You may not realize how much Biblical morality taught in 1950's that has been eliminated from today's government schools. Yet, I had believed there was no accurate Bible translation. A professional colleague convinced me otherwise, I read the Bible, and was convinced it's true. While deciding, I realized if I choose NOT to believe in Jesus then for me there would be NO right and wrong. There would be no basis of morality over my own if the Bible could be ignored. I was serious. I imagined reasoning if wanted a career promotion and killing someone in my way was the safest way to get what I wanted then why not? It would have been a matter of being smart enough to avoid capture. I have learned that is a common criminal mentality. People in prison often regret getting caught but not what they did.

I chose Jesus. I obeyed the gospel and I am His. I told you that I cannot see preparing to kill someone and accordingly I don't have a gun or CCW. Hard decision.

The human race has aberrant individuals and always has. Ever read of "Christians" who have rationalized shooting or bombing abortion doctors or whatever? It seems that "crazy" is "crazy", period. Why? I'll ask that question on Judgement Day along with a few other questions I like to ponder *grin*. I am convinced that a person who knows God and chooses to obey the gospel of Jesus cannot commit such crimes against his brother. Sharing the gospel is steadily becoming illegal and already many "Christians" cannot even tell you what the gospel is from the Bible.

Well, I am persuaded that every man should always listen and consider the basis for his opinions and of contrary views as well. I think of 'uncritically held opinions' as a character flaw and I earnestly seek to eliminate any I find in myself. You are the kind of man who helps me do that.

If I never meet you down here, I sincerely hope I meet you 'up there' - and that we get up there by 'natural' means without another's 'help'. *lol*.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Adam in New York replied:


My read of Scripture indicates that God also gave us free will to choose to follow all the rest of his laws and statutes or not. Where exactly in the Old Testament does it say: "Thou shalt believe in God"? Did He just forget to mention that until later, when He spontaneously decided to throw out His perfect work from before which claimed to be complete and not update-able? Talk about massive flip-flopping...

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 at 12:41 AM