Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor

29 Jan
Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor

In the current debate concerning guns in America, I am always astounded by the twisting of facts, logic and reason that the gun control zealots put forth in order to defend their case.  By all sense and logic, gun control cannot be viewed as anything other than a means to oppress a free people and to disarm the law abiding.

When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor, for those of you who don’t know, is a term used in logic and problem solving.  Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.  By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

  1. An armed people are a free people

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment.  Freedom does not guarantee safety, it does not ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made.

  1. The 2nd Amendment is about hunting
  2. The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had
  3. Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns
  4. The government will never turn on its people
  5. The police are enough to keep you safe
  6. Criminals will follow gun laws
  7. Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed
  8. Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it
  9. Only the government needs guns, law abiding people don’t
  10. Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind.  I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption.  And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.


Posted by on January 29, 2013 in Uncategorized


29 responses to “Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor

  1. Joanna Reichert Photography

    January 29, 2013 at 11:22 am

    Reblogged this on j. lynn reichert photographic art & design and commented:
    I don’t get too political but I’m really loving the logic in this one.

  2. John F. Wozniak

    January 29, 2013 at 11:28 am

    The problems with the main argument are twofold: one, no one is advocating private citizens have enough weaponry to be able to stand up against the military, on either side; and two, it freaks people out. Really. The people I know tend to think that the full-on purpose is to be able to overthrow the government if they get to be too tyrannical, and they don’t picture themselves on either side, they picture themselves caught up in the crossfire between the military and ‘gun nuts’ or militia. (This even extended to the people worried that Bush was trying to consolidate power when the Patriot Act was passed. Curiously not that many of them are objecting to Obama extending the entire freaking Act. #aside)

    To my eyes, the second Amendment is … well, actually kind of exactly what I said. King George was a tyrant who wanted to take away the colonies’ ability to rebel, so they decided to keep the right to bear arms just so they wouldn’t get any tyrants. But to a certain extent, it’s the absolute LAST line of defense against any fascists or ‘socialists’ who would take over the country. The FFA laws are going to be where we get our proper defense of the right to bear arms, well before it comes to that. (They’re probably unconstitutional as hell, in my opinion, but they’ll get any and all seizure-related laws in front of the Court, maybe all of Feinstein’s package, and knock those out in the process. And to be clear, it’s the idea that a state has jurisdiction over the feds because of a passage in the federal Constitution that bothers me, but it’ll call into question the laws that cause the conflict in the first place.)

    But my point here is that this argument is not one that anyone wants to hear, as simple as it may be. It even sounds like a platitude or a slogan rather than an argument. And that’s why we need to EXPAND upon it, and figure out how to explain it so that people UNDERSTAND. I’m one of a solid four non gun-owners that I know of who are speaking out in favor of gun rights (and my circle of friends is ‘exclusive’, so to speak, so that’s a good percentage) but I’m not sure that fully 16% of the country are pro-gun and non-owners (the estimate is 34% of all adults own guns). I’m fairly sure that there’s a solid group of undecideds and apathetics out there, that we can win over, and we need to learn how to phrase our argument to do just that.

    • mook

      June 9, 2016 at 8:03 pm

      All Gun control agendas in the united states will be met with maximum judgment an amplified judgement every single person part of this agenda to take people means of self defense will be maximum penalty, the cup of wrath will be poured onto every human being and non human being pushing for this satanic agenda California will be the first state to be hit with judgment it will even affect the ability to write or speak in favor of these agendas pass any more laws. OBAMA from this point and Biden will be hit with a powerful Parkinson’s attack when they even think about pushing gun control and every person p[art or with his agenda

    • pistolpower

      September 27, 2016 at 6:28 pm

      this analogy and the discussion taking place here is really well done. Everyone is stating their opinions with respect and intelligence. Refering back to King george and our past really helps draw in comparison of whats being said here. America seems to be getting more and more sensitive on gun control. I want to ask this blogger, why can’t we find a middle ground? why is it so difficult for us to agree on what to do? It should be in our country’s best intrest to at least compromise and find the middle ground so we don’t destroy each other

  3. Paul E. Mason

    January 29, 2013 at 1:16 pm

    Would someone please tell me what a “high calipre” anything is !
    I have read it used in conjunction with “assault weapons”….As in, “high-calipre, assault weapons”.
    In fact, those 4 words have no meaning at all.
    I find it not at all funny the prohibitionists use these false terms to underscore the lawful use of firearms.

  4. Lee Luckman

    January 30, 2013 at 11:55 am

    @ Paul…Maybe they meant Caliber. I too have never heard of calipre, and I am what some would call a “gun nut”. Not because I own hundreds of guns or thousands of rounds of ammo, but as a machinist i find the making of guns an art form. I read all I can and study the inner workings. I also dislike the gun control argument for it’s complete lack of evidence that it works.

    • John F. Wozniak

      January 30, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      They pretty clearly do mean that, and it makes less sense like that, right? I can’t think of many high-caliber assault-style rifles in existence that aren’t already banned (Kalashnikov made a few, if you count 7.62/7.65mm). UMP is available in .45, but that’s a sub… I really think it’s people freaking out and not thinking about what they’re talking about. Which is officially nothing new.

  5. JGoertzen

    January 31, 2013 at 9:44 am

    This is a misapplication of Occam’s Razor. It’s only applicable for two competing hypotheses–two theories which seek to *explain the same set of data*, and only with the caveat “all things being equal.” That’s not how you’ve used it here. What’s more, many of the ‘assumptions,’ you’ve listed are not assumptions, but empirically verifiable claims; something is only an assumption if you have to take it for granted, and can’t decide it on the basis of evidence.

    There are plenty of grounds to criticize gun control measures–like the evidence they don’t actually work, and that laws which restrict freedoms without increasing public good are bad laws, etc. Occam’s razor might come up in sorting out what the cause of this or that country’s homicide rate is, or why, if gun control works, there’s no correlation between gun control and low homicide rates (gun control advocates need to multiply assumptions to explain away the lack of evidence)… but it can’t be used, on it’s own, to pick a position in advance, and without settling the truth of the matter by honest investigation.

  6. Jake

    February 2, 2013 at 7:42 am

    an armed people are a free people….

    so the one assumption to made from this one assumption is….

    an unarmed person is not free…

    therefore I can assume….

    I am not free….

    I assumed wrong, because I am free.

    This logic is screwed.

    God help America.

    • msalzbrenner

      February 2, 2013 at 10:52 am

      Are you now? You are free? Can you express your opinion that you find someone sexy without the threat of a lawsuit? Can you access “public lands” that are owned by THE PEOPLE without restriction? While driving down the road, and you spot a police cruiser in your rear view mirror, do feel safer or nervous? (If you say you feel safer, your either lying, or truly just plain deluded.) I could go on but I’m not going to extend this argument beyond this post. It is more likely that you have been lulled into complacency with the illusion of safety. This is equal to being drugged by your rapist so you won’t complain. If we were free, we wouldn’t be labeled “terrorists” for expressing our opinions. If we were free you wouldn’t have to spend 25% of your day double checking every move you make, and every word you say, to ensure you don’t do something that might be considered “offensive”.

      I don’t give a spit about what people or the “current governing officials” think of what I say, or what I do. The law of MY country is the Constitution of the United States of America. And for believing in my country and its law, I am considered a “terrorist”, a criminal, and an outcast. THAT is NOT freedom!

      The fact is, it is I, and people like me, that are the only true patriots left. We are defending our country from the corruption that is strangling it. We believe in the principles that our country was founded on. And we have chosen to support those principles.

      Restricting rights does not make us “equal”, it just makes us slaves.

      I’m quite happy with the original law, so I will be staying, right here, in the country that was built on those principles. There are plenty of counties in the world that will treat you like a peasant of that is what you want.

      I have no intention of allowing anyone to “reprogram” mine. I instead choose to be a CITIZEN!

    • Webeers

      February 14, 2013 at 6:08 am

      Because one can indulge in bar hooping at 2 am doesn’t make one free. Because you can do certain things safely does not give you insight to see how you are being herded towards an end you will not care for.

      • John F. Wozniak

        February 15, 2013 at 8:46 pm

        I would really like to find the time and the inclination to do a ‘like guns, dislike gun control, but can we work on the language people?’ type of post somewhere. Other than Facebook where I growled about how Congress should do nothing at all until July or so, fix the debt early in the meantime, because tempers and emotions are running wild.

        But here, I just have to ask, how are we not free? I’ve said it loud and proud, we’re in a country that has its first Amendment to the Bill of Rights protect the church from the government, the government from the church, the press from everyone, and gives Charlie Daniels and the Dixie Chicks the right to criticize the hell out of our fearless leader in Chief. AND gives the American public the right to shun the hell out of them for their choice of words (and severe attitude in the case of the latter; dear Lord, Natalie Maines was acting like some sort of martyr to justice at the end of it. And simultaneously a six year old. I digress.)

        The second amendment? It’s a bit symbolic as technology marches on, but it still reads to me ‘we will not remove your firearms just because you might need them to overthrow tyrants’. I swear, I LOVE the fact that my country is that free. The tenth amendment is the reason why New York has the right to recognize gay marriage and Florida has the right to prohibit it twice over, and it’s all legal. (I personally doubt it has the right to allow states to enforce the 2nd Amendment in the face of the government… by law enforcement means, anyway; however, I do think Texas — it’s GOT to be Texas — has the right to challenge any seizure laws in the Supreme Court, and no, this court will not support that.)

        In summary, this is the most free country in the entire God-blessed AND God-D*MNED world. Does it need work? … well, doesn’t it always? But yes, we’re a free people. That’s practically an objective fact, I think.

      • msalzbrenner

        February 15, 2013 at 11:47 pm

        I will not argue we are free(er) than most. But it is through intense due diligence that we will stay that way. If we do not PROTECT our freedom then tyrants and criminals will take it from us. The human race is cursed with GREED and there will always be those who want to take something from you. Therefore I will continue to FIGHT for my freedom even if some freedom still available. I say “some freedom” because I can tell you now that we are not near as free, nor do we have the ability to exercise nearly the rights that the Constitution did then, and still now recognizes. Let me provide some names and see if you can tell me how are rights are being “infringed” little by little. TSA, Patriot Act, NDAA, MPAA, RIAA, FCC, FDA, NAFTA, IRS, FBI, CIA, NAACP, ACLU, NFA, GCA, and I could go on, but I’m sure you get the point. If you need me to site specific infringements imposed by any one of these acts, organizations, or “authorities” I can do so, but I hope you are bright enough to come up with at LEAST one on your own. The point is as long as I’m not violating another American citizens RIGHTS, then I should have the freedom to do as I please. The primary issue here is that there are way too many people in this country that can’t 1. Mind there OWN FREAKING BUSINESS!. 2. Quit trying to TELL EVERYONE ELSE HOW THEY SHOULD LIVE. and 3. Admit that no ONE WAY is RIGHT for EVERYONE! Here is an interesting article I wrote that will take you through a method of societal decay.

        In honesty it is very simple. I have said it before, and I will say it again.

        Stay out of my life, leave me alone, and I will do the same for you.

        I respect your RIGHT to live your life as you see fit. I simply ask that you return that courtesy and respect MY RIGHT to do the same. What I do in my life is NONE of your concern, any more than I have any desire to know what you do in yours.

        The core of the issue with this country at this point is the deliberate violation and invasion of peoples lives.

        Why would a “neighbor” be so driven to care if their “neighbor” came home at such and such time last night? Why should they care? Is their individual life so destitute that they have to live their life vicariously through everyone else’s? How sad is that? Why should they care if someone walks through their home naked? Does it concern them? Is it imposing on them? Not at all, but there is always the one person who happens to be looking into someone ELSE’S HOME. Through someone ELSE’S WINDOW. And then has the nerve to complain because THEY WERE BEING INAPPROPRIATE. (<- This is an example people. Not a "real" event. Well, at least not in MY case. Grow up!)

        The point is people need to quit violating everyone else's life. Grow up. Get a life of your own, and quit infringing on what OTHER people do with theirs.

  7. Jay

    February 17, 2013 at 11:24 am

    Here’s some facts to consider:
    Hollywood movies and biased news media not withstanding, firearms are only one of an INFINITE number of tools with which criminals may commit murder and/or violent crime. I don’t mean that only in the abstract but it is especially so because of the specific dynamic between an attacker/s and defender/s. Because of this specific dynamic (which I’ll explain further,in later paragraphs), practically anything can be, has been, will be and is used to murder and often with far greater efficiency than firearms. So even if it were possible to eliminate firearms from the equation all together (of course it is not) it still would have absolutely positively no demonstrable effect on reducing the rate of murder or crime. None. There is however significant evidence actually showing the opposite effect.

    Firearms are popular with criminals for various reasons but actually are not the most effective tool for murder. This should be obvious but incase you’re not sure, 85% of people shot do not die (95% if you get medical attention immediately). If somebody really wants to murder somebody or a group of somebodies there are many many more effective ways of accomplishing that goal than trying to make small inexact holes in them with firearms.

    Firearms as a tool are convenient/portable and allow one to engage at more distance then many other tools. However, this one advantage “convenience” is never high on the priority list of criminals/crazy bad guys because they always have the inherent advantage of getting to pick the time, place and manner with which they will attack. That more than anything is why there are always an infinite number of tools available to an attacker. If one tool doesn’t fit their needs they simply change the tool/s or number of tools. If they can’t get a particular tool legally, they can simply obtain it illegally or change the tool. This goes for common criminals and serial killers. Specific tools do not cause crime as there are an infinite number to chose from. The decision to commit murder is never depended on any one tool. This even includes suicide which is why places like Japan (no guns) can have twice the suicide rate of places like the US. Additionally, every study shows mass killers ALWAYS meticulously plan out their crime. Often for many years and will go to unbelievable lengths to achieve their fantasy/goal.

    This is evidenced by (among mountains of other things);
    The worst foreign terrorist attack and mass killing in US history, no guns were used at all. (9/11)
    The worst domestic terrorist attack mass killing in US history, no guns used what so ever. (OK City)
    The worst school mass killing in US history no guns were used. (Bathe MI) Even though it happened in a time when not only were there no backgrounds checks for any firearms what so ever but anyone could buy and own fully automatic firearms with no special procedures at all.
    Most famous murder trial in US history (OJ Simpson) no gun used. (Although I bet the victims wished they had been armed)
    Murder (mass and otherwise) has existed for ions prior to firearms and it exists even where there are no firearms what so ever. (Ask people in prisons how safe they feel)
    For the entire history of firearms even with ALL the places in the world that have strict gun control and/or outright bans, gun control measures have never been shown to reduce violent crime/murder.

    Conversely, there is practically NO tool that is more effective for defense then a firearm. That is because of the specific benefit offered by firearms (convenience/ability to engage at distance) IS especially critical for a defender. Obviously the defender does NOT get to pick the time, place or manner with which they will need to defend themselves. They are always at this inherent disadvantage. So (unlike an attacker/bad guy) the convenience offered by firearms IS paramount to a defender/good guy. It logically follows that restricting access to the best/most convenient tools for defense /firearms (and by extension the convenience of normal capacity magazines) always has a disproportionately negative effect on the ability to defend (the good guy). Since again convenience is ONLY paramount to a defender, degrading convenience will always overwhelmingly negatively impact the ability to defend (the law abiding).

    Gun control has never been shown to reduce crime anywhere, ever. With the logic and supporting facts, examples and history listed above the reasons should be more than somewhat apparent why, but even if not, then you have to ask yourself shouldn’t there be at least a few examples of it’s success? And if there is not, given the enormous number of attempts throughout the world and history, isn’t the lack of success evidence in itself? In essence this total lack of success actually only supports the other examples, numerous studies, history and core logic of how gun control simply can not possibly achieve its typically stated goals.

    If you leave emotion out and logically think through and look at the mountains of empirical data and long world history, it becomes obvious that expanding background checks (in effect registration which we know has ALWAYS lead to eventual confiscation) magazine restrictions, gun restrictions and bans, actually all gun control, have absolutely NO effect what so ever on reducing murder (mass or otherwise). It can’t. It’s simply not possible for gun controls to have that effect. We really don’t have to guess as we can just look around and see that. On the other hand we know registration, and further restrictions would severely infringe on a basic human right and have a significant negative impact on the natural right of defense including the ability to resist tyranny.

  8. Pingback: Anonymous
  9. Davis

    March 23, 2013 at 11:42 pm

    The Plauge of Ignorance, Apathy and Ancient Evils.

    If there is one thing that I have learned in my 63 years dealing in the private, public and government sector it’s that individuals with strong leftwing political opinions tend to be pretty thin skinned when it comes to what is to actually be deemed “left” or “right”. The more thin skinned they are the more profoundly ignorant of the subject they are found to be.

    This failure of reason and logical thinking is most easily exposed by daring to posit that fascism is the intellectual child of the left. Bring this subject up and you will soon see how the “open-minded” and “tolerant” leftist is more close minded and intolerant than any conservative I’ve ever met. Such a contention is met with utter contempt at best, accusations of stupidity or attempting to manipulate any discussion at worst. For the contemporary left this is a closed subject and even the discussion is strictly forbidden. It’s even worse in circumstance than questioning Al Gore and his global warming consensus. (I wonder how those folks in New England and the upper mid-west enjoyed the first day of spring from under that freshly fallen blanket of snow.)

    Never mind that the so-called idea that fascism was a rightwing ideology had its origins with Joseph Stalin who regarded anything not in conformance with Soviet style international socialism as extreme rightwing. These leftists have had this idea pounded into their heads in college by various professors who no doubt came from the same “this is axiomatic, no discussion is necessary” (or allowed) perspective. The question that many of these same professors were/are dedicated leftists doesn’t seem to have entered or affected the thought process of these so-called graduates. In short they have been taught what to think not how to think, particularly as to the subject of the origins of fascism.

    This highly singular and as we shall see dangerously erroneous position places profound limitations on the development of political thought moving forward. I would compare it to dropping anchor and then putting a ship’s engines in all ahead full, then looking over the stern and confusing the turbulence created by the props for forward motion. They may look over the bow and fixate on the horizon of some “perfected state” but they never look down to see that there is no bow wave being formed.

    And yet it doesn’t take a very deep examination or comparison between the propagandist rhetoric of today’s leftist and that of 1930’s Nazi Germany to find shocking similarities. The evidence exists but like with so many other things they are convinced that by simply refusing to acknowledge its existence it magically disappears.

    How frequently have we heard the argument that the constructions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are “antiquated” or out dated or somehow not consistent with modern society? How different is this really from “the constitutional reality of the Third Reich cannot be mastered with the aid of juridical thought patterns of the past.”?1 The left has created a political thought process whose only discernible foundation is that the Constitution must be seen as a “living” document whose interpretations are only defined by the exigencies of the moment or whatever is currently deemed “politically correct.” How different is this sophistry from that of the Nazi’s’; “nor is it admissible to determine National Socialism’s political theory by drawing inferences from its system of thought.”2 How different is the left’s desire to use the electoral process to move the United States in the direction what they envision as European socialism from the Nazi’s self characterization of the Füherstaat as “the most ennobled form of a modern European Democracy.”?3

    The contemporary leftist will tell us that the concepts of individual liberty (defined as freedom from government interference in daily life), self-initiative and moreover personal responsibility for our actions and circumstances are out dated or incomplete. It is no longer enough to have a system of government and rights that guarantees of what the government can’t do to the people and their freedoms we must have a government that guarantees what it will and must do for us. Never mind that historically under such systems “do for us” soon devolves into “do to us”. “No one among us lives for himself, each of us lives only for the people. No one lives for his own happiness, each lives only for the happiness of the community. No one among us can say as he may have done before: ‘My happiness lies in my home, in my business, in my profession.’ No — we live beyond space and time in the millennial destiny of the people…..we have built our happiness in the fortress of socialist life.”4 Sounds like something lifted right out of the pages of Pravda or Izvestia right? Guess again then see note 4 below.

    It would be mistake to think that this is simply a resurgence of the Hegelian concept of primacy of the rights of the state over the rights of the individual. Nothing could be further from the truth. The theme of the 1934 Nazi national party congress was “We Command the State!” Under this doctrine the party and its functionaries (in spite of claims to the contrary) regularly interfered with the conduct of long existing administrative functions, doing so under the rubric of “the will of the leader”. The Party became the State. How different then is this from Attorney General Holder saying that it’s his job to decide which laws are to be enforced and which ones are not, or telling sovereign states that they have no right to protect themselves from a flood of aliens coming across their own borders with a foreign state, using their own duly passed legislation? According to the Nazi’s themselves it was “not the proper function of the administrative courts to act as arbiters in controversies between local government and supervisory departments.”5

    What most would be students of government and politics (both left and right) either forget or simply were never taught was that the Nazi’s formed their government and continually ruled on a basis of the need of addressing a “national emergency”.

    At some point in the not to distant future we are all going to have to come to grips with a very significant question. Do we want to live in a country where the final authority of the Federal government is based in law and the consent of the governed or in one where it is based in the will of those who are in “command of the state”? Look around you at our increasingly militarized police, aggressive “pat downs” at the airport, unmanned drones in or skis and a DHS that is stockpiling enough hollow point ammunition for a thirty years war and then arrogantly refusing to answer questions about those purchases from members of Congress. DHS is issuing mine resistant armored vehicles (MRAVs) developed in dealing with the insurgency in Iraq to local police departments. Just who is it these “Federalized” local police envision themselves going to war with? Look at these things in joint context and then tell us how we don’t have a government operating on the basis of “national emergency”.

    When Senators like Chuck Shumer or John McCain tell you that none of your rights as defined in the Constitution are absolute you had best take them seriously, because what they have envisioned is an Orwellian nightmare of “All pigs are equal but some pigs are more equal than others.” He is not unlike the chuckling Dr Goebbels; “we were not legal in order to be legal, but in order to rise to power. We rose to power legally in order to gain the possibility of acting illegally.”6

    John Adams said that “If men were angles there would be no need for government.” Men are not angles so Adams and the founders insured our right to protect ourselves from government, its agents and even the officials we elect. There in lay the fundamental difference between the right and the left. We don’t believe in Heaven on Earth. The left thinks they can make heaven on earth if only they have the power to do so, and our individual right stand in their way.

    Not to be deliberately repetitive but George Santayana famous quotation is often truncated and its full meaning lost or distorted. Taken in full it is far more profound, especially in regards to to what I have shown above.

    “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the first stage of life the mind is frivolous and easily distracted, it misses progress by failing in consecutiveness and persistence. This is the condition of children and barbarians in which instinct has learned nothing from experience.”

    Fascism in one form or another has been with us for a very long time just as has the idea of government. Whether it started with the ancient kings of Babylon and Persia that demanded their subjects worship them as gods, or in the divine right of kings, who is to say. History is full of manifestations of evil From the Aztecs slaughter on the alters of human sacrifice to Pol Pot’s killing fields of Cambodia evil has existed in the hearts of men who have always, who will always claim they are doing what is in “our best interest”.

    Our contemporary leftists may indeed be far more sophisticated than the fascists of the past, but they are fascists none the less. They may dress themselves up in cloaks of erudition and claims of superior intellect and wanting what (only they are allowed to define) is “best for us”. But beneath those cloaks lay the same same ambition, lust for power and willingness to sacrifice the rights and lives of the people for their own accumulation of power and wealth that were not just the hallmarks of the fascists of the 30’s and 40’s but have plagued mankind since the dawn of time.

    1. Reuss Juristische Wochenschrift, vol. 64 page 2314, 1935.
    2. Hans Schnidt-Leonhardt, Deutsches Recht, (central organ of the Association of National Socialist Jurists), vol. 5, page 340, 1935
    3. Joseph Goebbels, Hamburger Fremdenblatt, no. 78, March 20 1934
    4. Reichs Minister Hans Frank (later governor of occupied Poland), Mitteilungblatt des Bundes National-Sozialistischer Deutscher Juristen und des Reichsrechtsamts derNSDAP, no. 1, page 9, 1935
    5. Theodor Manuz, Deutches Recht, vol.5, page 479, 1935
    6. Deutsche allgemeine Zeitung, nos. 549-550, Nov. 25, 1934

  10. partsinterchange

    June 5, 2013 at 12:29 pm

    On the humorous side — Have a Listen to Bang! A Tribute to the Sound the Gun Makes —

  11. 1032Gear

    December 11, 2014 at 7:53 pm

    Does anyone else notice that the same people that want guns banned think it is ok to legalize a drug that will take them away from reality and leave the rest of us “normal” people to remain in tact to work and support them as they try and escape the fact that liberalism doesn’t work. Don’t think for a second that I am going to take direction with my firearms from anyone that relies on drugs. My heritage is in guns PERIOD! We need a way to express this. Maybe we should call ourselves “Ruger Americans”.

  12. Devilcorp

    December 12, 2014 at 12:32 pm

    Great blog!

  13. Leora Allen (@LeoraAllenOF)

    August 27, 2015 at 11:45 am

    Hi, My name is Leora and I work with Optimal Fusion. The reason that I’m reaching out to you is to see if you are interested in me helping you increase your revenue on your site. I have an advertiser that would like to spend 10k placing a banner on your site for a subscription to their rewards program. Do you have a few minutes to speak about the opportunity?

  14. Sam Moore

    March 21, 2016 at 1:13 am

    If you need a gun because you are fearful, you are not free.

  15. Amlay Lay

    August 30, 2016 at 12:30 am

    Hello All,

    My name is Amlay Lay and I work for its free dating and chatting portal. If you are looking to meet you gun lover partner who owns and lovers gun as much as you do at

  16. Jack

    April 2, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    I have noticed that there have been new gun laws created that will help prevent further incidents from happening. Although these laws will help take away guns like assault rifles and automatic weapons I think we should be moving the other way and trying to make citizens feel as though its ok to have a gun. This is a very big part of the issue in that people with guns are almost looked down upon in society because of all the bad things surrounding guns. For example I just asked my mom why we didn’t have a gun and she said “we are not crazy people” and my mom as a what I think to be a pretty intelligent women is completely uneducated about what the good things people do when using a gun in the correct manner. All in all I hope you see why guns shouldn’t be getting restricted making them look bad.

  17. Jeffrey Liakos

    December 4, 2017 at 6:45 am

    Sam Moore and Jack, gun ownership is a Constitutional right, as well as a basic human right. It can be argued that civilians do not need automatic weapons, however, the only things needing to be done are mental health and criminal background checks. Otherwise, I say let people purchase whatever they want-be it rifles, grenade launchers, pistols, shotguns and so on. Something completely absurd is the fact that you need laws to tell you whether or not you can open or conceal carry your weapon.

  18. clingerholsters

    February 12, 2018 at 12:32 pm

    Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, as well as a basic human right.

  19. Jeffrey Liakos

    February 13, 2018 at 12:05 pm

    The 2nd Amendment should be our carry permit.

  20. cafeteriacommentary

    May 8, 2018 at 9:02 am

    nah fuck u

  21. Jeffrey Liakos

    May 8, 2018 at 6:12 pm

    I say repeal all gun laws and regulations, with the exception of sale to minors without parental knowledge and/or approval, sales to people determined to be mentally unstable and sales to people with a violent criminal history. Otherwise, remove all other regulations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: