Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image


No, have a clue. Have even the sketchiest grasp of what you are talking about, understand that the issue maybe more complex than your toddler-like brains can grasp. Hope no-one notices that as uber-wealthy Hollywood types you already have bodyguards and the armed protection you would deny others as well as high-security homes protected in ways beyond the reach of ordinary people whose lives are touched by crimes daily.

Demand bans on ‘assault weapons’ because no-one could commit a crime with a Glock 22 and a bunch of regular capacity magazines. er, wait. Not listening, ban them anyway. Show your staggering historical ignorance by failing to realise that unless your ancestors had assault weapons in 1776 you’d still be British.

Assume all criminals would automatically had in their AK’s and you wouldn’t just be engaged in a futile effort to disarm the law-abiding who don’t do crime and you wouldn’t just leave them wholly vulnerable despite copious evidence of exactly that in the UK.

Require a criminal background check despite the fact that this simply allows the government to decide who is entitled to protect themselves and who, frankly isn’t. Ignore the fact that it’s a handy database when the time comes to exert total control when you seize all guns like dictators always do. Can’t have the plebs with a means to defend ‘em selves.

Ignore the fact that if someone starts shooting, phoning the cops is pointless because they simply can’t respond in time; just keep repeating “ring the cops”

Confirm your ignorance by not realising that the right to bear arms was the symbol of a free man in the middle ages and that those denied the right were serfs. Ignore that fact that the most vicious dictatorships always try to deny gun rights because guns are a guarantee against an over-mighty state.

Fail to note that those who rely on the government to protect them are regularly screwed by their own government or someone else’s but a rifle in everyone’s home makes the prospect of subjugating a population so unpleasant that even the Nazis didn’t try it (Switzerland).

In short, go back to making rubbishy films or dismal sitcoms for simpletons for which you are amply rewarded and leave the thinking to grown-ups.


  1. Lynne says:

    Hollywood – the glittery palace that demands you leave your brain (should you possess one) at the door before you enter. Once inside low grade, politically correct lefty shite is pumped into the hole in your head rendering every recipient incapable of anything approaching joined up thinking. You are then fed magic moon beans that make you think anything and everything you say has far reaching global relevence and people simply must really, really listen to what you are saying and obey unquestioningly. Those who disagree are bigotted, right wing, kiddy killer nutjobs who ought to be shot.

    What would John and Charlton say?

  2. Red Admiral says:

    I don’t see it mentioned anywhere in the media, but Connecticut state law still bans assault rifles, even though the federal legislation has expired. Chapter 943, section 53 if you’re interested.

  3. GW says:

    The single best take on guns, gun control, gun free zones, assault weapons, etc. that I have yet to see on the net comes from Larry Correia. It is long but very much worth the time to read it in full.

  4. Simon Jester says:


    Show your staggering historical ignorance by failing to realise that unless your ancestors had assault weapons in 1776 you’d still be British.

    Lousy argument, as lots of gun-control freaks want to overturn the 2nd amendment precisely because the US is no longer likely to be invaded by the British.

    The rest of the post is excellent.

  5. Simon Jester says:

    @Red Admiral: Were you aware that the so-called “assault weapon” didn’t ban assault rifles?

  6. dcardno says:

    @Simon Jester:
    lots of gun-control freaks want to overturn the 2nd amendment precisely because the US is no longer likely to be invaded by the British.

    I’m not sure I see your argument, Simon. The point of the 1776 experience is that the British weren’t invading – they were the established governmental authority over their own colonies. The available firepower made it possible for the population to forcebly change the system of government in response to its “injuries and usurpations” if I correctly recall the phrase. Gun control advocates either implicitly assume that it is not possible for an established government to inflict injuries on its own population, or that such injuries are outweighed by the damage that widespread gun ownership inflicts in its own right.

  7. Simon Jester says:

    @dcardno: I’m having some difficulty working out how your comment relates to what I wrote. Is it the use of the word “invaded”? If so, try substituting “subjugated” or something similar; my point still stands.

    (If it needs to be spelled out: Many gun-control fans will accept that there was a need for a widely-armed citizenry, when there was no regular army – the “well-regulated militia” cited in the 2nd Amendment – but assert that those days have passed, and that there is no other justification for widespread gun ownership.

    If you are under any illusion that I accept any of their arguments at all, please disabuse yourself of the notion.)

  8. dcardno says:

    Simon – okay, I see where you are going with that, and I suppose that is one line of argument that gun-control advocates advance. I didn’t suppose that you either accepted or rejected the argument, only that you were presenting it as one that would be (or is being) made. I find the argument slightly ahistorical: at the time the second amendment was adopted in 1791 the US had a standing army, which somewhat undermines the “it’s different now” stance.

  9. Sam Duncan says:

    “Require a criminal background check despite the fact that this simply allows the government to decide who is entitled to protect themselves and who, frankly isn’t.”

    Ignore, too, the fact that background checks and mental health examinations utterly failed to stop the paranoid paedophile Thomas Hamilton.

    Ignore the fact that in the 10 years before the total ban in Australia, violent crime was falling, but in the decade after it was enacted, it doubled (and similar trends can be seen in the UK). Or that since DC’s total ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2008 violent crime there has halved.

    No: instead, be like the impartial and objective Jon Snow on Channel 4 News, reporting on how the NRA had “broken cover” (it’s some sort of secret society now?) “without contrition or apology” (because obviously the Newtown maniac was operating on NRA orders).

  10. Single Acts of Tyranny says:

    Personally, I would be delighted to start a well-regulated militia but I’m not convinced the gun-control people would be very pleased if I did. Nor the cops come to that. We plebs have to know our place, i.e. the wrong side of an utterly asymmetrical relationship with the state in the ability to dish-out violence to the other.

    As George Washington said

    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master”

    The Hollywood types are too dumb to get this. The Washington types understand it all too well.

    One more from Washington

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth”

  11. Paul Marks says:

    First of all the idea that the words “well regulated militia” means the Second Amendent is not also about the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms is bullcrap.

    If anyone is really interested (as oposed to being a “liberal” scumbag) I am happy to provide them with book references and references to various Law Journal articles on the matter.

    Also, of course, Barack Obama is more hostile to liberty than George III ever was.

  12. Bod says:

    Dropped into my local ‘porn shop’ on Friday to pick up some ammo for the range. Empty shelves, empty racks, and when I inquired about some ‘high capacity mags’, all they had were some Ruger BX-25s (which, conveniently enough, I could make use of).

    This is less than 20 miles from Newtown, CT. Right in the center of pretty thoroughly blue Fairfield County (a bit less blue than 4 years ago, but that’s what happens when the good burghers of Greenwich and New Canaan think they bought off the guy who says he’s the only thing between them and the pitchforks of OWS).

    Red Admiral’s completely right, CT has a solidly entrenched AWB in place (though full-automatics are permissible, as long as they don’t have select fire), but that didn’t help the kids one iota.

    So, next few weeks (well, I think it’ll have to be before 3rd week in Jan) the order goes in for what I would call a battle rifle, which under current law *is* permitted. I’m unapologetically going to refer to it as my ‘offensive weapon’ because I intend to offend by the very act of owning it. Links to Gun Pron on request.

    On another thread (the Daily Fail), RAB or Paul commented on the demonization of Nancy Lanza. This is completely right – it’s still far from certain that she didn’t have to travel ‘somewhere’ in what appears to be her attempts to find treatment for her little Monster. Given a few hours, access and some power tools, he little treasure could have easily gained access to the contents of the safe. He was carrying his brother’s ID so he could attempt to buy a rifle in my local sporting goods store (and was denied, the law functioning just as ‘they’ say it should).

    There’s still NO really reliable reporting going on, and I know people who have kids (still have kids, fortunately) who attend that school, who I trust who have told me that. Everyone’s STILL pretending to be Perry Mason.

    Lastly, don’t “tl:dr” Correia’s post, cited above by GW; an excellent summary.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: