LA Times Engaging in Right-Wing Paranoid Fantasy

That’s the refrain of anti-gunners everywhere. “No one wants to ban your guns,” “It’s right wing paranoia. It’s lunacy to think anyone is coming for your guns.” Then why is such an esteemed publication as the LA Times just fine with publishing:

As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture. They exist for one purpose: to kill. Yes, hobbyists also like to use guns for target shooting and other nonlethal purposes, but it’s hard to say that desire for sport outweighs the atrocious level of gun-related deaths in this country.

So they are coming for my guns then? Probably shotguns eventually too, once they figure out they are highly lethal instruments when compared to “assault-style weapons,” and especially handguns. But nonetheless, how can they argue that no one wants to ban guns when people are regularly calling for it? Am I not supposed to take this seriously? Is this person kidding? Is it just engaging in a little left-wing daydreaming? The fact is our opponents have no credibility on this. We know better. When they feel emboldened, they are quite willing to speak their true views.  From the comments:

“Totally agree: Let’s ban guns. It will never happen, but what a nice idea. Otherwise, Isla Vista will keep happening over & over & over again.”

“Awwww, you’re making the gun nutters cry … KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!”

“The author doesn’t go far enough. Repeal the Second Amendment.”

“Where did he say, “Ban all guns?” He said ban all handguns. But that’s alright, twist his words to suit your own predilections.” [Glad he cleared that up. I was worried for a second.]

“In virtually every other civilized country in the world, this would not be a particularly controversial proposal. But in America it will never be taken seriously, as evidenced by all the ridiculing comments below. For whatever reasons, Americans consider it vitally important — essential, in fact — that they be able to shoot other people. And so life goes on. Except for all the people who get shot.” [Very few countries ban handguns, actually.]

“What we need is legislation to stop people from killing other people with handguns and assault weapons that were designed specifically for that purpose – to kill people. Sporting rifles and shotguns are not made for that purpose, so leave them be. If you want to handle assault weapons, join the police or military where they are both appropriate and well-regulated.” [Jeez, you’d think shotguns and rifles weren’t extremely effective at killing people. If it can take down an Elk effectively with one shot, it’ll take down a person just fine.]

Granted, most of the comments are pro-gun, but that’s to be expected. Nonetheless, you can find this opinion to be common if you look among people who don”t like firearms.


24 thoughts on “LA Times Engaging in Right-Wing Paranoid Fantasy”

  1. Civilized countries ban firearms? That’s news to Norway (which ranks higher than both the UK and Australia on the UN’s development index).

    Here’s what Norway has done to its gun laws and regulations after the Utøya mass shooting in July 2011 (69 kids and students killed by single shooter using legally acquired Mini-14, Glock and “high capacity” magazines):

    1. Added an exemption to allow the purchase of bolt action repeating shotguns
    2. Added the Smith & Wesson M&P15 and three other rifles to their roster of semi-auto rifles certified for sale for sporting purposes

    Some numbers on Norway:
    Gun ownership: 31.31 firearms per 100 people
    Gun homicide (2010): 0.04 per 100,000 people
    Gun suicide (2010): 1.72 per 100,000 people

  2. I have an entire category of “No One Wants to Take Your Guns”.

    Don’t let anyone every get away telling you there aren’t powerful and influential people that want to ban them.

    The article linked by Sebastian above provides my Quote of the Day for tomorrow and another entry in the No One Wants to Take Your Guns category.

    1. Yes. As well as guns in “common use” which should cover “assault weapons” and normal capacity magazines. This guy even linked to the Heller decision but doesn’t recognize the ruling as valid law. Nor does he recognize self-defense as justification for the Second Amendment or the ownership of firearms.

      1. By his reasoning why should cops have guns either?
        If self protection is invalid as an argument then what reason can cops have to carry guns?
        Or would he want to argue that cops need guns to kill people? And since killing is against the law, killing to enforce laws is illogical as well.
        The only ones that should have any weapons, by his reasoning, is military while on active deployment, because their job IS to kill people.

  3. I think the LA Times should be restricted to one Anti-Gun article per month. Said article shall be limited to 200 words or less as no one needs (or will bother to read) longer articles. And they also do not need all those fancy fonts and pictures with their articles, as we all know that makes them even more dangerous!

    1. Also, the author of the article should have to undergo a background check to make sure he or she has not espoused any subversive or conservative ideas in the past.

      1. And no quotes either, nobody needs to have those scary looking quote marks in their statements.

        1. We have libel laws, which inherently limit free speech for the sake of the broader good, yet even journalists recognize them as a reasonable compromise.)

          That’s all well and good, but the damage is done once a reporter commits libel. We need speach control to prevent them from commiting libel in the first place. Surely his idea of gun control doesn’t stop at arresting and prosecuting those who go on shooting sprees.

  4. The gungrabber’s reasoning of “well, they didn’t say ban ALL guns!” when we point out that they ARE banning guns is beyond stupid.

    Let’s throw the concept of samizdat and censorship at them. Because clearly it’s okay to BAN some “dangerous” books but I guess it doesn’t infringe on free speech, as long as you are licking the boots of the messiah.

  5. As for handguns, assault-style weapons, etc., let’s have a flat-out ban. Beyond the histrionics of the gun lobby, there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture

    Tell you what.

    Start with the police and we’ll talk, okay?

    1. “there is no defensible reason for such weapons to be a part of our culture”

      So he’d support a ban of potraying handguns in TV, videogames, and music videos? Maybe some sort of cultural review board?

  6. The unending refrain of “just one more law!”
    Makes me sick the BS that these people believe.

    1. Or my favorite line from anti-gunners, “it’s a step in the right direction”.

      1. I think they meant “it’s a goose-step in the right direction”.

        The Nazis were all in favor of gun control, in which the state had a monopoly on force and the German citizens were destined for a visit to a concentration camp if they were deemed undesirable.

        Only my enemy wants me disarmed.

        Molon Labe!
        Never Again!
        I Will Not Comply!

  7. There will never be peace between those who just wish to live their lives and those who wish to direct everyone’s lives. Separation would be better. We need to have TWO nations, a USA and a USSA. One will be our Constitutional Republic (with all it’s quirks, I’ll still take it), the other will be an earthly Socialist Utopia. Secure borders required for the Republic, and a tight (and enforced) immigration policy. Over in the Socialist Utopia – anything goes. Whatever.
    We do our thing, they do their collectivist thing. Separately.

    1. The individual states of the United States are already beginning to divide into factions similar to what you describe. People are voting with their feet. I plan on joining them by escaping to a Free American state.

    2. I never thought of it that way, but this could work, if we get a president who respects states rights. Let each state decide how they want to handle gun laws, and let the people decide where they want to live. We could still visit NYC, and Cali, but we wouldn’t have to live in a place that doesn’t believe in individual rights and freedoms.

      1. The problem is the socialist states will do all they can to steal from the free states. That is the only way they can pay for their policies.

        Socialism is doomed to fail but they will prolong it’s death for as long as possible on the backs of the productive. And there is no way the federal government will ever let go of any state willingly, especially if it’s growing economically. They need to pay for their Obamaphones some how.

  8. The title says it all don’t it?

    “You say gun control doesn’t work? Fine. Let’s ban guns altogether.”

    The answer to all of gun control’s ills can be answered with more gun control.

    And I love how this is all in response to a rich, connected Hollywood princling killing 3 with a gun (and stabbing to death 3 more)

    Because there’s no way people in the entertainment industry can get contraband whenever they want it.

    This is like someone demanding stricter bans on pot because a rock star overdosed on heroin.

    1. Of course, no one asks what will happen if we ban guns, but still have problems with violence. The answer, in Great Britain, at least, has been “Let’s ban self defense–indeed, to arrest anyone who carries anything for the purpose of defending their lives” and “Let’s ban pointy knives, because people are getting stabbed.”

      Even after banning all guns, a gun-banner’s job isn’t done! It never will be, either, because there will always be violence in the world. Heck, there will always be guns in the world!

  9. I would love to see their reaction to someone committing one of these atrocities with a bow and arrows.
    Would be interesting to see how they try to play it into needing gun control then. (and I don’t doubt they would try)

Comments are closed.