Washington Post: Let’s Make America A Gun Free Society

The anti-gunnites are becoming more and more brazen in the wake of the Oregon UCC shooting. Which occurred in a mostly gun free zone. Yes, the UCC campus is a gun free zone, no matter what liberals try and tell you. The only exception is for those with Concealed Carry Permits, who still cannot bring them in buildings on campus. Mr. Obama brought up the “Australian solution”, namely, declaring most gun ownership illegal, making it law, implementing gun buy-backs/confiscation. That his given license to the anti-gunnites to more openly declare their true intentions. Here’s Washington Post Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt

A gun-free society

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.


Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

It sounds like punishing the law abiding for the actions of the criminals, while leaving the law abiding at the mercy of criminals who won’t follow the law and give up their guns.

Maybe we should enact a prohibition on Democrats, who helped create a narcissistic society and for being soft on crime. Maybe we should ban miniskirts, which lead to rape. Maybe we should ban alcohol

Every day, about 30 people are killed in the U.S. in gun homicides or gun accidents (not counting gun suicides or self-inflicted accidental shootings). And every day, likely about 30 people are killed in homicides where the killer was under the influence of alcohol, plus alcohol-related drunk driving accidents and alcohol-related accidents where the driver wasn’t drunk but the alcohol was likely a factor (again not including those who died in accidents caused by their own alcohol consumption).

Oh, right, we tried that. Then repealed it. Despite all the deaths, all the crime, all the health issues. Back to Fred

And people are not immune, over time, to reason. Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Interestingly, a goodly chunk of those deaths from what is termed “Black in origin” crime, meaning Black on Black (the majority of Black shootings were by other Blacks) occur in Democratic Party run cities with heavy gun restrictions. Anyone think the criminals would give up their guns?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

The Supreme Court certainly didn’t misread the 2nd Amendment, based on the writings of the Founding Fathers, who advocated for private ownership of guns for the possibility of forming state/local militias when necessary. Nor that the 2nd doesn’t give people a Right, it protects people from Government. It tells Government what it cannot do.

But, he’s right, liberals should speak more honestly about their intentions, namely, banning private ownership of guns. And all those who believe this should give up their own.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Washington Post: Let’s Make America A Gun Free Society”

  1. Dana says:

    Back in January of 2011, I suggested two constitutional amendments which ought to make the left happy:

    Amendment XXVIII

    Section 1: The First Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
    Section 2: Freedom of speech, publication and broadcasting is guaranteed, save that speech which incites hatred, animosity or violence based on race, ethnicity, non-Christian religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identification may be prohibited.
    Section 3: The free exercise of religion is guaranteed, save that no individual expression of religious faith may be professed in public. No religious belief which would discriminate against any person based on race, ethnicity, non-Christian religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation or gender identification is protected by this amendment, or may be protected by any statute of any level of government.
    Section 4: Neither the United States nor any political subdivision therein may recognize, promote or protect any form of religious institution, belief or opinion. The Congress and the states shall have the power to enforce this provision through appropriate legislation.
    Section 5: (a) The freedom of speech applies solely to individuals. No company, corporation or other organization, save those which exist as representatives of working people, or certified journalistic sources may claim the right to unrestricted speech under the provisions of Section 2, nor may any organization other than a registered campaign organization or political party, engage in any speech or spend any money in support of or opposition to any political candidate.
    (b) No individual member of any organization, save those which exist as representatives of working people, or certified journalistic sources, may claim individual status to circumvent the provisions of Section 5 (a) unless certified by the Federal Election Commission.
    Section 6: The Congress may enact any legislation required to enforce the provisions of this Amendment.

    Amendment XXIX

    Section 1: The Second Amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.
    Section 2: (a) Private ownership of operable firearms is hereby prohibited. The Congress may allow individual, registered collectors to own and possess registered antique firearms, if they are in a permanently disabled condition.
    (b): Neither the government of the United States nor any of the governing subdivisions therein are required to pay compensation for firearms confiscated and destroyed under the provisions of Section 2 (a).
    Section 3: The manufacture, possession, purchase or sale of operable firearms of any type is prohibited within the United States, save for those registered companies manufacturing firearms for the Armed Forces of the United States, or authorized federal, state and local law enforcement agencies certified by the Department of Justice.
    Section 4: The Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment through the passage of appropriate legislation.

    I was being only a bit tongue in cheek about those, but, really, they are pretty much what the left want, but would never dare to say in public.

  2. Dana says:

    The intent of the Framers? They had just won a revolution, which the British tried to put down, in part, by banning the private ownership of firearms in Boston. The Framers knew that free men, to stay free, needed to be able to defend themselves.

    Further, many of the Framers lived on the frontier, where people needed weapons for hunting and to defend themselves from the Indians. James Madison, who was the most influential of the authors of the Bill of Rights, had his home in the western part of Virginia, near (not on) the frontier.

    James Madison’s greatest contribution to the Bill of Rights was a change of language. Many of the states had bills of rights in their constitutions, but most of them said that the government “should not” or “ought not” to infringe on certain rights; Mr Madison changed that to absolute language.

    • What good has changing the words from “should not” or “ought not” to “shall not” made??

      The law is written on paper but it’s only power comes from its enforcement.

      Who enforces the restrictions upon government? The government itself? That’s a joke.

      What mechanism has been put in place for the people to enforce their own law upon government?

      The bill of rights are already gone because the government has already gotten out of the box. The constitution is a joke to those in government because it has no teeth.

      The people are decent and non violent people and will not use force or violence against their government in order to enforce their laws.

      The government will eventually take all natural rights from the people and sell them back to the public as mere privileges granted to them by their overlords.

      Liberals have good intentions but they are clueless about the threat an unlimited government has within a society. As in all nations throughout history, once the major shift takes place, the liberals quickly find out this is not what they thought they were getting and the government is quick to kill those freshly awakened people to avoid rebellion.

      The liberals are already dead, they just don’t know it yet. The government is their worst enemy and once they figure it out, it will be too late for them as history has shown us.

  3. Gun free society sounds like a great idea.

    You first.

    Disarm the police, military and all the alphabet agencies.

    Then all the criminals.

    Better disarm all the foreign militaries and police first.

    Then make all the people who are big and strong give up their muscles and weight so that they are equal in “hurting power” to a 10 year old.

    And anyone who studies martial arts should get brain wiped. (with a cloth or something).

    THEN I will be happy to turn mine in. I will also immediately go into business making and selling swords, archery equipment and polearms.

  4. Jeffery says:

    The highest murder rate in the advanced world, driven by the highest firearm murder rate in the advanced world, and a few dozen school kids gunned down every year is a small price to pay for us keeping the US government at bay with our guns.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Once again the evil little jeffy lies.

      The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world – an average of 88 per 100 people. But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate – that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people.
      Another thing one might note: The top 5 countries for mass shootings per capita all have “restrictive” gun policies.

  5. Conservative Beaner says:

    “a few dozen school kids gunned down every year is a small price to pay for us keeping the US government at bay with our guns.”

    No Jeff it is a high price to pay to satisfy the anti-gun nuts like yourself. In order to make folks like you happy we create “gun free” zones to protect the children but somehow the shooters fail to get the message and turn the place into a shooting gallery.

    So Jeff, what are your ideas for curtailing gun deaths other than suspending the second amendment?

  6. Jeffery says:


    I’m on your side! My house is filled with guns and we’ve never had a mass killing here. And I agree with you that we should allow, or even require, grade school kids to pack a pistol in their knapsack. More guns means fewer shootings, just like more germs means fewer diseases. If the stupid WHO and CDC hadn’t instituted “germ control” we’d all be better off and have fewer bad germ mass killings.

    If we had theaters and malls and grammar schools chock-a-block with armed citizens maybe those body-armored, suicidal and homicidal bad guy, well-regulated militia members would think twice about shooting the place up. If we allowed our police officers to carry guns and trained them in the use, maybe they wouldn’t ever get shot by bad guys.

    A few dead kids is indeed a small price to pay for the security offered us all by our good guy, always ready, well-regulated militia. Whenever a business or church or school puts up a sign saying “no guns”, not only are they violating our 2nd Amendment rights, they’re also inviting bad guys with guns. And an armed citizenry is all that stands between us and foreign invaders, or worse, US tyranny. “Wolverines!” Who’s going to protect you? The police? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?

    Admittedly, it’s sometimes a problem telling good guys from bad guys, and sometimes seemingly good guys with guns turn into bad guys with guys.

    What would one do if they really wanted to reduce mass shootings? One could adopt Switzerland’s policies, I guess, just like we American conservatives recommend.

    As the 2nd Amendment clearly states: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    The Supreme Court of the US government has tyrannically ruled that somehow the fascistic government can limit the type of arm a resident can keep and bear! This is clearly infringing our right to keep and bear! Liberal pussies and their liberal pussy laws have made it seem unseemly for a patriot to walk down the street keeping and bearing an arm, so now fearful sheeple, so-called “concerned citizens” call the fascists police to infringe the patriot’s right to protect himself from government overreach.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Once again, suckingpuppies proves he can’t read. Or maybe he’s just ignorant. “Advanced” nations include Germany, UK, Japan etc, not Honduras, El Salvador etc.

    That’s not to say that our unfettered access to arms is the only reason the US has by far the highest murder rate of the world’s advanced nations.

    It’s clear that 88 guns per 100 people are not enough to keep us safe. We need more.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Once again the evil little jeffy is caught in another lie.
    But this should be expected from a guy who believes Reagan invaded Panama.

Pirate's Cove