I Would Like to Address Gun Fanatics & Their Ridiculous Pro-Gun Propaganda

I’ve reached my limit when it comes to people who can’t even attempt to be the slightest bit rational or reasonable about sensible gun regulations.

When I say “sensible,” that does not mean I support gun confiscations. It’s absolutely ridiculous how any time we try to have an adult conversation about guns in this country, gun fanatics go off on unhinged tangents about “getting rid of the Second Amendment” and “confiscating all of our guns,” usually followed by several references to Nazi Germany.

Here’s the truth: We’re interpreting a Second Amendment that was written over 200 years ago, during a different time in our society when guns were much different and a “well regulated militia” was a vital part of keeping this nation secure.

Times have changed. 

Now, does that mean I oppose our Second Amendment? No, absolutely not. I am 100 percent in favor of every single law-abiding American having the right to bear arms.

That being said, people do not need military-style assault rifles for self-protection or to “defend themselves and their family.” Just because an AK-47 or AR-15 is modified to be less powerful and lethal specifically to sell to ordinary citizens does not change the reality that these guns were designed and engineered for war.

Besides, if what you really care about is self-defense and protecting your family, you’re going to be reaching for some sort of handgun or shotgun. If you need an AR-15 loaded with a 30-round magazine to defend your family, you’re either too lousy of a shot to be handling weapons in the first place — or you’re living in Fallujah.

Then there’s this nonsense about “guns have nothing to do with gun violence.” Look, yes, if these folks want to be technical about this then they’re right. A gun, by itself, cannot randomly kill anyone. However, you could say the same thing about grenades, RPGs or nuclear weapons. Without a human using any one of those weapons they’re essentially harmless.

So, what’s the real issue? It’s guns mixed with the ridiculously easy access to these weapons we have in this country. Think about this for a moment: a person can walk into Walmart and buy a gun — freaking Walmart. 

Buying a gun in this country shouldn’t be impossible, but it also shouldn’t be nearly as easy as buying a loaf of bread or a damn car battery, either. The reality is, because of our nation’s incredibly lax gun laws, we’ve allowed well over 300 million guns to flood our society, many of which have easily found their way into the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.

Oh, and can these people stop it with this idiocy about “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” Whether these people will admit it or not, the Orlando shooter (since he bought his weapons legally) was a “good guy with a gun” — up until he murdered 49 people. In fact, I’ve yet to have any gun fanatic explain to me how I can tell the difference between a “good guy” and a “bad guy” until the “bad guy” starts shooting people.

Like this guy in Colorado Springs who killed three people on Halloween. He was just a “good guy with a gun” who police couldn’t do anything about because open carry laws stated he was within his legal rights to stalk his three victims before killing them.

By the way, if you want to line up the “Second Amendment-hating liberals who want to infringe upon your rights,” you’re going to have to put Ronald Reagan among us. See, that’s a fact you won’t see mentioned by the conservative media: Reagan supported the 1994 ban on assault weapons.

Another little “fun fact” to present to these particular individuals: We already know that gun regulations do work in this country.

How, you ask? Well, it’s simple.

We highly regulate fully-automatic weapons in this country, making them extremely difficult to obtain. That’s probably why we don’t hear about too many horrific mass murders being carried out by fully-automatic weapons — because regulations prevented the “bad guy” from getting them.

Or are there people in this country who honestly believe that the regulation on these fully-automatic weapons has nothing to do with that? Do they think it’s all just “by chance”?

The reality is that guns aren’t toys and they’re not meant for hobbies. They’re weapons designed to kill and it’s about damn time we start treating them as such. What the vast majority of Democrats want are the following:

  • Universal background checks on all gun purchases.
  • To reinstitute the assault weapons ban.
  • Restrictions on magazine size.
  • To include screenings for mental health.
  • Suspected terrorists should not be allowed to buy guns.

That’s about it.

Most of us don’t want to take over 90 percent of the available guns in this country and make them illegal to own. We also don’t want to punish “law-abiding citizens” from having the ability to defend themselves and their families. All we want to do is enact common sense reforms to make sure that certain military-style weapons aren’t sold to civilians; that we’re making it incredibly difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get these weapons; that every gun purchase requires a background check; and we limit the magazine size of some weapons to prevent someone from being able to discharge 30-40 rounds in less than a minute.

And if we did all of that, every single “law-abiding citizen” would still be able to own over 95 percent of the guns we sell in this country.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • noah vail


    • kduke

      No, sorry. Most of the mass killings have been done by people who had no intention of surviving the event, so more prison is not the answer to this specific problem. And, we already have statutes– many– which stiffen prison sentences for firearms use. It’s not a new idea.

      • Eg Kbbs

        And so much of history had periods with draconian laws. They tended to destabilize society.

        Just look at the number of people in prison under the 3-strikes laws. Or number of people with extreme sentences for marijuana.

  • Eg Kbbs

    And as to prove how extremists have taken over the 2nd Amendment, facebook’s auto-suggest feature has this article for you. Just in case you can’t live with an AR-15 that only does semi-automatic. (Initially, I thought this had to be a satire/joke.)


  • Dan Warner

    “Most of us don’t want to take over 90 percent of the available guns in this country and make them illegal to own.” “All we want to do is enact common sense reforms to make sure that certain military-style weapons aren’t sold to civilians.” Your own numbers belie your ‘common sense’ stance. You realize that the vast majority of firearms available on the market today are based on military weapons, right? I mean, if you held back the bile long enough to cross the threshold of a gun-store and asked them to make a pile of all their guns that aren’t based on designs used in military conflicts, they’d look at you funny and hand you a BB gun, a muzzle-loader, and a bottle of Windex. That’s how intrinsically-linked military and civilian arms are.

    “Military-style…” So style is important…? Not rate of fire, caliber, Direct Impingement-vs-Piston operated, DA/SA, LOP, BBL, twist-rate, etc. etc. but…. style? So a bulldozer is an assault vehicle because it has tracks styled like a tank? A dualie is in the same class as an MRAP because style-wise they both have six wheels? Clearly not. The reason people come across as ignorant when they suggest prohibiting ‘AR-47 assault guns with 30 clip caliber automatic magazines and pistol-grip shrouds with telescopic muzzle lasers’ is because, well, they’re ignorant. I wouldn’t have the chutzpah to propose legislation on issues I don’t understand. But I guess unjustified self-confidence when trying to put limits on things you don’t personally care about has never been a problem for either side of the aisle. It’s pretty easy to make laws when you think they won’t affect you. Don’t use firearms on a regular basis? Prohibit firearms, no problem. Don’t smoke pot on a regular basis? Prohibit pot, no problem. You’ve got no skin in the game. Prohibition’s always worked in the past, no?

    Putting that stack of logic aside, let’s examine “If you need an AR-15 loaded with a 30-round magazine to defend your family, you’re… too lousy of a shot to be handling weapons in the first place…” The point of having a standard capacity (yes, 30-rounds for an AR-platform is standard, not high capacity. High capacity is the 60-100 round magazines available for the platform) is not so we shoot more during a defensive encounter; it’s so we have to manipulate the weapon less. Because the last thing you want to be doing when you’re trying to save your life or that of someone else is to fumble through a reload on a two-way range. You want me to bring ten tiny fire extinguishers instead of one big one when your house is on fire? And where would that reload come from? You want me to sleep in a tactical bathrobe with ten three-round magazines stuffed in the pockets? That’ll make you feel safer?

    “People do not need military-style assault rifles for self-protection or to “defend themselves and their family.” Says who? Why would you want to unnecessarily limit the options for legal self-defense? To give intruders a fighting chance? That’s pretty twisted. As far as “good guys with guns.” They exist. We know they do. Because -as you said- there are 300 million firearms in private hands that didn’t hurt anybody yesterday. And as I recall, the Orlando terrorist didn’t have a sudden crisis of conscience; a good guy with a gun rolled up and shot him. Last I checked, folks were criticizing the officers’ response: a good guy with a gun didn’t show up to shoot the bastard *fast enough*.

    I’ll throw this in for free…. I’m an instructor and consultant. I work with military, police, and civilians alike — both novices and high-level weapons handlers. The reason your “military-style” firearms have naturally absorbed the lion’s-share of the civilian market is ease-of-use and dependability. It used to be that when a woman came to me looking for defensive solutions, she’d be stuck with a snubnose .38 with a long, heavy, double-action trigger. Difficult to manipulate, no discernible sights, useless in the dark, and too few rounds to solve most real-life problems, statistically. Or maybe a 12ga shotgun (also used by the .mil) that she can be terrified of. Now I can set her up with a home-defense long gun and concealed carry pistol with a manageable trigger, quality sighting options, platforms to add lights and optics, enough rounds on-board to solve real-world problems (remember, the national police average hit-ratio is 1-in-4. So every fourth round an officer fires actually hits his intended target anywhere on the body, to include big toes and pinky fingers) and general ease-of-use. Which is why the fastest growing group of shooting enthusiasts is women, both statistically and anecdotally. So why is it you don’t think women should have the best tools to defend themselves? My wife not having appropriate defensive tools to protect herself and our children when I’m away makes you feel warm and fuzzy? Hoplophobe

    That makes you pretty sick, man. Not that I expect any of my left-leaning cohorts to take the time to read this.

    • radarrat

      I love the part about how the 2 Amendment was written a long time ago and things have changed. Yes they have, so I move we update the whole damn thing, including the 1st Amendment. Geez