Guns And Loafers


Ninety percent of Americans want President Barack Obama and Congress to mandate background checks on any and all Americans who purchase firearms. And if that overwhelming tide of public sentiment isn’t enough to sway your opinion on restricting the Bill of Rights, consider this: 40 percent of all gun sales are conducted without any sort of law enforcement or governmental oversight. Still can’t see the error of “clinging to your… guns?” Here’s another logic bullet upside your dome: 100,000 Americans are killed by guns every year. Are you still fingering the trigger on your “death machine?” Dig this: Each year, more American children are killed by guns than are killed by cancer. If you’re still holding out, you must be a “domestic terrorist.”

I have personally heard and/or read every one of the above statements presented as irrefutable facts by the “low-information” set (loafers) in the just the past week. Of course, not one of them is true; but damn it, you gun zealots, we’re talking about children’s lives! Besides, liberals have no compunction about fudging the facts when it comes to politics. To put the liberal disdain for honesty before ideology in terms even loafers can understand: “by any means necessary” or “the science is settled.”

Ninety percent of Americans clearly don’t support further infringements on the Bill of Rights. Ninety percent of Americans comprise somewhere in the neighborhood of 290 million people. That many Americans couldn’t agree on free beer. Come to think of it, 290 million Americans couldn’t agree on the Presidency, and that’s despite the loafers’ deification of President Barack Hussein Obama. Even CBS News acknowledges:

Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent… Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.

In recent days, anti-Bill of Rights crusaders from Obama and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg on down to the lowest-level loafer have claimed 40 percent of gun sales are conducted without background checks, the so-called “gun show loophole.” The 40 percent number was bogus to begin with (it was based on a poorly sourced 1997 study using questionable data from 1994), and it has disintegrated under scrutiny to such a degree that even The Washington Post noted:

Interestingly, while people often speak of the “gun show loophole,” the data in this…survey shows that only 3.9 percent of firearm purchases were made at gun shows.

Mark Twain (who claimed to be quoting British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli) said: “There are… lies, damned lies and statistics.” The 40 percent claim is only two out of three.

Much like the grammatically twisted phrase “gun violence,” the loafers’ insistence on assigning malicious intent to firearms is not only intellectually dishonest, it’s just plain silly. As I’ve pointed out before: Without an operator, a gun is merely an overengineered paperweight. Since the first 13th century Chinese partisans faced off over a bowl of rice, no firearm has killed anyone ever. Anthropomorphizing guns might make it easier for MSNBC to write spooky ledes, but it won’t make those ledes legitimate. Blaming Newtown on guns is like blaming Chappaquiddick on the Oldsmobile.

Likewise, remarks suggesting guns have killed more children than cancer belong in the rhetorical dustbin. The same loafers who loathe the Bill of Rights the way Vice President Joe “Shotgun” Biden loathes dignified public appearances ought to consider redirecting their rage to something that actually kills more kids than cancer; like abortion. There’s a spectacularly macabre example of my point unfolding in Philadelphia. Plenty of prime seating remains available in the media section.

And the loafers certainly don’t help their cause by equating Bill of Rights defenders with terrorists, domestic or otherwise. Not only does that sort of defamatory fearmongering diminish the pain inflicted by actual terrorists, it makes the fearmongers seem sillier than Biden at a spelling bee. Bill Ayers is a terrorist. Wayne LaPierre is not.

The loafers insist a serious discussion on so-called “gun control” is long overdue. But half-truths and outright lies do not make for a particularly worthwhile discussion. I’m perfectly willing to engage in discussion. They should let me know when they’re ready to get serious.

–Ben Crystal

Personal Liberty

Ben Crystal

is a 1993 graduate of Davidson College and has burned the better part of the last two decades getting over the damage done by modern-day higher education. He now lives in Savannah, Ga., where he has hosted an award-winning radio talk show and been featured as a political analyst for television. Currently a principal at Saltymoss Productions—a media company specializing in concept television and campaign production, speechwriting and media strategy—Ben has written numerous articles on the subjects of municipal authoritarianism, the economic fallacy of sin taxes and analyses of congressional abuses of power.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • independent thinker

    Excellent Ben, Excellent.

  • dan

    interestingly (?) the term loophole originally referred to the opening in a wall or barricade through which an archer or musketeer shot…

    and the only thing less dependable than statistics are those who invent them

  • Warrior

    And to think that in a short while, a couple grand will “buy” you “membership” in the more perfect “union”. Hey, something tells me “trumpka’s” gang is helping to write the “bipartisan comprehensive legal immigration compromise”. All the ‘busy people” are really “busy” writing pages upon pages upon pages of new laws and rules to make every American’s life just a little bit better. And here I thought that better living was brought to us by “chemicals”. Silly Dupont.

  • Peter Barney

    Not the gun. It’s the person!

    • Bob666

      And the person worries me more than the gun does.

      • S.C.Murf

        What in God’s name are you babbling about?

        up the hill

        • Bob666

          Well Smurffy,
          If gun don’t kill people-People kill people is true, then it is the person behind the gun that worries me.

          R e a d I t s l o w l y- l e t I t s i n k i n….

          • vicki

            Every person or just the person with bad (for you) intent?

  • red neck

    I’m still trying to figure out where that 51% of voters came from that “re-elected” king obama… I’m quiet sure that the math was wrong on this as well!

    • Steve E

      They arose from the dead. You will notice that the ones that voted for Obama are either dead or brain dead.

    • Jeff

      [comment has been removed]

  • Cole Johnson

    yeah! hitler used the very same rhetoric! the very same line of manure to manipulate the people into giving up their rights! obummer is using the hitler playbook! he is doing exactly what hitler did! another tyrant and dictator!

    • Jeff

      Can you quote any of it? I think your whole “Hitler” analogy is nothing but baloney! Cite something to support your wild claims!

      • MisterEd13

        Wild claims? It doesn’t take much digging to uncover the evidence that Hitler (and Mussolini, and Stalin) quickly disarmed their people. You must be French. The Frenchies never see their enemies coming until they are outside Paris.

      • JeffH

        Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the nascent private armies, e.g. the Nazi SA (aka “the brownshirts”).

        The 1928 law was subsequently extended in 1938 under the Third Reich (this action being the principal point in support of the contention that the Nazis were advocates of gun control). However, the Nazis were firmly in control of Germany at the time the Weapons Law of 1938 was created. Further, this law was not passed by a legislative body, but was promulgated under the dictatorial power granted Hitler in 1933. Obviously, the Nazis did not need gun control to attain power as they already (in 1938) possessed supreme and unlimited power in Germany.

        What must be remembered is that like the Nazis, the progressives in our government and lthe progressive movement everywhere are master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. This is exactly the kind of mindset shown by the elected eletists and their cronies ruining this nation.
        Obama is a master manipulator but he certainly wasn’t the first and won’t be the last. Our two party system is infected with manipulators and supported by the propagandists.
        Individual thinkers recognize this, those manipulated, the usefull idiots, don’t have a clue!
        There is the danger to which we should pay great heed.

        • JeffH

          Jeff says DUH!

          Where did I compare anyone to Hitler…be specific and don’t try to doubletalk your way around your ignorance and your ignorant response.

          I realize you’re a scardy cat anti-gun nut but equating manipulators and propagandists from the Nazi era to modern day propagandists and manipulators is a more than fair comparison. The fact is that the eletist progressives of the progressive movement that have excelled as manipulators and propagandists controlling the mind and thoughts of their mindless minions…people just like yourself.

          The only sick one here is the one who fits the mold of a “usefull idiot”…YOU!

          History supports my analogy.

          • Jeff

            Here you go. What ever happened to your swastikas and pictures of Uncle Adolph?

            “What must be remembered is that like the Nazis, the progressives in our government and lthe progressive movement everywhere are master manipulators of popular emotion and sentiment, and were disdainful of people thinking for themselves. This is exactly the kind of mindset shown by the elected eletists and their cronies ruining this nation.
            Obama is a master manipulator but he certainly wasn’t the first and won’t be the last. Our two party system is infected with manipulators and supported by the propagandists.”

            Are you trying to show how “non-elitist” you are by spelling the word incorrectly?

            And I don’t think of myself as a scaredy-cat just because I recognize that the more guns there are, the more will end up in the wrong hands. For some weird reason, we have more guns than just about any civilized nation AND we have way more gun deaths than just about any other civilized nation. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence. If you have a gun in your house, it is more likely to be a source of tragedy than protection. Don’t argue with me about it; argue with the math.

          • JeffH

            I understand your long held Nazi fetish but you must be really desperate when you have to reach into the bottom of the barrel and lower yourself to criticizing a spelling error…you must be the spelling Nazi…very weak!

            Jeff then goes on to say that “If you have a gun in your house, it is more likely to be a source of tragedy than protection.”

            Congratulations Jeff, with your mindless and poorley reasoned
            comment you’ve just won the Darwin Award for the day!

            FYI – I’ve owned guns and had them in my home for longer than 50 years and not once has any of them ever come remotely close to being a source of tragedy…and I’ve never bought or owned a gun for protection because there’s nothing I fear that requires me to do so. I also know any of my guns, and I have many, can be used for defensive protection if needed and believe this when I say I know how to use them…safely and securely.
            Don’t split a gusset ans seek some help…God knows you need some!

          • Jeff

            And perhaps you smoke two packs a day and haven’t gotten cancer yet, either. Neither your luck with guns nor your luck with cigarettes alters the statistics!

          • JeffH

            DUH! Just how many different ways can you say DUH?
            What a joke….LMAO! AGAIN!

          • JeffH

            And perhaps you smoke pole and have STD’s and are mentally retarded and haven’t taken your seizure medicine yet.
            Makes just as much sense.

            What statistics?

          • Jeff

            Nazi fetish? Is that what you call it when someone adorns his posts with swastikas? And uses every conversation to compare his political opponents to Nazis? As I’ve told you, once you compare your opponent to Hitler or the Nazis, you’ve lost the argument.

            And certainly you’re smart enough to recognize the “elitism” spelling comment was a joke. You right wingers always like to label anyone on the left “elite” although it’s the economic policies of the right that favor the economic elites. Repugs go to such efforts to avoid the appearance (in public) of elitism that W, the very definition of an elite, pretends to be a hick so he can’t be accused of it. Meanwhile, the guy raised by a single mother with no money – he’s the elite because he speaks in complete sentences. You guys make me laugh.

          • JeffH

            Jeff says DUH! again. While you are basically admitting that you are a progressive I’ll try to give you a little more schooling on the subject so even a caveman can understand.

            In America Progressive eletists are made up of both Debtocrats and Repugnantcans…the Debtocrats play the game a bit better and the O’man is the master at manipulation because that is what the Marxist community organizer is best at.
            You’ve got a lot of learning and growing up to do.

            FYI – Your desperate Hitler analogy doesn’t hold any water either.

  • Kat Hoffman

    I’ve known for some time that the “90%” and “40%” figures were outright lies. But then again if bozo’s lips are moving, he’s lying. If that half breed actually believes he’s going to get our guns, he’s got another thing coming.

    • independent thinker

      I just saw a Newsmax poll that showed 70% of the people DID NOT support expanded background checks. That is consistant with other polls I have seen recently that showed from 70%-85% did not support the background check.

  • Guest

    After the Boston bombing the gun debate should be over we need our guns to protect us from terrorists and our government! Hard to tell the difference these days.

  • rick0857

    Whenever this gun control garbage comes up I always like to refer to the original and most definitive discussion on the subject and quote the man who, in my opinion, settled this discussion long ago:

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

    “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.”

    “One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”

    Thomas Jefferson

    • Guest

      Sorry, but that is a loose translation of a passage from Cesare Beccaria’s “Essay on Crimes and Punishments”, which was included in Jefferson’s “Legal Commonplace Book” – he probably agreed in principle but made no comment to confirm that. Spurious quotations cannot advance the cause.

      • rick0857

        MR. Miss, Mrs. or whatever guest, I suggest you take a look at this then re-think your authoritarian view on what Jefferson may or may not have said.
        I would assume your knowledge comes from some bibliography written by a left wing nut that doesn’t even come close to telling the truth of this Great Man.

    • melody

      This statement is the whole truth & nothing but the truth. Our enemy is the terrorist & his wife sitting in our white house. He kills other peoples children with his drones while we sleep. He its coming for our children just like Hitler did.

  • littleshell

    Funny the libs aren’t concerned about Gosnell the abortionist hacking live children up.

    • Jeff

      Name anyone who supports what he’s accused of doing.

  • sniper223

    Ben who is paying you?You are one of Obamas people and will be one of the first to go down with the people, whom have no way to help any one or there wife and kids. So go to where there are no guns.Then you will be where you can get no help when the governemt takes all that you have like hilter did.

    • independent thinker

      Just who the he!! are you talking to? Ben Crystal has shown many times that he is pro gun.

    • rocketride

      [comment has been removed]

    • MikeW

      Sniper223, Did you read the ENTIRE article, or just the first paragraph? The 2nd paragraph reveals the obvious, that Ben was merely listing the lies used by gun-grabbers in order to further their agenda. These are NOT HIS beliefs.

  • Kid Richie

    The Left is allergic to the Truth!

    “The TRUTH shall make you Free”
    The LIES of the Left shall enslave you!
    Think and choose all you citizens who want Freedom!

    • vicki

      Kid Richie writes:

      The Left is allergic to the Truth!

      Boy you can sure tell that. Just look at how they react to the self evident (and easy to verify) truth that

      ~300 Million Americans did NOT shoot ANYONE

      Stop Punishing the INNOCENT for the acts of a very very very few.

      STOP IT


  • tom calhoun

    this is not about guns its about government control, and by the way government controlling everything does not work either.

    • Eric Why

      and for anyone who doesnt get that point, we have this well known example that used to be called Russia ….

  • Kenneth House


  • Jeff

    Why is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the 2nd Amendment a stand-in for the entire Bill of Rights? Surely even you have enough grey matter to see how foolish that is. I am sure there are many portions of the Bill of Rights where my interpretation is far more anti-Government than is yours. Just because you have a gun fetish and interpret the 2nd Amendment as supreme over all other rights, don’t assume it’s the only way to read it. Even this most conservative of all Supreme Courts, at least since the 1930s, will not interpret the 2nd Amendment as you seem to (i.e. without any limits). What is your definition of the “arms” you are entitled to own, and what is the meaning of the words “well regulated” contained right in the very amendment?

    • vicki

      Jeff writes:

      ” Just because you have a gun fetish….”

      Ad hominem.


      …and interpret the 2nd Amendment as supreme over all other rights”

      And just what right of yours is being infringed upon by my keeping (possessing) and bearing (carrying) a tool of self defense?

      • Jeff

        No. 1, tell me exactly what right you have under the 2nd Amendment. In other words, is there any limit to the type of “arms” you can own and possess?

        The rights of the rest of us are infringed when your gun gets stolen or sold to someone who may be a lunatic. The fact that you may never shoot up a school doesn’t prevent your kid or your grandkid, or one of their friends, or a burglar from getting your gun. Once the gun is “out there,” it may well end up in the hands of a “bad guy.” And the more of them out there (particularly those that can fire 100 rounds per minute), the more of them that will certainly end up in the wrong hands.

        • independent thinker

          ” In other words, is there any limit to the type of “arms” you can own and possess?”
          NO, at least it was no when the 2nd amendment was written. When it was written a person could own any type of firearm/military weapon he could afford. Many individuals owned weapons eaqual to or even better than the government.

          • Jeff

            And do you think that is what was intended by the framers of the 2nd Amendment? If so, do you really think any Supreme Court will so rule? Do you think it is reasonable, in the modern era, to so interpret the 2nd Amendment so you can legally own your own air force, complete with nuclear capability? If not, then where CAN the line be drawn?

          • Jeff

            Frank, I’ve read your posts. I’d be careful about throwing around the “s” word so freely and liberally.

          • JeffH

            Jeff says “Do you think it is reasonable, in the modern era, to so interpret the 2nd Amendment so you can legally own your own air force, complete with nuclear capability? If not, then where CAN the line be drawn?”
            …and this guy wants his anti-gun rhetoric to be taken seriously…
            Reasonable dialog? NOT!

        • vicki

          Jeff writes:

          The rights of the rest of us are infringed when your gun gets stolen or sold to someone who may be a lunatic.

          How have ANY of YOUR rights been infringed on? I’m the one who’s property was taken. I’m the one who has had MY right to keep arms infringed on (by the thief not the government).

          And in your straw-man you STILL have not given evidence that your rights have been infringed on. Clue. The person who may be a lunatic has NOT infringed on ANY of YOUR rights. Not ONE.

          Your entire argument of “wrong hands” does not show that ANY of YOUR rights have been violated. Do you have further evidence to try and explain how any of YOUR rights were violated? Even one of your rights? Just one?

          • Jeff

            We clearly have a difference of opinion. If Charles Manson is your next door neighbor and he is able to steal your AR-15, I think we are all less safe. I would be a lot less concerned about your property rights than about all of our rights to life!

          • vicki

            Your straw man is in jail in case you had not noticed. I also notice (again) that your straw man violated my rights but not yours. Since he did you should be busy helping me and the police get my property back.

            Since in your scenario, he did not do anything but possess my property (after he stole it) I am still waiting for how he has violated YOUR rights or any more of mine.

          • Jeff

            Why do we have laws against dangerous criminals and mentally deranged people having guns since they violate nobody’s “rights” UNTIL they kill someone? Apparently, you don’t think a crazy person with an AR-15 violates anyone’s rights just by having the capacity to kill a bunch of people. But I’m sure someone’s gay marriage violates YOUR rights somehow.

            Yes, I know Manson’s in jail. I was speaking metaphorically, Manson being a stand-in for crazy or dangerous people who shouldn’t have guns. I wouldn’t think I’d have to explain that to anyone over 12.

          • vicki

            Jeff writes:

            Why do we have laws against dangerous criminals and mentally deranged people having guns since they violate nobody’s “rights” UNTIL they kill someone?

            A more interesting (and relevant) set of questions

            Why do you let dangerous criminals out of jail?

            Why do you let mentally deranged people out of mental hospitals?

            Why do you want to expand those laws to include law abiding citizens thus denying them access to the very tools that are best to defend the law abiding from the criminals you won’t keep in jail?


            Apparently, you don’t think a crazy person with an AR-15 violates
            anyone’s rights just by having the capacity to kill a bunch of people.

            You have the capacity to kill a bunch of people. Are you violating anyone’s rights by your existence?


            But I’m sure someone’s gay marriage violates YOUR rights somehow.

            Really? How? Enlighten us.


            Yes, I know Manson’s in jail. I was speaking metaphorically,

            We noticed your straw man.


            I wouldn’t think I’d have to explain that to anyone over 12.

            Ad hominem. But at least you are consistent.

          • JeffH

            Why the Firearms Industry Opposes so-called “Universal Background Checks”

          • JeffH

            Tell Congress to fix NICS now!

            The current background check system is broken.
            “Universal Background Checks” aren’t the answer.
            Let’s fix the broken system.

          • JeffH

            WEAK! If if’s were 24ct gold you’d be a rich man…and a hated one too!

    • Eric Why

      @jeff if you had paid attention, as soon as one of the articles of the bill of rights is nullified, the rest are a short distance behind. the bill of rights was implemented to RESTRICT the power of government by explicitly listing what it could not do. when that limitation is destroyed, line up to get your serial number stencilled on your arm because you will be a piece of property of the government.

      • Jeff

        So, you think any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment other than yours is tantamount to a repeal of the Bill of Rights? Interesting. Let’s just say I disagree.

        • Jeff


          Do you really think your gun is going to protect you from the might of the Government? Maybe that was thinkable in 1790, but in the modern era of standing armies, the very idea is absurd. I can see you and Bob Livingston holed up in Idaho fighting the Government with your AR-15s. How long will that battle last?

          What will protect you from the Government is the Bill of Rights. Your gun may protect you from an intruder in your house, but it’s more likely it will be the instrument of your death or of someone close to you. In fact, for a woman, it’s even worse. She’s much more likely to die from gun violence if she lives in a house with a gun than if she does not. I know, I know, I’m a Commie Pinko Terrorist, but your argument is not with me; it’s with math.

        • Eric Why

          You obviously did not read my statement; If any article of the bill of rights can be eliminated by presidential fiat (executive order); then what does that bill of rights created to restrict the government actually guarantee?

          • Jeff

            You’re just repeating what you said 3 weeks ago. First, no President can eliminate or even enforce his interpretation of any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Secondly, every right in the Bill of Rights represents a balance between individual rights and the needs of the Government. For example, the 5th Amendment says you can’t be compelled to testify against yourself, but ultimately Courts had to determine when your body could be tested by police (fingerprints, BAC, DNA, etc.). Someone taking a purist approach could argue these things should all be against the 5th Amendment, but then we’d have even more innocent people being convicted of things someone else did.

            Taking the position that the 2nd Amendment means the gov’t can’t ever limit the amount of “arms” one can have or who can have them is an extreme position tantamount to saying the 8th Amendment means no one can be put in jail.

            Secondly, what article in the Bill of Rights has been “eliminated by presidential fiat (executive order)”?

  • Tuffy Butler

    Unless, Government officials are aware of some reason or future event about to take place whereas the law abiding citizens would be incentivized to defend themselves against the Government and this nothing more than a strategic plan to get the drop on them. Guns are not the problem and if they were- someone should have told – Timothy McVeigh – John Wayne Gacy – Kenneth Bianchi – Ted Bundy – Gary Ridgeway – Jeffery Dahmer and on and on. I do think it is time for all G-Men and err (to politically correct) G-women to put America first, instead of the usual me and my party first.

  • Robert Smith

    It has come to my attention that the device to contain the explosives used in the Boston Marathon was a pressure cooker. I wonder how long it will be before a demand is made to register all pressure cookers.

    Folks will need to have a background check to buy one.

    Folks will need to take an eight hour class to learn how to cook safely with one.

    Folks will need to buy them with a capacity of no more than 32 ounces.

    Just wondering about that.


  • JD

    Another excellent post of sense and reason. Too bad “low information voters” can’t absorb rational thinking. Read a bumper sticker earlier, ” Your kid is gay, well that’s ok “…….really!?

  • mattogilvie55

    I no longer want a discussion with the Loafers, as you so eloquently put it. I just want them silenced so they cannot destroy America any more than what they already have.

    • Jeff

      The Loafers being those who disagree with you? How about those who work hard, can buy and sell you 10 times over, and still think we need a social contract with a reasonable social safety net?

      • Frank Kahn

        Do you ever even know what you are talking about. What does a social safety net have to do with this article? And I dare you to try and buy me even one time let alone being rich enough to do it 10 times over. Our ethics are not for sale, unlike you we respect ourselves.

        • Jeff

          Calm down, Frank. The point was calling people who disagree with you “Loafers” is both inaccurate and idiotic. Many people who are well off still disagree with you and calling them loafers is wildly inaccurate.

          • Frank Kahn

            No, I have good reading comprehension skills, and the point was that you were deriding him as being financially inferior to some people that are disagreeing with him. My point was that, their wealth has nothing to do with the issue. Loafers does not necessarily mean that you dont have money. Many, hell, most of the rich people never worked a day in their lives. It is all old money they inherited. I would call them loafers too.

          • mattogilvie55

            Go back and read the article. Then get back with us about the loafer comment.

          • Jeff

            I will admit I have trouble reading Ben’s nonsense. He tries very hard to be funny, but he fails. He’d LOVE to be Jon Stewart, but it just didn’t work out for Ben. As best I can tell, a loafer is someone who disagrees with Ben, the implication being that only people on welfare vote for Democrats. Mitt Romney actually wasn’t far off on the numbers. There are probably around 47% of Americans who would never vote for him. There may also be 47% who don’t make enough to pay taxes. The problem is, they’re not the same people. Sure, there’s bound to be some overlap, but the people who would never vote for Romney are many well-educated people who can’t abide the Republicans’ anti-science, anti-modernism, anti-women stances. What Romney failed to understand is that many (maybe half, maybe most) of the people he was describing (essentially as loafers) are potential Republican voters. How do you win all those Red states without getting a lot of poor people to vote for you?

            Read “What’s The Matter With Kansas?”

      • mattogilvie55

        They don’t have the nerve to even try, sunshine. Neither do you, for that matter.

  • ChuckS123

    Bloomberg’s group put out some TV ads. They show a guy who claims to be a hunter, but he has 2 big safety violations. He’s holding his shotgun horizontally – it should be pointed up or down. Also, he has his finger on the trigger. I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy never actually held a gun before he did the ad. See the picture about 6 paragraphs down.

  • MisterEd13

    Hey, Ben, you know what’s really cool about your articles? You get to the point (which is always good) quickly, and you make your point without belaboring it. Man, you’re gooooooood!!!!!!!!

  • jetstream

    Great article, Ben!


    I’m wondering what is wrong with Jeff. He has the misconception that women don’t know how to use a weapon. My sister and I were both in the Jr NRA when we were kids, and we both fired expert on the firing range. I qualified expert while I was in the Air Force. Our mother learned to shoot when she was a child. I have a neighbor whose wife owns a .357 and knows how to fire it without hitting herself. The wife of another neighbor of mine is also a crack shot. My late wife also knew how to shoot. So don’t think that just because there is a weapon in the house, that women are at risk. Here’s a little advice, if you ever encounter a woman with a gun and she knows how to use it, be more afraid of her than someone who doesn’t know how to use one. You are one of the “loafers” because you fail to understand the logic of the 2nd ammendment, and the fact that we have way too many gun laws on the books as it is. Most of which are totally unconstitutional in the first place.

    • JeffH

      USAFVET – you might find this article very interseting
      Unintended Victims – Gun Controls Impact On The Disadvantaged & Under-Represented Groups

      California – She went home from the gun store to endure a ten day cooling off period before she could take her new gun home.

      But her estranged husband, the subject of a restraining order, was not cooling off about their pending divorce.

      That same evening she was raped, beaten nearly to death, and their son was almost killed by the man he once called “Daddy.”

      Every law has unintended consequences. Many have perverse intended consequences. Nowhere are the perverse results more horrific than with gun control laws, because laws relating the legal acquisition of firearms often harm no one except those who are inclined to obey such legislation.

      Disempowering Women
      The old adage goes: “When a 220 pound rapist attacks a 110 pound woman, the rapist wins. When a 200 pound rapist attacks a 110 pound woman with a revolver, the revolver wins.”

      Despite legal equality, the reality is that typically women are physically unequal to men. On average women are weaker, putting woman at a disadvantage during physical altercations with a man. Many thuggish men rely on this, and it shows in the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics. Women are nearly as likely to be assaulted as men, but are less physically able to resist. Needless to say, women make up nearly all rapes victims. The curve also disfavors younger women (ages 12-24) who are more prone to being violently attacked than older women.

      Given these physical dynamics, a woman’s enhanced ability in defending herself becomes important. According to national victimization surveys gathered by the government, the most commonly advised forms of self-defense or physical resistance are largely ineffective and often downright dangerous. To avoid injury and death, women should avoid physical, or even close contact with their attacker.

      But using a gun results in the victim being injured about 1/5th as often as when mere physical resistance was used, and 1/4th of as often when trying to get help. So of all means cataloged, using a gun for self-defense resulted in fewer people suffering at the hands of violent attackers.

      This is where gun control really works to a woman’s detriment. Many attacks occur in the home, a place where it takes an average of 8-10 minutes for an officer to arrive … and that is if a woman can reach the telephone and dial 9-1-1. Combined, this makes self-defense a requisite for women. Laws designed to slow or prevent acquisition of firearms make injury from attack more probable, and given physical disparities, make it more likely that women are injured or killed.

  • JeffH

    Is this GUN NUT DAVE or is it MEMOREX:

    “Ninety percent of Americans want President Barack Obama and Congress to mandate background checks on any and all Americans who purchase firearms. And if that overwhelming tide of public sentiment isn’t enough to sway your opinion on restricting the Bill of Rights, consider this: 40 percent of all gun sales are conducted without any sort of law enforcement or governmental oversight.”

    The Myth Of 90% Support For Gun Control
    More of that “90 percent” nonsense debunked, this time in the Washington Post. Did Republicans really end up on the wrong side of a landslide issue?

    Not so much, according to a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll. Yes, a plurality (47 percent) describe themselves as either “angry” or “disappointed” about the failure of the gun legislation but 39 percent call themselves “relieved” or ”happy” about what happened. That’s a far cry from the 90-ish percent support that expanding background checks – the centerpiece of the proposed legislation — enjoyed.

    Some percentage of people can’t name the President or Vice President. Frankly, I’m surprised that the numbers don’t overlap (for example, 60% of all people are pissed off about the failure of gun control, 60% of the people are relieved about its failure).

    The polls don’t mean anything, and the 90%+ meme was always a lie told to bolster support for their plans. I’ve told you before. The only poll that matters is the one where people have to open their wallets. It gets serious when people have to spend money.


    Gun Owners Should Drive Gun Grabbers into Political Oblivion

    Bethesda, MD – “American gun owners should resolve to drive gun grabbers into social and political oblivion,” gun law expert John M. Snyder said here today.

    He said also that. “Gun owners and gun owner groups should develop, promote and implement an attack strategy against gun grabbing establishmentarians.”

    “For over four decades,” he continued, “law-abiding gun owners and gun rights organizations have fought the enemies of freedom generally from a defensive position, reacting against anti-gun proposals as they are advanced.

    “However, gun rights people and interests should go on the offensive. It’s time to attack ideologically and practically the gun-grabbing establishment and its spokesmen and adherents with vim, vigor and absolute determination.”

    Snyder said, “America’s 100 million owners of 300 million rifles, shotguns and handguns and national, state and local organizations of firearms organizations can launch a massive counterattack on the gun-grabbing forces of evil.

    “The defeat of gun control in the Senate recently can be a springboard for this.”

    Snyder estimated that, “Gun grabbers in the White House, politics, media, churches, schools and business spent thousands of hours and tens of millions of dollars on their nefarious plan.”

    Snyder declared that. “The bad guys want to impose more restrictions on gun rights.”

    “These forces of evil lie,” he stated. “They lie that government restrictions on the civil rights of citizens will foster reductions in the murderous activities of criminals and crazies.

    “The very opposite is true, as common sense as well as studies indicate.”

    Snyder said that, “Gun owners and organizations of firearms owners should develop a strategic plan for the ultimate defeat of the gun grabbers and for their social and political destruction. There are bright and dedicated men and women in various capacities and groups in the United States whose coalescence can contribute to the development of such a plan.