Quote of the Day
An honest argument for Prohibition would — at the VERY least — acknowledge the social good that privately-owned firearms provides, and then attempt to justify prohibiting them anyway. A FULLY honest argument would also acknowledge the potential second-order effects of banning guns, such as increased crime against citizens rendered defenseless by the ban. But that would be an uphill battle, so Prohibitionists choose instead to “lie by omission,” frame their arguments exclusively around the social negatives of crime and violence, and never mention that guns can also be defensive or how often defensive gun use happens.
Anti-gun people lie — a LOT — because they have to. If they were honest about their intentions or the real-world effects of their proposed laws/policies, they’d never succeed.
Archer
April 28, 2026
Comment to Brian Stelter Goes off Half-Cocked
It has been a part of their culture for decades and perhaps a century or more.
“An honest argument for Prohibition would”.
Yes, but there is no “honest” argument outside of, “we need you unarmed so our thugs can mercilessly murder you and your children.”
We are the only ones that seek honest and open engagement over facts. They never have, can’t, and never will.
The problem is we want to believe we live in a civilized society.
When an “honest” argument would show we never have had one. And certainly never will with a communist insurrection in midst. Coupled with a government full of traitors.
We keep trying to talk about the love of Jesus, to ISIS.
When the true problem is we’re the ones that need the “come to Jesus” moment about who and what we’re dealing with.
I’m always amused (in an ironic sense) after every high-profile mass shooting, when the Left comes out of the woodwork and says, “We need to have a national conversation on guns!”
Bruh, where have you been? We’ve all been HAVING a “national conversation on guns” since 1934. I joined it personally about two decades ago, give or take. It has never ended.
And we’ve invited the Left to engage. We’ve reached out. We’ve offered to discuss and find common ground. And we’ve been ignored at every stretch … until they can use a high-profile murder scene to claim that we obstinately refuse to discuss the issue.
They don’t just lie about guns, or gun owners, or the facts. They go so far as to lie about “the conversation” itself, as if we’ve all been refusing to have a conversation, when the reality is we’ve been having a conversation and invited them, but they refused to join.
When they can’t even be honest about the conversation they say they want to have, why should we trust them on anything else?
The only “conversation on guns” that really matters much is the one occurring in 1789 – when the 2A was drafted. Anything after that is largely noise.
Yes, you and I know that. They know it as well. But the reality is what i said yesterday.
Maybe no one on our side reads Sal Alinsky. But the commie left lives by it.
“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”
The talking part was done long ago. Gun-control Inc. is just a grift you and I pay for till they can make the above a reality.
There is never an “honest” anything to be had from communist this side of a bullet to the back of your head.