Browse By

Repeat After Me: Let's Ban People, Then

Who’s writing? What’s the problem?

Anthony Schnotala, Hickory Corners MI, March 8 2013: “It’s not the guns that are the problem, it is the people.”

Ann Wood, paraphrasing Rupert Bankert, Provincetown MA, March 1 2013: “Guns aren’t the problem, people are.”

Sydney Manning, Springfield VA, February 21 2013: “Guns aren’t the problem, people are.”

Matthew Semrau, Oakland University MI, February 5 2013: “Guns aren’t the problem, people are.”

Gary Lemmons, Yakima WA, January 31 2013: “Guns aren’t the problem, but some people are.”

Daniel Meakem, Wanaque NJ, January 28 2013: “Guns are not the problem; the people who wield them are.”

Cassie Folman, Hightstown NJ, January 26 2013: “Guns aren’t the problem, people are”

Mr. Tennessee, January 23 2013: “Guns aren’t the problem. People are.”

Scott Berry, Oconee County GA, January 8 2013: “The weapons aren’t the problem, but we have a mental health crisis in this country; we have a people problem in this country.”

Shall we ban people, then?

Where did all these people get the idea to say that “guns are not the problem, people are the problem?” Well, who can say?

Oh, look. A few more quotes dropped into my lap.

Sam Aydlette, Campaign for Liberty 501(c)(4) corporation, Springfield VA, December 27 2012: “Guns Are Not the Problem, People Are”

Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institution, December 12 2012 for Patriot News: “Guns are not the problem. People are the problem.”

6 thoughts on “Repeat After Me: Let's Ban People, Then”

  1. manning120 says:

    I think people ARE the problem, because they insist on possessing hazardous things, viz., firearms. Let’s see if those who blame people are willing to put the blame where it belongs by imposing, legally, strict liability on anyone who intentionally or negligently allows their firearms to be obtained by criminals or suicidal persons, or those not able to safely operate them, when, as a result, injury or death occurs. This simple remedy would save thousands of lives by motivating gun possessors to lock up their weapons and otherwise very closely supervise their use. This proposal would require no banning of firearms or weapons. I’m amazed this proposal is still not prominent in public discourse.

  2. Moderate says:

    Well, banning people is clearly going too far. I don’t think anyone is advocating that. But we could begin by putting severe regulations on people. For instance, we could take away their civil liberties. Create military courts or send people to corporate arbitration. Construct a database and data-mining center, preferably somewhere in the remote Utah desert, to store personal information and keep tabs on what people are doing and saying. Counter potential threats using drone aircraft. All of this is possible, but only if the anti-gun liberal left commie Occupy pinko wackos will just abandon the politics of class warfare and show their support for some of these moderate, bipartisan policies.

    1. Dave says:

      For my Grandpa, a gun was just another tool in the shed. Everybody had’em. He didn’t allow his kids to have bicycles, though. Too dangerous.

  3. Jim Cook says:

    I love gun politics. So many contradictions.

  4. Bill says:

    Say, I think you’re on to something here, Jim; I’m all for banning people. I once took a ‘personality test’ that asked “What’s the first thing you notice about people?” To which I replied, “That they are in my way.”

  5. Tom says:

    Let’s go ’em one better – rocket launchers for ever’body!
    Bazookas in ever backpack! That’ll keep ’em safe, eh?
    Flame-throwers to start yer barbeques – “why walk all a way out thar to yer grail when you kin laht ‘er up from hair?”
    Land mine yer back yard – keep ’em strays away!
    Hey, tanks for all your support!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!