George Takei and Ladd Everitt. (Photo: Facebook)
Last week I interviewed Ladd Everitt, the director of One Pulse for America, a pro-gun control organization founded by actor George Takei in the wake of the mass killing at The Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.
I wanted to ask Ladd a series of questions because I do believe, between the pending Kavanaugh SCOTUS confirmation and the emergence of the downloadable gun, that those seeking to roll back the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens are in deep trouble. I wanted to see if he sensed what I feel, that if judge Kavanaugh does join the bench it’ll indubitably have a crippling effect on the modern gun-control movement.
Let me be clear that this is a Q&A — not a debate. I emailed Ladd all five questions at once and then he responded. There was no back and forth and I did not attempt to dispute his claims. I did this for two reasons. First, for the sake of brevity. As it stands this article is already over 2,700 words. Had I counterpunched (which was incredibly tempting to do, by the way) we’d be well over 3,500 words.
Second, because I want YOU to respond to Ladd in the comments section. Rarely do we get an opportunity to converse with someone on the other side of the gun divide, especially someone who has been at it as long as Ladd has. Before working with One Pulse, Ladd spent years working with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, another group dedicated to agitating for tougher gun laws.
All I ask is that you do not resort to name-calling. Respond to Everitt’s arguments, not his personhood.
Q&A
S.H. Blannelberry: I wanted to start out by asking you as an advocate for tougher gun laws, where do you draw the line when it comes to regulations on the 2A? At what point do you say, “Okay, that’s good enough”? Is it at a point where the U.S. has adopted European/Australian-style gun laws, i.e. widespread prohibitions on all semiautomatic firearms and heavy ownership restrictions on everything else (gun licensing, rigid safe storage requirements, extensive background checks, etc.)? There’s now talk of banning all handguns in Canada, is that something you’d support? What is your ideal “gun safety” scenario?
Ladd Everitt: I don’t view it as “regulation of the Second Amendment” because of my reading of history. I’ve never bought into the NRA’s ridiculous talking point that our Founders ratified the amendment to guarantee individuals the right to employ a broad range of firepower to deter criminal threats and the U.S. government. The surviving debate and relevant documents prove the amendment was about federalism; the matter of who would control the states’ then-vital Militia forces and arm them. Madison & Co. eventually opted for a compromise—the sharing of that power between our federal government and state governments. The only regulations I could see impinging on the Second Amendment would be ones that prohibit the states from organizing and arming their Militia. I can’t recall ever having seen such attempted regulation.
As for our current federal and state gun laws, they are weak, ridden with loopholes, and in need of comprehensive reform. Here are some things I’d like to see done moving forward:
1) National licensing and registration of firearms/gun owners in the United States. Federal licensing and registration has been a tremendous success story under the National Firearms Act since 1934. Fully-automatic weapons are rarely if ever used in crime because the background investigation involved to obtain one is robust. Licensing & registration systems take the time necessary to accurately verify an applicant’s history of violence (NOT just through an instant computer check, but with that as one element of a larger process).
Civilian owners are 100% accountable for registered firearms. No having your machine gun turn up on a crime scene and telling law enforcement, “Sorry, I lost that one a few months ago.” It’s time for unregulated private transfers to go the way of the dinosaurs.
I have no problem with civilian handgun ownership under a national licensing and registration system (although I do want modern-day technology implemented to make handguns safer).
I don’t really care about the dramatic conspiracy theories that accompany licensing and registration in pro-gun circles. Mentally and emotionally healthy people understand that virtually every other democracy on the planet has national and licensing registration for firearms, their gun death/injury rates are astronomically lower, and no one has been enslaved.
It would be an inconvenience for gun owners, the same way dealing with the DMV is a pain in the ass. But saving lives is a hell of a lot more important than avoiding inconvenience. It always has been.
LBJ wanted national licensing and registration in the 1960s and was deeply disheartened when Congress gave him the weak Gun Control Act. He knew it couldn’t keep guns away from violent people like Lee Harvey Oswald. One day when we enact a national licensing & registration law in this country, President Johnson will be seen as a visionary.
2) The repeal of federal and state laws that treat gun owners like super-citizens, giving them rights that non-gun owners do not enjoy, including the right to kill needlessly in the public space.
3) Bring regulation of the gun industry and storage of gun sales records into the 21st century by using the best technology available, not the worst. It’s time to solve gun crimes in the United States with high-end computers, not microfiche.
4) I would like to see safe storage requirements and/or Child Access Prevention laws in all 50 states and I want to see them ENFORCED. I’d apply those laws to homes containing minors age 18 and under and also possibly to certain homes with individuals at risk of harming self/others (with due process).
5) I want do large-scale national gun buyback programs. Incentivize Americans to give up their guns and assist in a de-proliferation effort that is absolutely necessary. There are WAY too many guns in the U.S. right now—more than 325 million by recent estimates. It’s time to begin reducing that stockpile and making our neighborhoods safer. These programs could seek sources of funding both public and private.
6) Complete review of the outdated and sometimes arbitrary prohibited categories for gun buyers that were largely developed in 1968. It’s senseless to ignore 50 years of peer-reviewed research since that time that better informs who is likely to be violent based on certain past behaviors. For example, there is a great deal of evidence that individuals with violent misdemeanor convictions are more likely to engage in violent crime than average Americans. They should be prohibited from purchasing/owning firearms.
To be fair, however, such a process should also remove some Americans from the prohibited list. For example, there are severely mentally ill individuals who undergo treatment, recover their mental health, and are safe/fit to own firearms. Overall, I want a system that is more accurate and fair in gauging a buyer’s history of violence and making the determination as to whether that person should be prohibited.
Etc., etc. There’s a lot of work to do. But none of it should prohibit individuals without a history of violence from buying/owning firearms (handguns and long guns) in this country. That can be done responsibly, safely and for the betterment of everyone.
S.H. Blannelberry: Let’s talk about modern sporting rifles. Most gun-control advocates support banning them. However, recently, Vice News contributor Krishna Andavolu acknowledged that banning AR-pattern rifles is essentially a futile endeavor for practical as well as political reasons. With at least 8 million in circulation it would be impossible to round them all up, he argues, while also pointing out, as many others have, that “statistically speaking, they don’t account for a large share of these tragedies.” Then there’s, what he calls, the “axiom of prohibition” which basically means the minute you tell people they can’t have something, they immediately start to want it. We saw this during the Obama years; sales of black rifles spiked because Sen. Feinstein and others introduced legislation to reinstate the Clinton-era ban. Do you acknowledge the real-world limitations of attempting to outlaw what has become the best selling rifle in America?
Ladd Everitt: I understand that handguns are portable and easier to use than long guns, so therefore they are more commonly used in the constant gun homicides and suicides we see in this country. That said, it’s also true that semiautomatic-fire battlefield rifles like the AR-15 are more lethal than handguns and that is the reason they long ago became the weapon of choice for mass shooters, cop-killers and insurrectionists. I believe both the American public and the American government have a valid and compelling interest in regulating these weapons to prevent mass-casualty events and harm to our democratic institutions.
I don’t see any “real-world” limitations to properly regulating assault rifles. There are a couple of different ways you can go about it. One way is the strengthened federal legislation to ban assault weapons (moving down to a 1-feature test). But Giffords also has an interesting idea—extending the NFA licensing/registration requirements to owners of semiautomatic battlefield rifles. I’m fine with either approach.
I’ve never heard of Krishna Andavolu but he is apparently isn’t aware of the success that other democracies have had with national gun buyback programs. Given the phenomenon of stockpiling we’ve seen in this country for decades, I’d imagine there are a lot of guys out there who’d be interested in selling some of their semiauto rifles if they could get fair prices. Incentivize these owners and exploit the demand/supply equation. It’s worth doing and something millions of Americans would get behind immediately.
The U.S. put a man on the moon. We do big things right. Now it’s time to invest in peace.
S.H. Blannelberry: Quick follow up to the issue of the futility of a ban. What do you make of Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed, who has ushered in the era of the downloadable gun? It seems now that regardless of what laws are on the books, there will be unfettered access to firearms of all makes and models on the internet henceforth. The genie is outta the bottle, so to speak. Not only that but with 3-D printing and mini CNC mills do-it-yourself gunsmithing has never been easier. I cannot see how this is anything but a huge victory for 2A purists like myself. Your thoughts?
Ladd Everitt: The “victory” achieved by Cody Wilson was exposed when he was charged with sexually assaulting a girl “younger than 17.” Now he’s fled to Taiwan to avoid justice. Cody’s no hero. He’s a profound narcissist who has long advocated for a “right” to violent insurrection against our American government. The breaking news gives us a clearer understanding as to why he was eager to create a process by which guns can be made secretly. There’s nothing glamorous about it.
The “genie out of the bottle” argument is just another weak attempt to forestall gun regulation in a country mobilizing behind it post-Parkland shooting/NRA treason with Russia revelations. For all his endless chest-beating, Cody was licensed by the federal government to manufacture firearms. He was never operating in rogue fashion. The government knew exactly who he was and what he was doing.
It’s true that blueprints for 3D-printed guns will eventually make their way online in some fashion, but there’s nothing in the world that prevents us from regulating future gun printers as effectively as we’ve regulated Cody. We should continue to work with public and private actors to keep the blueprints off the Internet. We should also invest manufacturers of 3D-printers in the process and invite their expertise, their solutions, to prevent the printing of guns. It would be great PR for them and they’d move more product because of it!
If necessary, we can also create new federal and/or state criminal penalties for individuals who make and transfer firearms without serial numbers. The American public is firmly behind regulating the mass-printing of firearms by civilians for public safety. This will be handled post-Trump.
S.H. Blannelberry: Let’s turn to Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh. While serving on the D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh wrote a dissent that applied the “in common use for lawful purposes” standard, discussed in the landmark Heller Decision, to argue that the District’s ban on modern sporting rifles was unconstitutional. Here’s part of what he penned:
In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns — the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic — are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.
If confirmed by the Senate, Kavanaugh would be a decisively pro-gun justice. Moreover, if a case challenging the constitutionality of black rifle bans or may-issue concealed carry laws were to make it to the high court sometime in the not so distant future it is hard to see it ending in any other way but a 5-4 decision in favor of gun rights. What say you?
Ladd Everitt: I think your analysis is correct regarding Kavanaugh and future rulings on gun laws. If Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed, it’s also undoubtedly true of anyone Trump might nominate in his wake.
This confirmation process does indeed present an existential threat to efforts to reduce gun violence in this country. That’s how it’s been treated by people in the gun control movement since Justice Kennedy retired. It’s part and parcel of a much larger constitutional crisis created by this treasonous, autocratic administration in the White House and the Congress that serves as its defender.
S.H. Blannelberry: We vehemently disagree on the gun issue. But in terms of crime stats, we both agree that school shooters and terrorists make up less than 3 percent of the nation’s gun homicides. We also agree that violence in urban areas accounts for the majority of the nation’s gun homicides. I’m curious to know your thoughts on promising social programs like Operation Ceasefire, which is predicated on the belief that the vast majority of violent crime is often driven by a very small network of individuals, and that if a community can reach out and provide support, financial and otherwise, to these high-risk individuals, a reduction in violence can be realized. Do you believe that pro-gunners and anti-gunners should invest more time and capital in finding ways to reduce violence that are mutually agreeable? Imagine, for a moment, if Bloomberg and the NRA teamed up to fund a nationwide Operation Ceasefire? The results could be tremendous. Don’t you think? At least one of the cities that have enacted a Ceasefire-style program witnessed unbelievable results. Under its Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS) program, Richmond, California has managed since 2007 to reduce firearm-related homicides by 76 percent and firearm-related assaults by 66 percent!
Ladd Everitt: Yes! As a response to gun homicide in urban areas, you’re right—the Ceasefire programs have proven results and are terrific investments for legislators looking to save lives. This work on the ground—to intervene with young men who are at-risk and offer them positive incentives and a path to professional development—is essential.
By moving young men away from crime, the Ceasefire programs dry up demand for illegal firearms in the secondary gun market in urban communities. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t also obstruct the supply of illegal firearms by enacting federal felony penalties for gun traffickers, however. Do both and you will make America’s cities far safer places.
I’m conscious that the pro-gun movement often tries to paint black, urban gun violence as the only gun violence occurring in America. This ignores the epidemic of gun suicide we see in rural communities. I want innovative programs to save those lives as well! The Gun Violence Restraining Order (or whatever one prefers to call it) is one such policy. Like the Ceasefire programs, the GVRO has shown demonstrated results in preventing violence (gun suicide) at the state level.
I lost my grandfather to gun suicide when I was young. I saw how it destroyed my father, who had to physically clean up the scene. He never got to say goodbye to his dad and tell him he loved him. I’m up for any idea that will saves lives and prevent the continued suffering of American families.
***
End of Interview. What would you say to Everitt?
“2) The repeal of federal and state laws that treat gun owners like super-citizens, giving them rights that non-gun owners do not enjoy, including the right to kill needlessly in the public space.”
A comment of such a degree of veracity and intellectual quality as the one above possesses renders virtually anything else the individual has to say largely irrelevant.
So lemme get this straight, our founding fathers who just fought a war against an oppressive Monarchy wanted the 2nd Amendment to be interpreted as follows; The right to bear arms was and is unquestionably for a fedreral government and not a right of an individual citizen.
Never made sense to me either. Our Constitutional Republic is built on checks and balances. The 2 nd Amendment is a crucial check in my opinion. I can only think our framers felt the same way.
The bottom line! It takes a very special kind of idiot to want theirs and others rights stripped away! History lessons my be in order!
I always laugh when gun control zealots claim the 2A is about militias. So his claim is that the government is giving itself the right to have guns? That makes no sense whatsoever
Actually, I couldn’t make it through his first answer. WAY TOO MANY—I don’t really care, I don’t see, I’ve never heard etc, etc, etc, etc, This is one of those “Creatures” that think HIS opinions are LightYears Ahead of those of us he considers the “Unwashed Masses” and that we in that category should just “SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN” like we were told to do by that CRACK WHORE on the Kavanaugh hearings the other night. The so called “Leaders” of these DEFECTIVE IDIOTS, ie Clinton, Soros, etc, realize that they are losing their grip and have cranked open ALL the Faucets to full on us and CLUELESS, MINDLESS, IGNORANT FOOLS like THIS are the DIRECT RESULT of that. They have become EMBOLDENED by all of the False Flags run by the Ministry of Propaganda and now feel that they are going to STAND AGAINST US LIKE IT OR NOT AND FORCE US TO DO WHAT THEY WANT!!! I can ONLY speak for my self and say that they are SORELY MISTAKEN and have NOT the SLIGHTEST CLUE as to what EXACTLY awaits them when they DO make their move against us. I WILL only say that THIS TIME, it WILL NOT END UNTIL THE “JOB” is finished ONCE and FOR ALL!!!!!!!!! Oh, and by the way, in the end, depending on WHAT and HOW MUCH they send against us, and me, there’s a chance they MIGHT get my guns, but there’s ALSO A CERTAINTY that they WILL GET ALL THE AMMUNITION FIRST!!!!!!!! To those of you DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for what is now POSITIVELY COMING, WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU ARE AND YOU WILL ALL, EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU, BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE, ARRESTED AND TRIED AND CONVICTED OF THE TRAITOROUS TREASON YOU COMMIT 24/7/365 AGAINST THIS COUNTRY AND IT’S LAWS AND PEACE-LOVING, RIGHTEOUS CITIZENS!!!!18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason
WHOEVER, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, IS GUILTY OF TREASON AND SHALL SUFFER DEATH FROM HANGING BY THE NECK UNTIL DEAD, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
READ IT AND WEEP!!!!
Well, it took to the end, but we finally got to the, admittedly tragic, reason why Mr. Everitt wants to impose draconian gun control measures in violation of the 2A.
It’s genuinely sad that his grandfather committed suicide using a gun. Watching your father grow older with that memory and the effect it must have had in his family would affect anyone.
Unfortunately, my conclusion is that at a very young age Mr. Everitr decided that guns were the reason he and his family suffered that grief and tragedy and that if guns were not available to the general populace his grandfather would not have committed suicide.
It’s the common narative of punishment the masses for the act of a few. A scheme that plays out in no other crime. Not DUI, sexual assault/rape, arson or any other crime where violence is perpetrated on one individual against another and only the perp is held responsible.
This guy…. is why tax-paid birth control should be mandatory for liberals and be applied via soldering iron.
The whole of Everitt’s answers read like a Hoplophobic! There is one question he should’ve been asked!
Mr. Everitt can you name, quote me, any law now on the books or a law at all, that has ever prevented a crime?
We all know the answer is an astounding, No!
\Laws are there to set up the rules for punishing those that don’t follow them. The whole of Our Constitution is about assuring Freedoms and Liberty, not picking and chooseing them because some in society see them as a danger. Everitt needs to read the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
If a person does not like the fact that hey have a certain right they are free to move where they can not exercise that right, you do not have the right to relinquish the rights of others just because you don’t like them having the same rights as you!
Mr Everitt your a no where man living in a no where land.Where do you get off thinking or ever saying that you want to band guns.Well maybe you should speak for yourself.I am sure you have a gun or the security you pay to protect you have guns so maybe you need to get rid of your guns .Same way with all you jerks that believe in banning guns.Get rid of your guns.Other wise take the log out of your eye before you take the splinter out of the eye of others. You well pay in hell unless you change your ways.
Just listening to this guy scares the beJesus out of me. Hell if this is his vision of the future of America (LBJ was a visionary?)
I’d just as soon brush my teeth with a pistol.
This turd is just another know-it-all statist who would sell his mother if it meant he could foster a bigger, more aggressive government to control all Americans. He misses the point the Founding Fathers made with respect to armed citizens being a means of opposing an increasingly aggressive federal government that would strip away rights guaranteed by the Constitution all for the sake of “public safety”. Hey Everitt…..why don’t you and some of your cronies like that washed up ”
actor” Ms. Sulu go door to door to try to drum up some support for your folly? At the end of the day you won’t have your way with honest, legal gun owners and to quote Neil Young….”you’re just pissing in the wind”. Thank you from the Great State of Texas!!
Suicede, which kills around 20,000 each year is terrible but these people will find a way. Guns are the chosen weapons because most of the time they do their duty. However, that said, probably the 2nd most for sure way would be to take your car and hit it head on into another vehicle with the tractor trailer being one of the top vehicles. If all guns were removed that would leave 20000+ individuals ready to end their lives in dramatic fashion. I, for one, would rather they blow their brains out than to run head on into me or a tractor trailer near by that turns quick and crushes me and my family.
I can not read through the first answer. The government protects God given rights it does not regulate them. If you don’t want to enjoy these rights then move. I can assure you that there millions of Americans that will cheer.
“2) The repeal of federal and state laws that treat gun owners like super-citizens, giving them rights that non-gun owners do not enjoy, including the right to kill needlessly in the public space.“
This guy pretty much completely discredited himself in my eyes with this single comment.
He followed up with “NRA treason”.
No evidence the Founders didn’t think they were protecting individual citizens’ right to have weapons?
I hope he will someday -soon- consult his primary care physician about the possible benefits of psychotherapy and medication. I have a lot of sympathy for the trauma he must have suffered, and apparently and understandably still suffers, due to his grandfather’s suicide. That is no reason to accept his positions as laudable or useful, or even as moral.
Nothing will change post Trump because we will have Pro 2nd Amendment constitutional conservatives on the Supreme Court.
I’m intrigued by Mr Everitt’s claim his motivation is for saving lives.
If saving lives is of paramount importance, I shall expect to see him at the vanguard of a pro-life rally. Numerically, that would be a much much more efficient use of his time: gun deaths, regardless of cause, aren’t even a speck when compared to abortion deaths.
But we could extend this argument to deaths vs numbers of automobiles or deaths as result of tobacco or alcohol use and find that gun deaths still don’t measure up to the same consequences.
In other words, he is either foolish or evil by insisting his ultimate cause is saving lives.
Wow. I shudder to think of what would happen if totalitarians like Ladd Everitt ever get control of the country. He betrayed himself with his first couple of sentences:
“I’ve never bought into the NRA’s ridiculous talking point that our Founders ratified the amendment to guarantee individuals the right to employ a broad range of firepower to deter criminal threats and the U.S. government.”
That’s not an honest statement from a man seeking answers. We know exactly why the Second Amendment was written, we have tons of records written by its authors and supporters. The same men also provided a method for changing it. Why can’t these anti-gun people be honest and amend the Constitution the proper way. They aren’t fooling anyone about their intentions, when they say stuff like this, and get gun control enacted by the Judiciary, it’s obvious they aren’t acting in good faith.
As long as anti-gun activists remain focused on guns, and not crime, they will get little support from gun owners. Gun owners want to reduce the number of gun related deaths as much as anyone, but by using effective methods, not by simply making the lives of law-abiding people harder. Most murders take place in specific urban areas by small groups of criminals known to the police. Has there been a single proposed gun-control law in the past several years that would seriously hinder these people? No, it’s not even discussed. Making guns the priority instead of locking up violent criminals is people control, not crime control.
Everitt, you too are a “super citizen”! You have the same rights as gun owners do. You choose to not exercise that right. Your choice. Try not exercising your right of free speech!
Mr. Everitt,
You have made some accusations that are yet unproven.
I have reservations about Coday Wilson’s development and distribution of firearm blueprints, but not for the same reasons you have. I am more concernd for the rifle manufacturers in this country who have worked hard and grown strong, assisting Americans with self-defense, law enforcement, and military outfitting.
For one, Mr. Wilson has been charged, yes. But has he been convicted? Are you proposing he is guilty until proven innocent? Do you still treat blacks and Asians in this manner? Can you judge a man by the color of his skin? Or in this case, by the pointing finger of a girl…. who, IF the charge is correct, apparently accepted, planned, and enjoyed said “assault” as well as received payment?
So I ask again, has he been convicted? Do you know for a fact he is guilty?
In my earlier years, I have been inclined not to take a “side” concerning left-wing ideals vs. right-wing. As I grow older and wiser, I see more and more deceit among people like you, painting pictures that present what you want others to see, rather than the actual truth.
Did Coday really “flee” to Taiwan get “escape” conviction? Do you have proof? And who are you, the girl’s lawyer? The one who allegedly snuck away from home and accepted a $500 payment?
I see very little difference between the sin of a man who commits murder and one who twists the truth to his own benefit. What is your benefit in all this? You must be fighting for some reason, to be so verbally violent. What is that reason, I wonder?
Mr. Blannelberry, I appreciate your efforts to engage in discourse with leftist-statists on citizen issues regarding our great Republic’s Constitutionally codified liberties and freedoms. Above all else, it proves the futility of attempting to reason with or find common ground with ideologues who profess fealty only to the overweening authority of the “collective” to regulate and control all aspects of individual liberties, freedoms and activities. This is an unacceptable starting point for any discussion and proves the need to continue working to utterly crush them and their repulsive ideology. This is and will remain a long-term struggle which we must do all in our power to pass on to succeeding generations.
Take heart, there has and will ALWAYS be a struggle between those of us who value FREEDOM for ourselves and our posterity and the weak-of-heart mindless drones who would surrender our birthright FREEDOMs for meaningless and unrealizable promises of safety and convenience. Compromise is NOT possible or desirable; to compromise with the proven evils of Socialism is evil!
Expecting reason from an unreasonable person is an exercise in futility. Much like talking to a Flat Earther.
Agree with everything Ladd had to say. Tough background checks are absolutely necessary!
Well, if you agreed with “everything” he said, then we know you’re as illiterate on the subject of the 2nd as he is.
His ‘reading’ on the subject must have been very limited, and cherry picked indeed for him to make such comments.
As are yours.
Universal tough background checks: how do you propose applying them to the criminals we need to worry about?
So far as I can see only the law-abiding would be subject to them. So what is the mechanism by which the drug dealers, Crips, Bloods, MS-13, and others would be forced to comply?
I have a few problems with Mr. Everitt and the people on his side.
1) Never let the facts get in the way of there arguments. 97% of gun crimes are committed with hand guns, but they want to ban AR-15 stile rifles.
2) They look to the federal government as the answer to everything. When constitutionally it is individuals responsibility for us to take care of our selves and others around us.
3) All there solutions go after the LEGAL GUN OWNER, not the criminals that use them as there tool of choice. Assume the following. If there are 325 million legal guns in the US and 1000 rounds of ammo per gun, then you would have 325 trillion rounds of ammo owned by legal gun owners. If LEGAL GUN OWNERS were the PROBLEM you would KNOW IT!!
4) Guns in private hands keeps the government at bay! They will tell you no that has nothing to do with it, yet it has everything to do with it. Look a Venezuela, a tyrant only let’s his supporters have firearms. Why is that? Do you think that is has anything to do with control? Is not SOCIALISM GRAND. He lives in luxury and the people are starving in one of the richest (oil wealth) countries in the world! Take the guns and that will happen here also!
5) Suicide is a problem! However, take away the gun and that person would still find a way to get it done (if they really want to). They will hang themselves, O.D. on drugs, etc,. I mean no disrespect, however Mr. Everitt’s grandfather was not killed by a gun, he was killed by his grandfather. The gun was the tool that he chose to use. The gun did not decide to commit suicide and shot his grandfather with the intent to kill him.
6) These same people refuse to believe that deterrents work! They will scream bloody murder if you were suggest that people that kill people should be put to death! This is called a DETERRENT !
7) If Mr. Everitt had his way me wife would have been raped! The day she went for a walk she was caring a hand gun on her side. She was walking do a sidewalk in the country with a corn field across the street. A man came around the corner approaching my wife. She left the side walk and moved over to the road 8′ away. The man started making unwanted advances and moving towards my wife, she held out her left hand and put her right hand on the gun. I’m happy to say that he turned and ran like a little girl. This happens more that Mr. Everitt and the people like him want to admit.
8) The reality is there are evil people in the world! If they mean you harm they will do it using what ever they can. Yes guns, but we see them use cars, trucks, bombs and knives to mention just a few. When you disarm the everyday legal gun owner you turn them into victims.
Here is a quote I read somewhere. I sums it up pretty well. “Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty or property through the force of government? If the answer to that question is “No,” the gun control debate is over.”
I don’t trust anyone in government.
You have traumatized that nice Chuck Schumer. He hurts. He melts at your lack of trust. His tears drench Dianne Feinstein’s dress, mixing with her own.
Even the Founders understood that all of their successors would be Angels of Patriotism. Well, except for Republicans of course. Democrats revere our rights, and the Constitution.
I’m sure I read that somewhere. Maybe on the InterNet, so it must be true.
I have several issues with Mr. Everitt and the people on his side. A he is looking to the government for all the answers and the answers that he wants are all directed at legal gun owners. There’s nothing he said about the drug dealers and gangs and getting tuffer on them (the source behind most gun violence). I know he also wants to take away guns because of suicides, the thing about that is if you want to die you will find a way (I have seen people hang them selves, take to many pills ect). It was not the gun that killed his grand father, it was his grand father! The gun was just the tool that he used to do it.
Lastly, if you agree that there are 325 million legal guns in the US, and you assume that there is 1000 round of ammo for each gun them there is 325 trillion rounds of ammo in private hands. IF LEGAL GUN OWNERS WERE THE PROBLEM YOU WOULD KNOW IT!!!
What in the world ever made you believe that we are interested in anything this leftist garbage sack has to say?
Apparently, Mr. Ladd is unfamiliar with (or is conveniently ignoring) Madison’s writings in Federalist #46.
It is quite clear that we were intended to be armed. Furthermore, how does anyone propose the existence of militias if the people themselves are not armed with their own weapons? And armed citizenry is a prerequisite for a militia. If the people must join a militia in order to be armed (presumably by the state), well, that’s not a militia. That’s how militaries work – sign up, get issued a rifle.
Typical gun control advocate. Have him move to Australia or Canada and he can enjoy their rules and regulations
Thanks for the reference to Federalist #46
And that boys and girls is why our founding fathers started a Constitutional Republic! “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Time to quote various authors on this subject!
Hoplophobia
Hoplophobia is a political neologism coined by retired American military officer Jeff Cooper as a pejorative to describe an “irrational aversion to weapons.” It is also used to describe the “fear of firearms” or the “fear of armed citizens.” HOPLOPHOBIA. (1966) From the Greek___(weapon) plus __ (terror).
An unreasoning, obsessive neurotic fear of weapons as such, usually accompanied by an irrational feeling that weapons possess a will or consciousness for evil, apart from the will of their user. Not equivalent to normal apprehension in the presence of an armed enemy. Hoplon also means instrument, tool or tackle, but it is the root of hoplite (man-at-arms, gendarme) and thus principally signifies “weapon” in English derivations.
Col. Jeff Cooper, widely acclaimed as “The Father of the Modern Technique of Shooting,” introduced the two-handed grip at eye level, when it was standard for people to shoot one-handed, and often from the hip. Far less known, Cooper was a historian with a Master’s Degree in History from the University of Calif. at Riverside and he held a B.A. from Stanford in Political Science.
Hoplophobia, n. Irrational, morbid fear of guns (c. 1966, coined by Col. Jeff Cooper, from the Greek hoplites, weapon; see his book Principles of Personal Defense). May cause sweating, faintness, discomfort, rapid pulse, nausea, sleeplessness, nondescript fears, more, at mere thought of guns. Presence of working firearms may cause panic attack. Hoplophobe, hoplophobic.
Hoplophobes are common and should never be involved in setting gun policies. Point out hoplophobic behavior when noticed, it is dangerous, sufferers deserve pity, and should seek treatment. When confronted about their condition, hoplophobes typically go into denial, a common characteristic of the affliction. Sometimes helped by training, or by coaching at a range, a process known to psychiatry as “desensitization,” a useful methodology in treating many phobias.
Hoplophobic behavior is often obvious from self-evident irrational responses to real-life situations and is frequently seen in the news media and public debate. When a criminal commits a crime using a gun, hoplophobes often seek to disarm, or make lists of, innocent people who didn’t do anything, a common, classic and irrational response.
The idea of creating an enormously expensive government-run 90-million-name database of legitimate gun owners — which would not include armed criminals — is a prime example of an irrational hoplophobic response to the issue of crime. How writing your name in such a list would help stop crime is never even addressed. (See, “The Only Question About Gun Registration”)
An effort is underway nationally to have Hoplophobia recognized in the DSM, the official directory of mental ailments. Resistance from elements in the medical profession suggest this may be quite difficult, but that does not reduce the importance of recognizing a widespread, virulent, detrimental mental condition commonly found in the populace. The actual number of undiagnosed hoplophobes is unknown but believed to be in the tens of millions.
Read Dr. Sarah Thompson’s brilliant essay on the medical nature of this affliction, the article that got the ball rolling on serious medical study of a condition affecting millions of Americans.
Read Dr. Bruce Eimers’s insightful short description of the problem.
Hoplophobes are dangerous. They should not be involved in setting public policy.
Hoplophobes are victims. They are sick and need help.
Hoplophobes deserve sympathy. It’s not their fault they are afflicted.
Hoplophobes should seek treatment. Help shoot for a cure.
People who are terrified of and hate guns — hoplophobes — don’t care about anything rational, and we waste our time on such arguments. They want guns to go away. They don’t trust guns. They don’t trust people who have guns, and especially people who like guns. The only exception is “official” people with guns, meaning, they’re from the government, a source of relief.
They will seize on anything else, because Hoplophobia is an irrational fear. Conveniently for them, the language of the report itself says that the limits of this individual right have not been clearly defined.
To a Hoplophobes, that means your right to arms can be legally limited to a single gun, with a single round, that does not operate, and is locked away, with government holding the key. And even that leaves them nervous.
What we really need is research and medical-treatment programs for the poor, unfortunate people who are terrified of guns, won’t go near guns, who would not defend themselves or their families if they had to, and who, very plainly, hate guns.
Hate is a terrible thing.
It must be confronted vigorously, righteously, and in a forthright manner. Logic and law do not confront hate or help lessen it. We must learn not to tolerate gun hate, anywhere we find it.
Hoplophobic behavior in government, schools, and all facets of public life must be recognized for what it is, exposed, and rooted out or treated. Seemingly utopian pacifists are free to profess their love of a weapon-free world, but they must start by disarming the evil, criminal and tyrannical. Disarming the public is a vent for their twisted fear and hatred, a grotesque affront to freedom, and unacceptable. Disarming an innocent person is an act of violence.
Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free. The history of freedom is inextricably tied to the development of weapons (an interesting study, by the way, if you have the time to examine it). Good people need guns. Efforts to end that are immoral and unjust, and when done by government, is a direct failure to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” That’s a violation of the oath of office, which should lead to removal from office and possibly even criminal charges.
The people we elect or hire for public service should be screened for latent or overt gun hatred, and disqualified if such hatred is found, before it can do any more harm to our nation and its values.
It is well past the time when the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the catalog of recognized mental infirmities, includes “Hoplophobia,” in all its forms, and serious medical research is conducted to identify and treat this pernicious condition that threatens us all. The doctors among you should begin raising this issue. If you’re not a doctor but have one or two, ask them about it.
The opponents of gun rights come in four fundamental categories:
Utopian Idealists – Dreamers willing to ignore human nature (anger, hostility, temper, greed, lust, hunger, poverty, want, megalomania, social pathologies, etc.) in the vain hope for a world where no one ever needs to defend themselves or others; Result: misguided efforts to disarm the public since no one should ever be capable of exerting lethal force for any reason. Fairly rare.
Routine Bigots – Ignorant gun haters who, generally, have never actually seen a real gun much less fired one, and hate what they don’t know; strong corollaries with race haters; Result: Vigorous anti-rights profile if left alone, however they often resolve their blind hatred when education removes the ignorance — frequent anecdotes of such folks “converting” after their first time at a range. Quite common.
Hoplophobes — Unfortunate souls afflicted with a phobic terror of firearms, deserving of pity, and in need of medical attention; Result: Though they should never be involved in setting policy on self-defense, national security, or Second Amendment rights, they often insinuate themselves into such positions, their need for treatment goes unattended, and they cause grievous social harm. Easily mistaken for plain bigots. Too common.
Power Mongers – Like some at the U.N or many anti-gun-rights politicians, they know full well that an armed public interferes with their plans, and they insidiously use lies about the gun issue, and “disarmament (of you but not them) as a road to peace” as a power base and source of support; Result: truly evil, tyrants’ who ultimately suppress human rights, contribute to global genocides, live an elite lifestyle, care not for their fellow citizens. Rare but extremely dangerous.
Example of the Sickness:
“My own view on gun control is simple: I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
–Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Harvard School of Public Health
The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.
ELITISTS
Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.
AUTHORITARIANS
Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course, authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.
CRIMINALS
It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.
THE FEARFUL
Cowards are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric” enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. Many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self-discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.
IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.
SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self-protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to lose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self-defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.
THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunction ally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership regarding defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. The anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunction ally unworldly.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.
The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to ensure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.
We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.
@ Jerry Jones I agree he needs a history class. But it depend on who is teaching it! A Constitutionalist or a Social Justice Warrior. I’m afraid America has been taken over and there are not any checks and balances any more. After watching the Kavanaugh circus I’m afraid it’s to late for our country. And I thought it couldn’t get any worse after the Clarence Thomas confirmation. Be sure Vote in November.
All the Editor did was give an outlet for this mentally deranged (read Liberal) leftist’s emotionally fueled thoughts.
Rush Limbaugh has said for decades that there is no compromise or significant conversation with liberals, there is ONLY defeating them! “We” confirm Justices Kagan and Sotomeyor, “they” attempt to destroy Kavanaugh! We need to find a cure for this ubiquitous mental disorder called Liberalism. These people largely fall into 2 categories, those who actually have this mentally debilitating disease (normal ordinary US citizens) and people who pretend they have this disease who use it to further their evil designs (Hillary, Obama, Feinstein, et al). These people, many of whom have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, DO NOT believe even on word of the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Read it to understand what is happening in America.
Molon Labe!!
Your interview has done what is the best thing we can really expect from a gun-control fundamentalist: it 100% demonstrates they can’t be reasoned with, they don’t care what actual statistics show, they don’t care what the original intent was in development of the 2nd Amendment, they don’t care what you think and they won’t stop until they either win or die (of natural causes, of course).
There is no such thing as ‘common sense’ anymore. What is common sense for a gun-control advocate is antithetical to a 2nd Amendment supporter and firearms owner. There is no need or sense in pointing out anything to Mr. Everett or even insulting his intelligence. He doesn’t care what we think (to him we are the Great Unwashed and incapable of anything greater) and he can no more be swayed from his path than can a rat from from carrion. He, and others like him, are why the entire Bill of Rights was developed and ratified: people like Mr. Everitt will always be with us and are tireless in their pursuit of domination. The only thing that stymies their dreams is the implied threat of violence.
I couldn’t get past the answers to the first question without finding numerous factual inaccuracies. So you have a choice to make, believe him w/o checking his facts, review his facts and determine some are fabricated unknowingly by him, or accept that he has some political or personal motivations for saying what he does.
I really enjoyed his line about the DMV and driver’s licenses. With that reference, all the reckless and drunk drivers are okay as we have a national database and license process. If criminals are not punished, it doesn’t matter what process we have in place.
Next, if he thinks so many other democratic countries are so much better, he is free to leave the U.S. and pursue that in those countries that are more to his liking. If he would like to have a real debate, tell him to man up and confront his contrarians.
So…he must be anti-abortion…”saving lives is a hell of a lot more important than avoiding inconvenience. It always has been.”…right?
I agree with a few points…like prosecuting gun crimes…harsher penalties…gun storage.
“Buybacks” are fine if you are going to offer reasonable cash and they are not mandatory. People can choose.
The amendment says right of the people…an individual right like all others.
I believe in personal responsibility, too. People are to blame…not guns. 99% could own tanks and nukes and never use them in anger.
As for the NFA? 8-11 months to buy a suppressor? That is an over the counter purchase in other developed countries?
Let’s also look at other amendments. Unrestricted birthright citizenship? Virtually no other developed country has that…maybe Canada.
Let’s start with disarming criminals/gangs. Harsh penalties for gun use in crimes. No early release for anyone convicted of a crime involving a gun.
Then…come looking at legal gun owners…and only then.
So, Mr. Sulu, homosexual and advocate hates guns and funded a anti-group after a homosexual themed/attended nightclub was attacked by a muslim male with homosexual leanings and problems. As he so often says, “Oh MY!”
Sorry, someone like him funds dishonest leftists who hate the freedom of others…I’m sure not supporting anything he wants. Wait, a thought, when boys are molested/raped/killed…it’s typically be homosexual males. The famous Catholic priest molesting children, it’s usually homosexual priests who are molesting boys, not girls. Does George fully support stopping his fellow travelers and starting a foundation to prevent the crimes against boys by homosexual males? No…but, why not?
Sorry, the arguments are a joke…DMV hassles…driving isn’t a right, nobody is demanding you give up your car, limit your car purchase to a 3 cylinder vehicle (nobody needs to go over 45 MPH after all)…gawd I hate these facists.
“.I’ve never bought into the NRA’s ridiculous talking point that our Founders ratified the amendment to guarantee individuals the right to employ a broad range of firepower to deter criminal threats and the U.S. government. The surviving debate and relevant documents prove the amendment was about federalism; the matter of who would control the states’ then-vital Militia forces and arm them. ”
He is lying. I don’t debate any more either. The confirmation hearings are just an example. He knows the militia is a citizen army, not the regular army, and they are to be armed and on par with all others. He knows, but wants people disarmed so he can take over. May the left (they will) rot in hell.
Yes, and more importantly, 2A obviously implies that people have a right to defend themselves–whether it be against tyrants, common criminals or terrorists. It doesn’t take any political agenda to see that, it’s just common sense. It is hugely more obvious than any so-called “right” to abortion that is based on the protection against unreasonable search and seizure. (There actually isn’t any “right to privacy” in the Constitution. If there were, all cameras would be strictly controlled devices and no person could ever be legally photographed without their consent, absent due process and a court-issued warrant.)
It’s extremely challenging to keep an open mind when Everitt was WRONG from the start….”I’ve never bought into the NRA’s ridiculous talking point that our Founders ratified the amendment to guarantee individuals the right to employ a broad range of firepower to deter criminal threats and the U.S. government”……everything he stands for is based on this failure to read for himself, and comprehend the intentions of the founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd Amendment…..I would suggest he take a U S History and English class.
this guy and his buddy George Takei are only going after guns because it was a gay club that was shot up. it can really be put in one line all it was this guy said. ” i want to ban and take ALL guns away from everyone who believes in the 2A” he can add all the other words he wants and put all the spin he wants to on it but doing away with guns is their one an only point.
funny they don’t say anything about going in and taking all the guns away from the gangbangers. no they just want to let more MS13 gangbangers into the country so more people will be killed not so much with guns as they like to just chop people into little pieces more then they shoot them.
being backed by the gay guy who you know whats nothing less then to take everyones guns away from them.