SLATE & Brady Campaign Employee Argue For Two Guns Per Person Limit

by Greg Camp ; Opinion
AmmoLand News welcomes Greg Camp to our list of the best and brightest Second Amendment contributors.

Human Rights
SLATE & Brady Campaign Employee Argue For Two Guns Per Person Limit
Greg Camp
Greg Camp

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- According to the critics, the 2013 movie, 2 Guns, was “Formulaic and often jarringly violent,” while resting on “its old-school appeal on the interplay between its charismatic, well-matched stars.”

But that’s not what the article in Slate was talking about. Nor did the author, Doug Pennington, have in mind the fact that people in the Old West – the inspiration for the characters that I write about – often carried two sidearms because five shots was the typical load for a revolver, since six would put the hammer down on a live primer.

No, the former Brady Campaign employee and now “communications professional” wants to restrict all Americans to a maximum of two firearms per person, as he discusses in his article, “Two Guns Per Person: A simple, constitutional proposal that protects both Americans’ lives and liberty.”

In his view, a pistol that holds ten rounds and a pump-action shotgun in twelve gauge with six rounds on board is all anyone needs for home defense. How generous of him, though he doesn’t seem to have heard of hunting, of target shooting, or of collections of historical firearms. Nor does he show any knowledge about the terminal ballistics of various types of ammunition.

I won’t hold the cartoon image at the top of the article against him, even though it shows something that’s almost a Beretta 92 that can hold a good deal more than ten rounds and a left-handed lever-action rifle, minus a rear sight. Authors don’t generally select the artwork that goes with their essays.

He claims that only twenty-two (22) percent of Americans are gun owners, with three percent of us having half of the weapons in private hands. This number goes back to that Harvard/Northeastern study that was reported on last year. My mama didn’t raise any children who would tell a random stranger on the telephone about the guns in the house, but let’s pretend that the number cited is accurate. Does he really want to make the argument that rights are determined by the percentage of the population who exercise them?

Compare that twenty-two percent to some other groups in this country. African-Americans make up 12.6 percent of the population, according to the Census data. The CDC found that 3.4 percent of Americans identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. And the number of people among us who identify as transgender is 0.6 percent.  Now I’m not advocating that we should tie rights to how many in the country will take advantage of them. But I do find it interesting that gun control advocates will take that position, if only by implication.

I also have to wonder where Pennington finds the authority in the Constitution to limit the number of guns that you and I may have to any particular figure. He does at least understand that “arms” in the Second Amendment is a plural word, or perhaps he would have decided that one was all he could accept. He wants to treat anyone who has more than two the way that we burden law-abiding owners of full-auto guns or suppressors today.

Probably, he wouldn’t care even if I could present to him the facts about guns—how each type is used and how many Americans protect themselves each year with firearms. On that latter point, his fellow Slate writer, William Saletan acknowledges that the number is in the hundreds of thousands. But let’s put things in terms that he can understand.

By the same line of reasoning, the First Amendment doesn’t specify how many words a person can use. Since a novel, for example, had 50,000 words without the letter “e”, we could argue that writers don’t need twenty-six separate symbols to express themselves, either.

Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century
Each One, Teach One: Preserving and protecting the Second Amendment in the 21st century

Pennington might argue in reply that books don’t kill people, and I would – again if he’d listen – remind him of Common Sense, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and Mein Kampf, three books that were, shall we say, influential in wars that came shortly after their publication.

I have my doubts that listening is something that he’s interested in doing. After all, the facts that I’ve cited could have been found easily with whatever search engine he favors. But that search requires first an awareness that the articles of faith held by supporters of gun control don’t bear examination, and it’s up to those of us who care about gun rights to get the message out.

About Greg Camp

Greg Camp has taught English composition and literature since 1998 and is the author of six books, including a western, The Willing Spirit, and Each One, Teach One, with Ranjit Singh on gun politics in America. His books can be found on Amazon. He tweets @gregcampnc.

  • 12 thoughts on “SLATE & Brady Campaign Employee Argue For Two Guns Per Person Limit

    1. In a number of recent conversations, I have found the issue eventually seems to come down to: “Well, even if banning bump-stocks (but you could substitute ANY gun control proposal here) can’t prevent someone who really intends to commit murder (again you can substitute “mass murder” here) from doing it, it might do SOME good, so why do you oppose banning them?” With the current bump-stock issue, this is typically followed by, “Why do you need to shoot that fast anyway?” I end up saying, “That’s not the point. If you agree that your proposed ban couldn’t prevent such a crime, then why do you want to impose the ban anyway?” This can lead to a possibly more productive analysis of what their real objective is – something I really don’t think most of those ordinary folks who support various anti-gun proposals, have even thought through. In my opinion, they quite literally don’t KNOW why they support such bans, and are uncomfortable with the answer when they follow the logic to its obvious conclusion.
      For example,
      “Do you want to ban guns?”
      “No, no one is saying that.”
      “So, in general, you think ordinary Americans should still be allowed to own guns?”
      “Yes, of course. No one’s proposing taking everyone’s guns away!”
      “So I guess you’re saying that you don’t want to restrict people’s right to own guns in general, right?””
      “Right. Only, if they are criminals or crazy people.”
      “Criminals and crazies make up only a small part of the population though, right?”
      “Yes, but they can do a lot of damage with a gun.”
      “Do you think criminals will follow the laws banning guns?”
      “No, probably not; but that’s not the point.”
      “Well, if we impose the kind of ban you propose, it sounds like only the regular law-abiding citizens would follow them.”
      “Maybe so, but there would still be a lot less guns around for criminals to get their hands on.”
      “So, I guess that means we’ll have to restrict ordinary Americans from having guns, so criminals won’t find it so easy to get one?”
      “Right!”
      “But you said earlier, that you didn’t want to restrict ordinary American’s right to own guns, didn’t you?”
      “Well, we may have to have SOME restrictions, to make everyone safer.”
      “So, it sounds like you’re saying you DO think ordinary, law-abiding citizens should have their right to own guns restricted, right? So you ARE saying you want to ban guns, right, just not totally?”
      “OK, I guess so. But we have to have SOME restrictions. Right now anyone can buy anything they want!”
      “That’s not actually the case, but even if it were, the ban you support would only affect law-abiding citizens anyway, right? So how about this – since black inner-city ghettos have by far the highest gun crime rates, would you support a gun law that restricted the law-abiding black people who live there from owning guns?”
      “NO, of course not, that would be racist! Anyway most black people aren’t criminals.”
      “But wouldn’t it make it much harder for criminals in those neighborhoods to get guns if they were banned there altogether? As you said before, there’d be less of them around then.”
      “Maybe, but the gang members would get guns anyway, everybody knows that.”
      “OK, but it sounds like you at saying it would be OK to restrict the right of all law-abiding white guys around the country, who don’t even live in the ghetto, to make guns less available, but you oppose restricting the right of ordinary law-abiding black people who do live there, to own guns, even for the same reason. ”
      “Weeeell…”
      Making folks recognize, and forcing them to admit, what they are really supporting can be very enlightening, and can make them think about the issue in a different way.

    2. Might as well limit people to one car while we are at it, maybe even install alcohol ignition devices just in case you were ever to consider driving drunk. Limit of two knives in the house while we are protecting americans.

      What the morons dont get is freedom and liberty are imperfect, but its the best working approach out there.

      1. JS – ya forgot forks – nobody needs more than 2 forks – salad and dinner. A family of ever how many can simply share them and if company comes they MUST bring their own! Makes just as much sense as some of their other proposals………………

    3. Shall not be infringed. I don’t understand how any of this gun control crap can even be seriously debated. It is our right to keep and bare arms as free law abiding citizens of the United States. End of discussion.

      1. @Ben, Since Woodrow Wilson there has been a unspoken conspiracy among members of government to ignore the Constitution. It is called the progressive movement, as in progressing beyond the Constitution. Every member of the federal government since Wilson has believed that they are smarter than the founders; forgotten that their job is to protect the people’s Civil Rights; and decided to ignore the bindings of the Constitution on federal government.

    4. I would consider it if we could also restrict people’s rights to one book. The Bible. Something tells me that the Left would never go for my proposal.

    5. Another thing about freedom, no one can tell you how many guns you can own, nor can they dictate what kind of guns you can have.

      1. VE – agreed, but as the article points out there are a multitude of folks and groups that are certainly trying and given the current political climate they may very well succeed, at least to some extent.

    Leave a Comment 12 Comments

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