Connect with us


Gun control – why it fails

Gun control, besides being unconstitutional, never works as advertised, and succeeds only in allowing tyranny or criminality to reign.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email



In the wake of yet another school shooting, the Twitter influencer “Dom Lucre, Breaker of Narratives” released a thread dedicated to debunking the premises of gun control. In twenty-five tweets, Mr. Lucre discusses not only the failures of gun control but also how guns in civilian hands prevent crime.

Gun control – the usual arguments

Criminals, and criminal gangs, are an unfortunate side effect of civilization. Even ancient Rome had its gangs – which some politicians actually used to devastating effect. In the days of the Western frontier, gun control hardly existed and certainly not in the frontier. Tales of citizens defending themselves and their towns from criminal gangs abound. The most famous is the Battle of Coffeyville, Kansas, between town residents and the notorious Dalton Gang.

But then came Prohibition, and criminal gangs inside major cities, organized to satisfy the demand for intoxicating liquor. Because these gangs filled a popular demand, law enforcement left them alone – or took their bribes. And the people shrugged – especially those who went to the Speak-easies. The most notorious gang leaders were even celebrities – like “Scarface” Al Capone.

But on February 14, 1929, matters came to a bloody head. Several of Al Capone’s men, disguised as Chicago Police, “raided” a garage that rival “Bugs” Moran used. They stood the men inside against a wall – and then systematically executed them. This “Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre” turned public opinion against the gangs. “Do something!” shrieked a public recoiling in horror at the reports of blood on the walls.

The Miller Decision

That something culminated in the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the case of U.S. v. Miller (307 U.S. 174, 1939). Jack Miller had challenged the National Firearms Act on Second Amendment grounds. But when the government petitioned for Supreme Court review, Jack Miller was nowhere to be found. Thus gun control won by default. That decision said that:


Only weapons that have a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a well-regulated militia under the Second Amendment are free from government regulation.

Who can tell how differently the Court might have decided that case, had Jack Miller followed through and paid for a Supreme Court response? In fact, absolutely any weapon can find a “reasonable” use by “a well-regulated militia.” But this toxic precedent drove the entering wedge for gun control, and for all its consequences. Including, to paraphrase Franklin, a society that has sacrificed essential liberty to temporary safety.

Donald J. Trump has lately changed the composition of the Court, so that now the Court is more inclined to protect the Second Amendment. See for example New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ____ (2022). But stubborn “gun grabber” State governments have responded by defining virtually every place in an organized city as “sensitive.”

Bear this in mind when evaluating Dom Lucre’s latest thread.

The thread

Remember that Dom Lucre always begins his anchor tweets sarcastically. The real meat always follows – and this one has a lot of it.

Of course, gun control still has its apologists. One of them tried to show that “gun restrictions have worked in every other country.” Several users said the obvious: bad actors switched to other weapons. But some people refuse to let facts convince them, as this debate shows:


Other users had more simple answers to this user:

Another user made this direct reply to Lucre, citing statistics strengthening his case:

This thread addressed the recent school shooting, pointing out that the shooter first tried another school. It was a hard target, so she attacked the Covenant School. That led to a discussion of a point we raised yesterday: does someone prime, groom, arm, and train school shooters?

Analysis: gun control has a history of failure

This valuable thread shows all the reasons gun control does not work as advertised. The question then becomes: does it “work” for reasons no one in authority would dare advertise?

Lucre doesn’t say that officially, but recall his pointing out the “diverse” groups of people now arming themselves. He also points out that, historically, these groups have traditionally come under attack most often. Only recently have armed gangs attacked “nice” neighborhoods. And the one thing that would prevent that, would be to allow all citizens and lawful residents in good standing to arm themselves. (Judges exist to determine “good standing.” The right to keep and bear arms is a liberty subject to “deprivation” only through due process of law.)


Some of the apologists for gun control seem to have reading comprehension problems. Had they actually read the thread through, it would have answered every question they raised.

Benjamin Franklin’s obvious quote finds direct relevance here. So also does this quote, attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese Imperial Navy:

You cannot invade the mainland United States, [because you would find] a gun behind every blade of grass.

Whether he said it or not, events have proved it. President John F. Kennedy recognized the basic principle, though he could never have imagined that fears of tyranny in these United States would become real.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
+ posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Donald R. Laster, Jr

Gun control is intended to enslave the population to the State and those in control of the State.

Donald R. Laster, Jr

When reading Amendment 2’s actual text it is important to read the text first to understand what it actually states. The 2nd Amendment states 1

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In some cases the Amendment is listed as

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
That is without the comma between “Arms” and “shall” and in some cases the word “Arms” is not capitalized. Regardless this comma is optional in this location. The prior version of this document used the second form. 2 It is also important to remember that when a noun is capitalized in the sentence, and is not at the beginning of the sentence, it is a proper noun. Even when the noun is at the beginning of a sentence it may be proper noun.

In order to determine the meaning of the sentence the first thing that must be done is to strip the sentence down to the basic components of its subject or subjects, and the predicate or predicates. Until these two basic components of the sentence are identified one can not properly read or determine what the Amendment means. The procedure to do this is :

  1. First identify and remove the adverb phrases. The adverb phrases in the Amendment are well regulated , being necessary, and be infringed3. The result is this sentence:

A militia to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not.

  1. Second thing is to identify and remove the prepositional phrases. The prepositional phrases in the Amendment are to the security, of a free State, of the people, and to keep and bear Arms. The result is this sentence:

A militia, the right, shall not.

  1. What one finds is that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has 2 subjects and a single predicate. When a sentence has multiple subjects separated by commas the sentence can be written in English with the commas replaced by “and”. This results in the following sentence:

A Militia and the right, shall not.

  1. Under the rules of English when a sentence has multiple subjects separated by the word “and” with a single predicate the sentence can be written with each subject as individual sentences with the predicate. The comma between “right” and “shall” disappears as it a divider. Thus the sentence can be written as these two sentences:

A Militia shall not.
The right shall not.

  1. The next step is now adding the adverb and prepositional phrases in to the appropriate sentence that is associated with the subject, or subjects, from the original sentence. This results in the following two sentences:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

1See the site link to
2See the site link to
3In the prior version of this document this adverb phrase was not removed since it is part of the predicate and for identifying subjects did not need to be removed.


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x