Maine newspaper calls for complete gun ban, ‘total civilian disarmament’

In an op-ed posted at the Portland Press Herald in Maine, Greg Bates, a freelance editor and publisher at Common Courage Press who has been linked to writings by Ralph Nader, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and others, called for a complete and total disarmament of all civilians in the United States, the Second Amendment be damned.

“As students under fire in Florida speak out to end mass shootings, many hope this time it’s different. Indeed, their demand is compelling: Our representatives in Washington must act less like politicians and more like parents. Most of them have children; they should act like it,” he began, suggesting that American citizens are little more than children that need to be parented by elected officials in Washington.

“But a fuzzy demand for ‘gun control’ will likely squander this opportunity to save lives. To end gun deaths, we need to ban all civilian guns,” he stated.

After admitting that half of gun deaths in the country are suicides, he added:

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

We must have laws that keep Americans safe from gun technology that the Constitution’s framers never foresaw, from manufacturing techniques to laser gun sights to automatic weapons. Even a simple revolver was beyond their conceptual horizons. On the cultural front, the Australian experience suggests that pro-gun attitudes shift in favor of reducing weapons – once the restrictive legislation saves lives.

Abolishing guns will profoundly alter the American way of life for the better, just like women’s suffrage did. Is gun abolition too extreme? Not if human life comes first.

Many great political victories aim for what initially seems like an impossible objective. Opponents of slavery didn’t advocate “slave control.” They were abolitionists. Gandhi did not campaign to control the British – he sought Indian independence from a starting point that looked hopeless. Nevertheless, in both cases, proponents succeeded while stating their objectives in uncompromising terms.

Using this logic, perhaps we should ban the Internet because that technology didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written.

There’s more:

In contrast, gun-control advocates have long espoused incremental aims while eschewing any overarching objective – and we have been completely overrun by the National Rifle Association. Background checks and banning AR-15s won’t suffice. Increased vigilance over the mentally ill might make a minuscule difference; only about 5 percent of gun killings are carried out by people with mental health issues. As long as we demand ineffective change, the NRA can rightly claim that we are either mistaken, delusional or dishonest.

If we want to end the carnage, we must advocate for the solution that is required, not one designed to be politically palatable. Instead of shying away from the NRA’s accusation that gun control advocates want to take away their guns, we should embrace it as a mantra.

Let’s clear the air and call for total civilian disarmament. Period.

Bates, of course, failed to mention that the vast majority of these shootings took place in “gun-free zones” and he failed to adequately address the multiple failures of law enforcement which would have prevented the Parkland shooting before the first shot was fired.

His answer is to strip law-abiding gun owners of their Constitutional rights and turn the United States into a country where only the police and military have guns.  And once that’s done, what’s next?

At least he’s honest enough to state exactly what he wants.  So much for the mantra that “no one wants to take your guns.”




If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.  And be sure to check out our new MeWe page here.

If you appreciate independent conservative reports like this, please go here and support us on Patreon.

And if you’re as concerned about online censorship as we are, go here and order this book:

Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad
Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad – Source: Author (used with permission)

Joe Newby

A 10-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, Joe ran for a city council position in Riverside, Calif., in 1991 and managed successful campaigns for the Idaho state legislature. Co-author of "Banned: How Facebook enables militant Islamic jihad," Joe wrote for Examiner.com from 2010 until it closed in 2016 and his work has been published at Newsbusters, Spokane Faith and Values and other sites. He now runs the Conservative Firing Line.

Related Articles

Our Privacy Policy has been updated to support the latest regulations.Click to learn more.×