In his post (I would write “most recent post,” except that he is out with a new one that enthuses about the Academy Awards. Tonight one after another in a procession of presenters and winners will walk to the podium and rage on about how much they hate President Trump, love criminals and illegal immigrants and Iranian mulluhs, and insult at least half the country. Of course someone like Greg is looking forward to the broadcast) called Gun Crime Suspect Sells Stolen Gun, Deadly University Shooting Follows, Obvious Gun Control Needed, the blogger blames an act of domestic terrorism on the lack of sufficient gun control measures. Anti-gun craziness isn’t the main thrust of his blog, just another woke delusion among the many he supports in his legal, logical, ethics vacuum:

“What this case (once again) exposes is the dangerous myth that our current gun laws are “enough.” They clearly aren’t. If someone with a documented history of suspicious firearm activity can still traffic a stolen weapon, then the system is not protecting the public; it’s enabling the very people it should be stopping. Stronger gun control laws are about preventing exactly this kind of nightmare scenario. Universal background checks, mandatory reporting of stolen firearms, and real consequences for illegal sales aren’t radical ideas. They’re basic safeguards that any functioning society should demand.

“The ODU shooting shows how easily a single illegal gun can move through the cracks and end up in the hands of someone who should never have been anywhere near a weapon. It’s a chain of preventable failures: a stolen gun, an unmonitored seller, a prohibited buyer, and a campus full of unsuspecting victims. Every link in that chain could have been broken by stronger laws and better enforcement. Instead, we’re left with another tragedy that politicians will lament publicly while refusing to fix the policies that allowed it to happen.

“We can keep pretending that these incidents are isolated, unforeseeable acts of evil, or we can acknowledge the obvious: weak gun laws create the conditions for violence. They make it easy for dangerous people to arm themselves and nearly impossible for law enforcement to intervene before shots are fired. The ODU case is not an argument for more thoughts and prayers; it’s an argument for action. If we’re serious about stopping this cycle, then we need gun control laws that actually control guns—especially the ones being stolen, trafficked, and sold to people who have already shown they pose a threat.”

Steve Witherspoon instantly recognized the flaw in this argument, if it indeed is a flaw rather than deliberate obsfuscation. How can stricter laws stop people who are already breaking laws from breaking those laws too? The post is one more example of the gun-phobic left screaming “Do something!” without any substantive solution being proposed, instead vaguely calling for “common sense gun control.” So Steve asked Greg,

“Consider the following; a guy illegally stole a firearm – a felony – then illegally sold the stolen firearm (it’s illegal – a felony – to possess or sell a stolen firearm regardless if you’re the one that stole it or not) to someone else who is now in possession of a stolen firearm – a felony – and then used the illegally stolen and illegally sold firearm in an illegal act of terror to murder – a felony – and shoot up a college classroom, which is also a felony. Since everything these two people did was already illegal exactly what gun control law do you propose to pass that would prevent these two non law abiding criminals from committing their criminal felony acts and therefore prevented this single act of terror?”

To his credit, the blogger provided an answer. Not to his credit, the answer was incompetent and ignorant:

“Require a license from law enforcement before buying a gun, have fingerprinting and in‑person identity verification, and create a traceable record for every firearm transfer. If the gun owner is law abiding there will be no problem with such a law. In other words real gun control from A-Z. Given the glut of guns on our streets it will take time for the full impact to be felt. Guns already in the possession of people will also need to be registered.”

This guy is blathering on about gun control and hasn’t read the Second Amendment, hasn’t read New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, doesn’t comprehend the Bill of Rights, and in short, doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about! The right to own a gun is an enumerated right, meaning that it cannot be abridged by law except with narrow exceptions. Requiring every citizen to get a license from the government to exercise an enumerated right is precisely the kind of abridgement the Constitution absolutely forbids.

Humpheys’ proposed solution is illegal and unconstitutional on its face. A high school graduate should recognize that. A gun is not a car: there is no right to drive, because driving on a public street is a privilege not a right. This is goo-goo-gah-gah Constitutional Law for Dummies, and Humphreys poses as the Wise Truth-Teller from Woke World without doing the bare minimum of due diligence and research. And readers think he’s making sense, because they are as ignorant as he is.

Yecchh.

What he wants, and what all of the Left’s anti-gun totalitarians want, is the repeal of the Second Amendment (and they aren’t too keen on the First Amendment either). Then they want forcible confiscation of guns (that requires repealing the Fourth Amendment), which is what this boob means when he says “Guns already in the possession of people will also need to be registered.” The most hilarious part of Humphrey’s anti-gun screed is that his unconstitutional scheme still wouldn’t prevent the terrorist attack that he says justifies the repeal of big chunks of the Bill of Rights. ,

A blog written by so incompetent and biased a pundit is an active blight on the culture and political discourse of the nation. Nobody should read it except to learn how not to write a blog.