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.
Ethics Alarms 
I stopped perusing his hyper-partisan drivel long ago, and have never looked back.
Were you a regular reader (thank your lucky stars you’re not), EA would have its own, extensive Caffeinated Politics file.
He even thought it was a GREAT IDEA for the Miami FL Studio Kids Little River preschool to paint white toddlers with Black Face., and was surprised that the uninformed parents had a problem with it.
I can’t find the link (Steve?) but he showed up here once to slobber his unintelligible Lefty vitriol, and the estimable Humble Talent (as only he can) highfreakin’lariously cut him a new one.
Heh; HT’s probably still picking pieces of Deke’s bony @$$ out of his boots.
PWS
Heh; HT’s probably still picking pieces of Deke’s bony @$$ out of his boots.
Really pretty pinkish slippers more likely 😉.
The Gotch wrote, “I can’t find the link (Steve?) but he showed up here once to slobber his unintelligible Lefty vitriol, and the estimable Humble Talent (as only he can) highfreakin’lariously cut him a new one.”
I think this is the link you asked for.
Thanks; and another obscure link successfully sleuthed by Sherlock Witherspoon.
PWS
OK what is new here? Same tired old talking points with the same tired old “arguments”. I am not going to call out Gregory Humphrey for being stupid or unethical, just being a true believer quoting from his catechism.
I think that Gregory Humphrey as a gay man needs to look at the calendar / clock and wake up. The root cause of the violence of this week is not the availability of guns, but radical Islamism. And Islam takes a dim view of homosexuality. Iran executes gay men. In Gaza gays were thrown of high buildings, when they still had high buildings. A he should remember the massacre at the Pulse nightclub (gay) in 2016, when a Muslim killed 49 people. Maybe he should arm himself. Maybe he should reframe gun control as hitting what you aim at.
And given that the hard left as useful idiots often cooperate with Muslims (Queers for Palestine, Mamdani) he may also consider whether today it is still wise for a gay man to ally with the hard left.
Shit, we already have this in NY. As soon as the SCOTUS ruled on Bruen, Hochul and the other state legislators doubled down. What we have now is worse.
GOA (Gun Owners of America) vs Hochul: Overturn NYS gun legislation passed in defiance of Constitution.
Status: A Preliminary Injunction was granted by the District Court. The injunction was appealed to the Second Circuit Court, which upheld the preliminary injunction in part, and overturned it in part. We are now asking the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit Court’s decision.
This will probably have a bearing on the case: In early 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared likely to strike down a Hawaii law, known as the “vampire rule,” which prohibited carrying firearms on private property open to the public without express permission. This follows 2024 rulings upholding other state “place to keep” laws, setting up a major test on concealed carry restrictions.
A SCOTUS decision is expected this summer.
Anyone that would like to follow the conversation that Humphrey and I had, here’s a link.
Also; it appears that Humphrey may have chosen to censored my last comment in that conversation, it’s either that or it’s still stuck in a moderation black hole or it was sent to spam. Humphrey has regularly censored my comments and I have absolutely no idea what his criteria for censoring a comment is.
For posterity sake, here is a screenshot of my last comment…
FYI; it appears that Humphrey has swallowed the narratives presented by the very extreme anti-American anti-Constitution political left and he actively demonizes the 2nd Amendment as being racist; plus, this is how he demonizes 77-83 million gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment: severely uneducated rubes, clueless, knuckle-draggers, amoral, soulless, unconscionable clowns, have dwarfed reasoning, and insane. Yes, those are actual quotes I’ve found from Humphrey’s anti-gun blog posts, there’s likely more I haven’t found, yet.
We should all remember how the anti-gun advocacy “logic” functions; we have an anti-firearm movement (anti 2nd Amendment movement) that wants to ban or severely limit availability of firearms to 100% of We the People based on the illegal use of 0.000148% of existing firearms – this is absurdly illogical. Their rationalization mantra is “if it saves one life”.
It appears to me that Humphrey is one of those “rights for me but not for thee” very extreme progressives.
UPDATE: Humphrey posted the comment I shared above and posted a reply.
It’s not a better rabbit hole, Steve, and he really is an idiot. The Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the Constitution, it has ruled on this issue, and nobody else’s “interpretation” can be “proper” by definition. Second, his prior restraint of an enumerated right wouldn’t be constitutional under ANY interpretation. You can’t legislate conditions to exercise a right. You can legislate just and reasobale reasons to withhold a right, like a felony conviction, but the government can’t be empowered to say “you don’t have that right unless we say so, period.” He doesn’t understand any of this, refuses to accept what he doesn’t understand, and thus isn’t capable of a good faith debate. Don’t waste your time.
“He doesn’t understand any of this, refuses to accept what he doesn’t understand, and thus isn’t capable of a good faith debate. Don’t waste your time.”
Bravo India November Golf Oscar!
PWS
Anytime you disagree with Humphrey, it turns into a rhetorical rabbit hole, that is if he allows your comments to be published. The pattern I’ve observed is that he really has no idea how to effectively deal with ideological disagreement. As fixed and rigid as his ideological views are, anything outside his bubble is completely incomprehensible to him and he turns debate into a rhetorical rabbit hole of deflections where he drags the goal posts down main street and out into heavy traffic on Interstate 90 heading West at an alarming speed of Dunning-Kruger nonsense. Logic blows over his head at the speed of sound increasing his Cranial Power Generation Potential to infinity. He could likely power the entire State of Wisconsin with his CPGP.
Superb analysis, Dr. Witherspoon!
PWS
After I posted my last planned comment in reply to some misrepresentations and falsehoods that he wrote about me, he deleted the entire conversation. It’s become very clear to me that when I post verifiable facts that Humphrey doesn’t like and cannot control, he resorts to the one thing that he can control, silencing the truth on his blog. This is how extreme progressive psychological snowflakes conduct themselves.
It appears that he’s deleted every comment that I’ve made on his new blog site.
Cowardly, unethical, and despicable.
“It appears that he’s deleted every comment that I’ve made on his new blog site.”
We’re shocked…SHOCKED…said no one.
Gutlessly unctuous and petty…but that’s Humphrey…to a Tee!
He hilariously sees himself as some sort of Freedom Cultural Warrior, but lacks any and all fortitude other than that which may be mustered from the Safe Space of his keyboard.
But if he were ever forced to actually stand up for, and defend, his rank blather, he’d $#!t himself sideways, turn tail and run away so fast his petticoats would fly up over his head.
PWS
I’m debating with myself if this has earned another entry on my blog to archive the entire conversation for posterity. I do have all the appropriate screenshots but I don’t really have the time right now to put it all together. Choices, choices.
“I’m debating with myself if this has earned another entry on my blog to archive the entire conversation for posterity.”
Short Answer: yes
Long Answer HELL YEAH!!!
You’ll find the time, later.
PWS
Maybe I can get it done after I finish my massive database reorganization and Bulls Eye competition is over until next fall. I’ve been rather busy the past few months.
There’s a Duty to Confront those who obsequiously attempt to portray Cowardly Gutlessness as informed commentary.
PWS
Rats, I meant to snag part of one of his responses to you…something sort of like him saying he formed his opinions on the subject back in grade school, or some-such. I took it as an indicator of his inability or unwillingness to subsequently process information accurately as an adult.
And deleting everything…what a coward.
”Guns already in the possession of people will also need to be registered.”
What about the unregistered guns in the hands of criminals? He is never going to get around the fact that someone is going to disobey the law.
Then, there may be the non-criminal gun enthusiasts that engage in civil disobedience. How will they ever be found?
-Jut
Wait! There are people who disobey the law? But, but , but, but
(Speaking completely from a position of ignorance, because gun control is a subject I think little about), what about increasing the penalties for firearms-related felonies?
I agree that literal gun control will do little to curb gun violence when it’s the lawbreakers doing the violence; so, how about we increase the penalties until the risk of being caught and, say, drawn and quartered acts as a greater deterrent?