ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 14, 2013

Hence the nerves

A little math should help put things in perspective for those who are convinced that the gun owners of America can't possibly stand up to the military might that is under the control of the federal government:
In November a record 2 million guns were sold in America.  This was followed up by another record in December.  2.7 million guns were sold in America in the last month of 2012.... There are 2.29 active members in the Chinese Army. There are 1.13 active members in the Indian Army.
The U.S. Army has 561,984 active personnel.  Keep in mind that 600,000 men armed with rifles were sufficient to dissuade the 16 million-strong German Heer from attacking Switzerland.

Are all of those 4.7 million new guns bought by people willing to kill in order to protect their God-given liberties?  No.  But many, perhaps even most, were.  And that is why the current media drums being pounded for gun control are going to dwindle away to silence again soon.

Labels:

223 Comments:

1 – 200 of 223 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous dh January 14, 2013 3:33 PM  

Are all of those 4.7 million new guns bought by people willing to kill in order to protect their God-given liberties? No. But many, perhaps even most, were. And that is why the current media drumbs being pounded for gun control are going to dwindle away to silence again soon.

Any stats on the total number of gun owners? I wonder how many new new gun owners are in that 4.7 million 2-month total?

How many owners have more than one gun? I would imagine it's a high percentage. Especially if they are into rifles, they tend to multiply.

Anonymous David January 14, 2013 3:35 PM  

I don't think the US government can afford to hire enough people to collect all the guns in circulation.

Blogger Shimshon January 14, 2013 3:36 PM  

The remnant will, like the Swiss were ready to do to a hypothetical invasion by a 1 million man German army, "shoot twice and go home." End of story. Anyone who chooses to fight know the US government plays dirty. Maybe they'll shoot three times to make sure.

Blogger Giraffe January 14, 2013 3:37 PM  

I'm probably on the "Kill him first" list from reading his blog, and yours, but Mike Vanderbaugh quite often points out that only three percent of the colonists actually fought against the British. Three percent of 80 million gun owners is still more than the .gov could muster.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

Anonymous Difster January 14, 2013 3:37 PM  

I had someone on HuffPo tell me that they reported me to the FBI because I made a threat. I said that when they start to confiscate the guns, that gun owners will start picking off anything in uniform.

Somehow that is supposed to be a threat instead of free speech. Go figure. I told the guy to get a better hobby.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 3:42 PM  

Ronald Regan ...almost killed by a 22 cal. six-shooter! (Not bad for a round designed to kill bunnies)

JFK ...slain by a 1930s era rifle ...similar to what Uncle Joe shot his deer with last fall...

Yitzhak Rabin ...dead by .380 ACP -- how's that for "stopping power"...

Yeah ... "no way" that an average person can stop the Unstoppable State Machine.

Bow down and assimilate, Citizen!

Anonymous DT January 14, 2013 3:45 PM  

How many owners have more than one gun? I would imagine it's a high percentage. Especially if they are into rifles, they tend to multiply.

Yeah, but keep in mind those guns would spread out if the SHTF. There's only one gun in my home, but if everything went to hell (any scenario, not just FedGov going rogue) I have two close friends / neighbors who would arm me to the teeth and still have more guns then they could handle.

Blogger Joshua_D January 14, 2013 3:48 PM  

If I was going to be worried, I would tend to be more worried about the fascist police and TSA than the military. Of course, since the police and TSA are mostly fat ass women these days, I'm not inclined to be too worried.

Anonymous Asher January 14, 2013 3:53 PM  

What do you want to bet that the majority of the military will be on the side of those who oppose gun confiscation.

Does it not register with the leftist dumbasses that when the shit hits the fan the military will be on our side, not theirs?

Anonymous Buckeyecopperhead January 14, 2013 3:54 PM  

Lots of examples in history of poorly armed and outnumbered, but strong-willed, people beating the snot out of heavily armed govt-approved goons.

"We the People" are neither poorly armed nor outnumbered. The million-dollar question is: Are "We the People" strong willed?

I certainly hope so.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 3:58 PM  

U.S. Military = helpless against the smart, crafty Brown people like the Viet Cong, Taliban, etc.

U.S. Military = unstoppable killing machines against their own White-bread kin...

Anonymous Orville January 14, 2013 3:58 PM  

The U.S. Army has 561,984 active personnel...total, but that's not guns on the ground. That includes motor pool, cooks, officers and REMFs who wouldn't normally be on the front lines. So the actual number is even lower.

Anonymous Russell January 14, 2013 4:03 PM  

"drumbs" I can't tell if that is merely a typo or a clever neologism.

If it isn't the latter, it should be!

Blogger ajw308 January 14, 2013 4:03 PM  

Trial run
I wonder who learned more of a lesson, us or them.

Anonymous Red January 14, 2013 4:11 PM  

The drums are going to die down but they're going to get it done through the supreme court.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 4:11 PM  

@ asher

what is the military going to do, they're mostly stuck on bases on korea and germany

Anonymous 11B January 14, 2013 4:13 PM  

It is interesting to link the discussion on the explosion of gun sales with the recent talk of secession. Now I agree with most of the folks who think secession is not going to happen. First, most states are pretty mixed in terms of political outlook. Second, even if one could secede, what's the point if you are going to have a not too insignificant number of NAMs in your midst?

However, I think these sad facts about secession should cause alarm, not for those who wish to secede, but for those who wish to preserve the union. Why? Because if there was the chance to secede like the South tried in 1861, the Union would have a big, target rich environment to attack. A state or region attempting to leave would be an easy target for political, economic and military attacks.

But in today's world, where every neighborhood, town and state is politically mixed or purple as some might say, it makes it much tougher for the pro-government side to keep power. Any actions they take must not cause harm or collateral damage to those who are either on the government's side or undecided.

Like our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, the government would have to walk on egg shells to make sure more rebels are not created due to the misapplication of force.

Blogger vandelay January 14, 2013 4:16 PM  

They're desperate. So desperate in fact, that they're not even hiding the fact that they can't let the "crisis" of Newtown go to waste.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_and_newtown_shooting_the_president_wants_to_push_for_gun_control.html

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 14, 2013 4:17 PM  

I think elements of the government are also learning from the Libya and Syria examples. If the government were ever to turn on its populace there is no promises whatsoever that all members of the military will act in accordance with their directives. Just as in Libya and Syria it isn't unreasonable for individual soldiers, entire companies, or even battalions, defect en mass. The US has around 2.8 million active and reserve members of the military, if even a tenth of those numbers sided with a rebellion, that would be over 140,000 personnel.

Blogger Log January 14, 2013 4:17 PM  

All it takes for evil to triumph is for otherwise neutral individuals to pursue their paycheck.

Anonymous JartStar January 14, 2013 4:18 PM  

As I’ve said before, it’s not the arms but the will. During one of the most critical times of gun ownership, post-Katrina in New Orleans, the mayor ordered door to door gun confiscation. Not only did the law abiding citizens turn over their guns, as far as I know not a single shot was fired at police to keep guns. This action was later decided to be completely unconstitutional, but a) the people turned over their guns without a fight even though they desperately needed them b) few if any of the guns were later returned by police c) the mayor didn’t give a damn about the 2nd amendment.

The senate voted in 2006 to Bar Emergency Gun Confiscation but what give you any indication they will abide by their own laws?

Anonymous Matt January 14, 2013 4:19 PM  

It is interesting to link the discussion on the explosion of gun sales with the recent talk of secession.

Secession is a red herring. If nobody in the country wanted secession - even if every person in the south loved the idea of a perpetual union - it would not change the fact that the federal government is becoming a mathematical impossibility. $16,432,680,097,613.85 can't last forever. Uncle Sam, at least in his current form, is unsustainable.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 14, 2013 4:21 PM  

Any stats on the total number of gun owners? I wonder how many new new gun owners are in that 4.7 million 2-month total?

How many owners have more than one gun? I would imagine it's a high percentage. Especially if they are into rifles, they tend to multiply.


Here is what I found, it is from a site that compiled it from various sources, so take it for what it is worth.

Around 70 to 80 million Americans own a gun, either rifle or handgun. A gallup poll found that about 30% of all individuals polled owned a firearm. 47% of them were men interviewed owned a firearm, 41% were republican, and 23% were democrat

Blogger Morrison January 14, 2013 4:21 PM  

Actually, the Heer never had 16 Million Men at one time...if they had, they would have won.

And Switzerland saved their asses by hiding Nazi assets.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 14, 2013 4:22 PM  

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Anonymous Matt January 14, 2013 4:22 PM  

Not only did the law abiding citizens turn over their guns...

No, they really didn't. It's an under-appreciated fact that the pre-Katrina evacuation was spectacularly successful. All but the absolutely destitute or the suicidally irresponsible left days beforehand. When Katrina rolled in, the law-abiding citizens with the slightest shred of sense were long gone.

Blogger Morrison January 14, 2013 4:24 PM  

Actually, the Heer never had 16 Million Men at one time...if they had, they would have won.

And Switzerland saved their asses by hiding Nazi assets.

Anonymous mapper January 14, 2013 4:31 PM  

Asher January 14, 2013 3:53 PM What do you want to bet that the majority of the military will be on the side of those who oppose gun confiscation. Does it not register with the leftist dumbasses that when the shit hits the fan the military will be on our side, not theirs?

Pentagon knows this which is prolly why the military has been so rapidly recruiting their parade of freaks...wymyn, gheys, gang-bangers, etc. They know these clowns are majority anti-American and will side with their commie masters in a hot civil war.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 14, 2013 4:34 PM  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKvNtAVZyOc

"Oh brother, you guessed."

"I want to hear you.
And I want to see you.
And I want to talk to you -- ALL of you. Now."

"I've wanted to do this for YEARS."

How d'ye feel?



Blogger tz January 14, 2013 4:35 PM  

There seems to be a disconnect where politicians and activists (of all stripes, conservative, liberal, and libertarian) assume we are in some kind of virtual reality world and if they pass a law some magic or machine will alter reality. Pass law to ban guns and somehow the executive pen turns into a Harry-Potter-world magic wand and all the guns go "poof" and cease to exist.

47% or more of the USA is already enslaved. It is less about a threat to take your guns than a threat not to send you your Obama-bucks on your EBT card, Social Security, etc.

The US Army cannot overcome the population. Afghanistan would be dirt poor except they can't even afford dirt, yet have a few rifles, poppies, and except for randomly slaughtering a lot of women, children, and an occasional Al Queda #2 (Al Queda has more #2s than the old Patrick McGoohan "The Prisoner" TV show), can't do anything about it.

Red Dawn wouldn't begin to describe it - first remember that of all segments of society, the military supported Ron Paul more than all other candidates combined. What army (navy, air force) - after all the defectors? (Again note Afghanistan where their trainees can't be allowed to have weapons lest they massacre the instructors).

God is Just. He also has a (bizarre) wicked sense of humor when dealing with the wicked.

Also remember that the military has to be paid for, and the current structure is overpriced, unreliable, complex weapons, mostly designed for the cold war. $100 model airplanes can easily take out $10k or $100k drones, but there are cheaper ways. Kids on crotch-rockets can get instructions to diverse places while fake texts and such are sent in the clear.

Reading the stories of the [Roman Catholic canonized] Saints - history from the spiritual angle - I can't be more encouraged, hopeful, joyful...

Now I just have to wait for a state to seriously consider seceding, or perhaps the Lakota can reclaim their land (I can ride my Harley to Sturgis and stay - ND has the oil and MT has the refineries). Or perhaps when Mexico or one of the central American countries goes bankrupt, they will consider selling some land. When does Manuel Noriega get out?

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 4:38 PM  

My only objection Vox is that Germany also needed Switzerland's banking interests.

Blogger Bob January 14, 2013 4:46 PM  

Does it not register with the leftist dumbasses that when the shit hits the fan the military will be on our side, not theirs?

The military gets blacker by the day. And those blacks will support the government.

Anonymous workingman January 14, 2013 4:51 PM  

You guys live in a fantasy of the wild west. That world is gone and it's not coming back, guns or no guns. So shut up, eat your McDonald's, buy your crap at Walmart and learn to speak Spanish. That's what the land of the free is all about.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 14, 2013 4:54 PM  

Something that should be borne in mind when thinking about these matters, is that right now you're only considering the numbers of actual gun owners, and thus forgetting how this society actually works. In other words, you haven't even begun to consider the applied ripple effect of an incensed Mandarin class. And not all the Mandarins are leftists, I am here to tell you.

There exist a lot of people, you'll have to take my word for it, who could cause more grief to various interested parties simply by having a witty conversation in an expensive restaurant, than could a 100-man-strong team of expert riflemen.

Soft power? Oh yeah, you better believe it. Remember, there's this company that's called Micro_soft_, not Macro-Hard.

Anonymous Edjamacator January 14, 2013 4:56 PM  

Soft power? Oh yeah, you better believe it. Remember, there's this company that's called Micro_soft_, not Macro-Hard.

What about for the porn version?

Anonymous dh January 14, 2013 4:57 PM  

VD/anyone--

Any idea how you could game out various scenarios?

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 14, 2013 5:01 PM  

"Any idea how you could game out various scenarios?"

Oh pffft, it's already been done, a minimum of seven times, probably more. You just need to know who to ask about it.

And don't ask ME.

Anonymous civilServant January 14, 2013 5:07 PM  

Any stats on the total number of gun owners? I wonder how many new new gun owners are in that 4.7 million 2-month total?

During the last gun panic a few years ago I read that the United States had approximately 40 million actual owners of firearms and that even during the panic-buying this baseline number was not increasing. Apparently the existing baseline was purchasing even more firearms than they already owned.

I asked one man how many firearms he owned. He said one hundred and fifty.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 14, 2013 5:18 PM  

The US Army is dispersed throughout the globe.

ONLY ONE ARMY DIVISION REMAINS IN THE USA.

In short, there is nothing between us and Washington, DC but a policeman. And it is by no means certain that this single Army division would oppose us, even if ordered to do so.

Sic semper (evello mortem) tyrannis.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 14, 2013 5:19 PM  

During the last gun panic a few years ago I read that the United States had approximately 40 million actual owners of firearms and that even during the panic-buying this baseline number was not increasing. Apparently the existing baseline was purchasing even more firearms than they already owned.

I asked one man how many firearms he owned. He said one hundred and fifty.


Finding exact statistics is hard. I found some information indicating that it could be double 40 million, but then again who knows? If someone, in some sort of official capacity, asked if I owned guns I'd decline to answer, or say no I don't. Doesn't matter for me since I have a CCW so I am in a federal database, but there could be millions of Americans who could potentially fly under the radar.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 5:19 PM  

I bought my first gun after Obama was elected the first time. My father bought a gun for the first time after the last election. The number is growing.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 5:22 PM  

"During the last gun panic a few years ago I read that the United States had approximately 40 million actual owners of firearms and that even during the panic-buying this baseline number was not increasing."

That is a GROSS underestimate. There are closer to 180 million gun owners.

Anonymous Poli_Mis January 14, 2013 5:23 PM  

JartStar, would you agree that things are quite a bit different now than they were in 2005 when Katrina happened? It was the top of the boom, life was good, people generally (albeit idiotically) trusted the government.

Economically, things are different. Not only are they far more wary of Uncle Sugar, they read stories about folks calling 911 and being told to call back later.

Yeah. Not the same.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 14, 2013 5:26 PM  

workingman..."You guys live in a fantasy of the wild west. That world is gone and it's not coming back, guns or no guns. So shut up, eat your McDonald's, buy your crap at Walmart and learn to speak Spanish. That's what the land of the free is all about."

You are correct, this is a free country, but you and your friends seem to take that to mean...."free for the taking"....which it is not.

This is not about the wild west, sonny. You want the wild west, go to Chicago, or Atlanta, or Detroit, or Philly. It is not a fantasy, it is an ignored fact.

You should learn to speak Spanish, so you can be more easily identified when the time comes.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner January 14, 2013 5:26 PM  

Ol' Barry is the best gun salesman the world has eva' known!!

Blogger The Bechtloff January 14, 2013 5:28 PM  

It's also worth noting that should the shit hit the fan, there are large numbers of military men, as well as state and local cops all over this country who will not be on the government's side.

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 5:29 PM  

@ Don Reynolds

ONLY ONE ARMY DIVISION REMAINS IN THE USA.

And quite a few foreign troops here on our soil, training.

Blogger ajw308 January 14, 2013 5:34 PM  

I've known a few cops who've quit, basically because they couldn't stomach one aspect, or another of being a unionized gov't employee. The others, well it's the best money they can make with their skill set and they are committed to keeping their well paying jobs with a pension.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 5:39 PM  

If on average 30 percent own (based on surveys) at least one firearm and our population is in fact 315 million, you end up with ~94 million owners. That is likely a high figure.

If in fact the figure used of 80 million is correct and there are 315 million souls in the US of A then you have a ownership rate of ~25 percent. That may still be high. That said if there is a gun or two in the household then even though there is one owner, there could be as many as 5 or 6 that have access to arms. In that case even with an ownership rate of only 12.5 percent (~40 million legal owners) there could easily be 80 to 94 million folks that have access to arms.

Now as regard arms held by folks:

Now in 1982 the number of arms held was said to be 180 million to 240 million in the US, it is hard to see the number of arms being much less then 320 to 350 million based on the 30 year production and import figures, even assuming that some millions of arms have been destroyed since. Of these a large number of are obsolete, black powder, plinking .22 cal arms, short range shotguns etc. So if we look at the military pattern arms we have the following conservative estimates:

Rem 700 (M40A1, M24 sniper rifle) ~5 million produced
AR-15 pattern ~4 million produced
M1A (M14 pattern) ~320,000 produced 1974 to 2012
M1 Garand 900,000~1,100,000 in civilian hands
M1 carbine 750,000 to 1.5 million in civilian hands
AK pattern arms ~1.5 million to 2 million
SKS pattern ~1 million plus
HK91/93 pattern ~89,000
UZI carbine ~175,000 (including Vector, century and Norinco clones)
Fal pattern arms ~235,000
FN 49 rifles ~ 78,000
AR-10 ~15,000
Sterling semicarbine ~15,000
AR-180 ~24,000
Hakim rifle ~18,000
Rasheed ~6,000
SVT-50 ~11,000
Lungiman ~8,000

So stopping there we have over 15 million reasonably modern small arms in the hands of the public. Given that most semi-auto owners have more then one, this likely correlates to around 5 million or more folks that have a reasonable modern small arms that they own, with likely another 5 to 10 million that have access to these arms.

Anonymous DonReynolds January 14, 2013 5:40 PM  

Cogitans luvenis..."Any stats on the total number of gun owners? I wonder how many new new gun owners are in that 4.7 million 2-month total?"

No one has bothered to mentioned, now that the shelves are bare of firearms and ammo, and the gun shows sell out in a couple of hours, just how many people showed up to buy a firearm or ammo but went away empty handed because there were none to buy or they were outbid by the pawnshops and collectors. Check out the private ads in the classified section of your local newspaper. That column is practically wiped out....maybe two or three ads remain anymore.

Simply put, firearm and ammo sales would be many times HIGHER if they were AVAILABLE. More would be sold if more were available. The factories are still running full blast, but where are the guns?


Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 5:43 PM  

"If on average 30 percent own (based on surveys)"

Except we know those surveys are wrong because a huge number of firearms owners will not tell anyone they own one. That's actually a big part of the american gun culture.

I would guess that about half of all gun owners would say no to a survey.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 5:49 PM  

"Rem 700 (M40A1, M24 sniper rifle) ~5 million produced"

Why would you include the Remington and leave out all the other bolt action rifles likes the savages and winchesters and rugers?

These are just as deadly as the remington... and in fact I would argue many are more so.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 5:50 PM  


"The factories are still running full blast, but where are the guns?"

They are literally bought up as soon as they are shipped. Most factories are backordered all the way to Q2.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 5:59 PM  

By the Bye, the folks in the pervious posting who had rather contemptuous things to say about the NRA, well, you are just free riders on the NRA members. I was involved in lobbying against the 1994 ban, both on the state and federal level. We won on the state level (PA) and failed on the Federal, though in the end that ban expired. The fact is numbers count and the NRA is the outfit, because of its large membership that can get in to see the reps. If we had 8 million instead of 4.2 it would be a good thing.

Now you can make your derisive comments, but I very much doubt that many of you did much or will do much in the months ahead. It is easy to post on this board but if you are not willing to throw your 30 bucks in the till and be counted as a member of the most respected pro-gun organization in the US, you will not likely do much else other then post insipid comments on sites like this (not the site, just the comments). It takes work to write letters; show up at legislator’s office; go to gun clubs when they have legislators present and the like. From my experience folks that do not join the NRA are generally slackers when it comes to doing their lobbying part, despite what they say when folks are watching.

Not that I have anything against GOA or the JFPO, but the fact is these organizations have very little clout and in the case of the JFPO, it was almost a single man operation (though quite a good informative one). The fact is they have a purpose but do not have the members to have much clout when it comes to speaking fro a sizable population of respectable citizens. Only the NRA has that clout.

Now I will say further that all the big talkers here who are anti-NRA are unlikely to do much of anything anytime. If you will not join a rather respected organization when it is easy and the odds are in your favor, what are you going to do when they actually show up at your door to register your arms or worse? It is one thing to speak big from the comfort of sitting at your computer, it is another when you are alone and the price of resistance has to be paid at that moment.

Well slightly off point but not entirely. If we are to win this battle it will be won in the next few years by hard work of lobbying congress, not in some imaginary terrorist campaign or whatever first person induced fantasy folks here are imagining. One has to lobby Congress, one house we have a very good chance of defeating any anti-gun legislation. The situation is actually much better then in the 1989 to 1994 period, for reasons that would take far too long to describe. So come join the fight and quite whining about the nasty-wasty NRA.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 6:02 PM  

"Now you can make your derisive comments, but I very much doubt that many of you did much or will do much in the months ahead"

Piss off.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 6:06 PM  

Nate,

Because the Remington M700 is a current military sniper rifle and I know the production numbers. The point of the post was to get a rough estimate of the number of military pattern arms in circulation and the numbers of owner that correlates too. Turns out to not be that big of a figure, you are likely talking about 5 million owners with whatever family has access to those arms.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 6:06 PM  

Every time one of us goes and buys another AR... they are doing more than the NRA has done... EVER.

The NRA is the oldest gun control organization in the US. They are backstabbing scumbags... and 30 dollars given to the NRA does about as much good as 30 dollars given to Handgun Control.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 6:07 PM  

Brillant retort, typical of the big talker,man of littel action though in any single case I can be wrong.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 6:08 PM  

" Turns out to not be that big of a figure, you are likely talking about 5 million owners with whatever family has access to those arms."

Wrong.

Look at the hunting numbers in the US. Then you can pretty much assume all of them have a center fire bolt action rifle... at least one.

That is a sniper rifle.

And that number is HUGE.


Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 6:09 PM  

21.8 million have hunted at least 1 time in the last 5 years.

Anonymous Tad January 14, 2013 6:09 PM  

@Vox Day

Another Political Prediction:

And that is why the current media drums being pounded for gun control are going to dwindle away to silence again soon.

First, the idea that calls for more control on weapons will go away bellies the current political reality. Expect the proposal for registration, limits on high capacity magazines and on some assault weapons to come soon. I rather doubt the media will stop covering the issue.

Second, fear Americans turning their guns on the government is what's going to stop the media from covering this issue? The media will stop covering gun issues because they fear the use of guns by citizens against the government? When was the last time the media was dissuaded from covering an issue because it included the possibility of extremism.

Do you mean the government might back away from the issue because they fear gun will be turned on them or the military?

This is just more crazy talk from the crazies. There's zero possibility of this primarily because no matter what proposals are offered and no matter what laws are passed, none of it will include confiscation. What's going to happen? America's gun nuts will rise up and start shooting with the passage of a new ban on the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds?

This is delusional.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 6:09 PM  

@JartStar

During Katrina, the cops were confiscating guns in impoverished black neighborhoods. They left the affluent white neighborhoods alone. Any guesses as to why?

Anonymous Tad January 14, 2013 6:12 PM  

@JartStar


The senate voted in 2006 to Bar Emergency Gun Confiscation but what give you any indication they will abide by their own laws?


Probably the fact that no one with any skin in the game has suggested such a thing. There will be no gun confiscation. Anyone suggesting the contrary ought to find a new use for that tin foil hat.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 6:13 PM  

Nate

I call your bluff; please give 2 examples of the supposed Gun control the NRA is responsible for. Be warned, I was involved in some lobbying as a member so you have to be very specific as the act and the supposed acts of perfidy or I will call you on any sloppy comments or knowledge of the specifics.

Put up or shut up.

Anonymous Daniel January 14, 2013 6:15 PM  

When was the last time the media was dissuaded from covering an issue because it included the possibility of extremism.

Twice last week that I can recall. That isn't counting the stories they refuse to cover at all out of obvious fear.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 6:15 PM  

Frederick303, you don't have a damned clue what you're talking about. Twice I've been involved with trying to get Vermont-style concealed carry laws passed in different states only to have our efforts ambushed by the NRA. Their main interest is in keeping gun control alive as an issue, since they profit greatly from it.

If SAF and GOA had the resources the NRA does, we'd likely have shall-issue CCW in all 50 states by now.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 6:17 PM  

Frederick303, the NRA opposed Vermont-style carry in North Carolina and Colorado. They also wrote the armor piercing ammunition ban that is now in effect.

That's three by my count.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 6:20 PM  

Nate no one is goign after bolt action rifles. Teh numbers of folks affeced by any law is likley to be on the order of 5 millon, give or take a few million.

Tad is correct, are folks going to go tot eh wall over not being able to buy a 30 shot magazine.....Not likley, not especially 21.8 millon folks that have bolt action rifles that are unaffected.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 6:21 PM  

"First, the idea that calls for more control on weapons will go away bellies the current political reality. Expect the proposal for registration, limits on high capacity magazines and on some assault weapons to come soon. I rather doubt the media will stop covering the issue."

Wrong.

They don't have the votes... and unless you're just willfully not paying attention... then you know they don't have the votes.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 6:22 PM  

"Nate no one is goign after bolt action rifles."

You mean high powered sniper rifles. And BTW, you forgot to include semi-automatic pistols in your list. Should change your numbers slightly.

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 6:26 PM  

I cannot speak to the state issues as I have not been involved in either of those. As for the AP ban, which was a product of the early 1980s, yes the NRA had a hand in writing that law, when they saw they would lose. The act that was passed applies to pistol rounds; the original act put forward by rep Baggi of NJ would have covered all ammunition.

In that case, which was before my time the alternative was a far more harmful ban. The fact is that AP rifle ammunition is still sold and can be used; old pistol stocks can still be held and used, the chief penalties are for criminal misuse of the ammunition.

Would I prefer no law at all, yes, but the fact is at the time the NRA saw no better deal. That was 30 years ago. How about something more recent?

Anonymous Frederick303 January 14, 2013 6:28 PM  

Damm, I agree with Nate.

Correct as it stands now the Dems do not have the votes to pass any kind of comprehensive ban. All the more reason to keep active, they will try something sneaky such as putting smale things forward or attaching it to spending legislation.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 6:29 PM  

Fredrick 303... you've already seen three...but add this to the list... The NRA actively tried to get gun control measures ADDED to NH bill 330 including background checks.

Anonymous Noah B. January 14, 2013 6:40 PM  

"I cannot speak to the state issues as I have not been involved in either of those."

In other words, ignore them because they don't fit in with the story you're selling.

"The act that was passed applies to pistol rounds..."

Which the BATF has interpreted to also include the most popular rifle rounds.

"In that case, which was before my time the alternative was a far more harmful ban."

No, that wasn't the only alternative, but thanks for proving my point. The best alternative was to at least pretend to have a backbone and fight a bad law. Apparently that idea didn't even seriously occur to the NRA leadership.

"How about something more recent?"

You asked for two examples and I provided three. Now you're attempting to move the goalpost. I think the main reason that the NRA hasn't been able to get away with its previous treachery is that SAF and GOA are actually doing what they can to defend freedom. Being seen as weak by comparison wouldn't help the NRA's cash flow.

Anonymous scoobius dubious January 14, 2013 6:43 PM  

"When was the last time the media was dissuaded from covering an issue because it included the possibility of extremism."

What on earth are you claiming?! It happens every day, EVERY SINGLE F#CKING DAY, when the media declines en banc to cover the phenomenon of massive black-on-white crime AS massive black-on-white crime (somehow it is always these unidentified "youths" who cause these troubles), with no statistics to support a mirror phenomenon.

Happens every single day; and you and I both know exactly why. Don't we, Jew.


Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 6:44 PM  

oh.. and by the way Fredrick303..

The NRA backed the National Firearms Act of 1934.. the ORIGINAL gun grabber act.

Blogger Giraffe January 14, 2013 6:54 PM  

@Nate
These are just as deadly as the remington... and in fact I would argue many are more so.

Nice shot.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 6:56 PM  

I occasionally wonder how accurate the statistics are on this subject. Might there be a fair number of "off the book" guns out there, ones that the government doesn't even know exist? Those that are considered lost, missing, destroyed, or maybe homemade, or were smuggled into the country under the noses of various officials. We might be even better armed than we realize.

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 6:58 PM  

If SAF and GOA had the resources the NRA does, we'd likely have shall-issue CCW in all 50 states by now.

Oh hell no! It would be the Vermont rule.

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 7:08 PM  

I'm a lifetime member of NRA. I have not contributed to them in years. I'm not so pissed off at them to withdraw my membership. But the NRA does not have my back.

The left is itching to go for it it seems. Time for the NRA to state it clearly. Hands off! Vermont rule is the only acceptable rule.

I wish CCW holders would send them back, deny them their fees and practice their right.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 7:10 PM  

I would like to agree tough that no one is going to start shooting over a mag capacity ban.

Fact is we all know that reloading takes no time at all. 20? 10? doesn't matter. Most of us know better than to load 30 into a 30 round mag anyway... as it causes failures to feed.

Any call for Mr and Mrs America to "Turn them in" or even register them... well that would be a very different story.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 14, 2013 7:13 PM  

Vox, I hope you are right about dwindle, God Bless.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 7:13 PM  

"I wish CCW holders would send them back, deny them their fees and practice their right."

To my eye that is not what 2A says.

You have a right to carry. It doesn't say you have a right to carry concealed.

Open carry should be legally everywhere at all times. Concealed Carry can be regulated by the states if they so choose.

Anonymous civilServant January 14, 2013 7:16 PM  

anyone--

Any idea how you could game out various scenarios?


One day you find that you are locked out of your bank account. None of your debit cards operate. None of your credit cards function. You cannot pay your mortgage. You cannot buy gasoline. You cannot buy food. You cannot pay your water bill. You receive a form letter in the mail saying, “Our records indicate that you are in possession of certain illegal firearms. Your finances have been locked until this situation is resolved. Please turn them in to your nearest sheriff's office. Your finances may be restored after your case is reviewed and a determination made.”

Game player state action.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 7:18 PM  

My shotgun (the only gun in our household) is one of those under the radar guns; my grandfather bought it in the 1930s and it has been handed down in the family.

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 7:22 PM  

You have a right to carry. It doesn't say you have a right to carry concealed.

I agree, it doesn't say anything about how one does so. Are we reading the same thing?

Anonymous Gwst January 14, 2013 7:23 PM  

Biden: W.H. readies 19 executive actions on guns

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html#ixzz2I008Vqrk

Conveniently bypassying wobbly congressional dems. And does anybody think that the repubs are gonna stand against him?

Our move.

Anonymous Poli_Mis January 14, 2013 7:25 PM  

I believe there would be a coalition of forces (sound familiar) that would be or is likely forming as we sit here and chew the fat.

Unions The Bolsheviks used the organizing power of thug labor combined with several secret armories to arm them when the revolution was ripe. I have no doubt that unions like SEIU whom I have seen up close at protests, are ready to take up arms that likely exist in caches with the help of the greatest team of executive gun runners ever known.

The New Black Panthers These para-military wannabes have been preparing for years and have been given a much greater leash, free from prosecution. I think these will be the most militant of the new brown shirts. This is likely to be one of the fiercer elements of this ahem, army. Even though we all know what great shots gang members can be. chuckle.

Law Enforcement Dregs Notice I said LE. Most honorable cops, if there remain any, will walk away from unlawful orders as many vets are in police forces across the country. It will be thugs with badges that can't wait to taser children or body slam grandma.

Recent Enlistees When I separated from active duty, I saw the military start to turn into a jobs program where the dumbest and laziest paycheck seeker reported for duty ... sometimes even on time. These were individuals who often struggled to meet weight and fitness standards much less proficiency in their given specialty. Many of whom only touched a weapon in basic training and not much else (my perspective is Air Force only but I can imagine how truly pathetic the naval and army enlistees must be). With regards to the officer corps, it is overrun with Grrl power and sensitivity training. I am not talking about any special forces types. They are well trained. Unfortunately, they train with far too many foreign military for my comfort. (See the next group)
The German Luftwaffe train at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. Surely there is more.

Foreign Forces The Soviets knew that you had to use armed thugs from different regions than the enforcement zones to accomplish the right amount of brutality. Ukrainians would not police Ukrainians. You had to shuffle the deck. Foreign forces here on our soil already and those likely to join from NATO fit this description. If there is need for plenty of rape, I suppose they could call in the Blue Helmets.

Assorted Federal Scum All of the alphabet soup organizations will be raring to start squeezing off all of those billions of rounds of hollow points so recently purchased.

Any tanks in the street will be a hollow force dog and pony show as most active duty and guard/reserve just aren't down with the sickness. Why do you think they are sent overseas on a fool's errand? Last year, suicides exceeded combat deaths. Could this be by design? My calculus says yes.

Will this rag tag team succeed? That depends on the resolve of those that wish to live free.

Anonymous TBA January 14, 2013 7:26 PM  

The government wouldn't have to send in any soldiers until after the fact. Drones, long-range artillery, fighter planes, bombers, missiles. The deciding factor would be just how ruthless the government would get. The USG hasn't excercised any way near maximum ruthlessness in its wars abroad lately (and rightly so, I think), but in a civil/secessionary war situation the actual state is on the line.

I left out tactical nukes of the above list. I doubt it they would be used, but if the state were really threatened, are you sure they would be off the table?

Anonymous fish January 14, 2013 7:29 PM  

One day you find that you are locked out of your bank account. None of your debit cards operate. None of your credit cards function. You cannot pay your mortgage. You cannot buy gasoline. You cannot buy food. You cannot pay your water bill. You receive a form letter in the mail saying, “Our records indicate that you are in possession of certain illegal firearms. Your finances have been locked until this situation is resolved. Please turn them in to your nearest sheriff's office. Your finances may be restored after your case is reviewed and a determination made.”

Game player state action.


Yeah....that's all Uncle Stupid needs.....more economic problems!

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 7:30 PM  

"One day you find that you are locked out of your bank account. None of your debit cards operate. None of your credit cards function. You cannot pay your mortgage. You cannot buy gasoline. You cannot buy food. You cannot pay your water bill. You receive a form letter in the mail saying, “Our records indicate that you are in possession of certain illegal firearms. Your finances have been locked until this situation is resolved. Please turn them in to your nearest sheriff's office. Your finances may be restored after your case is reviewed and a determination made.” "

you can do that to one person.

You can't do that to 100 million people.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 14, 2013 7:32 PM  

Appears Obama is flirting with the idea of an executive order of some sort.

The times are getting more interesting by the day.

Anonymous GWst January 14, 2013 7:35 PM  

Jack Amok: 16 EO's.

16.

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 7:35 PM  

"I think when all is said and done, we are going to pass a comprehensive gun bill today," Sen. Jeffrey Klein told reporters Monday morning. "I'm very excited about it. I am very confident we are going to vote on a comprehensive bill that will be agreed on by the governor, the Senate and Assembly."

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 7:40 PM  

Wal-Mart evidently has decided not to restock ammo, pending Obama's executive orders.

Yeah... I think I'm going to be sick.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 14, 2013 7:50 PM  

From:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187_Page2.html#ixzz2I06m6bf9


“I think everybody acknowledges that the assault weapons ban is a challenge, but other things — like the size of the magazines, the background checks, straw purchases — are all things that have a good chance of passing,” Scott said.

Background checks are already required, and straw purchases are already illegal. So I guess there is really only the size of mags restrictions.

AND

“Probably the most recognizable thing you can say in this debate is ban assault weapons,” Thompson said. “But the other two issues” — forbidding high-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring universal registration for gun purchases — “those two things have more impact on making our neighborhoods safe than everything else combined. Anytime you try and prohibit what kind of gun people has it generates some concern.”

Mag restrictions and registration. Registration? Registration has historically always led to confiscation.

Anonymous Mina January 14, 2013 7:54 PM  

Licensing and registration by the Government imply that Government has a right to grant or revoke that right.

"A license is a temporary, revocable permit issued by a governmental agency to have something, or to do something that is otherwise illegal. If you live in a city, town, municipality, county, or state that requires ... licensing, then the act of ... ownership has been made illegal without permission of government. "

The Constitution does not GRANT us the right to bear arms, it memorializes it. Therefore the Goverment has no right to require licensing or registration.

Anonymous Mina January 14, 2013 7:57 PM  

"One day you find that you are locked out of your bank account. None of your debit cards operate. None of your credit cards function. You cannot pay your mortgage. You cannot buy gasoline. You cannot buy food. You cannot pay your water bill. You receive a form letter in the mail saying, “Our records indicate that you are in possession of certain illegal firearms. Your finances have been locked until this situation is resolved. Please turn them in to your nearest sheriff's office. Your finances may be restored after your case is reviewed and a determination made."

The death of 1,000 cuts. We talked about this the other day. It's a great way for the Government to proceed. It will not help galvanize the citizens into revolt, resistance or refusal to cooperate.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 7:57 PM  

"The Constitution does not GRANT us the right to bear arms, it memorializes it. Therefore the Goverment has no right to require licensing or registration."

preach it darln'!

Anonymous Pokey January 14, 2013 7:58 PM  

During BO's first election the media was throwing around numbers between 43-48% of legally eligible people owning firearms in this country. In my meager opinion whatever the official estimate happens to be- it is LOW.

In this country it is now and always has been legal to make firearms for one's own personal use (no selling). Just Google 80% lower receivers or 80% paperweights.

And keep in mind the percentage is just the number of OWNERS. In my own experience frequenting gun ranges in Northern California I have met no less than three-old timers who have admitted to me they own over 100 firearms each.

Could they be lying? Sure, but if you know anything about gun culture in California then you know most people will not admit to how many they own unless they are old-timers who don't give a damn.

Blogger Cogitans Iuvenis January 14, 2013 8:01 PM  

"One day you find that you are locked out of your bank account. None of your debit cards operate. None of your credit cards function. You cannot pay your mortgage. You cannot buy gasoline. You cannot buy food. You cannot pay your water bill. You receive a form letter in the mail saying, “Our records indicate that you are in possession of certain illegal firearms. Your finances have been locked until this situation is resolved. Please turn them in to your nearest sheriff's office. Your finances may be restored after your case is reviewed and a determination made.”

That is how you forment real civil unrest. You have to ask yourself what were the real causes for civil wars usually are, and often it is access to economic fortunes. The consfication of guns was the final straw that caused the battle of lexington but the colonists had long grumbled about the economic restrictions imposed on them by the British Parliament. The 'Arab Spring' started out as protests because food prices were too high and the economy was poor, it then morphed into calls for regime change. The very first action that lead to what would become the Syrian civil war was when a young man self-immolated himself due to poor economic opporunities.

I think it is a myth that middle class peoples are the most likely to cause trouble for the regime, they may protest, but their protests usually do not amount to much. It is when the disaffected masses see no other alternative than outright violence that you see civil war.

The majority of Americans may distrust the government today, even if they go to them hat in hand, and I cannot imagine that an action like this wouldn't cause unrest. Frankly, I think that an action like that would meet far more resistance than having authorities go knocking door to door to consficate weapons.

Anonymous Mina January 14, 2013 8:06 PM  

"Frankly, I think that an action like that would meet far more resistance than having authorities go knocking door to door to confiscate weapons."

Interesting. I talked with my husband about this the other night. To him, the act of someone coming to his home to seize his private property would be a clear indication of the "turn to tyranny" and would force him to take a stand.

Conversely, he felt that the death of 1000 cuts would offer him less opportunity to "feel" that moment and consequently he would be more likely to comply.

I tend to think that the average citizen probably feels this way.

Anonymous Salt January 14, 2013 8:08 PM  

.More on NY -

Sources told Kramer the deal worked out by the Legislature is wide ranging, but it starts with assault weapons.

“We are going to ban assault weapons. We are going to eliminate all of the loopholes that existed previously,” Silver said.

The new state legislation will:

* Limit ammunition clips to seven. It’s now 10

* Force gun owners to renew their licenses every five years

* Stiffen penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime

* Stiffen penalties for bringing a gun on school property

* New restrictions on the assault weapons already owned by New Yorkers

“They will be basically not permitted to be transferred. They will be grandfathered in but not in terms of a transfer. There will be a registry,” Silver said.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 14, 2013 8:22 PM  

"Wal-Mart evidently has decided not to restock ammo, pending Obama's executive orders.

Yeah... I think I'm going to be sick."

Ten years of preparation yet those who wait for winter snow. The seasons are real and spring came, then summer now fall. Sometimes only a farm boy can see the seasons.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 14, 2013 8:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Susan January 14, 2013 8:32 PM  

Vox, when push comes to shove, it won't be the American military that Obama calls on. It will suit his perverted sense of humor to enforce a mutual benefits treaty* signed with Canada on Valentines Day 2008 in Texas by G.W. Bush. If you don't believe me, check out Jerome Corsi's archives on WND. He spent at least a couple of years talking about this treaty.

I am trying to say Vox, that it will not be the American military that you guys would be fighting against. It will be Canada and they most likely won't have a problem shooting at you guys. This is how the feds get around the P.C. act from the 1800's that prevents the President from using troops on native soil against her citizens. Just another reason to dislike our former President.

*The treaty allows the US and Canada to come to the aid of the other in the case of civil unrest in each other's country.

I just report as I find it, you guys can decide for yourselves if Bush turned traitor and Jerome Corsi is wrong.

Blogger Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia January 14, 2013 8:32 PM  

Rumours that Wallyworld is not restocking ammo are false:

http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/01/rumors-that-walmart-is-stopping-ammo-purchaseresupply-are-completely-false/

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 8:47 PM  

No one in their right mind would order a Gun Confiscation in America.
Which is why they got an idiotic monkey raised in moosliland and plopped his Lazy Ass in the Center Seat.

He's STUPID! He's STUPID ENOUGH TO DO IT and WILLING TO DIE!

Say goodbye to the NWO, their DEATHS are now a Certainty!

I'd love to shoot me some Blue Helmet Commies! Come 'n Get IT!

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 14, 2013 8:54 PM  

"Wal-Mart evidently has decided not to restock ammo, pending Obama's executive orders.

Wal*Mart can lick my sack.

Anonymous Tad January 14, 2013 8:54 PM  

@scoobiou

Happens every single day; and you and I both know exactly why. Don't we, Jew.

No...Tell us why, Traitor.

Anonymous Wade January 14, 2013 8:57 PM  

"*The treaty allows the US and Canada to come to the aid of the other in the case of civil unrest in each other's country."

I have a hard time believing that any Canadians will be interested in fighting Americans in any way. Besides, the Quebecians would probably join the rebels.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein January 14, 2013 8:58 PM  

Rumours that Wallyworld is not restocking ammo are false:

Wal*Mart can (still) kiss my sack.

Anonymous Tad January 14, 2013 9:00 PM  

@salt

We are going to ban assault weapons. We are going to eliminate all of the loopholes that existed previously,” Silver said.
GOOD


* Limit ammunition clips to seven. It’s now 10
BETTER

* Force gun owners to renew their licenses every five years
NOT BAD

* Stiffen penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime
GOOD

"* Stiffen penalties for bringing a gun on school property"
GOOD

* New restrictions on the assault weapons already owned by New Yorkers
BETTER

“They will be basically not permitted to be transferred. They will be grandfathered in but not in terms of a transfer. There will be a registry,” Silver said.
REALLY BETTER

Anonymous Tad January 14, 2013 9:02 PM  

@mina

Interesting. I talked with my husband about this the other night. To him, the act of someone coming to his home to seize his private property would be a clear indication of the "turn to tyranny" and would force him to take a stand.

Well then, your husband has nothing to worry about. No one is coming to his home. No one is taking his guns. No one is threatening him. He'll be able to stay sitting.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 9:02 PM  

"Wal*Mart can lick my sack."

there are lots of reasons to dislike wal-mart... but see... this isn't actually true.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 9:05 PM  

Frederick303,

F*** the NRA. I have personally been involved in fighting for Constitutional Carry here in Iowa and the NRA is the biggest obstacle to getting it done.

They gave money to gun grabber Democrats, have a NRA board member who is on a committee that blocks all Constitutional Carry legislation, and publicly opposed Constitutional Carry.

goggle Clel Baudler and see how he personally has stopped Constitutional Carry in Iowa, all while sitting on the NRA board, and the old bastard is an ex-State Highway Patrol who has stated that only "law enforcement" should have guns.

farmer Tom

Anonymous Tad January 14, 2013 9:06 PM  

@Mina

Therefore the Goverment has no right to require licensing or registration.

Not even close, Mina. Of course gun registration is constitutional. It has no impact on the right to keep and bear arms.

Anonymous Wade January 14, 2013 9:10 PM  

Seriously Tad, I'm from upstate NY, and none of those things are good. So stay in California where you belong.

Anonymous Outlaw X January 14, 2013 9:10 PM  

Before a storm, they go out and buy milk and bread because it is weather. Few seem to see nor prpapre for the onslaught of governments throughout human history, They may remember the tornado or the hurricanes, but most are not students of Democide. They therefore do not prepare. After all they have their Iphone.

I see the lines at gun shows and wonder how many of those assholes were calling me a kook 5 years ago? Now the winter snow has fallen and the are without kindling or wood because they thought spring would never end.

The Guns are gone, sold away, with cancer a man looks over a world of foolishness, because you can't kill the dead.

Anonymous Mina January 14, 2013 9:14 PM  

Tad: You are a patronizing, self-indulgent asshole you likes to listen to himself speak.

You may immediately cease addressing me. I do not feed trolls.

Frankly I have many other things to do that are more critically important, like trim the hair from the moles from your mother's back.

Blogger The Aardvark January 14, 2013 9:14 PM  

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/walmart-responds-to-suspended-ammo-story/

WND and Wal-Mart sound an uncertain note. It's like watching an episode of "In Search Of...".

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 9:14 PM  

Clel Baudler

Clel Baudler

There's two stories, want more.

The NRA is a business with one goal in mind, making money off of gun owners. Protecting gun rights has absolutely nothing to do with their agenda, it is just their sales pitch.

farmer Tom

Anonymous Bastiat January 14, 2013 9:20 PM  

Shut up, Ta(r)d.

Anonymous Anonymous January 14, 2013 9:24 PM  

A friend of mine in the State House of Representatives here in Iowa, and an avowed enemy of NRA boardmember Clel Baudler, just posted this link on his Facebook page,

American ingenuity

farmer Tom

Anonymous Tad January 14, 2013 9:25 PM  

@mina

You are a patronizing, self-indulgent asshole you likes to listen to himself speak.

You deserve patronizing, given your absurd attempts to understand the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous Fred January 14, 2013 9:29 PM  

Tad can you tell which direct article or amendment requires the govt registration of firearms?

Anonymous outlaw x January 14, 2013 9:37 PM  


@tad

"@mina"

Tad what part of "You may immediately cease addressing me" do you not understand? You can pester her if you want, but if you don't leave her alone you are an asshole worth scrolling quickly past. Leave her alone.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 9:38 PM  

"Not even close, Mina. Of course gun registration is constitutional. It has no impact on the right to keep and bear arms."

Obviously Tad has a difficult time with the definition of the word "infringe".

better still.... one wonders what clause gives the federal government the authority to require registration.

See there are 2 constitutional hurdles. Not just the one.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 14, 2013 9:41 PM  

Tad,

Why do you want women to be raped?

Why do you want old people to be mugged?

Why do you want children to be shot?

You know that's what disarming decent citizens does, don't you?

Anonymous FrankBrady January 14, 2013 9:43 PM  

@Tad

When was the last time the media was dissuaded from covering an issue because it included the possibility of extremism.

Rahm Emanuel is en route to confer with Joe Biden about "gun violence" in America. The Chicago mayor has more than a little experience in the matter. Chicago's murder toll of 506 in 2012 produced the highest murder rate in the U.S., despite the fact that ownership of any firearm within the city limits is absolutely prohibited.

Questions arise. There are reported to be 100,000 members of various Mexican drug cartel gangs such as the Zetas and Sonora in Chicago alone. It is well known to the mayor, to the President, and to the mass media that gang wars are the cause of Chicago's incredible street carnage. Chicago's situation is by no means unique. Gang membership is growing exponentially in all major U.S. cities and is the primary source of street killings in their urban cores. Why, then, are Obama and his supporters working so diligently to divert blame for this bloodshed from the killers to firearms? Why are media organs allowing them to get way with this criminal dishonesty?

What do you think is the reason, Tad?

Anonymous 11B January 14, 2013 9:46 PM  

Not even close, Mina. Of course gun registration is constitutional. It has no impact on the right to keep and bear arms.

Like most constitutional issues, it all depends upon your point of view. Does requiring registration intimidate individuals to such an extent that they refrain from buying a gun, and thus effectively be denied their right to bear arms? I don't know. But I do know people argue that making voters produce a valid photo ID leads to intimidation that leads to disenfranchising certain voters, especially poor and minority voters.

Therefore, any hoops erected to make citizens jump through before exercising their rights should be examined to ensure those procedures are in place for a valid reason, and are not in place to simply reduce the number of citizens exercising a given right. If new registration procedures are erected to suppress gun ownership, then I'd say that would be unconstitutional.

Anonymous Josh January 14, 2013 9:49 PM  

better still.... one wonders what clause gives the federal government the authority to require registration.

general welfare, interstate commerce, necessary and proper, legal tender, patents, etc!

Anonymous Josh January 14, 2013 9:50 PM  

Tad supports rape

Anonymous Asher January 14, 2013 9:53 PM  

For all the gun rights advocates here the defining purpose was to allow the overthrow of the government should it become tyrannical. Registration, background checks and waiting periods do not infringe on that animating concept. That you claim it does puts the entire second amendment project in jeopardy and gives aid to gun grabbers like Tad.

Tad's making you all look like a bunch of idiots. Don't be idiots.

Anonymous Mina January 14, 2013 9:56 PM  

"If new registration procedures are erected to suppress gun ownership, then I'd say that would be unconstitutional." - see sections #2 and #3

Anonymous Mina January 14, 2013 10:03 PM  

Also see #7: Constitutionally, officials cannot license or register a fundamental right

The Supreme Court held in Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965) that the First Amendment prevents the government from registering purchasers of magazines and newspapers -- even if such material is "communist political propaganda." (22)

@ the same link : http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm

Anonymous Asher January 14, 2013 10:07 PM  

@ Mina

abuse of power by local officials just means that the registration laws need to be written rigorously. Even were the specific anecdote you listed all valid that would not violate the animating principle of the second amendment which was to overthrow the government in the event of tyranny.

Anonymous daddynichol January 14, 2013 10:07 PM  

@ Fred
Tad can you tell which direct article or amendment requires the govt registration of firearms?

I think it's right after the First Amendment requirement for a journalist to register their writing instruments or the broadcaster to register their camera and microphone.

Anonymous FrankBrady January 14, 2013 10:10 PM  

Unless the power to require registration is an enumerated authority in the Constitution, it is forbidden by the 9th and 10th Amendments. The fact that statist thugs have misapplied the Commerce Clause for generations is immaterial.

Anonymous zen0 January 14, 2013 10:13 PM  

@ Asher

For all the gun rights advocates here the defining purpose was to allow the overthrow of the government should it become tyrannical.

Please Asher, I need some help. Where is tyranny mentioned in the following amendement? Also see definition of "infringement". Help me out here. I don't see it in the "t" section of the definition.


Article [II]

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.

infringement :

noun abuse of privilege, aggression, arrogation, breach, contravention, disfranchisement, dispossession, entrance upon domain of another, force, illegality, incursion, infraction, interference, intrusion, invasion, invasion of a right, misdoing, misfeasance, nonobservance, seizure, surpassing, trangression, transcendence, transcending, trespass, trespassing, usurpation, violation, violation of a contract, violation of a law,

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 14, 2013 10:14 PM  

Muslim Mosque in the USA are storing RPG, fully automatic weapons and manufacturing IED.

In Iraq the USA would not let troops firer on a mosque even in self defense. Yet it was OK to burn a church down in Waco TX. The Muslim will get a pass on gun control. Because the USA government and the news media are afraid of them.

There are 3 million legal Muslims. And probably 2 million more illegal Muslims They will be armed. There are Muslims in your police departments and army. Fort Hood should be a could reminder of how loyal they will be.

We now have two fronts to fight domestic and foreign

Anonymous Mina January 14, 2013 10:14 PM  

... back to #1, same link:

"1. Carrying a firearm is a "right" not a "privilege"

The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This means that law-abiding citizens should not need to beg the government for permission to carry a firearm. That would turn the "right" to bear arms into a mere "privilege." Likewise, one should not have to be photographed, fingerprinted, or registered before they can exercise their Second Amendment rights"

I guess it depends on how you define "should" and "beg", right?

IOW: seems like pretty clear and simple language to me.

Anonymous Late to the Party January 14, 2013 10:14 PM  

Shutup, Tad.

Blogger JCclimber January 14, 2013 10:15 PM  

took my son to the San Francisco gun show yesterday.
Ammunition line was at least 2 hours long.
Absolutely packed, difficult to walk in most areas.
No SKS rifles for sale, but 3 sold the day before (cheapest for $550).

Anything "assault weapon"ish that was Kalifornia legal was at least $2250. Most were between $3k and $5k. Unbelievable. People were bringing in their extras to sell and were selling them within 30 minutes on the floor (via FFL).

This can't be normal. I also visited two gun shops and they were completely stripped of any decent guns except the vastly overpriced.

Anonymous JartStar January 14, 2013 10:17 PM  

This can't be normal. I also visited two gun shops and they were completely stripped of any decent guns except the vastly overpriced.

Even NPR had a piece on the San Fran gun show and about the incredible sales of all guns over the last two months.

It will be interesting to see what executive orders come down and what if the legislation makes it through.

Blogger JCclimber January 14, 2013 10:17 PM  

Yep, what happens if you don't register your firearm?
Confiscation? A visit by the local LE?

How exactly is that NOT an infringement on the second amendment?

Anonymous Toby Temple January 14, 2013 10:19 PM  

Mina does have a point.

The 2nd Amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringe.

It does not state that the American people shall have the right to bear arms.

It does remind the US citizen that they have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringe.

Anonymous Jake January 14, 2013 10:28 PM  

"infringe" is not "deny". Some people just don't want to acknowledge the meaning of words. I need not take away your property to infringe upon your right to it. I'd be infringing on your right to your house if I charged taxes for you to enter and/or leave, forbade you to own a house that was too big or too small, declared one house to be legal to own but considered the one next door (identical in every way) to be contraband, made you "register" everytime you entered or left the premises, and so on. Just because the property is a firearm instead of anything else in the world doesn't mean the definition of "infringe" has changed.

Not that it matters. Any government that cannot tolerate people having the means to protect themselves can not, and should not be trusted or obeyed. As if there weren't 1,000 other reasons we already know the criminal gangs in DC cannot be trusted. Those who want to base their argument for gun rights on the 2nd amendment should seek out firmer footing than words on a document subject to interpretation by people skilled in discovering novel new meanings to even the clearest language.

Which brings me to a slight tangent:
Way too many people on this site, and among the REAL political right in general, worship the constitution like it's holy writ. The constitution was the first sell-out that put us on the road to where we now are. I do not understand how anyone can study its creation, ratification, etc. and still believe it was designed to "limit" government at all. The constitution created the biggest, most central, most powerful government its advocates could successfully foist upon their soon-to-be subjects without prompting (too much) wide-scale revolt. Part of the compromise they (the federalist) had to accept was the bill or rights, which the federal government has been ignoring, reinterpreting, and neutering ever since.

Anonymous Godfrey January 14, 2013 10:33 PM  

The populace cannot fight The State. It cannot be defeated with violence. It IS organized violence. Its core and only competency is oppression. It is an unsurpassed master at stealing and murdering. It divides and rules through the use of hate, envy, lust and greed.

You don't defeat The State through the use violence. You defeat The State by ignoring it. You defeat it by withdrawing your consent.

Anonymous zen0 January 14, 2013 10:40 PM  

@ MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

There are Muslims in your police departments and army. Fort Hood should be a could reminder of how loyal they will be.

Jihadis set the standard for the type of commitment needed to fight what they see as oppression when they are faced with overwhelming force.

If one chooses to fight with carnal weaponry, they present an example of a succesful strategy, at least in terms of fighting large forces to a stalemate.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 14, 2013 10:47 PM  

Ignore the icebergs. Your consent means nothing when your stuck on a ship that is about to go down.

Blogger Nate January 14, 2013 10:50 PM  

"Registration, background checks and waiting periods do not infringe on that animating concept. "

of course they infringe on that ability. by definition they limit the supply of firearms available to the public.

Again... nothing in the constitution grants the feds the right to regulate firearms.

Anonymous paradox January 14, 2013 10:51 PM  

Nate January 14, 2013 7:13 PM

To my eye that is not what 2A says.

You have a right to carry. It doesn't say you have a right to carry concealed.

Open carry should be legally everywhere at all times. Concealed Carry can be regulated by the states if they so choose.


Why can people not understand that? I would rather know that someone is armed, open carry, than concealed carry. Boohoo it may scare the sheep. Yet the sheep have no problem with seeing the gang in blue with sidearms.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 14, 2013 10:55 PM  

zen0
Jihadis set the standard for the type of commitment needed to fight what they see as oppression when they are faced with overwhelming force.

Jihads read the US military manuals on insurgency and insurrection our military has even trained them

Blogger mmaier2112 January 14, 2013 10:56 PM  

Quick question: Was there mandatory gun registration in Nawlins before Katrina?

If not, you're telling me they thoroughly searched all of those homes to find guns? I sincerely doubt they could have had time or the ability to do so. But I'm open to being educated.

Anonymous Godfrey January 14, 2013 10:57 PM  

Registration ultimately means confiscation.

A serial killer like The State doesn’t want its victims to be armed.

Anonymous zen0 January 14, 2013 11:02 PM  

@ Jake

Part of the compromise they (the federalist) had to accept was the bill or rights, which the federal government has been ignoring, reinterpreting, and neutering ever since.

That's terrible. Who shall take on the onus of enforcing this document?

We in Canada avoided this problem by having a "notwithstanding" clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Basically it allows legistatures to override certain sections of the constitution for a period of five years with an option to renew the override every five years ever-after if need be.

Nobody has to put up with these endless debates. It is a case where A and Not A can exist simultaneously. Its a win, win.

Anonymous MOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ January 14, 2013 11:07 PM  

There is nothing in the second amendment that says how one can or cannot bear arms. Nor is the anything that defines what kind of arms they may bear. To make any law that would implement such controls would be an infringement.

Blogger mmaier2112 January 14, 2013 11:16 PM  

" Yet the sheep have no problem with seeing the gang in blue with sidearms."

Actually, some of us DO have a problem with pigs being armed...

Blogger mmaier2112 January 14, 2013 11:17 PM  

Though I would disagree with Nate.

There's nothing about carrying concealed or not in the Constitution, therefore it's silent on the issue. Therefore 9th & 10th...

Anonymous Other Josh January 14, 2013 11:41 PM  

Ha! Ha! Ha! Germany didn't invade Switzerland because all the European elite... including Nazi elite... kept their money there.

Armed swiss men had nothing to do with it. Once again, the banksters held the power.

Blogger Nate January 15, 2013 12:00 AM  

"If not, you're telling me they thoroughly searched all of those homes to find guns? I sincerely doubt they could have had time or the ability to do so. But I'm open to being educated."

They only searched the homes of the those staying behind. lots of folks left.

Anonymous Incurvatus January 15, 2013 12:18 AM  

@farmer Tom : Ditto to NRA stabbing Constitutional Carry in the back in Iowa & Wisconsin. Concealed Carry Licenses are the NRA's favorite form of gun control.

Anonymous Incurvatus January 15, 2013 12:20 AM  

Yes, carrying a concealed weapon (or a loaded weapon, or an upside down weapon, or a green and purple weapon) is among the Natural rights of Man. If you don't (perplexingly) find it in the 2nd Amendment, it's there in the 9th & 10th, and probably the state Constitution as well.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 12:23 AM  

@ zen0

There's this simple little thing called Occam's Razor that says that other things equal the simplest explanation is the best. Consider the second amendment as the signers offering an explanation of weapons and how they related to free citizens. Why would they throw in the term "militia"? Wouldn't they have just said "the government shall not put any regulation on firearm ownership"? That would be the simplest way of stating that right as you envision it.

There must be a reason they used the the term "militia" What was that reason? Be specific.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 12:24 AM  

@ zen0

State for me the animating concept of the Second Amendment in one sentence. Make it as simple as possible.

Anonymous Incurvatus January 15, 2013 12:25 AM  

And no, America has not bought up the country's entire inventory of every infantry weapon used in the past 100 years just to turn them in at Feinstein's Confiscation. Only the gubmint could make a Malinvestment that immense. But the upside to such a Feinstein Confiscation is that surely the troops in Germany, Britain, Japan, Korea, etc will need to come home.

Anonymous The other skeptic January 15, 2013 12:25 AM  

I tend to agree that it is about stopping people from thinking about the debt

Anonymous The other skeptic January 15, 2013 12:32 AM  


Yep, what happens if you don't register your firearm?
Confiscation? A visit by the local LE?


The requirement for registrations is their admission that they don't really know who has guns.

Anonymous dh January 15, 2013 12:46 AM  

Regarding the NRA, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Heller vs District of Columbia, the majority (written by Justice Scalia) strongly hinted that if only the plaintiff, organized at first by the CATO Institute and then the NRA, would have asked the court, they would have eliminated the permitting requirement for handguns. Instead, the Court ruled that the District must issue a license. A far less serious change in the law.

Anonymous dh January 15, 2013 12:49 AM  

I think it's right after the First Amendment requirement for a journalist to register their writing instruments or the broadcaster to register their camera and microphone.

This is interesting when you consider the FCC's ability to force licensing and registration of transmitting equipment.

The legal theory here is "necessary government interest" - without regulation, it would be a free for all, and the limited resource of radio spectrum would be spoiled for all by an endless land-rush to acquire and crowd out others on the same frequency.

Anonymous Noah B. January 15, 2013 1:04 AM  

I do find it interesting that even the media that supposedly support freedom are making some of the same sorts of major reporting mistakes that the leftist media so often make. The reports of Wal Mart ceasing to sell ammo and Cheaper Than Dirt ceasing to sell assault rifles both appear to be fakes. Everyone, keep your wits about you and don't panic.

Anonymous Noah B. January 15, 2013 1:31 AM  

"If not, you're telling me they thoroughly searched all of those homes to find guns? I sincerely doubt they could have had time or the ability to do so. But I'm open to being educated."

"They only searched the homes of the those staying behind. lots of folks left."

Part of the problem is that police from the entire country went down there and many of them had no respect for Louisiana law. Not too long after that I was in Chicago, and local TV had stories about these incredibly brave Chicago cops going down to New Orleans and conducting SWAT style raids to confiscate guns.

Almost all of this was confined to poor, black neighborhoods. I mention this not to justify it but to point out that these sorry coward cops who supposedly went there to help were actually victimizing the most vulnerable, helpless people they could find.

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 1:32 AM  

@Fred:

Tad can you tell which direct article or amendment requires the govt registration of firearms?

Article 1

Anonymous Tad January 15, 2013 1:35 AM  

@Jack

Tad,

Why do you want women to be raped?

Why do you want old people to be mugged?

Why do you want children to be shot?


So that gun owners will get what they want and be happy.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 2:26 AM  

@ Mina

No one gets shot with newspapers.

Anonymous Jack Amok January 15, 2013 2:28 AM  

That's terrible. Who shall take on the onus of enforcing this document?

The Constitution? Well, it's up to the People really.

Which is why the 2nd Ammendment is kinda necessary.

PS Tad, if that's the best comeback you have, go home.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 2:29 AM  

The claim that registration must automatically lead to confiscation is logically fallacious. Claiming that it does makes one look like an idiot.

Anonymous Red Comet January 15, 2013 2:36 AM  

@Fred:

Tad can you tell which direct article or amendment requires the govt registration of firearms?

Article 1



So which abused and misused power grab clause you invoking exactly?

Anonymous Red Comet January 15, 2013 2:39 AM  

The legal theory here is "necessary government interest" - without regulation, it would be a free for all, and the limited resource of radio spectrum would be spoiled for all by an endless land-rush to acquire and crowd out others on the same frequency.

You are aware, of course, that modern technology has made this problem obsolete?

Just like the FCC.

Anonymous Peter Garstig January 15, 2013 2:45 AM  

Ha! Ha! Ha! Germany didn't invade Switzerland because all the European elite... including Nazi elite... kept their money there.

You don't know how illogical that statement is?

Anonymous Red Comet January 15, 2013 2:46 AM  

The claim that registration must automatically lead to confiscation is logically fallacious. Claiming that it does makes one look like an idiot.

Registration lead to confiscation in places like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Britain, and even here in the US in California and Chicago (in flagrant violation of constitutional rights).

History has proven that the assumption that registration will lead to confiscation is THE logical position to take, particularly since several state and local level politicians in this country have already done so.

Anonymous MC Brigade Op January 15, 2013 3:02 AM  

Asher said: "Why would they throw in the term "militia"? Wouldn't they have just said "the government shall not put any regulation on firearm ownership"? That would be the simplest way of stating that right as you envision it."

They threw that term in cause it sounded cool.
That's why no regulations on firearms existed till 150 years after the framers wrote the law.
The old coolness went out and progressivism became the new cool . Look at the timeline but dont forget History loops and that old cool is suddenly the new cool. Fool.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 3:09 AM  

@ Red Comet

History has proven that the assumption that registration will lead to confiscation is THE logical position to take,

Proven. Logical. Those words do not mean wht you seem to think they mean. I think what you mean is that history has demonstrated a strong tendency for registration to lead to confiscation. Proof deals with logically necessary claims and demonstration deals with empirical claims.

There is no particular a priori reason that it is impossible to devise a mechanism to keep registration from turning into confiscation. I have already devised such a mechanism, which is to rewrite the second amendment to say the following:

The right of the people to overthrow the government in the event of tyranny shall not be infringed.

Such language clearly prevents confiscation while allowing for limited public safety measures. It is a collective right of the people and anecdotal instances of violations of scattered individuals cannot infringe such a right.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 3:10 AM  

For an added bonus enshrining the right of the people to overthrow a tyranny would send the lefties into a frothing frenzy.

Now that would be fucking cool.

Anonymous MC Brigade Op January 15, 2013 3:11 AM  

"No one gets shot with newspapers."

No..worse, they get brainwashed..., then go on to infect others till they find theyselves on the other side of the gun. See the effect mass media has had on a populus vs the effects of guns and you'll understand the power of ink son.

Anonymous Toby Temple January 15, 2013 3:17 AM  

infringe - (verb) act so as to limit or undermine

arms - (noun) weapons; armaments

Anonymous Jack Amok January 15, 2013 4:07 AM  

The claim that registration must automatically lead to confiscation is logically fallacious. Claiming that it does makes one look like an idiot.

And claiming registration doesn't lead to confiscation makes one look like a complete historical ignoramus.

On second thought, drop the "look like"

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 5:59 AM  

@ Jack Amok

The fact that registration has led to confiscation in the past does not mean it has to in the future. To argue otherwise is the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Most advocates of gun control are really gun grabbers who want ever increasing power for government. You can head them off by offering gun regulations accompanied by an enforcement mechanism that constitutionally renders confiscation impossible. I already pointed out how to do this.

When I hear arguments from conservatives/libertarians it almost looks like they're trying to lose.

Blogger James Higham January 15, 2013 6:02 AM  

Thanks - have just put a gun post up and shall insert this now.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 6:06 AM  

@ Toby

The phrase "the people" is very specific, as is "the militia". These are both nouns referring to a collection of people. The ninth and tenth amendments are also collective rights. Why didn't the second amendment just say "government shall pass no law addressing firearm ownership"?

Occam's razor. The signers used collective nouns for a reason. What was that reason? Be specific; answer it in fewer than twenty words.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 6:10 AM  

@ MC Brigade Op

I'm quite aware of the power of the press. What you say is just evidence that America has fractured into many divergent peoples. A distinct people requires rule by a distinct government with its own distinct constitution.

What America needs is an amicable political divorce.

Anonymous Asher January 15, 2013 6:21 AM  

I just realized that there's another flaw in the reasoning of most gun rights advocates. On one hand they want to claim that guns are simply instruments and that their usage and possession is what dictates whether they are good and bad. On the other hand they want the government to forego any legislation involving guns which indicates that guns have moral worth beyond any particular usage by those who use them.

Gun advocates can't have it both ways. Either the possession of guns, by itself, has moral implications or guns are only a means to some other moral end. I find it difficult to believe that the right of every particular individual to own one specific type of tool for no other purpose than to have it has been enshrined as a right.

Anonymous MC Brigade Op January 15, 2013 7:46 AM  

Asher said: "I'm quite aware of the power of the press."

Then why make a stupid comment like "no one gets shot with newspapers". That's like saying 'guns shoot people.'
Recent History alone shows the power the press has in enabling and abetting gov't in mass slaughter of their own. There's no deadlier man made weapon.

Anonymous Noah B. January 15, 2013 8:55 AM  

"To argue otherwise is the slippery slope logical fallacy."

The slippery slope argument ceases to be a fallacy when one can establish a logical basis for it. Not only is there a longstanding historical pattern of registration leading to confiscation, but registration is the mechanism that is ultimately used to enable confiscation.

Anonymous FrankNorman January 15, 2013 9:14 AM  

Asher January 15, 2013 5:59 AM

@ Jack Amok

The fact that registration has led to confiscation in the past does not mean it has to in the future. To argue otherwise is the slippery slope logical fallacy.

Most advocates of gun control are really gun grabbers who want ever increasing power for government. You can head them off by offering gun regulations accompanied by an enforcement mechanism that constitutionally renders confiscation impossible. I already pointed out how to do this.

When I hear arguments from conservatives/libertarians it almost looks like they're trying to lose.


If they know who has guns, they know who to try to confiscate them from. What makes you so sure they give a hoot about what is or is not constitutional?

Blogger Justthisguy January 15, 2013 9:16 AM  

To Godfrey at 10:33: As P.J. O'Rourke said, the only thing governments are actually any good at is killing people.

Blogger Justthisguy January 15, 2013 9:17 AM  

Oh, Tad? STFU.

Blogger Justthisguy January 15, 2013 9:31 AM  

If one has ever been on top of Stone Mountain, the Slippery Slope argument makes perfect sense to him. I have walked up the back side of that monadnock, and peered over the steep side, which made my tummy queasy. The steep side doesn't look so steep from the top, and there is only a flimsy chain-link fence preventing one from proceeding, but there are many cases on record of people proceeding just a little way down the steep side who found it steeper than they liked.

Anonymous Mr. Pea January 15, 2013 9:40 AM  

Re: Mina, the Ruger, if you are man hunting out to 300 yards, you should be fine. While I don't own one, I have a couple of friends who do, and all three of us can can put them in the chest out to 300 yards with MOT cheap crap ammo. If you are romanticizing about putting them in the head out beyond that, and still want a semi-auto, then get a national match M1A, although it has a bigger bang. Now, if I was new, and I wanted a small caliper rifle, and the choice was between a mini 14 and say a Smith and Wesson M&P M4, I'd go with the M4 which can take you out to the chest at about 500 yards. No matter what you buy, there are going to be variables depending on your perceived application. What is it you realistically expect? For example... If you are thinking about putting in head shots into a every member of the horde invading your homestead out to 300 yards, is that realistic? Think fast, they are 300 yards and closing, they are shooting at you too, and not every shot is going to hit its mark.

1 – 200 of 223 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts