Debunking the “No One Wants to Take Your Guns” Myth

When I’m arguing with my mother about gun control (she, being a stereotypical Westchester county New York Democrat) there’s a normal progression of events. First, she hears something on the news (like Bloomberg pontificating on civilian disarmament) and then asks me how I could possibly be opposed to such “common sense” proposals. Naturally, I reply with a well thought out and rational argument about how taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won’t stop criminals, would probably result in an increase in crime, and is both unconstitutional and immoral. Her natural fall-back position is to snark that “no one is taking your guns” and refuses to hear any arguments to the contrary. But the fact is, whenever she says that, its a complete and total lie . . .

Let’s start with the easy rebuttal to that statement: Dianne Feinstein.

In 1995, Senator Feinstein stated very clearly that she would have liked to require full confiscation of all “assault weapons” in the United States under the provisions of her original AWB.

Dan Agin over at the Huffington Post has a similar opinion on guns. His plan was to have every American turn in all of their guns, not just the scary black ones DiFi has been advocating. No, only complete and total disarmament (except for the sacred police officers) is Dan’s position.

And don’t tell me that’s only one or two people who want to grab my guns. That isn’t good enough. Democrats crucify the entire Republican party whenever a single Republican opens their yap and lets something stupid like “legitimate rape” slip out. But the same logic apparently doesn’t apply for their party. So we need to beat them into submission instead. For the best example of the drive for civilian disarmament, let’s look at New York State.

(courtesy nysaferesolutions.com)

The Empire State had an “Assault Weapons Ban” in place since the original was enacted in 1994. As a former resident of that awful place, I had fun a terrible time dealing with those laws while attempting to exercise my second amendment rights. And while the law was extremely restrictive to the newer generation of gun owners, the older folks weren’t all that bothered. Their existing guns were grandfathered in — indeed, no one was taking them.

The new law, just enacted, removes the grandfather clause. Every single firearm in the state of New York that meets the extremely broad criteria set forth under the new “SAFE Act” is illegal. And since they are illegal, people who were legal owners of those firearms are being forced to sell them, destroy them or move them out of the state. And those new criteria make just about every popular rifle and shotgun designed and sold in the last 70 years illegal in New York State.

The only exception is that those who register their firearms are exempt from the mandatory disarmament, an exception that was only added to appease the Republicans.  The original bill apparently had no such provisions. But even then, the guns cannot be sold within the state, transferred, or otherwise disposed except to be destroyed. While before such commonly available guns would be capable of being handed down to the next generation, the plan appears to be to wait for the owners to die, and then confiscating the firearms.

They literally want to take your gun from your cold dead hands.

And given New York’s history, its not unlikely that such registration is simply a precursor to a complete and total door-to-door confiscation down the road. Since they now have a convenient list of gun owners.

The picture is even worse for shotguns. Since the new law requires ALL guns capable of accepting more than seven rounds to be disposed and prohibits their sale (with NO exemption for pump action shotguns), guns like the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 are about to become illegal in New York State. Their fixed magazines accept 5 rounds of “normal” sized 12 gauge ammunition, but the commonly available 1.75 inch rounds make the legal capacity of those guns somewhere around 10. Due to the inability of New York State legislators to even read the law before it was passed, no one realized that fact until it was too late.

So yes, the venerable pump action shotgun that “no one wants to ban” is now banned.

In other states, like California, the push is to pass a similar law but without the registration exception. Complete and total disarmament of modern firearms is the stated goal, and those pushing the laws are intent on getting their way.

Here comes the semantic argument. “There’s no door to door inspections right now . . . no one is physically taking away the actual objects.” But the fact remains that the objects are no longer legally in our possession. Through force of law, our guns are indeed being taken away within the state. We can no longer use them, and we can no longer legally possess them. We can neither keep nor bear those arms, which are the most popular firearms in the United States. I’d say that qualifies pretty well as having them “taken away.” To take guns out of law abiding citizens’ hands in the hopes that making everyone a victim will somehow make everyone safer.

The line people like my mother use — that no one is coming for your guns — used to be true. With the 1994 “assault weapons” ban, the Democrats successfully split the gun owners of America down the middle by trying to isolate hunters. Only the “evil black rifles” were being banned, and the traditional hunting rifles of the time were exempt.

“No one is coming for your guns” was used to great effect to pacify hunters and keep them from rising up in opposition to the law. It was a brilliant piece of propoganda, that Democrats seem to have internalized almost as well as “think of the children!” when proposing illogical laws.

But the problem is, it’s no longer true. “Hunting rifles” have evolved to be indistinguishable from so-called “assault weapons.” They have the same features, and use the same designs. And the removal of a grandfather clause from the proposed legislation can only mean that full-scale confiscation is in the offing. They are, indeed, coming to take away our guns. Even the “hunting rifles.” And those who are still trying to pass off that old lie are either too ignorant of the proposed legislation or too entrenched in the party rhetoric to understand the lie they’re spouting.

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

82 Responses to Debunking the “No One Wants to Take Your Guns” Myth

  1. avatarDrVino says:

    “the older folks weren’t all that bothered. Their existing guns were grandfathered in — indeed, no one was taking them.”

    I consider that very short-sighted.
    Guns are property, tools, collectible items of some value.
    Grandfathered guns would have to be turned in to the authorities upon the owner’s death and could not be passed down to offspring/grandchildren.

  2. avatarWilliam says:

    The words, “willful obeisance to wanton authority” spring immediately to mind.
    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS!!! Come and take ‘em.

  3. avatarBill F says:

    Nick that NY map has been updated–click on the original posted yesterday and the new, updated one comes up. Very little white left.

  4. avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    You could do what I did on the subject back in the 90′s:

    I told her: “You’re obviously misinformed, and you’re not interested in changing your opinion when I present to you verified facts that disagree with your position, so you have a choice: Quit talking about that which you know nothing and will learn nothing, or cease talking to me at all.”

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I’m sure she gave your response the same careful consideration she’s given all the points raised by the pro-2A crowd.

  5. avatarDann W. says:

    As a resident of NY my understanding of the law was that “assault weapons” could be legally kept as long as you registered them by the end of the year. Technically you aren’t forced to sell or destroy them. On the other hand your argument is right on about full capacity magazines. Those are taken from us. We have to sell out of state or destroy them by the end of the year. Personally I think we should consider the magazine the same as the rifle. Banning magazines is like saying your can own the car but not the wheels.

    As an aside, I haven’t seen anything that says we can’t buy an AR out of state and bring it into the state. Additionally, they are creating a ammo data base which will be maintained indefinately based on amount purchased and caliber. So they may not know exactly what rifle you own but they’ll know the caliber ammo you use.

    Makes me want to open an FFL in PA on the border. I think I’d do very well there.

    • avatarDaniel Silverman says:

      Just remember no one makes a 7 round magazine sooooo.. You might be able to register but never legally use your firearm. This of course includes all semi automatic pistols as well.

      • avatarAccur81 says:

        There are a bunch of 7 rd .45 ACP mags. Just FYI.

        http://www.coltsmfg.com/ShopOnline/tabid/62/ProdID/53/Default.aspx

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          Yeah, that’s been bugging me too. But I haven’t said anything because the “no 7rd mags” statement applies to the general market for AR/AK class rifles and modern (double stack) semi-auto pistols.

          Sometimes it’s better to ignore the exceptions and pretend that absolutes exist, because otherwise we just undermine our own arguments. In conceding that 7rd 1911 mags exist, you conceded that gun owners (in theory) do have a viable choice for a 7-round semi-auto handgun that’s available today. The opposition would then use this to justify a de facto ban on every other handgun.

        • avatarWildwill says:

          I’ll keep my 15 round mag. Thank you

      • avatarRuss says:

        Doesn’t there exist a Desert Eagle 7 rounder?

    • avatarjoe momma says:

      so you are okay with a national UN type registry? that violates your constitutional rights. the next step after knowing where they are all at is to come and get them. read some history sir. stand up and demand your rights to privacy and the right to bear arms to defend yourself against tyranny.

    • avatarLemming says:

      Ah, you see the magician distracts you with one hand while he picks your pocket with the other.

      Take a close look at the definition of a “hi capacity ammunition feeding device.” Those (other than antiques) can’t be registered, right?

      Okay, tell me how any tube fed shotgun, semi or not, that can take a mag extension isn’t a HCAFD? Worried yet. Tell me, how many mini-shells can a “6+1″ 500 take?

  6. avatarRalph says:

    Outlawing a formerly lawful product responsibly held by law-abiding folks is a
    “taking” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. In the case of NY, it’s a taking without the payment of just compensation. Congrats, Gov. Mussolini. You now have the record for most Constitutions violated during one dark night. Now cross your arms over your chest, stick out your chin, purse your lips and try to look butch for your adoring Blackshirts.

    • avatarRuss Bixby says:

      And that’s a good thing, sometimes.

      Say morphine or cocaine legally ordered through the Sears catalog, but outlawed in the teens.

      ‘Course, recreational drugs aren’t protected by the constitution, although the Tobacco Party does a pretty good job protecting some of ‘em.

      Arms – flintlocks, steel crossbows or ARs – are a tidge different.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Are you saying a ‘taking’ of morphine without just compensation would have been different constitutionally than a taking of a newly prohibited rifle magazine? The Fifth Amendment does not distinguish between the two, so far as both were legally possessed before being legally condemned. If you simply mean that it was good that morphine possession without medical supervision was criminalized, you aren’t talking about the “takings clause.”

      • avatarPhydeaux says:

        Oh yes, and we’ve seen how well drug prohibition has worked out – wrecked numerous Latin American countries, resulted in the militarization of local police, and a substantial loss of Constitutional rights due to things like asset forfeiture.

        Supporters of drug prohibitions have a lot of blood on their hands – blood of innocents.

      • avatartheaton says:

        Russ,
        All rights are protected by the Constitution.

        Amendment IX
        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  7. avatarBob2 says:

    My mother used to doubt every prediction I made about Obama, his regime, and the Democrats since 2007. I have been right on the money at every turn. Being a history buff and one who believes that history repeats itself, I told her from the beginning that this is what happens to a country when it transitions toward totalitarianism. after four years of predicting each step, she believes me now.

  8. avatarluis says:

    How do you feel having moved from NY to TX? I’m considering making the same move to live w/o the govt on my neck. I’d hate to think TX will turn the same way in 30 years. :(

    • There’s no doubt that Texas is going to go for the Dems shortly. That’s the effect that the Republican’s failed policies on immigration has had. But the good news is that even the Democrats are “A” rated by the NRA.

      We might go blue, but we’ll never go pro-disarmament.

  9. avatarRuss Bixby says:

    It is not a lie. Your mother is not a liar. She believes what she says, but she is mistaken.

    It’s a subtle but important distinction.

    Those who so thoroughly convinced her, or convinced the convincers, are indeed liars.

    Shickelgruber said it best: Stick to your story. “Don’t change a word, and however fantastic it is the people will eventually believe it. It will then be the truth.”

    In private he called it the Big Lie.

    Yeah.

  10. avatarCoyote Gray says:

    This entire AWB argument and the most common gun control measures, are disingenuous from the very beginning. Any argument you make with regards to outlawing so called “assault weapons”, can be made for handguns and concealable firearms. The AWB is nothing more then an attempt to establish precedence for bans, by eliminating firearms that are “scary”, and that are grab headlines; what gun control advocates perceive as “low hanging fruit”. As soon as you can justify the ban on one type of rifle, based on unarguably, ultra rare events, you’ll be able to justify a ban on just about everything else.

    • avatarCaligula says:

      Bingo!

    • avatarglena says:

      I understand that you’re saying this is definitively about your Second Amendment rights. BUT you can’t just claim sovereignty over only part of the Amendment.

      It clearly states “well regulated” as surely as it states “shall not be infringed upon”.

      So how to you square you demand for only part of the Second Amendment to adhered to?

  11. avatarJMS says:

    Going door-to-door would only serve the purpose of possibly disarming criminals. As-is, when you simply make possession illegal, it’s only the law-abiding who are going to comply and turn them in. So laws like this aren’t “coming to get them,” they’re worse — they’re taking away guns from people who will comply, and not from the people who won’t. Now there’s a recipe for success!!! <_<

  12. avatarGreg in Allston says:

    Nice piece Nick. Here’s a bit from the desert sage, Edward Abbey, that I personally hold near and dear to my heart. It’s a little dated, but just go with the flow and don’t sweat the details;

    The Right to Arms (from the book entitled Abbey’s Road, © 1979)
    Edward Abbey
    If guns are outlawed
    Only outlaws will have guns
    (True? False? Maybe?)

    Meaning weapons. The right to own, keep, and bear arms. A sword and a lance, or a bow and a quiverful of arrows. A crossbow and darts. Or in our time, a rifle and a handgun and a cache of ammunition. Firearms.

    In medieval England a peasant caught with a sword in his possession would be strung up on a gibbet and left there for the crows. Swords were for gentlemen only. (Gentlemen!) Only members of the ruling class were entitled to own and bear weapons. For obvious reasons. Even bows and arrows were outlawed–see Robin Hood. When the peasants attempted to rebel, as they did in England and Germany and other European countries from time to time, they had to fight with sickles, bog hoes, clubs–no match for the sword-wielding armored cavalry of the nobility.
    In Nazi Germany the possession of firearms by a private citizen of the Third Reich was considered a crime against the state; the statutory penalty was death–by hanging. Or beheading. In the Soviet Union, as in Czarist Russia, the manufacture, distribution, and ownership of firearms have always been monopolies of the state, strictly controlled and supervised. Any unauthorized citizen found with guns in his home by the OGPU or the KGB is automatically suspected of subversive intentions and subject to severe penalties. Except for the landowning aristocracy, who alone among the population were allowed the privilege of owning firearms, for only they were privileged to hunt, the ownership of weapons never did become a widespread tradition in Russia. And Russia has always been an autocracy–or at best, as today, an oligarchy.

    In Uganda, Brazil, Iran, Paraguay, South Africa–wherever a few rule many–the possession of weapons is restricted to the ruling class and to their supporting apparatus: the military, the police, the secret police. In Chile and Argentina at this very hour men and women are being tortured by the most up-to-date CIA methods in the effort to force them to reveal the location of their hidden weapons. Their guns, their rifles. Their arms. And we can be certain that the Communist masters of modern China will never pass out firearms to their 800 million subjects. Only in Cuba, among dictatorships, where Fidel’s revolution apparently still enjoys popular support, does there seem to exist a true citizen’s militia.

    There must be a moral in all this. When I try to think of a nation that has maintained its independence over centuries, and where the citizens still retain their rights as free and independent people; not many come to mind. I think of Switzerland. Of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland. The British Commonwealth. France, Italy. And of our United States.

    When Tell shot the apple from his son’s head, he reserved in hand a second arrow, it may be remembered, for the Austrian tyrant Gessler. And got him too, shortly afterward. Switzerland has been a free country since 1390. In Switzerland basic. national decisions are made by initiative and referendum–direct democracy–and in some cantons by open-air meetings in which all voters participate. Every Swiss male serves a year in the Swiss Army and at the end of the year takes his government rifle home with him–where he keeps it for the rest of his life. One of my father’s grandfathers came from Canton Bern.

    There must be a meaning in this. I don’t think I’m a gun fanatic. I own a couple of small-caliber weapons, but seldom take them off the wall. I gave up deer hunting fifteen years ago, when the hunters began to outnumber the deer. I am a member of the National Rifle Association, but certainly no John Bircher. I’m a liberal–and proud of it. Nevertheless, I am opposed, absolutely, to every move the state makes to restrict my right to buy, own, possess, and carry a firearm. Whether shotgun, rifle, or handgun.

    Of course, we can agree to a few commonsense limitations. Guns should not be sold to children, to the certifiably insane, or to convicted criminals. Other than that, we must regard with extreme suspicion any effort by the government–local, state, or national–to control our right to arms. The registration of firearms is the first step toward confiscation. The confiscation of weapons would be a major and probably fatal step into authoritarian rule–the domination of most of us by a new order of “gentlemen.” By a new and harder oligarchy.

    The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an “equalizer.” Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed–but do not forget what the common people of this nation knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny.

    If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government–and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws. Edward Abbey

    I, too, intend to be among those “outlaws”. Diane, here are a three Gaelic phrases that you would do well to become familiar with;

    Coimhead fearg fhear na foighde.
    Beware the anger of a patient man.

    Tiocfaidh ár lá.
    Our day will come.

    ‘Póg mo thóin.
    Kiss my ass.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      That was awesome. Really enjoyed reading that.

      Maybe it’s confirmation bias, but it was nice to see an eloquent piece like this by a fellow armed liberal.

    • avatarLyingBastard says:

      Depending on the time of the day/year you get to see people in the trams and buses in Zurich carrying military rifles. Or Tel-Aviv

  13. avatarSome Guy says:

    Yeah, good ol’ NY has a sad history in this regard. An initial registry in NYC started in 1970 or so, followed by a AWB in the 80′s. Upstate was still OK but then came the state-wide Semi-Ban in the 90′s. Was “gandfathered” so still OK. And now this screwed-up mess – SAFE Act. Still OK if you “register” with the State Police for future seizure but no passing them on in this formerly free state. “Large” mags have to be disposed of – not guns.- yet.

    Even worse is the 7 rd limit, effecting almost all handguns which are already under the Sullivan Law. Anything over demands registration. Don’t feel bad about misunderstanding a part of it – nobody understands it. Like I recommend in all these cases, we are suing, lobbying and making all the noise we can. Learn from this – beware!
    If you feel safe in Texas don’t, beware! Libs are like rust – they never sleep.

    • avatarDJC says:

      Several folks from New York have mentioned that they’ll have to turn in their mags or destroy them (who oversees them being destroyed?) as it will no longer be legal to possess them because they will not be “grandfathered”.
      I’m not a legal scholar but how is it possible to pass such a law when The Constitution forbids the passage of ex-post facto law?
      Are the states not bound by this?

      • avatarDean Weingarten says:

        It is not ex post facto because you would not be punished for what you did before the law was passed.

        I consider it a “taking” though, because the law renders something valuable into contraband.

  14. avatarDavid says:

    Yeah – why does anyone need a gun that can kill at 300+ meters . . .
    Here’s your sign :)

    • avatarmasshole says:

      David my 1917 American enfield can hit a silver dollar at 500 yards.and its almost 100 yrs old.its not the gun its the person behind it.and yes i own an ARMOR LIGHT RIFLE:::ar15 in .223 nice little gun not a long range gun .my 100yr old 30 06 will go threw walls.most all anti gun people dont know a .22lr from a .270wetherby mag they think every gun is a ak47.your a fool if you turn them in .

      • avatarRuss says:

        I gave my 1916 enfield to my brother the day he unscrewed a bottlecap with it from 100 yards, using ironsights. If it was random, hey, whatever, but he CALLED it walking back to the line: “Watch me unscrew the cap on this thing”, so yeah, the science of gunsmithing was further advanced than most by the turn of last century. :)

    • avatarRuss says:

      Ask the Iraqis how they did repelling the invader once it was already inside their homes.
      Thanks, but I prefer my odds at 300+ yards/meters.

  15. avatarTman says:

    Can you get trade up for another mother?

  16. avatarZealot says:

    It has been my experience that it isn’t very hard to get an anti-gunner to come right out and say they don’t want us to have guns. Usually after the opening salvo or two, when logic is outstripping rhetoric they’ll move to the old gem of “Well nobody needs those things and shouldn’t have them anyway!” That’s when I know there’s no point in continuing.

    • avatarSome Guy says:

      So true, guns are kind of like jazz, if you gotta ask, you’ll never know. Don’t give up though, some people just need exposure to discover that they’ve been zealots all along, just never knew it.

    • avatarRuss says:

      At that point ask them why Rosa Parks “needed” to sit in front of the bus.

      It’s not the bill of needs, it’s the bill of rights.

  17. avatarNWGlocker says:

    Great article Mr. Leghorn. Here’s another example you can use to say, “well, some people seem to be trying really hard.”
    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

  18. avatarDave says:

    I was surprised to learn that Mexico’s Constitution contains a right to own guns. Except it’s still virtually impossible to get a permit anyway, and even if you do, you can own a revolver but not a semi-automatic pistol. That’s how Constitutionally guaranteed rights die, one modern firearm at a time.

  19. avatarPublius says:

    Lefties envision they will be in power forever, regulating and controlling more and more of everyday life. Thus a compete disarming of American citizens is necessary to turn them into the proper defenseless subjects the Left wants.

    Everything — everything — the Left says in regard to firearms is a lie. It should never be taken at face value.

    They view that time is on their side, and will say any lie that helps to advance their way toward a firearm-free future (as applies to us, of course). Toward that end, they will advance by a thousand microsteps, taking another century if necessary. For all righteousness is theirs.

  20. avatarYellow Devil says:

    Sorry to hear about your mother’s aversion to the 2A. My mother has started to come around and now wants to own a handgun, seeing how the Democrats have been talking against it.

  21. avatarGary says:

    Compromising on rights is like saying it’s ok for the government to kill you just a little bit. Like using drones against Americans within our borders is “ok,” in Obama’s mind because he will only do so “if it’s really necessary.” Of course he gets to determine what is really necessary. Any American that goes along with any further reduction in our second amendment rights is granting the position that the Constitution no longer matters. It’s time, people, to dig in our heels and say “ENOUGH.” I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. I intend to fulfill that oath. The left are enemies of the Constitution and I will not let them succeed.

    • avatarglena says:

      That’s not true. It states “well regulated” just as clearly as it does “shall not be infringed upon”. You must honor both sentences to hold the Constitution to it’s truth. No one is CHANGING the Constitution by “well regulating” firearms. It’s supposed to be that way.

      • avatartheaton says:

        Well regulated means well trained in the context of the second amendment. It is also clear that the right that shall not be infringed is a preexisting right, as are all rights, that is retained by the people. All rights are absolute. They can only be infringed if they are used to infringe on the rights of others.

        • avatarglena says:

          No it doesn’t/didn’t. But that seems convenient for you to adopt as a new definition today because it suit your purpose.

          Look up a dictionary from the time period and check out regulated. It hasn’t changed.

          Clear evidence to me that you are repeating things you’ve “heard” and not researched on your own.

          I research, it’s so easy these days.

        • avatartheaton says:

          I’ve read the founders words. I know what they meant. I’ve read actual dictionaries from the time. It meant well-trained, disciplined and knowledgeable of the tactics of warfare. It didn’t mean the government telling you what arms you could posses. The arms possessed at the time were the same arms possessed by the regular armies. That is the arms that the founders intended for the people to possess in the future. They didn’t want a government to ever be better armed than the people.

        • avatarIng says:

          Simple grammar and syntax. The Second Amendment has two independently functioning, complementary parts.

          The MILITIA is to be well regulated (well trained and yes, subject to restrictions that lend themselves to good order and proper function).

          The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be left alone (i.e., shall not be infringed).

      • avatarRick says:

        And where did you come up with this information….oh I know…it’s how you’re interrupting it. When in fact, one sentence in in regard to the militia….which the militia are the people….all people. The other half of the 2nd is meant to not infringe…hence to violate. Read and research what the founding fathers were saying…I would begin with reading “The Federalist Papers,” which are comment from the founders in how the derived at the words and order of the Bill of Rights. The word regulated meant for the militia to be well armed, with appropriate gear and ammo, as well as properly trained. That is what the founders said when then used the word regulate. And why they added the word into the first part of the 2nd amendment. WOW the ignorance is scary when people like you believe this stuff. Making stuff up is what makes you look intellectually weak and it’s apparent that critical thinking isn’t your forte. Please learn before making a comment you think or believe is correct…when in fact you’re absolutely wrong. And people like you walk and live amongst us. Americas downfall will be from within due to people like you. We don’t need to worry of a foreign threat bring this nation down. It will occur from within from people who think like you.

    • avatarglena says:

      It’s not compromising on your rights, it’s your RIGHTS within the law.

      The RIGHT to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a right too. When guns start taking that right away at alarming rates, then we need to look at ways to curb that crisis.

      Not everyone should have a gun. We regulate convicted felons and a few other people now but we can and should do a better job.

      When polled a large majority of Americans are for stricter gun regulation. If I were a law abiding gun owner, I’d want that too. All the fringe folk talking madness would make me a little uneasy and I’d want those folks who shouldn’t have guns, to SURELY not have guns. They make the law abiding gun owners look bad with all their rhetoric and Apocalyptic views.

  22. avatarRick SK says:

    I remember when the federal government in Canada was trying to institute a national registry for long guns. They estimated that there was at least 21 million long guns in the hands of Canadians. (in 1997) This was considered a low estimate at the time. After 15 years, billions of dollars, threats of prison for non compliance and finally complete capitulation and repeal only 7 millions long guns were ever registered.
    We Canadians defeated the law with non compliance and political action. Admittedly we still have a long ways to go but you will never seen another attempt at registration of long guns in Canada. (at least for a couple of generations)

    • avatarglena says:

      I read the Oxford English dictionary of that time just yesterday and well regulated means exactly the same today as it did then.

      I can cut and paste or even copy the link for you. But why would I spoil your fun to look it up.

      There are LOTS of websites that TELL you that your meaning is correct. BUT when you get to the actual dictionary that was used at that time, it means the same as it does today.

  23. avatarTim C says:

    The Gestapo is arming itself. Don’t kid yourself, nothing is ‘about’ to happen, it already is happening and only those with open minds see the truth. The public is being played much Like the story Plato told of the Allegory of the cave. Interpreting shadows cast on the wall before them with their backs to the reality outside. Remember, the Democrats started the civil war trying to force their beliefs on everyone then. This is now.

  24. avatarglena says:

    An assault weapons ban is NOT a ban on all guns. It’s not gun grabbing. We’ve had this ban before and it didn’t hinder the people from arming themselves.

    Stop being so over dramatic and paranoid.

    • You had an “assault weapons ban” before. This goes above and beyond the previous provisions. And does indeed ban all pump action shotguns from new York State.

    • avatartheaton says:

      Banning Judaism and Christianity wouldn’t be banning all religion, you could still worship. Banning all music except country music would be fine, after all, you could still listen to some music. We could allow the government to do warrantless searches of homes under 1000 square feet, those over 1000 square feet would be exempted so it’s not like we’re stepping on the rights of people. They can still be still have Constitutional protections, they’ll just need to live in a larger house.

      Some peoples idea of freedom and liberty are just bizarre!

  25. avatarglena says:

    I have a question for you all that say this is your sovereign Second Amendment right that entitles you to any weapon and any magazine and any accessories you wish to have. Not the Government’s business.

    Do you defend the rest of the Constitution and it’s Amendments just as voraciously?

    How about the Fourth Amendment? How do you feel about just as staunchly defending the Government stay out of a woman’s right to choose as they do out of your gun cabinet?

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      Works for me.

    • avatartheaton says:

      Let’s make sure I understand this. The shooting of 20 children with a firearm is a tragedy. The murder of 1.3 million children each year by sucking their brains out with a vacuum or stabbing a trocar through their brain at birth is a choice. I that correct?

      • avatarglena says:

        We talking upholding the Constitution. If you’re staunchly for the Constitution, then you gotta let that go because you don’t get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are worth defending and fighting to keep.

        If you pick and choose, it’s not about the Constitution at all. It’s about what you want and how you want it.

      • avatarglena says:

        It’s also well over 20 children that are killed by gun violence each year. Well over 20.

        In the U.S. a person is killed every 17 minutes by gunshot.

        About 90 on an average day, every day in the United States.

        It’s a problem. We can do better and we need to do better, we are a civilized society. We don’t need to take away guns but we do need to have better regulations and WAY better enforcement of the regulations. Close the loopholes for private sales/transfers and gun show loopholes.

        ALL guns, every single one of them are bought legally some point, if we continue to do things better, it will eventually result in fewer guns in the wrong hands.

        Won’t stop it all, but it will help.

        • avatarRuss says:

          Wow, every 17 minutes someone is shot. Now let’s take a look and see how many of those are likely legitimate self defense, and how many are side-effects of the war on some drugs.
          2.5 million defensive uses of firearms each year, and most shooting ‘victims’ were rival drug gang members.
          Let’s not be naive and think that any of this will be improved by making lawful gun-owners work harder to defend themselves.

      • avatarCharles Canard says:

        Yes, that’s correct. It’s not a child until at least well into the second trimester (late term is definitely wrong…and you should probably brush up on your biology, a heartbeat does not a life make [Roe v. Wade determined this, too.]) Abortions should be legal but controlled (safe, healthy, and options encouraged but not required), guns should be legal but controlled (registered, regulated, not available through loopholes, and not available to crazies and violent felons), and drugs should be legal but controlled (safe and taxed, and addiction treated as a health problem, not a crime).

        • avatarMitch says:

          Roe v. Wade doesn’t determine when life begins. The definition of a child is not one decided by people in black robes anywhere. The moment you give up your personal convictions on such a grave distinction to a court case decided by fallible, short-sighted humans, you must agree to everything the courts could ever decide. Drone.

    • avatarjc says:

      “Regulated” in the spirit you suggest? I’m not sure the young American gov’t was doing much of that. I do not believe regulated meant controlled by regulations, as we know them today. That would have defeated the purpose of the citizen militia. A well regulated militia is a well armed and well disciplined, capable militia. It assumed bringing to muster the guns owned by the citizenry that were appropriate to military use. If you think there is no militia today, you will see it at the polls shortly, fighting tyranny. You see, the “militia”, and ‘tyranny’ probably look different than what the founders imagined. It is tempting to see the 2d Am as vestigial, for some, because they feel safe from government. Most pro 2a folks do not have dreams of shooting it out with gov’t forces. They simply understand that being armed makes a difference in who we are as citizens.
      And, peace to you. I am happy to leave your important life decisions to the one who knows what is best for you…you.

  26. avatarApril says:

    Funny how some version of the “truth” varies from the actual facts. Instead of listening to someone tell you what your right are why don’t you find out for yourself.

    A: Sales or transfers to and between spouses, domestic partners, children and step-children, are exempt from the private sale/transfer provision.

    Q: I have an antique gun with a magazine that can contain more than ten rounds.
    Can I keep the magazine?
    A: Yes, provided that you register both the gun and magazine using the same simple registration process that is used for assault weapons.

    Q: I have an assault weapon. Do I have to give it up?
    A: No. If you have an assault weapon, you can register it with the State Police. You have until April 15, 2014 to register your weapon. Click on the link to the right to register your weapon.. Under state and federal law, some people are not allowed to possess a weapon, such as convicted felons, individuals who have been involuntarily committed, or individuals currently under an order of protection. These people will not be able to register. There is no fee for registering.

    Q: How does the SAFE Act impact magazines?
    A: Since 1994, magazines sold in New York could contain up to 10 rounds. This continues to be true today. You may buy, sell, and possess any magazine that can hold up to 10 rounds, regardless of when it was manufactured. If you have a magazine that can contain more than 10 rounds, you have until January 15, 2014 to permanently modify the magazine so that it holds no more than ten rounds, responsibly discard it, or sell it to a dealer or an out of state purchaser

  27. avatarMark says:

    What is crazy about where the generations are going is democrats are taking away our guns but get drunk all the time, and will be high on pot now behind the wheel of a car. I think I would rather be shot than run over.

  28. avatarJames says:

    Lets not forget about hurricane Katrina when they went around and TOOK PEOPLES GUNS.

  29. avatarDragonCc says:

    It’s amazing that a Constitutinal Scholar took time out of their busy schedule to interpret the 2A via an Oxford dictionary from the 1700′s.

    I have a list of other things we should ban because it causes needless death: alcohol, automobiles, electricity, industrial equipment, and elective surgery. If we take all of that away think how many lives would be saved! Oh, and sharks … sharks cause meaningless death sometimes … a ban would help!

  30. avatarSJJM says:

    “Q: I have an assault weapon. Do I have to give it up?
    A: No. If you have an assault weapon, you can register it with the State Police. You have until April 15, 2014 to register your weapon.”

    We will not need to point out that “registration” ALWAYS leads to confiscation….like light
    follows dark. The depressing part of this is
    really all the would be gun owners on this thread
    who will still quibble. Sucks to have state police drones smash down your door at 2:00 AM
    over your AR15…but some are just slow learners I guess.

  31. avatarLyingBastard says:

    I want the barrel in the picture. Hmmmmm… Nambu

  32. avatarWayne B says:

    When I hear people quote the 2nd amendment, one thing always pops into my mind. There are two parts to it and one cannot exist without the other. In other words it won’t be long before New York, California and I’m sure some other states too, will not be able to form “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Why? Because they won’t be able to “to keep and bear Arms”. Scary and sad. I live in the free state of Arizona and I will sit and watch as crime rises in these states as innocent people, unable to protect their families, become targets themselves. Criminals will flock to NY and CA because the “pickens will be easy”! You think crime has gone down in England since their firearms ban? Check again. Assaults, rape, murder, robbery, they just use more knives and baseball bats. Because of strict laws in countries like Somalia, they just hack each other to death with machetes. Frankly, I think I’d rather be shot!

  33. avatarWayne B says:

    I think I need to say a little bit more about the 2nd Amendment. Let’s do a little time travel and go back to the mid 1700s. The truth be told, there wasn’t a lot of crime. Everyone and I mean EVERYONE was armed in some fashion. Those people who could afford them, had guns. Those who couldn’t, carried knives. Not the little clip in your pocket knives that are the fashion of today, but big, scary, long knives.

    If we take a walk down a sidewalk in Philadelphia, just prior to the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, we might pass a pretty lady dressed in a long flowing gown. She might be carrying a muff to keep her hands warm. Inside that muff is a flintlock muff pistol and when it was cold many men wore muffs too. Very popular self protection during this time in Europe and America. The well dressed gentleman across the street has a elegant brass handled walking cane. Inside the cane is hidden a long, thin, and sharply pointed sword. Even the beggar on the corner who’s missing one leg (lost it in the Seven Years’ War) has some kind of shiv and has learned to do a lot of damage with his crutch. And there’s Aodh Ó Conghaile with his blackthorn shillelagh. It has three notches on it. He poured “molten lead into the head to give it more punch in the swing”. He had to put down some bad men during the First Famine. They had broken into his house and were stealing his potatoes. The ones he had deep in his basement, protected from the frost.

    Ok, enough, my point being, that the men who wrote the Bill of Rights never intended the 2nd Amendment to be about home or personal protection. It wasn’t needed. As I said, everyone had protection of some sort. You didn’t go knocking on some farmer’s door without him opening it with flintlock in hand.

    The 2nd Amendment allows for the people (that’s us Mr. President) to keep arms (that’s firearms and doesn’t specify what kind) and in case of an tyrannical runaway government, (hmm, better keep my mouth shut on this one) have the ability to form “A well regulated Militia” to keep that government in check.

    We’re no where near that type of government, but these things will creep up on you in small baby steps. Though things really went bad, fast in Germany. After WWI, economic depression, unemployment, and political strife that verged on civil war followed. This lead to the collapse of the Weimar Republic and we all know what happened after 1933. You get a sweet talker in office and the SCHTF, FAST! Hitler had Germany believing he was the best thing since sliced bread, at least for a few years.

    And here’s another little mind thought to mull around. I wonder did your “Threat Assessment” ever consider this?
    Say unknown terrorists right now are scouting areas to beach a large probably hijacked cruise ship. Say some spots of New York coast line look promising. They’ve dumped all the passengers and managed to fill it with 5 or 6,000 religiously rabid, well armed terrorists. Dump these guys off in New York and see what happens. Is it possible? Maybe, with the right planning. Could they sneak in under the radar, so to speak?
    Oooo, I think I’ve come up with a plot for the next Bruce Willis movie!

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.