“I’m a Long-Time Gun Owner, But…,” Dissecting an Anti-Gun Rant

6a00d83451b36c69e2017615eed4b3970c-800wi

Over at the TTAG Facebook page we have largely the same comment policy that we have on the main site. In other words, unless your comment is vulgar or threatening it’s good to go. Naturally this has opened the door to gun control activists leaving comments on the page, and the comments are usually met with instant and vocal opposition from some of the regulars. And unlike Shannon’s crew, we don’t delete or ban anyone unless they become abusive. One thing these screeds are good for is understanding the mentality of gun control activists, revealing the false “facts” underpinning their arguments and the mindset that supports their position. Let’s explore one together, shall we? . . .

I am an American and I am a long time gun owner. My guns are registered and I have a permit to carry them.

This is the current rallying cry of choice for every gun control activist. “Hey guys, look! I’m one of you! I own guns too! And I think we should ban them all!” Claiming to love the 2nd Amendment while advocating for its demise is all the rage, a transparent attempt at infiltrating the gun rights camp in order to destroy it from within. Is this person really a gun owner? Or even an American? On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.

I am all in favor of CHANGE to our current laws concerning gun control. Serious change. I do not hide behind the 2nd amendment or twist its meaning […]

In the same way that the KKK believes Brown v. Board of Education was completely wrong, the gun control activists of today believe that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is bogus. Civilian disarmers believe that the 2A guarantees guns for people in uniform and only those people, a position which makes no logical sense whatsoever. Gun rights advocates believe, and are backed up by the Supreme Court, that the 2A enumerates an individual’s right to own guns. Bruce Krafft did an excellent piece on the Second Amendment and its origins, I suggest you read it and find the truth for yourself.

It boils down to freedom and rights. Gun control activists believe that the rights of the people need to be eliminated in order to make them “feel” safer whether or not that perception is valid. That’s something I’ve touched on before. Gun rights advocates cherish their rights and individual freedoms over the empty promise of safety.

Shannon Watts and her merry band of nodding lobotomites continue to claim that their reading of the Bill of Rights is the correct version for one reason only: the appearance of intellectual supremacy. They enjoy looking down their noses at “uneducated red neck” gun owners who can’t even understand plain English — it makes them feel superior. That’s the basis of their entire campaign, that a single billionaire knows better than millions of Americans and the nation’s highest court and we should bend to that benevolent dictator’s will. For our own good, of course.

[…] as the NRA and the gun manufacturers do to further their cause in their effort to flood our streets with guns. These two entities are joined at the hip and one cannot survive without the other. They do not make the rules, but they think they do, and I want to put an end to it. I actually hold them COMPLICIT in every massacre and shooting in America. They may not have pulled the trigger but they certainly supplied the ammunition.

Here we have #2 on the greatest hits list of gun control activists; painting the NRA as an evil corporate shill whose sole purpose is to generate profits for the soulless gun companies. The strategy is a common one for Democrats, demonizing the opposition as soulless and evil makes it easier to generate legitimate feelings of hatred in their followers. As a bonus, if they can associate those evil organizations with “big corporations,” even better, since corporations are pretty high on the Occupy Wall Street generation’s list of things they don’t particularly care for.

While NRA-bashing is a common tactic, the underlying belief generating that hatred is that guns cause crime. The phrase “flood our streets with guns” is the tip-off — there’s no mention of criminals or murderers, the author simply assumes that his readers also believe that guns are the root cause of all crime. They’re deluded enough to think that if all guns were to vanish instantaneously from the Earth, crime would stop. That people are naturally peaceful, and the temptation to commit crime is made nearly irresistible when a gun is introduced into the environment.

Gun controllers blame the gun for every act of violence. The criminal committing the crime is actually another innocent victim, corrupted by the satanic powers of the firearm.

It’s time for CHANGE right now. This cartel (NRA and gun manufacturers) need to be held accountable.

Holding gun companies accountable for crimes committed with their products is like holding shoe companies accountable for enabling criminals to run from the cops. And blaming the NRA for “gun violence” is like blaming AAA for drunk driving deaths. There’s no basis in logic, unless you’ve drunk deep from the Shannon Watts Kool-Aid and already have a passionate hatred for the NRA.

We need a ban on automatic weapons […]

The author seems to be unaware that there have been exactly zero murders committed with machine guns in the last decade. In fact, there have been zero murders committed with machine guns in this century.  The repeated call for a ban on automatic weapons — and the fact that it’s usually near the top of their wish list for change — is proof positive that the author doesn’t actually care about improving the situation. They only care about optics and perception, not making changes that would have one iota of an impact on the situation on the ground in south Chicago or Detroit.

People like the author of this rant don’t care if the actions they demand would actually accomplish anything, they just know that guns are scary and no one should have them. Banning machine guns wouldn’t have had an impact of any kind on the crime rate or murder rate in the United States, but it’s #1 on the gun control activist wish list.

[…] as well as large capacity magazines.

The fixation on large capacity magazines is pretty interesting. Gun controllers have this collective fantasy where if they force an active shooter to reload often enough, it gives someone a chance to tackle the bad guy to the ground and stop them. They don’t seem to care that large magazines would be helpful in situations where multiple attackers are involved in a home invasion, something that happens every day in this country. Instead, the focus is on forcing mass shooters to reload their guns — a situation that’s exceedingly rare in the United States and getting more rare every year.

It’s almost like gun control advocates don’t care about the lives that could be saved by using a gun defensively. That they prefer dead victims to living gun owners.

We need full registration for all semi-automatic weapons.

I’m just going to leave this quote here, from Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino about the Canadian firearms registry and its effectiveness:

“We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered[…]. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.”

A registry of firearms hasn’t helped the Canadians and there’s zero evidence that it would help us here in the US either. There’s only one purpose for a registry of firearms: knowing which door to knock on when you finally decide you want to confiscate them all. I hate to invoke Godwin’s Law, but…

We need licensing and training for anyone in order to carry.

I’m going to give the author some leeway on this point. There’s some debate about carry licensing even among gun rights advocates, so I’ll let this one slip. But the next point more than makes up for it.

We need some type of a mental evaluation for those who want to own these weapons. Anyone who owns or intends to own a gun should also need a permit to do so.

There’s two ways to take this statement, and I think our author believes both.

Why do you need a mental evaluation? Because obviously gun owners are raving lunatics and mass murderer wannabes. Like all good disarmers, the author believes that gun owners are idiots and head cases who need to be controlled by their intellectual betters. It’s an ugly and dehumanizing viewpoint, the belief that people who avail themselves of their right to keep and bear arms are some sort of untermenschen, and its one that’s pervasive among gun control activists.

The second way to interpret the statement is an extension of the belief that gun ownership is a privilege and not a right. Since guns are obviously enchanted charms that brainwash their owners into committing crimes, only intellectual elites who can resist these charms should be granted permits to own guns. That’s the current situation in places like New York and New Jersey, bastions of law and order where corruption is impossible and obtaining a permit is an easy and fast process.

Owning and carrying a LETHAL weapon should come with some serious Responsibility.

The last time I checked, a permit to carry a gun is not a license to kill. Murder is still murder and criminals who break the law will be punished accordingly whether they had a license to carry or not. The author seems to believe that people who carry guns are irresponsible dolts, hence his call for mandatory responsibility. Unfortunately for our contributor, concealed carry license holders seem to be more responsible than the police. So unless the plan is to first disarm the police, requiring “Responsibility” for carrying a gun is a futile and redundant endeavor.

No one should be able to simply walk into a gun store an buy an AR 15 and large capacity magazines without having to show that they are responsible enough to do so.

Again, the stereotype that gun owners are irresponsible fools and mentally deficient. Add the scary AR-15 rifle as the cherry on top, a strange target for gun control activists since less than 2% of murders are committed using rifles of any kind.

Facts. Logic. Statistics. None of those three components made an appearance in this rant. Instead, what we have is nonsensical rambling from yet another civilian disarmament advocate spouting proposals that would do absolutely nothing to address the stated problem of “gun violence.” Rather, all they would do is remove the ability for people to defend themselves and create even more victims.

The author doesn’t care. Guns are evil, and he’s willing to sacrifice innocent lives so long as he feels safer. That’s all he really cares about, not whether what he proposes will actually make a difference or save lives.

Thank you.

Oh no, thank you. This was fun, we should do it again sometime.

comments

  1. avatar TITAN308 says:

    Anti-gun poster makes a statement based on emotion. News @ 11.

    1. avatar DJ9 says:

      Yup. Real dog-bites-man stuff.

    2. avatar Korvis says:

      In other news, the “nodding lobotomites” reference made me think of Cenobites for some reason, causing a cruelly demented mash-up of Hellraiser and MAIG-MDA-Everyclown to flash before my eyes. Bloomberg as Pinhead. Watts as the freaky chick with the peep-hole throat.

      “You bought a gun, we came. Now you must come with us, taste our pleasures.” Right before they start flaying me of my rights.

      Totally going to have nightmares tonight. Thanks, Nick.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        That’s twisted….and now I can’t stop thinking about it….

    3. avatar dcarmichiel says:

      A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally is an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel.

  2. avatar Brian - (not that one, the other one) says:

    I feel like if people start with “I am a gun owner” they should have to provide evidence that they own guns, proof of life so to speak. Its fine — heck, good — if they differ from the orthodoxy and can present well reasoned arguments (which wasn’t the case here), but if you are going to make an appeal to your gun owning bona-fides as part of your argument you should have to prove it up.

    1. avatar Rokurota says:

      Not gonna do any good. Lots of the wealthy elite shoot skeet, and apparently Joe Biden has a double barrel shotgun. I’ll take a non-gun owner who defends the 2nd Amendment over someone with 20 guns who despises it.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      That is a standard Progressive tactic. I am a gun owner. For a gun owner with CHL the poster sure doesn’t much about guns or gun law. This person is no more a gun owner than I am a professional golfer. I wouldn’t be surprised from the canned language if we found out that the post was computer generated.

    3. avatar Gene says:

      I am a gun owner. I own a Mini-14. That still counts, right?

      1. avatar int19h says:

        Yes, as a shotgun, considering the spread. ~

  3. avatar KOB says:

    So you’re a gun owner and want to ban firearms?

    Josef Mengele had a doctorate in medicine.

    I know a guy who tries this angle all the time.

    His solution is that each and every different type of gun (bolt action, shot gun, revolver, AR, etc) should require the person to demonstrate that they know how to safely handle, store and shoot each unique type of weapon. As in “so what if you’ve got 5 semi auto pistols? This here wheel gun is a completely different ballgame!”. The stupidity inherent in that thought is one that I still can’t even begin to comprehend.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      New Mexico’s carry license is still based upon caliber and action. It is limited not only by the highest caliber you qualify for but what kind of gun you use. So if you want to carry a pistol on Monday and a revolver on Wednesday (or ever), you have to qualify with both, as well as qualifying with a 45 in order to carry any caliber you want. That’s why derringer sales in NM are almost nonexistent: you have to qualify with a 45 derringer if you want to carry one. Who is going to sit there and shoot 50 rounds out of a derringer?

      1. avatar John L. says:

        25 rounds, 10 from 7 yards and 15 from three yards, at a 12″ x 18″ target.

        However, since you only need to score 18 hits to pass, if you’re good you don’t even need to fire the full 25-round course of fire.

        1. avatar Jesse says:

          Is this blindfolded?

          I could hit that size target at those distances in my sleep.

  4. avatar Rokurota says:

    The phrase “flood our streets with guns” is the tip-off — there’s no mention of criminals or murderers, the author simply assumes that his readers also believe that guns are the root cause of all crime.

    Amen to that. Every time I hear that argument, I think of this:

    http://www.anyclip.com/movies/lethal-weapon-3/funeral/

    It made no sense in the movie. It makes no sense in real life.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      “More guns equals more crime. It’s common sense!” I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this. from the Sheriff of LA County, the Chief of Police of the LAPD, from their counterparts in San Francisco, and from Alan Dershowitz (an alleged constitutional scholar) in a rude rant on Piers Morgan’s show. Any one who would propose otherwise is a charlatan and a fraud–said so right to John Lott’s face.

  5. avatar William Burke says:

    I DISPUTE the term, “mentality”.

    What we see hear from them are prefab “talking points”, and it’s the same exact crap EVERY TIME!
    Their side is INSECTOID in its approach.

  6. avatar jesse bogan says:

    “I am a gun owner, but…” OK then, name the make model and first few digits of the serial number of every gun you own. Can’t do that? Zero credibility.Shut up and blow away, liar.

    1. avatar Bruce L. says:

      Sorry Jesse, I probably can’t give you the make model of most of my guns. Don’t remember that being a requirement in the Bill of Rights. And the one I’m sure of I don’t even know where to look for serial numbers much less what they are.

      1. avatar jesse bogan says:

        Since their first claim is that they own guns themselves, and they use that “fact” to give themselves legitimacy, I figure it should not be too much trouble to pick one up, read all the cool stampings on it and provide the info.
        Heck I can’t do that off hand either, but if asked to prove it I certainly could.
        IMO the twatwaffle that wrote that is likely NOT a gun owner, has never been a gun owner, and is lying through their teeth in a desparate bid to appear to be part of the “90%” (or whatever made up statistic they use) of gun owners that buy into their cow manure.

    2. avatar Jason says:

      I have a JC Higgins Model 36 22 LR semi-auto rifle. It has NO serial number!!!!!!!

  7. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Allow me to paraphrase…

    First, “I am an American and I am a long time gun owner.” Followed by “…Owning and carrying a LETHAL weapon should come with some serious Responsibility.”

    So *you* having a gun puts you one step away from being a mass murder. However, *Me* having a gun protects me from mass murders.

    One rule for you, a different rule for me.

  8. avatar launchpadmech says:

    Some how, some way I feel that all this gun , 2 A and all the other BS stuff going on is just a smoke screen or the powers that be fighting over truff.

  9. avatar Garrison Hall says:

    In Revolutionary War America, Shannon and her “nodding lobotomites” (great term Robert!) gun-controll supporters would be Tories, steadfastly remaining loyal to the Crown.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    I don’t think that the “Long Time Gun Owner” is a mentally defective lying sack, but . . . .

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      But you FEEL that’s true, don’t you!?

  11. avatar Tom says:

    The anti gunners freely talk about their agenda, but not one word as to what measures they would support to enforce their bans and mandatory registration laws. You can no more get them to talk on that subject than you can a captured spy. They know if the gun control laws they want get passed it will be like New York and Connecticut plus 48.

  12. avatar sammy says:

    When the federal assault weapons, came about, I was a gun owner for about 11 year. I was FOR the assault weapons ban. I was for it, because all I knew about it was what the liberal media had to say about it.

    To make a long story short, I did NOT understand the reality of it, nor the political meaning. Being a gun owner did not shield be from the BS. I have since became much more involved with guns and carry and am obviously against assault weapon bans as well as against all gun control.

    My point is this, just being a gun owner is not a qualification for understanding the consequences or meaning of gun control, nor does it lead any stature to the argument of a “gun owner.”

    1. avatar Montana Dan says:

      Thank you, that’s very big of you to say.

      The same can be said of women who pipe up with “I’m a mother so……” Just because you can categorize yourself doesn’t just magically give you knowledge, experience, or even credibility.

    2. avatar Robert says:

      Sammy,

      This statement is or was true of every person here.
      In my opinion, one of the key problems we face today is that there are those who believe that just because their granddad left them his old single shot squirrel gun they MUST be a gun person and therefore a “gun expert”, but that is like saying that owning a pair of boxing gloves makes me a heavy weight contender!
      Being ignorant of something is nothing to be ashamed of, being too arrogant to admit it and then seek out knowledge and experience to learn from BEFORE labeling yourself an expert or even qualified to discuss the subject matter is!

  13. avatar TT says:

    The fact that automatic firearms are rarely, if ever, used in crimes today is actually a decent argument in support of restrictive regulation and taxation for all guns. Automatic firearms were commonly used to commit crimes before the 1934 National Firearms Act. Since then, not so much. If you’re pro-2A, I wouldn’t spend much time talking about automatic weapons. The antis will eventually catch on and start using automatic weapons as an example that registration, heavy taxes, and regulations that artificially increase prices keep guns out of criminals’ hands.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      You mean, other than the stolen ones they use now?

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      I have to agree with most of that, although I will point out that illegally modified automatic weapons are still used in crimes.

      But yeah, most criminals are mostly interested in the gun they can get easily, not what they can modify and machine.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Can you please post some links to full auto weapons (however obtained or modified) used in crimes in the last 50 (fifty) years? Not talking about on TV, in the movies, or on Call of Duty, now, but for real.

        1. avatar PPGMD says:

          There have been a handful (the North Hollywood Shootout comes to mind), but in almost every case the weapon was illegally modified.

    3. avatar TT says:

      My comment was directed to the fact that there have been two posts on TTAG today that have pointed out that automatic firearms don’t get used much in crimes anymore. Since TTAG is saying it, I’m guessing it’s more or less true. The idea seems to fit with what you see and read.

  14. avatar Hal says:

    Liberal mindset at its finest:

    A law-abiding citizen effectively defending themselves with a firearm? Completely unrealistic nonsense, rainbows and unicorns, the stuff of LSD fantasies.

    A law-abiding citizen crouched behind cover and concealment awaiting the 1-2 seconds it takes for an active shooter to reload, springing into action like a ninja, disarming the bad guy and saving the day? Totally reasonable.

    Ugh.

    1. avatar Fler says:

      This +1000! I’ve never thought of this, but I’m going to use this (I’ll be sure to give you credit, “someGuyOnline”)

  15. avatar Shire-man says:

    I don’t ever believe any of these “I’m a X but I believe incompatible with X”.
    On the Internet everyone is everything.

    I’m a firearms blogger myself but I believe in this modern world with easy access to technology and the web that some limitations on who can run a blog or who can post on a blog are necessary to the security of the country and its people. Just letting anyone post anything anywhere without some vetting, some form of checking or registering simply isnt safe.

    See, I’m none of that and I don’t believe any of that but it’s the Internet so if I think pretending to be a thing will make my totally biased opinion carry more weight or have a greater chance to manipulate your opinion than I’ll be that thing for however long I have to be.

    These “I’m a whatever…but…” types are all either outright liars or suffering from severe brain damage that prevents the recognition of their paradoxical beliefs.

    No need to dissect or deconstruct because it’s all bull anyway.

    1. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

      In our relative truth mindset today, little things things like the law of non-contradiction are optional.

  16. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

    Overall, this is an excellent writeup, so I REALLY hate to bust Nick’s chops on this, but it needs to be pointed out.

    The claim that no murder has been committed with a machine gun in the last 100 years is misleading and disingenuous. The anti’s stated issue is with automatic weapons, which covers more than just rifle caliber firearms. Case in point, the (in)famous Thompson sub-machine gun. I’m not even trying to find examples when I cite the February 14, 1929 Saint Valantine’s Day Massacre as an example of a murder using automatic weapons in the last century. Granted, it was criminals killing criminals, but it was no less murder.

    So while the Thompson is indeed not TECHNICALLY a “machine gun,” automatic versions were still available and used in crimes during the last 100 years.

    Don’t fudge facts. That is an anti tactic, and we NEED to be above that, especially here at The TRUTH About Guns.

    1. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

      Actually, I believe he said “this century,” i.e. 2000 forward, the last 14+ years, not last century or last 100 years.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        But you could sure try fifty years, as in going back to May 14, 1964, show me automatic weapons and crimes?! I’m not saying there are none (but I don’t recall any) but if you had all the figures I think you’d see it is not worthy of discussion, the numbers are so small/nonexistent.

      2. avatar Rich Grise says:

        Yeah, he said “this century,” and I almost got caught on the same thing. It’s not really egregious enough to call, but it’s very borderline something… Maybe I’m just dissatisfied in that specifying “this century” makes it sound like a lot more than just the past thirteen years and four and a half months.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      Actually you are more right than you admit. The Thompson is a fully automatic weapon, technically a “submachine gun” because of its use of pistol caliber ammunition.

      And I understand the Clyde Barrow was rather fond of the BAR, which is a full fledged machinegun.

      1. avatar Jason says:

        The Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) as invented/designed by John Moses Browning in 1917, is an Automatic Rifle, meant to be carried and operated by a single soldier. It is NOT a machine gun. The original version was select fire….it could fire either Semi-auto OR Full Auto. It’s main short commings, complaints was it’s limited 20 round box magazine and it’s inability to change barrels after extensive firing. The 1918A2 BAR was modified somewhat for WWII and the USMC had it changed to 2 modes (slow/fast) of automatic fire and NO semi-auto selection. As with any subject matter, terminology and definitions must be learned to be able to converse about said subject matter. To use terminology that is incorrect only confuses those unfamiliar with the subject. Thank you.

    3. avatar Nick Leghorn says:

      “This century.” 2000 – 2014.

      Last instance was in the 1990s, if my information is correct.

      1. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

        My apologies for the misunderstanding, then. The connotation seemed to indicate a significantly longer increase in time over 10 years than 4 1/2 years would account for. That in conjunction with the use of the term “machine gun” in both sentences specifying time, which normally refers to a very specific subset of automatic weapons, led to me to make a bad assumption.

    4. avatar GuntotinDem says:

      He could have said this millennia and still have been equally correct.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        HAW!

  17. avatar CLarson says:

    The leftist authoritarians over rely on identity politics to pander to various constituencies. They think this approach will work gun owners, thinking we are just another group to divide and conquer. What they do not understand is that owning a firearm is choice all gun owners make only after coming to a realization that they are the ones ultimately responsible their own personal safety and freedom. A firearm is just the best tool for this purpose. So when a clueless leftist prefaces a disarmament pitch “I am an American and I am a long time gun owner,” it is so transparent. It’s like saying “I am an American and I am long time car owner, Cars should only have 3 gallon gas tanks.” Talk about completely missing the point of owning the tool.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “owning a firearm is choice all gun owners make only after coming to a realization that they are the ones ultimately responsible their own personal safety and freedom.”

      Maybe today, but it certainly was not for me when I bought my first gun in 1960. It was COOL, popping .22lr into the ocean with my shiny new Winchester model 77. Later a scope (4X Weaver, of course) and many, many targets destroyed. It was 10 years and several guns later before I even considered self defense as a reason to own a gun, and the gun had to be FUN, first, using it to defend myself was decidedly secondary.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Never mind!

  18. avatar Puyallup devil doc says:

    TT… If we ban inflammatory speech, and that results in less hate speech, is that ok? If we relaxed the restrictions on warrantless searches, and cops catch more bad guys, is that ok? If the govt decided that we’d all be more peaceful if we were required to be Christians, is that ok?
    If the govt wants to make a constitutional amendment, there’s a process.

    1. avatar TT says:

      Lots of people would answer all three of your questions “yes.” In fact, question no. 2 has already been answered resoundingly with a “yes” by local, state, and federal governments, and the Supreme Court and a majority of the voting populace has agreed with them.

      By the way, there is a big difference between identifying an issue and taking a position on that issue.

  19. avatar HiddenHills says:

    “They enjoy looking down their noses at “uneducated red neck” gun owners who can’t even understand plain English” – you neglected inclusion of “cracker” & “hillbilly”, perhaps 50% of their target (although there is some crossover among the three due to the fourth category – “inbred”).

  20. avatar Gyufygy says:

    I am a law-abiding, gun-owning American, but I think the NFA, GCA, AWBs of all shapes and sizes, and restrictions on standard and high capacity boxes with springs are really rather dumb.

    Sometimes, when you want to see a phrase used right, you just got to use it yourself.

  21. avatar Hannibal says:

    “I am an American and I am a long time gun owner. My guns are registered and I have a permit to carry them…”

    I think he is a liar, a troll trying to establish his bonafides and nothing more. His subsequent statements are so ignorant that I doubt he has the interest to go through the process to own and carry guns; in fact, I wonder if he wouldn’t be too scared to do so.

    And if I’m wrong, one wonders why he owns guns and is complicit in the evil cabal of NRA\manufacturers that he thinks exists.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      I can prove he is a liar. Name 1 place where A) Every gun you buy is registered, and B) the average person could realistically get a carry permit.

      Anyone? Anyone? ….. Bueller?

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Well, IF he only owns handguns, NY.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The average citizen can get a carry permit? I hadn’t heard that.

      2. avatar brian says:

        Connecticut. Every gun bought at retail in CT since 1994 has been de-facto registered with the state (Form DPS-3C, filed with state and local LEO for every purchase – contains make/model/serial and your permit number). And the pistol permit system is effectively shall-issue.

        That said, the author clearly does not understand that machine guns (fully-automatic was his term, I believe) are effectively banned for all but the super-wealthy already. Which means that the entire thing was a fabrication.

    2. avatar GuntotinDem says:

      Chicago

  22. avatar Lee says:

    The comment policy should be changed. Im all for respectful debate but if someone is an obvious antigun troll they should be banned from further communications on our site. Antigunners are void of all logic and reason and all their comments are based on poor logic, “feelings”, and illegitimate surveys. They dont want a debate…they are close minded jerks that get off to invading our space. Also…any ttag user that replies to a troll should be banned as well. When you reply to a troll they get the feeling that theyre own comment has some validity. Trolls do not deserve a respectful reply.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Does it really hurt you to see their comments? If so your arguments can’t be that good to begin with.

      Every sentence you wrote could have one word or phrase replaced to make us all ‘trolls’ by the anti side.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Machiavelli. it is why Patton read Rommel’s book and studied history–always seek to understand your enemy and his tactics.

  23. avatar Noishkel says:

    ‘On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.’

    Very true.

  24. avatar disthunder says:

    The “automatic” weapons is really an unprovable causation type of deal.
    For example, while automatic weapons in domestic channels are few and far between, south of the border, or “lost” LE/Mil guns are more common. Because of the criminal nature of the source, it can be very hard chase the supply of such a gun if it’s recovered. And that’s a mighty big “if,” since most of this type of crime is hood-on-hood, it doesn’t get solved much.
    Also, since these crimes neeeever have any witnesses, since nobody ever sees anything, how would you know if the crime scene was a full auto massacre, or just the tame semi auto version? Spent casings aren’t going to tell the difference….

  25. avatar DaveL says:

    He kind of gives away the game right here, doesn’t he?

    the NRA and the gun manufacturers do to further their cause in their effort to flood our streets with guns. These two entities are joined at the hip and one cannot survive without the other.

    Now, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that no association formed around a particular product can survive if no exemplars of that product exist, so you could say it’s trivially true to say the NRA can’t survive without gun manufacturers, just as the Jelly of the Month Club couldn’t survive a blanket ban on jelly.

    But consider the converse relationship. Gun manufacturers can’t survive without the NRA? Why on earth would that be, unless there were a movement afoot to shut them down that the NRA is effective in opposing?

    So, in an attempt to paint a picture of some dark conspiracy between the NRA and gun manufacturers, he ends up basically admitting that their goal is the elimination of gun manufacturing, and that the NRA stands in their way.

  26. avatar Lee says:

    You deal with trolls the same way you deal with women who are out of line…you stop entertaining them. You stand firm and continue your conversation and actions on the thread without acknowledging the troll. Trolls do not deserve a 200 word explanation as to why their logic is flawed. They get off to that. They deserve…”psa has a great deal on upper groups right now.”

    Your logic is invalid. We are not trolls by ignoring them.

  27. avatar Mark says:

    Let me start with some truths. I am not American (though I live here) and I am not a long time gun owner. I have a 9mm pistol and 22 rifle (because I was unsure what I should start with).
    I am from the UK where gun ownership is virtually unheard of and very few of the police carry guns.
    I recall the reasons why the government finally banned all gun ownership (except under a few special circumstances) and I agreed with them because, at that time, there was virtually no gun crime and even the police very rarely felt the need to carry. In recent years that has changed in that there is more gun crime but almost all confined to criminals who don’t care that their guns are illegal. Why would they care? Still, we still never really think about guns because we don’t need to. Of course, there is more knife crime and general violence than in some other countries but ‘normal’ people never think about it.
    So then we come to the US. I have come to enjoy my guns. I like going to the range and destroying pieces of paper, innocent or not. I have no evil intent and would never even consider using the weapons in anything other than defensive situations or for sport. That also begs the question: could I actually use a pistol to defend myself? I really don’t know: I hope so and I’m very appreciative of the law that allows me to make that decision, to have that choice. The fact that I don’t keep the gun loaded and to hand says more about where I live and my predisposed cultural inhibitions about guns.
    I suppose the point is that guns are dangerous. They should be used with caution and care. But so should your car or your favorite kitchen knife. And the notion that, somehow, all gun owners are troglodytes with low intelligence is absurd. I work as a systems engineer and I know I am reasonably intelligent. I resent the notion that because I own a gun I am mentally deficient or incapable of making reasoned decisions as to how I use my guns and I very much resent being told by do-gooders with shadowy political motives how to interpret the second amendment or bring in ill thought out laws that, effectively, get around the 2nd amendment by making it difficult to own a gun or buy ammunition.
    Maybe there should be more stringent background checks. But then there should be the same for knife ownership or car ownership or any other of the myriad tool and devices that can kill just as dead as a gun in the hands of people who do not care about the law.
    Unless and until the government and police van 100% guarantee my safety and the safety of my family form criminals and their illegal weapons, we must be allowed to adequately defend ourselves. Indeed, if we are not allowed to do so it implies that the government cares more about controlling us than keeping us safe and that can never be right nor should it be allowed to have sway over the 2nd amendment, the last line we have that gives us the ability to defend ourselves in a meaningful and legal way.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I believe that from here on, any suggestion concerning gun control should have to be accompanied by an estimate of what it would change and how. After suggestions concerning “universal background checks” receiving attention from ANYONE following Sandy Hook, where a nut committed murder of his own mother to obtain the weapons involved, and I never heard one talking head ask how universal background checks would have changed anything.

      For those who weren’t there, the Clinton AWB was promised to be the solution to every problem the country ever had or even imagined, the rosy stories were overwhelming, every day, massive quantities of what I could see were all lies, over, and over, and over. Then, once it was passed, it took TWO DAYS for grabbers to start their new chorus, that it would accomplish exactly nothing except show the way to trample everyone’s rights in an ever-increasing crusade to outlaw all guns, free speech, anything which might oppose our AGENDA!

      Show me what a law will DO, and let’s discuss whether your analysis is correct or not. Then, and only then, can we start considering support.

    2. avatar Martin B says:

      Let me help you. Morally, people want to do what they are taught is good, like for instance, obeying the 10 Commandments. What is not generally known is that the King James version of the Bible mistranslates the 6th Commandment. In ancient Hebrew, it does not say “Thou shall not kill”. It says “Thou shall not murder”. I have checked this out myself.

      This clearly (among many other verses) points out the way for armed self defense.

      This is your natural born right, and is protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Some criminal low life cretin has no right to rob you of your life through their felonious misdeeds.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Martin B., I heard that Commandment way back. The other half is the definition of “murder” at the time, which was the killing of a guest in your house/tent. Once he left and got down the road a ways, feel free to kill him and steal his gold and wives, that is not murder. Just shows how you set yourself up by putting faith in a 5000 year old collection of stories designed to scare children into behaving.

    3. avatar Matt in Texas says:

      Mark , I think that you have more of an article than a reply here. I would love to read of your experience. Flesh it out and turn it in to Robert for publication?

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Wow: thanks. I will do that.

        1. avatar Matt in Tx says:

          Cool, de Nada. I just caught up on my reading and found this:

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/foghorn/ttag-content-contest-win-a-free-sig-sauer-p320/

          Might get you a new pistol.

  28. avatar The average American says:

    For a another article, here’s one posted today over at The Daily Beast titled “A Former Navy Firearms Instructor and Proud Gun Owner On Why We Need Common Sense Gun Control”. The windup…

    >Before half the country decides that I am a crazy liberal and stops reading here, let me note that I am a security professional, and a 12-year veteran of the Navy, where I served as a weapons system technician, base police officer, and firearms instructor. I am a proud gun owner. I’m also a single father. I do not want to ban guns but I do want to protect my son from the dangers they pose.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/a-former-navy-firearms-instructor-and-proud-gun-owner-on-why-we-need-common-sense-gun-control.html

  29. The following leftist crap has been headlined all day on Yahoo:

    A Former Navy Firearms Instructor and Proud Gun Owner On Why We Need Common Sense Gun Control
    A gun owner and former Navy firearms instructor makes the case for common sense gun control and why we need to adopt it now, before the next tragedy.

    Why do we only talk about gun control after the most unbearable national tragedies? Why don’t we adopt the common sense gun control regulations that have broad public support and might actually prevent the next tragedy?

    Before half the country decides that I am a crazy liberal and stops reading here, let me note that I am a security professional, and a 12-year veteran of the Navy, where I served as a weapons system technician, base police officer, and firearms instructor. I am a proud gun owner. I’m also a single father. I do not want to ban guns but I do want to protect my son from the dangers they pose.

    Our nation has settled into a very predictable routine of public discourse regarding firearms. A deranged individual—a neo-Nazi, a disillusioned ex-employee, or even a disturbed child—commits an act of public violence. The 24-hour news cycle obsesses on every morbid detail, speculating on motives and puzzling over “who’s to blame?” The righteous left preaches “never again” by way of tighter restrictions and more regulation, and the fringe right accuses them of politicizing a tragedy and warns that the government is coming for our firearms.

  30. avatar Dermott says:

    Quoted from him: ” I actually hold them COMPLICIT in every massacre and shooting in America.”

    Well okay, I hold doctors and pharma COMPLCIT in the over 20k deaths due to PRESCRIPTION DRUGS” in this country every year (16 k in 2010 per CDC so I figure it went way up since then).

    Is he complaining about prescription drugs? No, because he is a troll and a moron.

    As far as I can tell (patient confidentiality) virtually all of the mass shooters were under a doctors care or should have been so mental evaluations mean nil.

    Now we’re on it, how about Ambien, a sleep help which Europe has tagged as far more dangerous that the FDA in the US. Some people have taken it, got up in a sleepwalk, driven a car and killed people. Notice how many drug commercials on the TV in the evening? Those TV stations don’t want to upset the money flow by criticizing prescription drugs (How many commercials do they play for gun manufacturers?).

  31. avatar Bob Watson says:

    I am a long time gun owner (45 years). The unrelenting campaign of misinformation, exaggeration and outright fabrication of the past few years is nothing new. If you want to understand the “mindset” of Monsanto mommy and her fellow paid shills, consider this. Success in their advocacy for firearms restrictions is wholly dependent on their ability to manufacture hysteria. Blind, unreasoning, hysterical overreaction is what gets them results. Take a close look at recent restrictions of gun rights in New York, Connecticut, Maryland, California, Colorado and New Jersey for examples of poorly written, pointless legislation. The fight for 2a rights is not a battle between emotion and logic. It is a struggle that pits a tiny, cynical and manipulative group against the rights of an entire nation.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, I’m at 54 years, and I agree completely. Guns are great fun to play with, and if you are a player they are a bit of fun to read about, but otherwise they’re just boring. Given no ammo, I would not care a bit about guns, because I want to SHOOT them! Take ’em apart, put ’em back together, if you can’t shoot them what’s the point? Grabbers paint a picture of wild and crazy worship of a piece of metal and make so much noise about nothing. It’s hard to argue, as our point of view is just not exciting enough.

  32. avatar former water walker says:

    If we could get every HUNTER to support the 2A we’d have it made. How about 30-50 million NRA members? Trolls are ok. They tend to receive massive abuse & quickly go away. I admit I’ve only gone on TTAG Facebook page twice. It seems redundant after spending ludicrous amounts of time here LOL

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I occasionally faceplant, but I do not facebook. Facepalm, OK, no hab facebook. So, hey, carry the most ludicrous back here for my enjoyment, I don’t mind.

  33. avatar DH2 says:

    In the interest of ensuring accuracy, I do have to point out that there have been murders commuted with machine guns this century. The St Valentine’s day massacre was committed with sub machine guns. However that event is yet another shining example of laws only keeping honest people honest.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      St Valentine’s day massacre was in the early 20th century, we are 14 years into the 21st. Find a much more recent example.

  34. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    Typical Trojan-Troll Tactic

    They’re now feeding themselves off their own sh*t. All’s that does is lock them even further in their own extremist bubble. This is an obsessive fringe group of people who have nothing to lose and nothing to gain – but nothing better to do. There’s a word for that — Loooosers! **L on the forehead**

  35. avatar Drew says:

    @TT, I think you are very mistaken. FA firearms were never “commonly” used for crime. Even when available at SEARS. The fact that every movie set in the roaring 20s involves a slew of tommy guns and every 80s crime flick is packed with macs and Uzis dose not reflect history. It may be true these were pinicals of violent crime and certainly the twin pinicals of FAs in criminal use but to consider FA guns common in crimes is gross exaggeration. The one substantial factor linking both eras is an escelation in government force in trying to prohibit a popular substance. In both cases the demand remained the stakes were raised along with the profit for those willing to do dirty work. The obvious result was organized criminals compelled by money and stiff penalties to resort to severe actions. And FA guns were STILL not exactly preferred. 6 seconds of fire with questionable accuracy was not what you want when shit turns sour during a deal.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Really good.

    2. avatar TT says:

      There is no way to know for certain whether fully automatic firearms were or were not commonly used before 1934 because no one kept and preserved statistics. We do know, however, that criminal use of fully automatic firearms, along with sawed-off shotguns, short barreled rifles, etc., was the stated impetus behind the passage of the NFA.

      We also know that Al Capone’s henchmen, John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly, and Baby Face Nelson all used fully automatic firearms.

      I am comfortable with my original statement. I have seen nothing to show that it is “very mistaken.”

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        So, you are saying that the actions of a few mobsters in one or two cities should be justification to pass an unconstitutional law affecting the ENTIRE COUNTRY? Use of machine guns in crime was essentially unheard of, in the big picture of the Federal government, a state law would have handled it just as well or better, particularly if they outlawed the Mob.

        1. avatar TT says:

          I am not saying anything other than what I said. As I stated in an earlier post, there is a big difference between identifying an issue and taking a position on that issue.

        2. avatar TT says:

          By the way, most of the well-known gangsters from the 1920s operated in rural areas and robbed banks, bootlegged, kidnapped, etc. The lack of communication, sparse population, and ability to move between jurisdictions that didn’t coordinate law enforcement made operating easier outside of big cities easier. Most of the famous gangsters were not big-city mobsters. Thus arose things like the NFA and FBI, all based on the commerce clause. Again, identifying issues is not the same thing as taking positions on them.

  36. avatar Drew says:

    @DH2: This century not in the last century. This century is only 13 years and some months along so far. And the st V massacre was even in the depth of the government induced gang era a rare occourance. Tommy’s were not by any stretch a common choice for gangsters compared to the slew of tools on hand. The era and even that massacre would have carried on just as well without the over rated .45 sub gun.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, sure, but I bet it was more fun with what, 6 Thompsons? Noisy, whew!

  37. avatar dh34 says:

    That’s the kind of tripe you hear from someone setting themselves up for politics in San Diego. I’m a vet, but I’m a liberal, but I’m a gun owner, but I’m for gun control, but just common sense gun control, for the children….

    1. avatar dh34 says:

      Sorry…that was meant for @ Jeff Epstein and @Dermott

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Kinda fits anywhere, don’cha think?

        1. avatar dh34 says:

          Excellent point sir.

  38. avatar DV says:

    Good read! Props, yo!

  39. avatar KCK says:

    If a guy doesn’t break down my door at 3:00AM, there will be no gunfire, peace and harmony will reign.

    If Shannon et al were not trying to take our guns away, this blog would be a boring set of guns, ammo and accessories reviews. That would be cool.
    I would prefer no one be knocking down my door nor knocking over the 2A.
    The anti’s think we are bullies because we try to lock the door to keep them out and can’t see themselves as the aggressor..

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Very good. I like boring.

  40. avatar Mark says:

    Good article. All of the usual liberal garbage and tactics are in there.

  41. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “I am an American and I am a long time gun owner. My guns are registered and I have a permit to carry them.”

    Well, good for you! That is a mighty impressive list of credentials you got there…

    Hold on right quick. Let me try to give a sh*t.

    >.<

    Nope, sorry, can't muster any give a sh*t.

  42. avatar Michelle says:

    Hey I can make facts and stuff, anti-style, too.

    Michi’s Days Owning Guns: 497
    Michi’s Number of Guns Owned: 17
    Murders she has Committed To Date: 0.000

    Potential Lives Saved/Murders Avoided: (Mag capacity x Guns x Days Owned – Murders Commited): 2,914,905

    …Grabbers: Y’all can thank me later. it’s cool.

    1. avatar Tom from Georgia says:

      17 guns in 497 days? Not bad! That’s certainly way ahead of me (~50 guns in 13,870 days or so).

      Tom

      1. avatar michi says:

        Hey now nobody said my credit cards weren’t victims of assault. 🙂

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Bloomy should subsidize! You saved all those folk from bad guys who might have gotten those guns!

  43. avatar Pseudo says:

    In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I’d like to point out that “less than 2% of murders are committed with rifles” doesn’t actually have any bearing against the author bringing up the ‘scary’ AR-15. Large public shootings–the kind that get national news, not your ‘routine’ Chicago gun crime– have fomented a lot of the anti-gun discussion. This isn’t about reducing murder, it’s about preventing mass shootings (which constitute a tiny fraction of all murders and to which that cited statistic doesn’t apply). Personally, I agree with the original author about people being able to walk in and buy any weapon they want. There needs to be SOME kind of gatekeeping or there is zilch we can do to combat this type of tragedy. It’s true that fundamentally it isn’t the guns that are responsible, it’s the people, but guns absolutely increase their capacity for public harm. I have no problem demonstrating competence to own my weapons. Leghorn appears to take the idea of some demonstration of competency as an insult to gun owners. It’s entirely possible the original author actually does think gun owners are idiots and head cases, but it’s also possible to hold the author’s opinion about gatekeeping in the absence of those views. Also, since Leghorn brought up supreme court rulings and some antis taking issue with how it ruled, I’d like to point out that there are very real restrictions on our right to bear arms that the supreme court is perfectly O.K. with. There was an article on here fairly recently asking readers if civilians should be able to purchase anti-aircraft weapons. The amount of public harm that could be caused by someone misusing these weapons is horrific. Is it really unreasonable to restrict access to these weapons? Leghorn’s article is disappointing. He has so many easy and legitimate targets in the original author’s material, but can’t help but speculate beyond what was written to caricature the author as highfalutin and superior cartoon of an anti-gunner. We can win our arguments with “Facts. Logic. [and] Statistics” without demonizing our enemies. The fact is that many people believe we need to do more to prevent mass shootings. The shooters are responsible, not the guns, I understand that. But we can’t always stop people from killing, and if we can’t do ANYTHING to stop them from getting weapons that help them kill more, then ultimately all we can do as a society is hold them responsible. And that is incredibly unsatisfying. This is where a lot of people are coming from. Lets figure out stuff that works. Registries wasting money and not preventing crime? Great, scrap that. An AWB and BATF restrictions on SBRs and silencers aren’t doing jack to prevent mass shootings or other crime, so lets take them off the table, too. I don’t see any reasonable suggestions in public debate that would actually help beyond expanded background checks and licensing.

    1. avatar Excedrine says:

      Uh, gun control doesn’t prevent mass shootings, either. That’s been conclusively proven by a number of academic studies commissioned by the National Institute of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is in fact already exactly zilch we can do to prevent that kind of tragedy. So, no, there doesn’t need to be any kind of gatekeeping at all. That’s because, y’know, it doesn’t work. Like, at all. Demonstration of competency to exercise any right — any single of themis an insult to every law-abiding citizen. It is exactly akin to those “literacy tests” promulgated throughout the Dixiecrat South that deliberately kept minorities away from the polls. I find it very curious that it is the Second Amendment — and literally only the Second Amendment — that ever gets this treatment nowadays. No matter. It’s not any different than any of the other blatantly racist Jim Crow laws enacted across the Dixiecrat South (some of which are still on the books today thanks exclusively to gun control advocates) that restricted the rights of minorities.

      Also, in case you’ve forgotten, civilians can already purchase anti-aircraft guns. It’s all in the tax stamps and other paperwork. Oh, and only if you can afford them. That’s a big “IF”. Last I checked, 40MM Bofors shells easily cost more than a full tank of gas. Each. Forget about the guns themselves, going for as much as $150,000.

      So, please, enough with clearly alarmist (and frankly indefensible) bullshit about criminals using AA artillery if they’re made available to the public. That is exactly the kind of reasoning that the obstructionist civilian disarmament industrial complex and their “nodding lobotomites” (as Foghorn so eloquently put it) used to oppose concealed carry — and still do ’til the present day. I mean, are you seriously that naive?

      So, yes, to answer your question, it is completely unreasonable to restrict access to those weapons because they’re simply not used and are never ever going to be used in the commission of any crime. The closest anybody ever came to doing that was the presence of a stolen 20MM L-39 “Lahti” during a bank robbery, and it wasn’t even fired. What’s actually disappointed is your response to this article, because you clearly fall for the same traps that gun-grabbers always do. Background checks and licensing don’t work and are only a massive waste of time and money that can be better spent elsewhere.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      VA Tech was 2 pistols, I believe one was a .22. The only “gatekeeping” that could ever be effective in the least would be REQUIRING physically capable people to train with and carry loaded firearms. Since the agenda is total disarmament, and has no concern for actual crimes, including mass murder, I think that is going nowhere, but I welcome any other suggestion which would or could have any effect at all, good or bad.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And pray tell exactly HOW you think “expanded background checks and licensing” could POSSIBLY change anything at all!? And what makes you think that is “reasonable”? Don’t just drop that crap as though it is a given, background checks have accomplished nothing, more of them will accomplish nothing. A licensed gun, like one held by a LEO, will kill masses of people just as effectively as an unlicensed one. Gee, what could actually CHANGE anything? Duh!

  44. avatar DH2 says:

    @Drew I picked something that happened within the last 100 years, and that happened 85 years ago. I realize that I am a nitpicker about such things, but if we don’t police ourselves to be accurate in all of our statements, you can bet our opponents will point out every single instance where there is an inaccuracy; lambasting us for willfully hiding the truth or claiming we are ignorant of the facts.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      85 years ago, which means “in the last century”, as opposed to “in this century”. The “inaccurate statement” is your own.

  45. avatar Mediocrates says:

    You touched on a few things that I have been talking about for a while: the arrogance of people in general and the need for lefties to focus their dim witted constituents on something they can sink their teeth in.

    Well done!

  46. avatar Anonymous says:

    Hmm – McVey killed 168 people with materials that cannot be controlled or truly regulated – and he actually did it without a scary AR15.

  47. avatar Michelle says:

    @Pseudo (since mobile site reply doesn’t work) — Why do you feel that someone who “walks in” and buys an AR-15 is for some reason more likely to commit a mass shooting than someone who walks in and buys a Weatherby shotgun or Remington 700?

    I have 10 ARs, am I playing the odds or something ?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      10? TEN? Good grief, I’m about to propose a new gun control law, concerning hoarding! Just not fair, mumble, mumble…

  48. avatar Martin B says:

    Well I am also not American (but I kind of feel like it after so many Americans within my sphere). I am from New Zealand, and for many years I couldn’t have a gun due to bad eyesight. I come from a farming family background, and the males usually had guns for pot shots at rabbits, duck, deer, pigs or whatever. After eye surgery I could and did buy some guns. Our laws do not allow armed self defense, a fact particularly emphasised during license training. We were discouraged from buying any firearms with evil “black rifle” features in case they became illegal. None of this affects my enjoyment of the firearms I own. I am glad to live in a country where although to some degree restrictions apply, generally we are free to enjoy ourselves safely with healthy outdoor firearms activities.

    1. avatar jerry says:

      “our laws do not allow armed self-defense” Not sure I understand. You mean it is illegal to defend yourself with a weapon? Any weapon? The assailant must be given a sporting chance?

      1. avatar Mediocrates says:

        some countries have made it illegal for people to exercise their right to self preservation in the event of an attack.

        1. avatar jerry says:

          Don’t know what to say. Unlawful to defend your own life? Speechless.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Jerry, that’s not what he said, if you parse this correctly. Like concern over endangered species eating your livestock, the clear answer is to “shoot, shovel, and shut up” What will get you in trouble is telling anybody how you defended yourself, or allowing the body to be found. Remember Sgt Schultz, “I know NOTHING!!”

  49. avatar Excedrine says:

    “The author seems to be unaware that there have been exactly zero murders committed with machine guns in the last decade.”

    True.

    “In fact, there have been zero murders committed with machine guns in this century.”

    False. There was exactly one (1) murder committed with a legally registered machine gun in the last 100 years. It happened in 1988, ironic in the fact that it only happened two years after the (fraudulent) Hughes Amendment which closed the NFA registry to newly minted machine guns for public consumption, and it was in fact perpetrated by an off-duty police officer down in Miami, Florida with a lowly MAC-11. He used it to kill a police informant.

    1. avatar Tom from Georgia says:

      Actually, still incorrect. The author said “THIS century (emphasis mine)” That means from 1/1/2001 to the present. 1988 was in the previous century. Sorry.

      Tom

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        You know what I meant!

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, you meant his statement was false. It was not!

  50. avatar neiowa says:

    and the gun manufacturers This sums up the REAL issue for 1/2 of the anti gunners. They are raving marxist luddites. Hate capitalism and business in any form to include, Monsanto, “Big Pharma”, “Big Oil” “factory farms”, etc etc etc. But big gov’t that’s good (except the “military industrial complex” that Eisenhower warned about (the only good Republican ever and that was only for one speach).

  51. avatar Lfshtr says:

    I’m not asleep, I have one eye open, and I don’t care what the gun grabbers say, there are a bunch of sheep. Everybody knows what I am referring to.

  52. avatar Sock Monkey says:

    “Owning and carrying a LETHAL weapon should come with some serious Responsibility.”

    Um, it does. We don’t need a law to make that happen. It’s a fact. You carry a lethal weapon like a firearm, and the responsibility comes with it. Kinda like driving a car.

  53. avatar Paco says:

    Sure, a right desists being a right when it can become regulated, then it becomes a privilege, this site seems to reinforce the privilege aspect of gun ownership as opposed to inaliable right of gun ownership.

  54. avatar BluesMike says:

    I’m curious. I’m always seeing references to training that include the assumption that gun owners don’t train, practice, or take any classes. What type of training do anti-gunners think we gun owners need? Are they referring to additional classroom training, additional practice time, some sort of qualification or something else? There is also the assumption that (only) police are well trained far beyond even a single non-LEO. What is the magic training difference? Would it help if gun owners passed police shooting qualifications? I looked a few up and they look like fun. Some seem challenging and some seem less challenging.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think you may be on to something, here. What kind of equivalent training do the antis need to be forced to take? Surrendering your money and jewels with a smile 101, removing and folding your underwear 207, get on your knees and bark like a dog 314, hundreds of hours every year, for the children! Lordy, that would be great! We could have the course designed (maybe even taught!) by criminals who are on vacation at the time, ie in prison. And you are not allowed on the street unless you have your graduation certificate, or a gun.

  55. avatar Paco says:

    Bluesmike……nevermind.

  56. avatar Kyle says:

    That’s the basis of their entire campaign, that a single billionaire knows better than millions of Americans and the nation’s highest court and we should bend to that benevolent dictator’s will. For our own good, of course.

    Just playing Devil’s Advocate here, but yes a single billionaire could. What if this was the opposite, i.e. a SCOTUS that had upheld the DC gun ban (and remember it was ultimately 5-4 decision) and a population that was mostly in support of strict gun control laws, and there was a single billionaire trying to fight it.

    The nation’s highest court can very much be wrong and the population can be very wrong as well. We are lucky right now that the court has a slight pro-rights leaning at the moment, that, by 5-4, has struck down things like gun bans and free speech bans like the campaign finance reform legislation that was originally envisioned to be able to shut down the speech of entities like the NRA.

    The basis for the gun control campaign is emotions, twisting of facts, misleading people, and elitism. But never assume that because the Court goes a certain way, or that the population goes a certain way on an issue, that they are correct. Sometimes the majority is wrong.

  57. avatar steve clark says:

    Good Lord – that was an actual letter?! Sad. Really, really pathetic. Love all the vitriol aimed at the NRA and gun manufacturers. One WISHES they were pressing weapons into our eager little hands. That’d be pretty sweet, but like the old ad campaign went: “My name is Steve Clark and *I AM* the NRA. It’s not some autonomous body, it’s a representative organization peopled with enthusiasts who direct it’s actions.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That could theoretically be said about our government.

  58. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    What I find odd is that I always hear gun grabbers say how CC or OC is pointless because if shits hits the fan your going to be scrambling to get out of there, not looking for the bad guy. Yet they themselves believe that if large capacities were banned, one of them would try and close the distance and tackle a shooter while hes taking his 3 seconds to reload his 10 round mag….

  59. avatar Don1974 says:

    No way this person is a long time gun owner. I’m 40 years old, been around guns since I was a little kid and have never met a gun owner that holds the opinions of this person. Never.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m thinking it was a misprint, what he really meant to say was “long time liar”… followed somewhere by “and I think you are stupid enough to believe me, because I am so sly!”

  60. avatar TC says:

    I wish they would put up or shut up. Go ahead and ban them, attempt confiscation. This battle is long overdue.

  61. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Yeah. The anti-liberty types all have “black friends” too.

  62. avatar Scott P says:

    I hear from time to time that people who support the NRA are the one’s who are asleep and it is the anti-gunners who are the one’s “awake”.

    I say they are sleepwalking. They act like they are awake but are the one’s truly alseep but oblivious to the fact they are like when someone sleepwalks.

    Like the anti gun owner, he is sleepwalking right out the door!!!

  63. avatar FJ in Denver says:

    There’s a LinkedIn profile of this guy. If he’s real, he’s bat turd insane.

  64. avatar Bill says:

    So, I asked John Magaw “How many legally registered machine guns were used in crimes in the USA?”

    John Magaw said, approximately, I don’t know. Maybe ten since 1934.

    And at least one of those was a law enforcement officer.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Magaw
    Using Magaw’s precise numbers, it is readily apparent to the most casual observer that a less than 0.0000001% failure rate would be statistically insignificant — and an endorsement *FOR* legal ownership of machine guns. And suppressors. And short barreled guns.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      “an endorsement *FOR* legal ownership of machine guns.”

      Fvck ‘endorsement!’ The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! The Constitution doesn’t need no steenkeeng endorsement!

      It needs enforcement!

  65. avatar Bill Murphy says:

    “I think the root cause of crime-is criminals”
    Robin Williams

  66. avatar cynic says:

    It isn’t the legally owned machine guns that cause problems it is the illegally owned and converted ones that fleet used in crimes. Which is prime evidence that gun bans don’t work don’t change zip.

    In fact the recorded murder with a legallying owned machine gun just proves that the cops aren’t to be trusted.

  67. avatar floyd r turbo says:

    many if not most of the anti-gun liberals that I have encountered have not only been gun owners but also combat veterans. if nothing else good comes out of the current gun debate at least the respect that liberals have for the military has returned to levels that haven’t been seen since before Vietnam.

  68. avatar Thomas Reed says:

    Okay let’s do it again! I am a long, long, long time gun owner. I was probably carrying before most of you were out of your diapers. As far as back ground check go they are useless, a back ground check wont tell you what is going on in a persons head. Limiting the capacity of a magazine only means that you carry more magazines. So you take a half a second to drop and reload with a full magazine. But if you think for one moment that a lot of gun owners are not acting like a bunch of children who are being sent to the corner for acting up then you need to wake the heck up. All you have to do is drive down any highway to see just how moronic gun owners have become. I agree that anti gun owners are a pain in the posterior but as gun owners we need to police our own back yard and take control of the irresponsible faction of gun owners. Believe me the anti gun owners will do nothing to bring them under control, if anything they will use the irresponsible gun owners to prove their point. So if we don’t clean our own house they will. Argue all you want. Tell me how I am poorly misinformed, or I just don’t get it. I get this much, this is the real world and when you get enough blood shed, and all you see from the gun advocates is to say, “Buy more guns.” then expect to have the control taken out of your hands. It is up to the gun owners to shape their own world or those who oppose you will. If you don’t take responsibility then expect others will. Say what you want, quote the 2nd amendment all you want, it will not prevent them from taking your guns away from you. And yes, they will be taking them out of your “Cold dead hands.” while making you look like public enemy number one. Until we wake the hell up and start taking control over how gun owners use or abuse their gun rights we can only expect to see the anti gun faction to continue to gain ground and support. Those are the facts. Live with them. We need public safety and gun awareness programs that educate and dispel the myths about guns and gun ownership. They need to be on the same par as the anti gun factions and programs that flood the airwaves. We need to have safe and sane education for current gun owners, we need to reach out not only to the non gun owners but to the gun owners themselves. We as gun owners need to point out what is true and correct and let both factions know just how the cow eats the cabbage. Believe me, walking into a Starbucks with a loaded AR-15 is not the kind of gun awareness the average gun owner wants or needs. If you think it is then you are part of the problem not the solution.

  69. avatar michael3ov says:

    I am a liberal on many issues. Some would call me a libertarian, although I despise Ayn Rand :D. Regardless. I don’t particularly like labels. I go where the evidence and the logic leads me. When it comes to gun rights far too many liberals react emotionally to the issue. These same liberals are quick to vehemently support the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments but scoff at the idea of the second assuring an individual right.

    Here is an excellent article, from DailyKos no less, excoriating those liberals for their hypocrisy.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

    The article does an excellent job of breaking down many of the common anti gun arguments. I only take issue with the assertion that the Founders could not imagine a world with automatic weapons. I think that they could and probably did. Many were inventors, free thinkers, philosophers, and they all had witnessed the progression of weaponry to a certain extent. I think it would have been very easy for them to imagine that gun technology would advance greatly. The Giardoni air rifle that Jefferson sent with Louis and Clark is an excellent example of the advancment of gun technology that the Founders witnessed.

    Overall it is a very good article.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email