Nick Desai (courtesy Twitter.com)

The civilian disarmament industrial complex has adopted the phrase “common sense” to describe any gun control law which they favor. Which is any gun control law. In other words, the antis consider all gun control laws a matter of “common sense.” This bit of misdirection masks the utter inanity of the antis’ declaration that “I support the Second Amendment but I also support common sense gun control.” As Admiral Ackbar opined, it’s a trap! If you want proof, well, here it is, in a huffingtonpost.com article entitled Common Sense Gun Laws: There Are No Drive-By Knifings . . .

After the usual anti-2A misegos – the Second Amendment doesn’t say what it says, and even if it does, the Constitution is a “living document” (so we can ignore its meaning), the Founding Fathers never envisioned modern firearms and a tyrannical government would mow down American gun owners – author Nick Desai takes the rhetorical road less travelled. He presents his proposal for “common sense gun laws.”

Too often, articles like this one end by ridiculing the gun owners. However, it’s far more productive to suggest ways that enable law-abiding gun owners to co-exist in a society not riddled with gun violence. Here are three such suggestions:

• End all open carry laws and outlaw all automatic weapons.
• After a universal background check, allow adults over 21 to own 1 “manual” gun that is kept in their home.
• Have a hefty bullet tax. Surely those owning guns for self-defense don’t need cases of ammo for the rare intruder. Use bullet tax revenues to treat victims of gun violence and educate the public about gun safety.

End all open carry laws? How do open carry laws contribute to America’s firearms-related homicides? Equally, how can Desai make that proposal given the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms? Oh right. Living document. Sorry.

I’m not exactly sure what Desai means by a “manual” gun, but I think he means Americans should only be able to keep one non-automatic or semi-automatic firearm. [See: the “keep” part of “keep and bear arms,” above]. Enforcing that law would require some pretty heavy police state action. I’m pretty sure Desai sees that as a feature, not a bug.

A bullet tax for people who own guns for self-defense. (But not for owners who hunt or target shoot?) Anyone else see the irony here? Americans’ Second Amendment protections of their natural and civil right to keep and bear arms was part of a process that began with a war that was – in part – a revolt against taxation. The other part being British gun control, but that’s another story.

One can only imagine the [no doubt government-controlled] “gun safety” education Desai would like gun owners to fund. But one can see here, plain as day, what gun control advocates have in mind when they tout their support for “common sense” gun laws.

Actually, the truth is just a little further down this same road. Desai and like-minded gun control advocates (which is all of them) want civilian disarmament. Period. Whether they admit it or not, whether they know it or not, when they use the words “common sense” and “gun laws” they’re expressing their desire to live in a police state. And they want you to live in it, too. As we gun-owning Jews are wont to say, as all Americans who appreciate the Revolutionary War should say, never again.

Recommended For You

112 Responses to “Common Sense” Gun Laws Revealed

  1. The article he wanted to write says this :
    “HOW TO BAN GUNS COMPLETELY IN AMERICA.”

    The article he actually wrote only includes token acknowledgement of civil arms, supposing wed be foolish enough to then back his agenda. How hilarious.

    • I know right?!

      They lost me from the start. Same old bullshit. End all open carry laws? THAT’s The gracious first brick on the road to co-existing with us? Get real. I guess this guy doesn’t have any gun owners for friends. If he did, they would have told him that his quaint little plan is an outright attack on gun owners and our principles, not some meaningful compromise. Only a person who is totally isolated from shooting culture could write such laughable nonsense and only a FOOL would presume to know what is acceptable to a group he knows nothing about.

      On behalf of all who believe in the RKBA, FOAD.

  2. Yep, they scream about “gun safety”, but then suggest ridiculously high taxes on ammunition. Because a gun you hardly ever use and can’t afford to build familiarity with is so “safe”…even when their lies are revealed, it’s more lies.

    • In 2013, according to the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency, 32,719 deaths occurred on our highways. Applying this same logic, we need to do the following:

      1) BAN – Automatic Transmissions. Automatics should only be available for the police and military.
      2) BAN – Open Carry of Keys. Open carrying keys on a carabiner only encourages more highway death.
      3) After a universal background check, only allow adults 21 and older to own 1 “manual” vehicle.
      4) Have a hefty gas tax. Nobody needs to “train” to drive a car. It definitely won’t increase safety. Provide a hefty tax to discourage driver’s education programs.
      5) BAN – “High Capacity” fuel tanks. No citizen needs more than a 7-gallon capacity. “High Capacity” fuel tanks should only be available to “trained professionals” as civilian use only encourages longer police chases.

      • Be careful what you say… The nanny-staters are always looking for some other way to give their slaves an illusion of safety, and we wouldn’t want to give them any ideas!

      • You’re not keeping with the intent of the author. Civilians should be limited to one single manual gear. Say a top speed of 10mph. Otherwise you’re spot on.

        • Hey smartguy….we’re not “civilians” or subjects. We’re CITIZENS !

          You know Dave, it’s folks like you who are the reasons this FUSA is in it’s death throes.

  3. The if the government decided to to attack us we are screwed argument is just pathetic. Ignoring the obvious counterpoints about the sentiments of many in the military, the ability of the people to overthrow a corrupt government by no means determines whether or not the stated right to do so is worthwhile. I mean for christ sake, with that line of thinking we should get rid of protests, which fall under freedom of speech, since their ability actually affect change in standing government policy is next to nil. I mean, think of all the traffic jams we would avoid or all the garbage that wouldn’t end up in the street.

    • When someone suggests that “You’d never be able to fend off the government with tanks and aircraft, and bombs…”
      I respond, “You’re right. And you are now advocating me owning anti-tank and Anti-Aircraft equipment. Thanks. I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. I mean I was fine with getting the machine gun registry re-opened because I like many of the small arms, but you’re sooo right. I should be able to own a TOW and AAA.”

      • Pacific Islanders armed with arrows, spears, and sticks managed to kill Captain Cook, who had (to them) the equivalent of tanks, bombs, and missiles. When people are determined enough, they can overcome a technologically-superior adversary.

        And yes, the operators of tanks and missiles would definitely question their orders to fire upon their own people. And in that situation, the people usually end up getting tanks and missiles at some point.

        If the SHTF in the US in that regard, the citizenry will have access to the same level of military equipment the government has.

      • “….Right to keep and bear arms” has always meant to me, small arms. However, a CITIZEN (not a “civilian” as I’ve seen us described by some) should be able to own and use anything the scoundrels one calls “government” and their badged thugs once known as peace officers but now “enforcers”, possess to use against us. The .gov scoundrels have many tools and weapons not available to the common folk or serfs, like you or I. A simple “for instance” are laser devices which have reduced power lasers vs .gov lasers which have
        full power and thus greater performance . WHY ?

        Why are you so willing to abandon your freedom to some clown you call government ? You seem to be one of those loyalist or tory type who bow before the king. May the chains of tyranny rest heavily upon your shoulders and those of your family.

        Now….give me that TOW system and a dozen missiles.

      • When you said, “When someone suggests that “You’d never be able to fend off the government with tanks and aircraft, and bombs…”
        I respond, “You’re right…”

        I caveat w/ “not directly.”
        In guerrilla warfare you have to think outside the box. You do not fight the enemies strengths. You fight his weaknesses, on YOUR terms at a time and place of YOUR choosing.

        Those men and women in tanks and aircraft have to get out sometime. Some might stay behind the wire in relatively safety but most don’t live there. Neither do their families and friends. They live in the same neighborhoods that everyone else does.
        How focused will that tank commander or pilot be if he/she knows his family is in danger? As a former military pilot myself, I know that “distraction” would a gross understatement. Make no mistake, any fight on American soil would quickly turn into a bloody horrendous guerrilla campaign. Just think of those 2 NYPD cops multiplied by thousands and add in friends and family. It makes me shudder about how deep the blood would run and pray that it never happens.

        • Lots of silly arguments in this thread. Face it, the first time the Fed govt. decides to bomb Dallas into rubble because somebody there fired a gun, the entire nation will overthrow the govt. Run a tank through Los Angeles, pumping out .50 rounds when not blasting buildings out of existence with the main gun? Get SERIOUS! All those fancy weapons will not be worth squat against any effort to overthrow the govt, it would come down to rifles against rifles, and we have no combination of military and police forces to even approach confronting 10% of the nation’s gunowners (like, ten million of them).

    • When people make the claim that Americans are to weak to fight back against a tyrannical gvernment I refer them to Pakistan. They have little control over their western portion of their country and even within their own government they have sympathisers. The people rule to the extent they choose and and at what cost to life and property they are willing to sacrifice to secure their liberty.

    • This is a red herring that seeks to make everybody who wants a gun seem like they are going to overthrow the government and thus a threat to America as a whole. The right to keep and bear arms is a right on par with freedom of speech and should be defended on that level. Yes speech could overthrow all governments but that doesn’t mean it should be infringed on.

      • You’re right. The truth is, Almost NO gun owner is a threat or a danger to anyone around them. So making laws that are ultimately nothing more than threats to law abiding gun owners is just an assault on good, innocent, people. Those who proclaim to want to reduce the amount of violence are actually lobbying to increase it and increase violence against innocent people by the government. Tell the gun controllers to stop being violent sadistic assholes.

    • Whenever someone brings up that “argument”, I like to remind them that the US Military was never able to root out the VC, and has yet to dig al-qaeda out of the mountains. The entire Soviet military was unable to eradicate the Mujahadeen, and the French Resistance managed to give the Nazis a hell of a time. Then I point out that all of those guerrilla groups were armed with little more than rifles and commitment.

  4. I’m actually with him on the “end all open-carry laws” thing. 😉

    But, what is a “manual” gun, and why the revulsion about “cases” of ammo? Does he not want anyone to practice with these new-fangled “manual” guns?

    “End all open carry laws? How do open carry laws contribute to America’s firearms-related homicides? ”
    Uh, by not letting people have the easy access to a the most effective meas of defense. You know that!

    • Eliminate all concealed-carry laws as well, the Constitution is quite clear on the law.
      If the Constitution is to be construed as a “living document”, allowing for free speech to encompass new technologies, then obviously the 2A should as well. I don’t see how such a document could “live” to change meanings completely, that would be beyond asinine. I nowhere see people claiming “living document” means that quartering troops needs to be reconsidered in a new light. or free speech, or slavery, for instance.
      Or, it is an old-fashioned real document which says what it means, and of course “shall not be infringed” is pretty concise.
      I guess it could be described as “living” in that it is open to amendment, and if someone wants to reinterpret it, that is the way to accomplish that. Until then, it says what it says and means what it means.

    • I think by “open carry” he might mean carrying outside the home. His next point does specify the gun can only be in the home. And he does display a lot of ignorance about guns. He makes the “shoulder thingy” lady look competent.

      • What he means to say is, “I hate, hate, hate white rural culture in this country and want to fight to destroy it any way I possibly can.”

        • White male privilege is having the only culture left that it’s politically correct to criticize, disadvantage by law, or hate.

    • With regard to “Manual” firearms:

      Based on how many anti’s consider semi-auto firearms to be ‘military style’ or ‘assault weapons’ (sic), I would assume that the author’s intent with the “Manual” distinction to mean a manually cycled action, such as a bolt/lever/pump action, or a single action revolver.

      Usually they don’t even know what they mean when they say such things, nor do they realize that 90+% of firearms these days are semi-auto.

      • To many of the non-gun-literate the words semi-automatic sound like synonyms for sub-machine gun.
        Even those who know better use this confusion to their advantage.

  5. ‘Common sense’ car death prevention.
    There are no drive-bys without cars.
    • End all road maintenance laws and outlaw all automatic transmission vehicles.
    • After a universal background check, allow adults over 21 to own 1 “manual” car that may never be taken off private property.
    • Have a hefty gas tax. Surely those owning automobiles don’t need gallons of gas for the rare time they need to move heavy objects. Use gas tax revenues to treat victims of car violence and educate the public about how driving a car is signing a pact with the devil.

    • That’s correct. There won’t be any “drive-by’s” if we get rid of all the cars. That is the solution here people.

    • Careful there…..

      A lot of liberals want to get rid of cars and apply “a hefty gas tax” and many really do believe “driving a car is signing a pact with the devil”.

      I SO wish I was kidding……

      • I’ve heard many liberal thinkers suggest 500% taxes on gas and hefty levies on personal vehicles, which would effectively end private vehicle ownership in this country.

    • Just saw your post. Apparently, we were thinking on the same wavelength. I starting writing mine a few minutes after the article was posted. Am at work and had to step away for the last 45 minutes or so. Just noticed yours!

      • Not a problem.

        The fact of the matter is that life is full of risks. Most adults know how to drive a car even though driving will make you statistically more likely to die.

        When it comes to cars, the benefits of quick, personal transportation vastly outweigh the deaths. It sucks that 30,000 people die in car crashes but most people accept that crashes happen. The same goes for guns. The recreation and personal defense advantages outweigh the miniscule risk that one will negligently shoot oneself.

        I think of it like an insane asylum. If everyone lived in a padded jail cell and was fed 3 balanced meals a day, very few people would die of anything besides old age and cancer. Yet if you ask anyone, they won’t want to live in a jail cell.

        • Ok, how can driving make one more statistically likely to die? Last I checked, being born makes you nearly 100% likely to die.

  6. Anti gun = anti constitution.

    All those politicians took the same oath, i.e. to protect that constitution. Fire the non gun supporters!

    That’s the way I vote!

    Sens Collins and King are an embarrassment to Maine!

    • Hey Admiral, what’s a “SENS” ? You too lazy to use the English language properly or too illiterate to spell out that which you’re trying to abbreviate ?

      Just another dumb Amerikan.

  7. So I broke a long-standing rule and actually read the comments section on HuffPo. This guy’s getting shredded – and rightly so. I didn’t see a single comment in agreement with his fantasies.

      • He actually got shredded by “Everytown for Gun Safety – Colorado.” That’s actually a pro-gun group in my state. Very anti-Watts. Wish it was the real-deal one, but still, he has excellent points!

    • There are no lefty comments because the rank-and-file lefties know that gun control is going nowhere for the forseeable future. This is just a mental masturbation exercise for writers and editors.

  8. A manual gun is one of those guns that doesn’t just shoot itself off, like the ones that you always write about in those “passively constructed” articles.

  9. I apologize for clicking through to the original article because I couldn’t believe that what I read here would be published by anyone, anywhere. So I gave a “click” to Huffington Post.

    I am stupider for having spent 4 minutes on that article (37% is a small minority?)

    • Anytime I consider reading an “article” in HuffPo, I have a drink instead. If I’m going to kill brain cells, I want to get some enjoyment from it….

    • I’m assuming that 37% is gun owners? I’ve been wondering when they talk about this majority they have do they remove felons and children under the age of 18 since they aren’t allowed to be legal gun owners?

    • Random SW trivia: Admiral Gial Ackbar and Master Luke Skywalker designed the X-Wing’s battlespace superiority fighter replacement, the FreiTek E-Wing Escort Fighter. Ackbar designed the B-Wing bomber before that.

      • Ok… I can’t let that one go, even though it is off topic. So let me say:

        1. The E-wing is non-canonical. It’s neither G- or T-canon, in the language of the geekdom. Maybe in some alternate universe, however…

        2. Truth is that it’s really only 2/3 a Colonial Viper, so it fails as an interceptor role.

        3. It gave up it’s useful configuration that made it almost as effective as a Thunderbolt-class Starfury (if it only had the thrusters to control it’s orientation). Thus it also fails for space superiority.

        So there. Thbbbbb…… 😀

        • Didn’t you get the memo? The Mouse officially shredded all of the EU canon. It’s all now just a bunch of “legends”. You know, so that they can rewrite the post-Episode VI movies however they see fit.

          So, the E-Wing now has essentially the same canonical status as the Youzhan Vong.

  10. For some reason the “common sense” description of gun control views reminds me of the “scientific” description applied to social engineering concepts in the late 19th and early part of the 20th century. It implies that all people that disagree are not logical and should be dismissed without consideration.

  11. The second a grabber mentions “machine guns” I recognize them as idiots and shut down the convo.

  12. Have a hefty bullet tax. Surely those owning guns for self-defense don’t need cases of ammo for the rare intruder. Use bullet tax revenues to treat victims of gun violence and educate the public about gun safety.

    Typical welfare state comment.
    I bought some bullets so I need to pay money to victims because some criminal somewhere else used a bullet in a gun to hurt someone.

    • You mean typical elitist statement! He doesn’t want the poor to be able to defend themselves. Only people with means who can pay a tax are capable of armed self defense!

    • “Typical welfare state comment.
      I bought some bullets so I need to pay money to victims because some criminal somewhere else used a bullet in a gun to hurt someone.”-

      Already tax payer funded, which is not very representative and it is evident in any inner city’s hospital ER’s on any given day that we citizens pay for criminals crimes and then their punishment.

  13. • End all open carry laws and outlaw all automatic weapons.
    • After a universal background check, allow adults over 21 to own 1 “manual” gun that is kept in their home.
    • Have a hefty bullet tax. Surely those owning guns for self-defense don’t need cases of ammo for the rare intruder.”

    And why exactly would I agree to this again?

  14. Soooo,
    The hefty bullet tax is for treating victims of “gun violence”.
    Wait, if his other dreams were realized, there would be no victims.
    So would we then use the tax money to undo his frontal lobotomy?

  15. Do they receive even one penny worth of foreign support to overthrow our Constitution?

    There’s a name for that.

  16. enable law-abiding gun owners to co-exist in a society not riddled with gun violence

    Ignoring the fact that our society has minimal gun violence already, and the fact that most of that violence is drug war related, and the fact that private gun ownership has a reductive effect on criminal gun violence, and assuming by society not riddled with gun violence, he means his civilian disarmament utopia…
    Either his definition of law-abiding gun owners means the gun owners who would comply with those laws, rather than today’s law-abiding gun owners, or his definition of co-exist isn’t very peaceful.

  17. I notice that in Nick’s photo he’s pointing his finger like a gun. That’s scary, he should have it amputated so everyone will feel safer. (sarc off now)

  18. “outlaw all automatic weapons”

    Because there have been so many instances of transferable select fire guns used in crimes by their owners in the last 28+ years…

  19. Quoting this character’s paragraph on the futility of armed citizens going up against the U.S. military:

    “If the Constitutional argument is the weakest, the “defend ourselves against the government itself” argument is the most laughable. Forgetting for a moment that the very Constitution that contains the Second Amendment ensures a government by, for and of the people; the United States has the most powerful military in the history of the world. In addition to our vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, we continue to spend over $750 billion per year on military expenses. If our government, made up of us, decides to attack us, we’re screwed, pure and simple. Since even millions of guns don’t stand a chance against nuclear weapons, it must be that gun owners think their government will oppress them, but not use powerful weapons. In which case they trust the government just like I do.”

    Nuclear weapons? They’re going to nuke Cleveland because there’s a small band of insurrections there? Please.

    Actually, most of the U.S. military would be as useless as nukes in a revolution. Forget the Navy. Mostly forget the Air Force. Mostly forget the Army. There are only about 100,000 infantrymen in active service, including Army, Marines, and special operations. Fighting a widespread insurrection would be a very “boots-on-the-ground” intensive proposition. 100K pairs of boots would be spread might thin.

    • I have to disagree with the idea of the military being useless in a mass civilian insurrection. Most of that military will end up on the side of the insurrection if it is due to the current course of our government. They would be quite useful in providing a trained officer corp, access to heavier ordinance and a lot of intel.

  20. Nick’s just another PuffHo.

    Serial entrepreneur indeed.

    Wonder who paid him for this bit of disinformatzia- Bloomberg?

  21. Whenever I hear the phrase “common sense” regarding proposed gun laws, I replace it with “nonsense.” It makes more sense that way.

  22. Even if I were an anti, I would be embarrassed to have written this piece.

    I’m happy it was written though. It makes the other side look foolish.

  23. What is a “manual” gun? Is that a gun that comes with a manual? I guess I’m all set, I have several of those.

  24. “• End all open carry laws and outlaw all automatic weapons.” Label Swatting the felony it is and enforce the laws on the books so I don’t get John Crawford III when legally open carrying. I don’t want to grovel to the ATF about acquiring full autos and the ones I have shot for the endorphin release were heavy and inaccurate without practice but still really nice. As for self defense with a fully automatic machine gun it will be after the knife, pistol, and rifle have been used and there will probably be some on the ground.

    “• After a universal background check, allow adults over 21 to own 1 “manual” gun that is kept in their home” What is with these unAmerican liberty hating statists thinking they have any say in what We American citizens may or may not buy with our own money. These liberals are going to realize that free men are not going to be so polite when we declare our Independence from their bureaucratic dictatorship and reinstitute a functioning moral government for the people who embrace the ideals that make America great. There is a fight to be had, and I would rather fight it now then my kids.

    “• Have a hefty bullet tax. Surely those owning guns for self-defense don’t need cases of ammo for the rare intruder. Use bullet tax revenues to treat victims of gun violence and educate the public about gun safety.”–Classism and racial division are all the liberals have to indoctrinate with and thankfully tit has backfired and they have finally woken up enough liberty minded Americans who are sick of being constantly blamed for others cultural failings but expected to pay for their own subjugation by unrepresentative taxes and capricious laws. If the liberals like the European governmental philosophy of giving away their countries to ideological invaders so much they should go over there. The Christian American Giant that has awoken here is going to fight for their land and the preservation of the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America it is just a matter of what causes the intentional division to become resolved. -First protected by the Second-

  25. How do you know you are about to hit by a hefty barrage of retardation: The sentence includes the consecutive words “common sense gun control”. There is gun control, and then there is….no such thing as “common sense” gun control! You, sir, are a retard. I feel I should be suing you for injuries incurred from being assaulted by your retardation and/or deceptive lie meant glorify gun control. I don’t even need to read the entire article to know this guy is full of crap!

    Nick Desai:
    http://youtu.be/Igsb3ejgbL8

    • Just say “No” to HuffPo.

      … it’ll prevent increased anger and frustration in the workplace, road-rage, and general high blood pressure. Saying “No” to HuffPo will let you live a longer life – don’t give in to peer pressure.

  26. If all the “Gun-Control Groups” were added together, they still would not have an ounce of common-sense between them… For if they did, they would easily understand the meaning of “Shall Not be infringed.”

  27. I’m all for common sense gun control. And there are gun laws that have my full support.

    Gun control consisting of proper grip, sight alignment, and trigger pull. The only gun law I support is the Second Amendment. Your huffpost article is bad, and you should feel bad.

  28. Fantastic article. I always grit my teeth a little when I hear them talk about common sense. Always insinuating that you’re off your rocker before there’s even a chance for discussion. That and when they say things like “reasonable change”. Oh I’m so unreasonable…

    • Just read comments on the Huffington Post article. Once you read the article, read the comments that destroy it. It’s like going to the range and watching a watermelon get annihilated. Just beautiful.

  29. “I support the 2nd Amendment but….”
    translates to:
    “I support the destruction of the 2nd Amendment.”

  30. [Here is a response that I developed several years ago. I don’t know how well the link will show up so I substituted [dot] for the actual dot. Feel free to use it when and where ever you need to answer this type of nonsense. ]

    Approximately SEVEN to TEN BILLION bullets sold in America each YEAR.

    http://www [dot] washingtonpost {dot} com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110202712 {dot} html

    If only TEN PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    If only ONE TENTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN MILLION dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    And if only ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.

    Is there? Of course not.

    And if only ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of the bullets were responsible for the death of a person then that would mean that there would be at least SEVENTY THOUSAND dead people happening from guns each year.

    And that’s STILL far too large of a number – it’s more than double the actual number who die from the use of a gun each year.

    So you think that because much less than ONE ONE THOUSANDTH OF ONE PERCENT of bullets sold each year are used to harm people each year then a immense tax is reasonable on the 99.999% that are in very safe hands that harm no one?

    And ~this~ Dear Readers, is the mind of the liberal thinker. Punish the totally innocent for the misdeeds of the very few. This is who wants to determine the amount of freedom you have, based on the problems that other people make for society.

    They call it “common sense” and just can’t understand why the public is laughing at them and their “reasonable” proposals.

  31. Since the USSC has ruled that keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental individual right, none of the noises progressive popinjays like this one makes is relevant.

    As a matter of settled law, it cannot be done.

    • Calling that “settled law” is a misnomer. For one thing, if it was settled law, based on the Constitution, then the court wouldn’t have needed to rule. Second, the ussc has no authority to actually make such decisions. Third, that court has reversed itself at least a few times in history.

  32. What does it matter if you own a million cartridges and 30 guns? How may bullets and how many guns can you shoot at once. Ok, so we have the same laws for guns as we do for car. Anyone can own a car even at age 2 in most states. One can own a high performance vehicle. No limit to how many cars you can own. You can drive one at any age if you do it on your own land. No background check to buy a car. Millions of felons do it every day. A car has 15+ controls and a gun just 1 to 6. Yes you have car registration and it prevents drunk driving killing and car thefts, how? You don’t have to be a citizen to buy a car. To buy a gun you must pass a background check. Everyone age 16 and over can get a license to drive a car. You have to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a handgun.

  33. • End all open carry laws…

    To what end? Criminals, on the order of more than 90% of those who use a firearm in the commission of their crimes, prefer to use a) a handgun, that is b) concealed.

    Ending open carry laws would prohibit the carry of long guns, which not only would not provide any public good (more people are killed by hammers annually than are killed by rifles, and more people annually are killed by baseball bats than are killed by long gons of all kinds), but would also prohibit lawful practices such as hunting and competition shooting.

    …and outlaw all automatic weapons.

    Again: to what end? How many automatic weapons arae used in the commission of crimes?

    • After a universal background check…

    I don’t think you understand what that universal means in “Universal Background Check”; otherwise, you would recognize that it is redundant as you have used it.

    And speaking of redundant, I must ask: to what end? Background checks and background check laws don’t prevent criminals from obtaining or possessing firearms. Their proven efficacy is lower than that of liquid hand sanitizer.

    …allow adults over 21…

    Why 21? Taxation without representation – or, without the legal ability to exercise constitutionally protected rights – for everyone between the age of 18 and 21?

    And to what end? Many states don’t allow anyone under 21 to obtain concealed-carry (or carry) licenses. Somehow, that doesn’t stop the typical, 14-25 year-old gang member from getting or using firearms.

    …to own 1 “manual” gun…

    What, pray tell, is a “manual” gun? I’m assuming the typical, semi-automatic firearm wouldn’t be considered “manual”? If not, then what? A revolver? A black powder rifle? A cap and ball revolver?

    Do you even have the first clue what you’re talking about? Or are you about as knowledgeable as the Colorado state senator who asserted on the floor of the senate that (so-called) high-capacity magazines would be phased out because, once they’ve been used, they can’t be re-used?

    And why just one? What if I want a handgun for self-defense, but a long gun for hunting? (Oh, that’s right: I can’t use a long gun for hunting anyway, because you’ve outlawed open carry. Silly me.)

    .
    ..that is kept in their home.

    Still haven’t read Heller after all this time?

    • Have a hefty bullet tax.

    You mis-spelled Poll Tax.

    Surely those owning guns for self-defense don’t need cases of ammo for the rare intruder.

    Or perhaps you would support a per-blog-post tax? Or maybe a per-keyboard tax? Surely you don’t need more than one keyboard for the rare cogent argument you purport to make in the midst of your otherwise inane ramblings?

    I am not a frequent shooter, by any stretch. But a few months ago, I purchased a new handgun. In the effort to sight it in and to acclimate myself to shooting it (not to mention, just to enjoy the experience of shooting it at the range), I have gone through over 500 rounds, easily.

    (Nary an intruder in sight, thankfully.)

    Use bullet tax revenues to treat victims of gun violence and educate the public about gun safety.

    Oddly enough, some 5 million law-abiding gun owners contribute about $35 per year to educate the public about gun safety – through our NRA memberships. As for taxing law-abiding citizens to fund the treatement of victims of “gun violence”: why should we be forced to pay, instead of the criminals who commit that violence?

    How about a fuel tax to pay for treatment for victims of drunk drivers and other vehicle violence?
    How about an internet tax to pay for treatment for victims of speech violence?
    How about a Bible tax to pay for treatment for victims of fanatical Islamic terror (religion violence)?
    How about an OTC medicine tax to pay for treatment for victims of medical malpractice and other healthcare violence?

    • “What, pray tell, is a “manual” gun? I’m assuming the typical, semi-automatic firearm wouldn’t be considered “manual”? If not, then what? A revolver? A black powder rifle? A cap and ball revolver?”
      .
      Well, how ’bout a manually operated crank Gatling gun? Legal with no federal class III permit.
      .
      can be had for the price of a good used car in .22LR, .45 Colt, or 45-70. NIB (Crate) FOB Factory.
      .
      Shipped to your favorite local FFL.
      .
      .
      .

  34. Mais Oui mon amis! Look what Common sense Gun Laws did for “La Belle Francs” There is no reason why any police departments should ever allow an officer to “choose to be unarmed” to preform his duties!!!! and no help from the populous is available due to Gun Laws. NO THANK YOU!!!

  35. I understand the points mentioned for gun control if guns were only used in selfdefense; however, there are numerous other legal uses for guns. A gun is a mere tool and like many tools it can dangerous if not used properly. I agree that some gun control laws could be implemented, but allowing one gun a person over twenty-one is outrageous. My house hold alone owns many guns, and each one has its own purpose to be used for. My family hunts, and different species call for different types of guns and different people prefer different types of guns to hunt their target(s). They type of gun a person might prefer can vary due to size, weight, and strength. Each gun is different. Also I completely understand the idea of a bullet tax; however, your reasoning was just assuming all guns are for self defense. My family has a small stock pile of bullets not because we need them all at once but because bullets are not cheap. We buy them when we can find the kind of bullet we want, which depending on the gun can be difficult at times, and we buy them when the prices are right because bullets are expensive, and they don’t go bad very quickly so why not buy a sum of them while they are cheap. They simply sit in a gun safe with our guns locked up until we need them. So just realize there is more than just a self defense use for a gun, and these proposed laws are not remotely practical for the many uses guns have besides self defense.

Leave a Reply

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