"The gun that Demetrius Blackwell allegedly used to kill NYPD Officer Brian Moore." (Caption courtesy huffingtonpost.com. Photo: NYPD)

“A spokesperson for Everytown For Gun Safety told HuffPost that a forthcoming report from the group will show that, of the fatal shootings of law enforcement officers in 2013, more than half were committed by people who were prohibited from possessing guns in the first place.” – Georgia’s Lax Gun Laws Led To Two Fatal Shootings Of NYPD Officers [via huffingtonpost.com]

61 Responses to Quote of the Day: I Don’t Think That Fact Means What They Think It Means Edition

  1. Wait. Are they inferring that the criminal was committing a crime before he/she committed another crime?
    Why, that’s…thats… There should be a law against that!

    • And another, and another, and another… Surely, someday, the right law will keep people from breaking all the others. Sort of the “one law to rule them all” approach.

      What fun, passing a law that literally does nothing to prevent a criminal action but impacts the law abiding. Public policy in the 21st century.

    • Actually, no, they are not inferring that–they are implying it, tho. Wonder if they realize the significance? Pretty sure they are thinking in terms of “universal background checks will stop that”.

      • Yep. Because, if a legislative effort is failing miserably, obviously we need to do more of that. Any fool can see that.

        Unfortunately, there are many, many fools.

      • Has any proposed UBC included a requirement for 24/7 attendants at gun stores, to run the BC when the store is being robbed or burglarized in the middle of the night? Boy, that’d take care of it, huh? Maybe centralized locations in neighborhoods for thefts from normal citizens? Our troubles would be over!

        How can supposedly normal people just flat-out lie like that? It boggles my mind. Laws prohibiting felons from purchasing firearms are sort of federal, and exactly the same in GA as in NYC, yet these people are clearly pretending they are not. The problem is criminals not getting checked when they steal things, straw purchasers honored and assisted by ATF instead of tossed in prison.

        • “How can supposedly normal people just flat-out lie like that? It boggles my mind.”

          Repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth.

          Since they control the mass media, they get to repeat it endlessly.

          Q.E.D.

        • Ask APD how many of their guns have been lost or stolen. Make sure they include shipments that never arrived. The number should greatly ecxeed lgs thefts.

    • “Formerly we suffered from crime. Today we suffer from laws.” – Tacitus 57 A.D. – 117 A.D.

    • I am usually pretty good at ignoring an entertainers politics but Wallace Shawn really tests me there. It is a horrible thing since I like Vizzini so much.

        • I am establishing a context of this post to show this has relevance here, because this subject tends to bleed over to other areas like firearm rights, free speech etc. Once the tactics of entrapment and circumvention of the constitution, and convictions based solely on “thoughts” without action or intent of action, in the pursuit of hunting for people they call predators,are established in this narrow field of activity. That predators is despised by the vast majority of people.(very few people will challenge policies and illegal enforcement here, because its about protecting the children mantra). Once the policing tactics are established here, it transfers elsewhere because the attitude shifts that we are doing this tactic here, lets expand it over here.

          you can already go to jail for 10 years for “feelings and thoughts” “without any action or show of intent” in sex issues involving persons under 18 years of age, regardless of context or laws protecting the activities. Like (consent of marriage by parents of a 16 year old in some states) . With no way to defend yourself against “secret” FBI evidence, where we have no idea what said “secret” evidence is or how it came to be (could be nothing at all, other than fact you just happen to miss-worded a comment somewhere, that was taken out of context).. or entrapment via civilian groups like perverted justice going on an adult website for 18 and older.

          I just hope this mentality doesn’t take firm root in other areas of life. like self defense. free speech etc.

          The point of this post BDub is that I know you meant it as an off comment or satire, regarding lets police “thoughts”

          But problem is its not satire or an off comment as you intended. Because you were unintentionally right on the truth of the subject. That we already police “thoughts” only for right now its contained to a narrow category or few. But it won’t be, if the extreme left get what they want. I do not mean progressives, I mean the fool extreme left who hijacked the progressive movement.

          Minority report anyone?
          I think I have heard somewhere that the FBI went public: to want to do precog style conviction(thoughts), also in the arena of the persons involved being younger than 18. Only reason to focus here is because most people hate “predators” preying on the young. Thus things they are doing and establishing presidence for here, go unchecked or challenged as unconstitutional. Once established it will be transferred to free speech, right to defend yourself, etc. And when we challenge it here they will point to their actions against predators and say no one challenged us here so the public is ok with how we conduct business.

    • So I should be concerned about other states having loose gun laws, but I shouldn’t be concerned about the US government sending thousands of guns to various fractured nations around the world without background checks? Hmmm, interesting.

      Newsflash: there are always “loose” gun laws somewhere in the world. And we don’t have very good border security.

  2. I suppose their victims in Georgia also pushed for liberal revolving door and early release programs for NY gun offenders? The surrounding states could (and should) respond by pointing out that their crime rates would be even lower if it weren’t for the big cities catch and release policies.

    • It’s not just liberals who are advocating a revolving door system. Faux Libertarians like Rand Paul are all for releasing “nonviolent” criminals who ran afoul of drug and tax laws. Just remember AL Capone was just a nonviolent tax cheat.

      • The guy that killed Texas Ranger Stan Guffey was just a non-violent credit-card thief/forger, IIRC. The thing that a lot of folks don’t realize I guess is that by the time someone actually gets state prison time, he has almost always built up a pretty substantial criminal history, with several probations and a stretch or two in county jail under his belt. At least that’s pretty much how it worked in Texas when I was in that game.

        • There are a lot of folks here who think they are locking up Johnie Jock and Susie Coed along with my friend Juwon the gangbanger for possessing a couple joints. “It ain’t necessarily so.” The cops use drug charges to take the bangers off the street the same way they used the tax code to lock up big Al.

        • I guess innocent people that are easy to intimidate and thrown in jail after having drugs planted on them qualify as bangers.

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/14/1377712/-Former-Philadelphia-police-officer-I-planted-drugs-too-many-times-to-count

          A disgraced ex-police officer testifying against his drug squad colleagues acknowledged Tuesday that he stole drug money, planted evidence and lied on police paperwork too many times to count.
          Jeffrey Walker told jurors that the Philadelphia Police Department drug squad targeted white “college-boy, … khaki-pants types” who were “easy to intimidate.”

  3. This is why we need Universal Background Checks. These criminals certainly would have submitted to a background check before purchasing a firearm on the secondary market, right?

    • They would have been forced to, as the seller, who stole them the night before during a violent home invasion, would certainly demand proof that they were upstanding citizens before taking their money and toddling off to do some ripe drugs.

    • “These criminals certainly would have submitted to a background check before purchasing a firearm on the secondary market, right?”

      This is one way of criticizing UBCs. A burglar willing to steal a gun isn’t going to comply with a UBC law.

      A related criticism is to challenge the practice of CREATING NEW CRIMINALS. Let’s look at the BC in an FFL. If Jack is a prohibited person he will find someone with a clean record – let’s call her Jill – to make the purchase for him. As soon as Jill hands the gun to Jack, he commits the crime of felon-in-posession. Jill commits a felony for lying on the 4473 form. She is probably also a felon because she knows – or has good reason to believe – that Jack is a prohibited person and she is transferring a gun to a prohibited person.

      The BC system simply results in Jill becoming a criminal. Is society really any better off sending Jill to prison? Wouldn’t society be just as well off letting Jack buy the gun at the FFL and convicting him for lying on the 4473 form?

      Without UBC, Jack can find a seller at a gun-show, on the internet, or at a shooting range. With UBC, Jack needs to send Jill to do the straw-buy for him. If Jill was willing to straw-buy at the FFL why would she be any less willing to go to the gun-show, meet with the internet seller or the seller at a range? Seems to be the same “make an extra criminal out of Jill” system as we already have.

      To what degree are people like “Jill” inhibited from acting as straw-buyers? A really GOOD argument could be made if criminals have a hard time finding a “Jill” to straw-buy on their behalf. Conversely, if there is no shortage of “Jills” willing to straw-buy then UBC won’t change anything.

  4. gun show loophole…..Gun show loophole……Gun Show Loophole…….GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE!!!!!

    That’d probably be the mouth frothing answer/balm that soothes the potential ache of a shattered reality where good people only do bad things because guns.

  5. Everyone is missing the point. The anti’s are playing the long game. Little-by-little they will turn against background checks as being useless in controlling gun violence. The will then decide the only way to be safe from guns is to ban gun ownership outright. The politicians are just waiting…..

    Oh…when total gun bans prove not total, the anti’s will say, “Oh well…there’s nothing we can do about the criminal element; just something we risk living in a free society.”

    • No, they will not go quietly at the end. I suggest they would instead simply re-title the noncompliant as “sleeper terror cells”, eliminate urban unemployment overnight by hiring millions to form the Anti-Terrorist Militia, and then search and destroy. Likely? No. Possible. Yeah, sadly…

    • The only thing you are wrong about is that everyone is missing that. Most of us have seen this for a VERY long time…decades at least.

      They are expert at setting up their strawmen “solutions” to perceived problems, only to admit failure of that solution as a justification for the new strawman solution. Each step ratchets up Statist Control.

      It’s not just 2A issues; tactic is a work pretty much across the board. Look at public education, for example.

      • Given the historical response (and even the thrust of the headline for this), Have seen no other comment on the distraction tactic. Actually glad others are aware.

      • The other half of the tactic is to never, ever, no matter how obvious it is, actually admit that people arguing that solution A won’t work might have a point. Not until after solution A has been enacted and has failed.

        This is a large part of why they are so resistant to logic. It’s not stupidity on their part, it’s part of the tactic.

        In addition to education, we’re seeing this in health care as the failures of “0bummercare” become evident. (Re education, I’m finally starting to see the first signs of pushback in the wider culture against claims that we just need to throw even more money at public education to solve the problems it has. But don’t get me started…)

        • “Not until after solution A has been enacted and has failed.”

          “But our solutions never fail. They are working; just not to their full potential because the law didn’t go far enough. But, that will be fixed with just one more law… As long as the NRA and gun nuts don’t stand in our way! If you didn’t hate children, you’d understand that!”

          /progderp

        • to add to your comment about “tactics not work” it takes 10 years or longer to determine that it was a failure. That is 10 years of “success” by anti-gunners, because it wasn’t the criminal element they were after to begin with. They know full well criminals won’t follow the rules and that the only deterrent to criminals is a “severe punishment” say execution by stoning, for breaking the law.

          So the laws we should be enacting is laws that state you are not suppose to do this, this or this, with firearms,(misusing them in deliberately harmful way. ) doing so will land you punishment xxx. Then give police and prosecutors “clear” guidelines, on how to apprehend and convict and punish the the people who they believe are violating. BUT they have to prove “intent” to commit a crime, since we are a society of innocent till proven guilty. and follow the KISS rules when writing said laws. BUT before all that see if there is a law that does that already on the books and if there is enforce it instead of writing a new law that essentially does the same thing only states it more complicatedly.

          The reason you need to prove “intent” is as those of us who actually buy firearms on an “occasional basis”, knows how easy it is to accidentally put an incorrect answer or check box in the background check. each case needs to be handled independently.

          I have done that, on my drivers license renewal, where it asks “is there any medical problems you have that will effect your driving, please list”. It failed to state “any “”NEW”” medical issues and DON”T list old medical issues we already know about.” So I listed my hearing loss which triggered a judicial review of my renewal for my drivers license, where I received an unexpected call from the judicial system overseeing background reviews.

          So there was “NO intent” to commit a crime in the renewal process. I just understood the actual question just a bit too well. They asked the wrong question. The correct question is “Do you have any NEW medical conditions that effect your driving since you last renewal?, Please list.

          So it wasn’t even my fault the review was triggered. I answered the question right. I listed my hearing loss as something that effects my driving.

          Then this is due process I explained the situation to them, as a result since there was no intent to falsify they renewed my license.

          BUT to use the analogy here, the brady campaign would say that I was a criminal lying on my renewal forms all because I triggered a judicial review of my renewal and therefore the system stopped me from getting my renewal. That I should of been prosecuted as well, for lying on my renewal form. And point to “fact” that it was reviewed by judicial system, as proof I was lying and trying to illegally renew my license. leaving the context of why the judicial review was triggered in the first place which was “a question was misstated on the form” because they wanted only new medical problems not old and failed to state that fact. . .

  6. For anyone thinking that it’s other cities “lax” gun laws that are the culprit, I sadly present: the U.S. Virgin Islands.

  7. Christopher Mathis author of the article, opening shot across the bow.

    “Both tragedies, it turns out, have a shared culprit: lax gun laws in a state hundreds of miles to the south, Georgia.
    Demetrius Blackwell, the 35-year-old charged with killing Moore, was convicted of attempted murder in 2001. The conviction meant he was prohibited from buying or possessing firearms — but that didn’t stop him from getting one.
    The Taurus Model 85 handgun that Blackwell allegedly used to shoot Moore was one of 23 firearms stolen from a bait and tackle shop in Perry, Georgia, in 2011, NYPD Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce told reporters this week.”

    Two officers are killed in NY because of lax gun laws in GA, which was a stolen gun in GA. EPIC FAIL IN LOGIC.

    • It’s only illogical if you don’t understand his view of what “lax” means. See, if all state laws were like NYC laws, then there wouldn’t have been any handguns to steal. His views are not uncommon in the city, which is one of the (many) reasons I left.

  8. More dishonest BS from anti gun nuts. Notice they use the “guns traced by the NYPD” statistic or “out of state guns seized by the NYPD” statistic. Hopefully they’ll make a nice pie with those cherries they picked.

    And blaming lax gun laws for a gun that was stolen then acquired by a bad guy? How do these people even breathe? Do they have “inhale” tattooed on the back of their right hand and “exhale” on the left?

    • As others have suggested, there is indeed considerable stupidity involved here, but the author is probably not himself among the dimmest. When the author says the problem is lax gun laws, what he really means is that the problem is the fact that it’s legal for private individuals to own guns, and thus provide opportunities for those guns to be stolen. He won’t say that of course, but I think a good portion of his Huffpo audience understands exactly what he means.

      What the author and most of the Huffpo audience may not understand is that, even if the gun shops were all closed (or regulated beyond recognition), and most legally-owned firearms confiscated, the criminals will still get guns.

  9. It’s as if Everytown thinks no person is capable of evil; Everytown believes criminals are within the law due to perceived ‘lax gun laws’ or ‘loopholes’ that they think allows them to do these things when in reality, they’re committing multiple crimes, breaking various laws before even pulling the trigger.

  10. Another instance where the grabbers are taking up the “safety of our law enforcement officers” banner I see. And using a thefted gun as an example of “loose gun laws” in action is just HuffPo logic.

  11. That old NY tactic of, “Our laws aren’t enough! Every other state must pass laws like ours because we’re NY! And guns!”

  12. It occurs to me that “it’s your fault for owning it in the first place” is the same justification they use to steal our MONEY, every April…

  13. You know, some of those cop killers, the prohibited possessors, may have murdered those officers precisely because they’d just been stopped or otherwise encountered while illegally carrying. Being desperate, they opened fire and killed a cop.

    Were we to relax our gun laws and pare down the list of prohibited possessors, including restoring felons 2A rights, then perhaps some of these encounters would just be routine stops instead of turning fatal.

  14. What’s the Antis’ game-plan? We can pretty well figure out that it is NOT to “solve” the problem of gun violence by “ensuring” that UBC prevents the wrong people from getting guns. More likely, it’s to lay the ground for national registration.
    Apparently, Oregon has become the 18th or so State to require UBC. 50 – 18 = 32 States left to go. As 32 dwindles to 16 to 8, the cry will become that Congress must pass UBC to close-off the last of the gun-show-loophole States. When UBC doesn’t work, then something else.

    What is our response? Washington State fell; Oregon fell; next is Nevada.

    I think shifting the battlefield to the States i good for the 2A in the long run. We, the PotG, will see the war fought-out locally State-by-State; facing greater resistance as the low-hanging fruit fall and Bloomberg must reach farther up on the tree. Eventually, we will see that the name-of-the-game is politics and we will have to get get better at that game than the Antis are.

    I think we have got a firm grasp on the WRONG boogie-man. The public seems to buy-into the idea of background-checks. We, the PotG have AGREED with Bloomberg that Background Checks MUST have a paperwork-trail; and, the longer the retention period the better! So, we don’t want UBC; but, if there IS to be UBC then UBC must be officiated at an FFL where they have a box of blank 4473 forms to fill out. And, then, the 20 year retention period (with turn-over to the ATF when the FFL goes out-of-business.) Bloomberg must be pleased we are cooperating with him. We are telling Bloomberg: ‘You want Universal Paperwork-Trail? Go get it! If you can sell UBC to the public then you get Universal Paperwork-Trail as your bonus prize!!

    Can we PotG figure out that the 20-year retention period for 4473 forms is separate-ABLE from having a paperwork-making requirement? That the paperwork-making requirement is separate-ABLE from background-checking? That background-checking could be done outside the sales-floor of an FFL?

    The really BIG idea in UBC is the separation of “Universal” from selling to a 2A-ABLE buyer. What – in theory – is the thing we are trying to stop? Is it that we are trying to stop/interfere with non-dealer sales to 2A-ABLE buyers? OK, if that’s the goal then we want Bloomberg’s idea of UBCs. That way, anyone who skips the UBC can be punished for selling to a 2A-ABLE person!

    Can we figure out how to turn this goal on-it’s-head? I.e., to stop/interfere with non-dealer sales ONLY to PROHIBItED-persons? Can we sell this limited goal to the public? Or, are we convinced that the public will only accept a UBC that criminalizes non-dealer sales to 2A-ABLE buyers?

    A better posture for PotG to take is to:
    – make NICS accessible to private sellers outside of FFLs
    – lobby for a bill to extend the existing law to prohibit UN-knowingly selling to a prohibited person;
    – allow a safe-harbor if the seller runs a BC on the buyer and makes a record of the buyer’s ID
    – requires the buyer to keep the record for a short time-period (e.g., 1 year)
    – reduce the 4473 retention period for FFLs from 20 to 10 or 7 years
    – replace the go-out-of-business ATF law with a private archivalist law

    • “– make NICS accessible to private sellers outside of FFLs”

      That should have been done instantly, in what, 1986? It was not because it was too expensive, and it still is. If it is too expensive, repeal it, as it is useless. Any law which costs many billions a year should result in tens of thousands of convictions each year, not just tens. Backgound checks are stupid. Prohibited persons should be advised when they become prohibited, and be subject to warrantless search at any time for a certain period, imprisoned again if found with a gun (if we insist, I’d rather just drop that). Leave everybody else alone, back to mail-order machine guns.

      • back to mail-order machine guns.

        Just be sure no one steals them off the porch after UPS drops them off.

      • “It was not because it was too expensive, and it still is.” Building the database of prohibited persons is – no doubt – expensive. That database would exist for LEO use even if the FFL-NICS-check were repealed.

        How much does it cost for NICS to field an inquiry from an FFL? If NICS can clear the check untouched by human hands then it’s probably pennies. If a contractor’s clerk must manually inspect suspect matches, then that’s probably expensive. As long as its free to the inquirer (and costs taxpayers) I don’t have a beef with the cost.

        The issue – if there is one – to opening NICS to non-dealer sellers is constraining use to gun sales. Without some sort of constraint girls could use NICS to check-out their boyfriend(s) at taxpayer expense. A solution would be to extend access to: gun clubs/ranges; sporting goods stores; notaries public; etc. who would presumably charge $5 or $10 and keep spurious inquiries to a minimum.

        “If it is too expensive, repeal it, as it is useless.” Usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. If the taxpayers want to foot the bill then it’s expensiveness is a purely political question. The taxpayers willingly pay for lots of useless government activities. This is NOT the issue to argue about with the voters. The taxpayers ought to be told what it costs to run a NICS check (over and above the cost of maintaining the underlying database for LEO purposes.)

        “. . . should result in tens of thousands of convictions each year, not just tens.” Here, I agree with you 100%. Assume running a NICS check were free; why put millions of Americans through a bureaucratic process for just 10 or 30 convictions per year? Your remark, here, prompts a new question: What is the ‘quality’ of these arrests? Are these arrests: violent felons too stupid to find a straw-buyer; vets who have been stripped of their 2A rights; divorced men with old domestic violence convictions?

        To the extent that FFL sales lead to convictions, don’t they come from false statements on the 4473 form? Wouldn’t we have those convictions using the 4473 form but without the NICS check?

        “Backgound checks are stupid.” That’s probably mostly true. In fact, they lead to criminals coercing non-violent individuals (mostly women I imagine) into committing the crime of “straw-buying”. Now, Jack goes to prison for felon-in-posession AND Jill goes to prison too for falsifying a 4473 form or transfer to a known felon. How is society better-off with Jill in prison?

        “Prohibited persons should be advised when they become prohibited, and be subject to warrantless search at any time for a certain period, imprisoned again if found with a gun . . . ” Interestingly, a BC COULD be used to clear-up any ambiguity before someone is accused of committing felon-in-posession. A few people probably discover they are prohibited person for the first time when they buy a gun (by which time they have incriminated themselves by making a false statement on a 4473 form). A few people are confused with a criminal with a similar name. (E.g., one of my instructors was refused when his name was confused with a similar name – ending in ‘a’ vs. ‘o’ – on a domestic violence charge 2 years before he was born). It would be better to clear-up such cases in an FFL rather than on an encounter with the cops.

        “Leave everybody else alone . . . ” Our argument over UBC ought to be that BCs ought to be used only to penalize sales of guns to prohibited persons. BCs ought NEVER to be used to convict a law-abiding seller from transferring a gun to a law-abiding seller merely because he did not jump through a BC paperwork requirement. If the buyer is 2A-Able there is no harm; no-harm/no-foul.

  15. I thought they HATED the PO-leece? Wow…shooting and beating up poor oppressed black & brown folks.

  16. What I Learned From Reading the Comments at Huffpo:

    1. The antis seem to be intent on a complete ban. Their logic typically rests on the assumption that if there were “strict enough” gun laws, there wouldn’t be any guns for criminals to steal (h/t to NYC2AZ). But they rarely, if ever, come out and say this. (In fact, the glaring lack of any national organization coming out as completely opposed to private ownership of firearms — Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in — strikes me as very, very odd.)

    2. Because they seem so intent on a complete ban but don’t get to say so outright (except for a few slips here and there), they are frustrated when their talking points and inaccuracies are refuted by articulate, knowledgeable POTG. The antis aren’t listening because those talking points bely their true goals (complete ban and confiscation).

    3. Their desire for a complete ban seems to be based largely on sheer hatred of all gun owners. The anti position appears to posit that if toothless, camo-clad bumpkins with brains rotted by moonshine, along with overweight, middle-aged white men compensating for small penises, weren’t so mesmerized by firearms, there wouldn’t be so many firearms in the world to fall into the hands of criminals.

    4. Nothing seems to upset an anti quite so much as having his/her argument articulately countered. They react with barely contained rage, like a child having a tantrum. My guess is that they truly, deeply feel powerless and victimized by lawful gun owners.* Unfortunately, their emotions are ripe for manipulation by those who seek political power.

    *I can’t figure out why, though.

  17. “3. Their desire for a complete ban seems to be based largely on sheer hatred of all gun owners.”

    Yes, indeed.

    And it’s based on fear.

    It is natural for humans (mostly the stupid ones) to fear what they are unable (or incapable) of understanding.

    From that fear there is hatred.

    This is where we need to hit them, with gun safety.

    We MUST have legislation requiring basic ( the four rules) firearm instruction for the young ones and safe gun handling for the high school kids.

    They fear that with knowledge the kids won’t fear guns.

    Gun educated young ones will have less of a reflex desire to regulate firearms as (voting) adults.

    The house and senate MUST drop a bill on Obama’s desk for real, tangible gun safety. Just the 4 rules for the young ones to start.

    I want to hear Obama’s excuse for not signing into law teaching kids to:

    STOP !

    Don’t touch it !

    Get out of the area immediately!

    Tell a responsible adult.

    Just that lean, mean, gun safety law with *nothing* else attached.

    We must make Obama squirm on that before he leaves office.

    (I kinda like the idea of having Obama himself starring in that PSA)

    • I agree whole-heartedly! We ought to take the position that Congress is neglecting its enumerated duty to “prescribe” the “discipline” for the militia and that the States’ legislatures are neglecting to “train” according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
      It is this Federal+State duty – not merely “power” – that is the proper vehicle to ensure that the public is secured from accidents and threats, be they foreign or domestic.
      America has always been – is – and will continue to be a kind-of-place different from the monarchies of Europe or any other states of other continents. Americans vest sovereignty in themselves; including the right to KBA. From the colonial era onward, America has maintained a gun inventory equal to or exceeding the number of militiamen (i.e., males of military age). Today, the gun inventory is probably double the number of militiamen.

      Without Constitutional amendments abolishing the militia and RKBA, guns will be a part of our system of ordered liberty; and, such Constitutional amendments are politically out-of-the-question. If voters are concerned about gun safety and training for those who choose to KBA, then your proposal is the only viable vehicle. Remember, it’s for the children!

      Conversely, if gun safety and training are not important enough – for the children – then let’s not waste time discussing training mandates as a prerequisite to the exercise of a fundamental civil right.

  18. A propaganda site posts an article preaching to the choir, that no one on our side of the fence will read, and no one in the middle will care about.

    Yawn.

Leave a Reply

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