Mike "The Gun Guy" Weisser

Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser gets a lot grief here at The Truth About Guns. And deservedly so. Weisser is The Huffington Post’s go-to gun-owning anti-gunner. In other words, a traitor to the cause of firearms freedom. Normally, Mr. Weisser pretends to walk the non-existent line between the Second Amendment and civilian disarmament, promoting “common sense gun control.” In his latest HuffPo screed, Mr. Weisser drops the pretense and asks readers to imagine a country without guns. Well, guns in civilian hands. Like this:

The NRA keeps saying that if HRC is elected, the first thing she will do is confiscate all the guns. So that got me thinking. What would happen if the guns were taken away? Or to put it more specifically, what would happen if America implemented licensing for gun ownership similar to what exists in the rest of the OECD? Such a system would mean the immediate disappearance of assault weapons, the gradual disappearance of small, concealable handguns and the remaining firearms (true sporting rifles and shotguns) being regulated to varying degrees.

Setting aside the bizarre references to the OECD — an organization that includes more than a few states who’ve married gun control and government-directed homicide — the only way a federal licensing scheme could trigger the “immediate disappearance of assault weapons” would be government confiscation. Given firearms durability, the same “final solution” applies to the “gradual disappearance of small, concealable handguns.”

Oddly enough, Mr. Weisser proceeds to prove that civilian disarmament wouldn’t have a significant impact on firearms-related suicide, homicide or negligent discharge injuries. No surprise there. The Bay State statist is not entirely ignorant of what we like to call facts. They’re just not that important to the anti-gun “Gun Guy.” Like his cohorts, the ends justify the means. Rational thinking has nothing to do with it.

All of which leaves Mr. Weisser deeply conflicted. Even though he’s firmly, financially in the anti camp, “The Gun Guy” still feels for his people. No, not Jews like me. The “5 million [gun owners who] define their life-styles, the social milieu, their culture and cultural beliefs in terms of guns.” Cue the nostalgia!

When I was growing up in the 1950s, I had lots of toy guns but what I really took pride in was my collection of Lionel trains. The trains and the room-wide track display eventually disappeared, both for me and for just about everyone else who loved model trains. By the time my children were old enough to play with model trains, they were sitting in front of a television set playing Nintendo and collecting video games.

For that matter, when I was in my twenties and thirties, I don’t recall all that many cars on I-91 going towards New Hampshire and Vermont with kayaks on top or backpacks and tents behind. Times change, styles change, leisure activities change – the market will always find a way to satisfy our desire to accumulate objects we really want but don’t need.

Which is exactly the problem with guns. More than 30,000 people die and another 70,000+ are injured each year because Americans have free access to something they really don’t need. So the issue of how and why to regulate this product doesn’t come down to numbers at all. It comes down to a moral imperative which says that we should not sanction the use of violence in the ordinary course of human affairs – neither violence towards ourselves or towards anyone else.

Mr. Weisser would have readers believe that the existence of Constitutionally protected gun rights somehow sanctions “the use of violence.” Like so many antis, Mr. Weisser ignores the fact that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. We do not have the right to use them to threaten, injure or kill our fellow citizens without just cause.

More than that, Mr. Weisser reckons We The People don’t need guns. And since our Founding Fathers enacted The Bill of Needs, not The Bill of Rights, it’s OK to remove firearms from civilian possession (except maybe “true” sporting rifles). Or perhaps his believe stems from the fact that no American has ever defended their life or property from criminal or government predation by force of arms. Oh wait . . .

67 Responses to Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser Fantasizes About Civilian Disarmament

    • Let’s do a little rational thinking .
      1. What would be the governments response if people started driving their cars into crowds of other people , killing multiples all at once and injuring many more ? Would we see lawmakers scrambling to ban cars ?
      2. What if the principal , vice principal , janitor , one , some or all the teachers had been armed at Columbine or Newtown or the office workers in SD , what about the folks watching the Batman movie in Co. , would the outcomes have been differently ?
      3. If the two kids who killed 14 at Columbine had been shot dead after killing the first young lady or before they were able to kill her , would we have had VT or Newtown ?
      4. If the Tylenol killer in the 1980s had continued to reek his havoc on a helpless public until Tylenol was forced out of the market and no one was caught , might there be more of this type of crime as a result ?
      5. If there were no Gun Free Zones would enough people be armed to meet these challenges with overwhelming force and end the perpetrators quest for fame by dumping them to the ground in a heap of pain and suffering ?
      6. If the shooters of any of these mass killings had been snuffed out before they were able to mass anything , would there have been other copycats ?
      7. Should we not look at all the mass shootings and determine if there is anything that links them together , any common denominators , all commited by Muslims ?
      All committed with AR 15s ?
      All committed by disgruntaled employees ?
      All committed by crazy people ?
      All committed by men , women , blacks , whites , people who were bullied ?
      What about raised by single parents ?
      Liberal , conservative , communist , nationalist , radicals …….. etc. ?
      What is the single common thread linking all these mass killings ?
      Would it be rational to eliminate the ONE SINGLE COMMON DENOMINATOR ?
      Gun Free Zones !

      • Columbine was a failed bombing. The shooting was only intended to finish off the survivors.
        So the better question is: Had the propane bombs successfully detonated inside Columbine high school during peak lunchtime occupancy, resulting in hundreds of dead and injured, would we see more school bombings? Interesting question.

        • Probably so .
          Would the government attempt to ban propane ?
          After asking the question in print , I suddenly believe , some would .
          I remember in 2001 , I went to my local feed and grain company for field fertilizer , 3500 pounds , and had to record my farm information to purchase it , after OK. City of coarse .
          Ralph Nader mentality run amuck .

      • The first person to see the Columbine shooters was a deputy sheriff who declined to confront them but went to arrange for backup and hide in his patrol car.

    • Does this FLAME DELETED have a gun store? If so anybody who lives in the vicinity of his store should be spreading the word and putting this guy out of business. A few well publicized pro-gun rights public demonstrations outside his store would make it a local story and help reduce his traffic flow. The people walking into his store should receive a handout explaining his gun control ideas.

      • I heard that he used to own a gun store in Ware, MA. I don’t know if he is still associated with it.

        • NRA-CI ….That fact made me puke in my mouth.

          I’d be for the NRA adding a “can’t be a gun-grabbing douchebag” clause into the requirements.

  1. More than 30,000 people die and another 70,000+ are injured each year because Americans have free access to something they really don’t need.

    2/3 of those people are suicide victims, and the method of suicide is essentially irrelevant to the intent and willingness to make the attempt. Of the remaining 10,000 or so, 3/4 of those are gang/drug-related prior felons, being killed by other gang/drug-related prior felons. (Most of whom will get – and keep – their chosen firearms, regardless of laws on the books. Ignoring the law is sort of a characteristic of a criminal.)

    As for law-abiding people not needing firearms: tell that to the 500,000 to 3,000,000 of them who use firearms in self-defense annually (according to CDC).

    • You want to see a bad place. Imagine confiscation and the aftermath. Imagine the antis win. I don’t want to be alive in that world anyway. What if we all went “John Gault”? The Liberals get their dreamworld just to burn it to the ground. It would have to be a Military State. After arms bearing Conservatives are eliminated or neutered, what are the Anarchists going to do? Liberals have always hated “The Man”. Well once the men are gone, meet the new “The Man”.

      • Those people in “Atlas Shrugged” who went John Galt retreated to his hidden enclave in Galt Gulch and waited for the society to implode around them.

        I believe that today Texas, New Mexico and Arizona are the location of Galt Gulch. With any luck California south of Los Angeles can be added to the fold giving us two deep water ports; Gulf of Mexico and Pacific. The Northern States no longer have the manufacturing advantage they held during the War Between the States and their residents are non-violent pansies who believe the government and its armies will willingly and efficiently do the murder and mayhem for them that would be necessary to bring the Union back together.

        I don’t think so.

        • ‘their residents are non-violent pansies who believe the government and its armies will willingly and efficiently do the murder and mayhem for them that would be necessary to bring the Union back together.”

          Good God, are you ever gonna get over the Civil War? You lost! Get used to it.

          As for pansies? really? You don’t know many people north of the Mason/Dixon line do you.

    • There was a study done a while back that looked at the use of a gun in the commission of suicide by talking to people who failed to actually kill themselves and came to the conclusion that the connection between the choice of method and seriousness of the attempt was indeed something that needed to be considered and that it did indeed appear that those who chose more effective methods were more serious about killing themselves.

      In other words, the people who use a gun, jump from a high building/bridge or hang themselves in a way that they cannot possibly get off the rope are serious about suicide. This isn’t a cry for help like a teenager cutting across their arm rather than down it. The folks doing this are, pardon the pun, deadly serious about killing themselves. The only thing that is going to prevent them from committing suicide is 24 hour lockup and therapy (which itself has a failure rate).

      Taking away the gun only means they’ll move to another method of suicide that is just as effective and ending their life. These people need help, not gun control.

    • The U.N will gladly do it. I do not want it to happen but at the very least an attempt WILL be made at disarmament of the people. No question in my mind.

      • And they’ll get forcibly turned back by both reserve and active-duty troops. The UN is used to molesting children, not facing armed resistance.

      • Right, because the U.N. forces have been so successful at such missions all over the world. Hadn’t noticed.

      • If it involves armed troops with blue helmets (UN troops), I will shoot every one I see. That is an invasion.

  2. So, at the Pulse night club those 49 people murdered should have just told the killer that he had no right to use violence against them? And then they should have called the police and waited like civilized folks for the cops to handle it?

    Oh, wait……

  3. This dude saying “I am pro gun and own guns, but let’s take them away from the people” is exactly like saying “I’m not a racist, but let’s ship all blacks back to Africa.”

    The first part of the sentence is false as proven by the second.

    • The entire thing is proven false by the picture accompanying the article – I see at least two AR15 pattern rifles for sale on the wall behind him, with 30 round mags.

  4. Mike “The Richardbag Guy” Weisser. There, fixed it.

    Who would let that choad into their gunstore? This must be some bluescreen movie-type BS or some fake gunstore on a movie set

    Dear reader, imagine a world without weeping Richards like him. Its quite nice. Lovely, in fact.

  5. Any attempt at mass disarmament in the US would lead to civil war due to the large number of armed citizens.

    The issue with large numbers is that even when multiplied by a small fraction, what remains is still a large number.

  6. Say it with me people.. “Fudds are not pro-gun”.

    Fudds are gun rights’ WORST enemy. They’re sympathizers and tools for the opposition. They believe the 2A is for goose hunting. They think the only gun you’ll ever need is an OU shotgun, and they’d really be fine with black powder if it came to it. They won’t complain one bit if everything else gets banned – because they stupidly believe nobody would EVERY ban grandpappy’s goose gun or “true” deer rifle. Until shotguns are called destructive devices and deer rifles are labeled ‘sniper rifles’. Then they’ll start waving the 2A around – but by then, it’ll be way too late.

    Fudds are NOT our friends. They’re your typical OFWG snobs who turn their noses up at any gun that isn’t half made out of wood. And they’re the only type of “gun owner” the antis can stand – for now – despite the fact that they epitomize much of the NRA that the left so detests.

    • It wasn’t all that long ago that the NRA was completely of, by and for the Fudds.

      You’re right about them. Traitorscum.

      Though I have to caution against mistaking people who LOOK like Fudds for actual Fudds. The Fudd lookalike has no issue with handguns and “black” semi auto rifles, he’s just not interested in owning any himself, as a matter of personal taste. I know one guy whose passion is shotgunning, either clay pigeons or pheasants; he’s been on me go get an appropriate shotgun someday (my Mossy 590 with bayonet doesn’t count). But I know for a fact he’s solidly pro gun, all guns, even if he doesn’t personally want an AR-15 (or AR-10, or AK-47, or FAL, or HK-91, or MIA1…). He’s a Fudd look-alike, not a Fudd. (Full disclosure, I don’t know: maybe he owns some or all of these. But to my knowledge he never uses them if he does.)

      • I own a variety of guns. Milsurps, hunting and handguns. And I have no desire or use for an EBR. But I support everybody’s right to buy what they like when they like.

        I’m too cheap to own a machine gun. But that doesn’t mean I should not allow you to own one.

  7. He shows up in the comments section here from time to time, usually sporting a Tony Romo icon next to his name.

    It’s gross the way he comes up with these articles for HuffPo every so often and passes himself off as a real “insider” in the industry, as well as being such an intellectual, who writes books. For some reason he wants to please and appease these people by whining about his fellow gun owners, because apparently he’s “somebody” and gets to decide things for other people. This is the same sort of guy who claims to love guns and is a 2A but-head. However, if guns he owned became outlawed, what do you bet he’d hand ’em in without so much as a whimper. And if he’s cool with total civilian disarmament, then that kind of makes him hypocrite right? I don’t agree that people should be able to buy any drugs they want, and guess what? I don’t use drugs. This guy is a joke.

    • Damn. Beat me to it.

      But it had better be “All for one and one for all” or, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, we had better hang together or we will all hang separately.

      So I’m their huckleberry, too.

  8. Man RF- I NEVER see anything on this cretin except in TTAG. Mikey has no relavence to well… anything. Yes I do scan Yahoo often-oddly split with pro & anti 2A crap lately…

    • I disagree. He’s given a national platform at the HP to spew his non-sense to the liberal masses, further retarding and emboldening the gun grabbers. Whats worse, read some of the comments of the loons that think this is actually doable.

  9. Sorry RF. I couldn’t get through the second paragraph. I don’t need to pay any attention to “the gun guy”.

    But having read very little of it, it strikes me as a perfect precursor to Independence Day. Gives me even more zeal to celebrate.

  10. “the ends justify the means”

    Off topic but I dont see anything wrong with this

    People that get bitten by such thinking just dont think hard and long enough for the long run

  11. You know, if he really believes this, then how can he possibly justify having an evil black rifle for sale in what I presume is his shop?

    May his tongue be inflicted with a thousand inflamed taste buds.

  12. You know the more I hear these regressive leftist scream for gun control the more I want to start making guns designs for the ghost gunner and just give them out.

    Actually the more I think about it the more I like this idea. Why not make open source weaponry? That’s pretty much what Phillip Luty did, at least after he decided to give them away before he died. >,,>

    • We’re on the threshold of gun control being effectively impossible.

      We’re just a few decades away from on-demand printing of anything you could want, and you can’t stop the signal.

      • What a wonderfully uninformed statement. Unless you personally know how to source stepper motors, extrusions for rails, fab a controller out of a couple of RaspberryPis, code the damned thing, and assemble it, they very much can stop the signal.

        Extant tech off-the-shelf. It would take the swipe of a pen to make 3D printing a “National Security” issue (not to mention it’ll get worked into some attack, real or false flag). 3D printers become a controlled item, subject to regulation. That regulation being that you can’t print anything ‘unapproved’ and the machine’s firmware will only accept plans from a government server with 256-bit encryption. Not to mention if you own any sort of reductive or additive machining device, you submit to being sniffed by the overlords at their whim and caprice.

        If we can keep little traitorous attention whores (Cody Wilson) out of the limelight, we still have some chance to achieve a critical mass that can’t be stopped. But we aren’t there yet.

        • Not to mention if you own any sort of reductive or additive machining device, you submit to being sniffed by the overlords at their whim and caprice.

          The 4th Amendment stands in the way.

        • Yeah, it does. And 2A stands in the way of *all* gun control since NFA 1934. So, what’s your point?

        • Michael, you do know that if you have an FFL, the Feds can pretty much show up when they please, and don’t need anything but their will to enter your premises, read your bound book, or anything else, no?

          Look, you should read up on what happens in real life, not what the puppetmasters want you to believe happens.

  13. Imagine a country without ignorance and fear, where people respect the rights of others and can disagree without conflict and gnashing of teeth.

    Hey I can dream righ ?

  14. It’s got me thinking, what would happen if the Constitution was enforced under penalty of death (UPOD)? That’s what’s supposed to happen, except there’s not a lot of enforcement going on as of late.

    I liken it to a rubber band that you’re holding one end and another person is holding the other. Stretch it all the way out to your end, and don’t b1tch when you get snapped in a hurry when it breaks, or the other lets go of their end.

  15. Weisser is a freedom hating Nazi.

    Which is exactly the problem with guns. More than 30,000 people die and another 70,000+ are injured each year because Americans have free access to something they really don’t need.

    People die because they have access to something? They aren’t dying because the human will of immoral people decided to take their lives (11,000 people). Or they decided to take their own life? (22,000). “Access” to something made them do it? They died because of access? Total delusional nonsense.

    Please weisser, lets all secure ourselves in small white rubber rooms where we can’t escape, feel safe, and all environmental factors are precisely controlled as to maximize our life in the rubber room.

    Mike the “Nanny Statist” Weisser.
    Mike the “Freedom hating” Weisser.

  16. “have free access to something they really don’t need.”

    You don’t need it until you do.

    Then you REALLY need it.

  17. “Which is exactly the problem with guns. More than 30,000 people die and another 70,000+ are injured each year because Americans have free access to something they really don’t need.

    Who made you the Secretary of Need, Mr. Weisser? Until someone does, I’m an American who decides what I need . . . not you.

    • 20,000 of his 30,000 are suicides – chances are at least half those folks would find another way….

    • I am satisfied to accept his concepts, so long as he explains them to, and enforces them on, all the police (fed, state, and local) in the US before he comes towards me. Because every one of those arguments applies just as much to them as to anyone else. And their being unarmed would make the civil war easier on everyone.

  18. Gun ownership aside from being a Fundamental Right (not privilidge) purposefully enshrined in the Bill of Rights a Separate, the first 10 Amendment considered to be not man given rights that can be taken away but G-d given Rights that we are endowed with not to be taken away by the Government. Governments Leaders and Agendas come and go Freedoms are meant to be Forever under our Constitution.
    gun ownership is part of our DNA. The Westward movement, hunting for food, call to Arms mustering militia units during the Civil War and to a lesser degree in all subsequent conflicts. During internal strife these guns did serve as a safety net for people caught in their home without police protection. Chicago under Richard M Daley made the toughest gun law in the US. Guns were illegal untill it got before the Supreme Court. Did violent crime go down No. The gangs still had guns found a way to get guns, low level criminals had gun. Did the Mayor have guns? Unkind but he had body guards 24/7 365 still does a perk he gifted himself in retirement 2.5mm dollars. So honest everyday citizen concerned about getting arrested they had no gun and the Bad People knew that. It was a field day.
    If a law is made and an attempt made to take guns away from up till now honest citizens it will get ugly turn people into criminals put Agent and citizens and bystanders at risk.
    Such an attempt lacks all judgement. Terrorists will get Gus make bombs and possibly steal from Armories

  19. About 30 years ago the US fantasized about a country free of marijuana and other illicit drugs. How has that worked out?

    • I’m thinking that was over 40 years ago. Perhaps you’re thinking of the war to eliminate poverty? How has that worked out? BTW, if anyone cares, “poverty” is defined as a percentage of the median income, thus is impossible to eliminate, by definition.

Leave a Reply

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