IMI Systems Quote of the Day: No One Needs More Than Two Guns

Doug Pennington says American's should show cause for owning more than two guns.

“Let me put that another way: Why shouldn’t we require someone who wants to own more than two firearms, and who isn’t legally in the gun business, to file an application? Send some paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; submit fingerprints and a photo; and send in a $200 fee along with the make, model, and number of additional weapons you’d like to purchase (and eventually their serial numbers). You would agree to undergo a thorough criminal, domestic violence, and mental health background check, knowing that if a permit to purchase additional firearms were granted, such a background check would be performed every six months (to ensure the applicant hadn’t fallen into a prohibited category of gun owner). Finally, and most important, the reason for requesting additional firearms would be stated on the application.” – Doug Pennington in Two Guns Per Person [via slate.com]

IMI-Israeli Ammo

IMI Systems Israeli ammunition

comments

  1. avatar Missouri_Mule says:

    Because the firearm is an instrument of liberty.

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      Nailed it on the first try.

      This author has a pretty weak grasp of the concept of liberty–especially for someone who makes his living spewing half-baked opinions under the protection of the First Amendment.

      1. avatar Merlin says:

        They actually have a very firm and clear grasp on the concept of liberty.

        That’s why they are trying so hard to diminish it.

        1. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

          Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

    2. avatar Joel says:

      No one needs more than two pairs of clothes. If someone wants more than two pairs of clothes, they should submit an application to the state.

      1. avatar GunDoc says:

        Because it’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        A Glock, a Mini-14 and a police uniform. The result, more people killed than the Route 91 attack.

    3. avatar David Deplorable says:

      As are books, Bibles, newspapers, the interwebz, and more.

      I can tell a lot about a man solely from his thoughts about gun rights & gun control.

      1. avatar Chadwick says:

        Gun rights are a great freedom thermometer. There is a lot of room for emotion to fill the topic and it can be extremely telling just exactly how someone grapples with the question of gun control. Trust the police and military 100% no matter what? Most people that still want gun control would probably say no way. Trust your neighbors 100% all the time? Yeah this gets silly after a while but its truly telling.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Unlike abortion, unlike fiscal issues, unlike drug use, firearms really get at something fundamental to *all* humans; physical violence. And because the concept of violence and the issues surrounding it tickle the most base instincts as well as the highest philosophical reaches, it is an issue that can be evaded by no one. Unlike practically all other issues, everyone has skin in the game when it comes to topics of physical violence, and firearms is a branch of that topic which is simultaneously common (such as violence is common in America) and in most peoples’ minds, cannot be defended against. All these aspects culminate to cause even the most disinterested, ignorant fool to overreact when considering the issue (because the negative consequences of guns are heavy and the fear of them overrides any desire to understand nuance, causes, benefits, or even actual risk).

          I have come to see it as a civics acid-test for a person’s inclination toward tyranny. Because it spurs all sorts of instinctive responses for the above reasons in the absence of logic or knowledge, and because it cannot be ignored by anyone considering it (easy for a man to ignore abortion issues, or a young person health care, or a square drug use, and adopt apathy as their position), it is a near-perfect test of a person’s tendency to project as a way to resolve problems. To a one, every pro-restriction person out there is reacting to a distrust of themselves or people immediately adjacent when it comes to firearms. It’s very crude logic to assume that your personal situation is applicable to the world at large, and indicates all sorts of shortcomings as far as that person’s suitability for decision making at a civic level; that’s why I favor gun rights politicians in addition to enjoying the personal benefits of continued gun rights. The topic goes way beyond these lumps of metal, wood, and plastic.

          I have found that the pro-rights position, at least as far as those who can actually articulate it, is rooted more in higher-order logical thinking like Game Theory than the direct-projection model (no, I’m not simply saying the anti-gun position is ‘stupid,’ I am saying it is not based in logic/reason). This method takes into account more diverse motivations and needs of groups different from the individual. For instance, recognizing that poor people have a greater need for armed defense than wealthy cloistered ones, even if it does grant the criminal element of the population slightly more freedom to select their tools; a logical person will quickly realize that the slight added danger of greater-armed crooks is inconsequential compared to the impact of a newly-armed peaceful population that can/will fight back to defend itself. A person thinking with their lizard brain will simply respond to the perceived increase in threat posed by the criminals with easier access to weapons. While the logical position stems from factual rates of violence and cause/effect relationships, the lizard-brain result stems from the person projecting how they would acquire tools for a crime onto the criminal (hence the logical disconnect between the desire to restrict store-bought guns and the fact that few criminals buy their guns in stores).

    4. avatar Erik says:

      Nailed it.

      Next let’s go through their house and tell them what they need. A need and a want are very different things. You only need one fork, one knife, one spoon. You don’t need recreational drugs, sex, or rock and roll either.

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Always with the background check meme. Proven useless time and again. Admitted useless by its very supporters.
    And the stupid “only x guns” meme. I only have two hands to begin with. What difference does it make if I have one gun, two guns or five hundred guns? I’ll only be able to operate one at a time well, two at a time poorly.

    All the anti’s have are memes at this point. Shitty ones they themselves admit are shitty. It’s a horribly unfunny circus that just wont end.

    1. avatar pyrotek85 says:

      It’s only slightly less stupid than the ‘cooling off’ waiting periods, where if you apply to buy they’d want you to wait a few days before completing the purchase. Maaaybe if it’s your very first gun, but utterly pointless if you have other guns already, it’s just there to annoy gun owners then.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        And of course nobody’s ever held a grudge longer than three days / a week / ten days / (insert arbitrary amount of time).

        I sure wish somebody had told my Aunt Bea this, it would have made Thanksgiving dinners much more pleasant.

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          It was also suppose to help prevent suicides…but if not your first gun then what is the point.
          Here in Florida even sworn, uniformed officers have to wait the 3 days…even if they go armed and in uniform to buy the gun. Unless…the weapon is replacing the duty weapon the officer is wearing.
          Dumb dumb dumb.

        2. avatar clst1 says:

          I never hold a grudge, I just have a long memory

        3. avatar Blurb says:

          Spain just got off my list in 1992 for the Alhambra Decree. Germany will remain on my list until 2445. Saudi Arabia until 2501.

        4. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Hell, if the wait in line at the gun store counter isn’t long enough to cool down, 10 days won’t help either.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        California has a ten day waiting period, but interestingly enough, at least according to the Legislative history of the various enactments over the last 100 years, it was not a “cooling off” period but a period of time long enough to allow for the completion of the background check. But strangely enough, when the law was challenged fairly recently (on the basis that if you have a CCW or already own a gun the new purchase should be released as soon as the check is completed without the need to wait for the full ten days), the State argued that it was indeed a cooling off period. Bizarre.

        1. avatar MeRp says:

          Washington State’s works like that; it is a period to allow a full background check/whatever the police want to check. Given that it is actually a maximum here; if the police come back sooner then they can release the gun to you sooner. Not only that, but, at least for handguns (which used to be the only type where it was applicable), a CPL exempts you from it; they can release it to you immediately with only a NICS. Apparently it also does not apply to gun parts, even parts that the Fed considers a firearm; stripped lowers can be released to you immediately, assuming you pass NICS.
          I’m certain our Governor and both Senators (along with a host of others) would change that, if they had a choice on the matter, but, thus far, they do not have enough of a stranglehold at the state level to completely steamroll our gun rights.

  3. avatar Mad Max says:

    Other than the $200 tax, sounds like a Utah carry permit and a 4473.

    If forced to pick two guns, I’ll settle for an M1 Garand and a good 1911 with the stipulation I can carry them anywhere without restriction and buy as much ammo and spare magazines as I wish.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      And clips, of course. A clipless Garand is a sad Garand.

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Yep. Enbloc Clips. Hundreds of Enbloc Clips…

        At least I’ll know how many shots I can take before reload on both the rifle and the pistol (8 rounds each – at least with my Smith E-Series 1911).

      2. avatar Guy who got into guns yesterday and wants to correct everyone says:

        OMG it’s a magazine not a clip OMG OMG OMG lol

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          Nope…for an M1 it actually IS a clip….LOL

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          Do you want to get whooshed? Because that’s how you get whooshed. (Check his user name) 😀

        3. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Leighton, you might want to get your humor detector recalibrated.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      “Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, Pow, PING!”
      -seen on one of Colion Noir’s tee shirts

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        Just think, if the shooter had ‘pinged’ after every 8 shots, the cops would have located him immediately, so this could have truly saved lives /sarc (referencing the retarded WWII GI tales about the Garand)

    3. avatar Survivordude1090 says:

      Man after my own heart. Love it.

    4. avatar Chadwick says:

      Don’t dare tell people that When a Utah cc holder buys a firearm from a dealer(at least in Utah) that they don’t technically go through a background check at that time. Fill out your fed firearm registration form, ffl calls to make sure the cc permit is valid and away we go.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        Also true in Nebraska. My (much more extensive) background check was performed when I applied for my concealed carry permit.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          And in Alaska. Although Alaska is ‘Constitutional Carry,’ you can opt for one of two grades of formal CCW license (for reciprocity’s sake). If you get the higher level license, which includes an additional Federal background check, you no longer are required to have an NICS check for every purchase–It’s a Form 4473, and ‘Have a nice time with your new gun!’ That remains the SOP for the full 5 years duration of the CCW.
          Just for the sake of argument, though, isn’t that a bit ‘odd’? I mean, couldn’t I go Berserker the day AFTER I get my new license in the mail, ignore all of the guns that I already have, and go out to buy one just for committing the massacre I just decided to do? Or maybe I’ll be completely sane for the first 13 months, and go CuckooForCocoapuffsBatSh*tCrazy the very next month? What about a piece of laminated paper with my picture on it certifying that at one time I passed an ‘intensive’ background check ensures that I’m perfectly rational (and won’t go full retard) for a full 5 years?
          My GOD! I’ve discovered the CCW License Loophole! Think of the children!

      2. avatar Nick says:

        Same in WV, but the dealer doesn’t even call (AFAIK). As long as it isn’t expired (and was issued after the effective date of NICS exemption), you’re good to go.

  4. avatar Illinois_Minion says:

    “Why shouldn’t we require someone who wants to own more than two _________, and who isn’t legally in the _______ business, to file an application?”

    Cars
    Phones
    Tools

    Shall we continue?

    1. avatar Omer says:

      Opinions?

      I know you’re a journalist, but if you want to publish more than two articles then you’ll have to fill out this requisite form and submit a non refundable fee. Also, we’ll need you to submit for semiannual testing the assure that you are psychologically fit and if you ever fail that test, then we’ll pull all of articles for the “safety” of others. – Ministy of Truth

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      “Let me put that another way: Why shouldn’t we require someone who wants to own more than two firearms, and who isn’t legally in the gun business, to file an application? Send some paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; submit fingerprints and a photo; and send in a $200 fee along with the make, model, and number of additional weapons you’d like to purchase (and eventually their serial numbers). You would agree to undergo a thorough criminal, domestic violence, and mental health background check, knowing that if a permit to purchase additional firearms were granted, such a background check would be performed every six months (to ensure the applicant hadn’t fallen into a prohibited category of gun owner). Finally, and most important, the reason for requesting additional firearms would be stated on the application.”

      Well, since you’re asking:

      If you concede that the government that the Second Amendment was intended to allow you to protect yourself from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce lists of persons who may not, in the opinion of that same government, exercise their natural, civil and constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of those lists?

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        The genius who wrote the article is projecting, and naturally assumes he’d be in charge of the list and therefore would not be on it; it hasn’t even occurred to him that such a tyrannical state would have no use for his pathetic twaddle and would grant him nothing for submitting to its rule, or that its human enforcers would abuse him for any reason or no reason without some direct/indirect threat of physical violence limiting the scope of their actions. He trusts agents of the state more than his neighbors or especially himself, at the end of the day.

    3. avatar Verbal Guinea says:

      When was the last time a person was killed by a car? Or a tool? A phone (in combination with a car)?

  5. avatar Mark Lee says:

    We should should apply this same principle to the writer’s number of words that he is allowed to say or write in his lifetime. Perhaps then would he appreciate the ludicrous concept he is suggesting, which no doubt would be extended to the number of magazines and bullets one is allowed to own and shoot in one’s lifetime. Once he uses up his allotment of words, he would be required by law to shut the fuck up!

    1. avatar KenW says:

      He should be required to use a typewriter to publish. It will allow him to enter two paragraphs of up to 200 characters each. The typing speed will be limited to 7 WPM and mistakes require a typing class in Latin

  6. avatar Stereodude says:

    I think we should start suggesting the same “common sense” & “non-infringing” restrictions on the 1st amendment and voting.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      Those are always met with calls of racism. Don’t dare bring up the numerous import restrictions that made it harder for economically challenged individuals to obtain means of self defense. That would be just as racist or something. I think half of being a libtard is keeping your lies straight. Half of being a conservative is probably trying to figure out what lie the libtard will use next.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      This is what’s called being a useless idiot; they want to steel ALL your freedoms, buddy. Hell, they’ve already taken most of the “wordy” ones past amendment #2 at this point anyway. Cutting off your left arm to spite the guy who promised to cut off his right arm if you do it first is stupid.

  7. avatar ORCON says:

    I still feel a twinge of guilt when I check the “No” box on question 11D of a 4473. I use the handicap stalls in public restrooms and have yet to be busted for it. I am a monster.

    1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      Greetings from your friendly ATF Agent Bob,

      ORCON we know what you’ve been doing and we know you’ve been lying but we just cannot find a single f*ck to give. You see we are very busy trying to figure out what the hell to do about bumpstocks, keep the fallout from Fast & Furious to a minimum, keep Holder’s other secrets secret, and do all these damn tax stamp applications. Our plates are full! I’ll help you out though, you wanna feel like less of a monster? STOP USING THOSE BIG COMFY HANDICAPPED STALLS AND USE THE LITTLE CRACKERJACK STALLS!!! You’ll feel like less of a monster and you won’t lie on anymore forms and we’ll all be cool. Oh also the NSA just turned over your internet history and I gotta say no normal person searches for midget amputee scat snuff films that many times in a day you should probably chill out on that a bit.

      Sincerely,
      ATF Agent Bob

      1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

        After reading something so stupid, this was just the laugh I needed. Thank you, sir.

        1. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

          you’re welcome citizen! Now, please send $200.00, a completed form 72, fingerprints, and photo to the agency so we can get you a tax stamp for that triple digit IQ and full auto laugh.

    2. avatar Omer says:

      It’s ok ORCON, we all need a little extra space sometimes. We forgive you, just don’t waste any time in there;)

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        And the least you can do is an occasional courtesy flush.

  8. avatar Jim says:

    Because it isn’t any of the damned governments business what or how many of anything I choose to buy. Nor is it any business of anyone else. So piss on you, Doug Pennington.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      You may be mistaken there, Jim. As I recall the SCOTUS set the precedent a while back when they determined that the Congress and the POTUS could force you to buy health insurance. All they have to do is call it a tax and everything’s cool.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        Piss on the government, too, Cliff.

        Thanks for the reminder. Have a great day.

  9. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Wow! That is a lot of wrong in one place. The biggest wrong and the one that makes the whole article fall apart…… thinking the rights we have as citizens are granted by the Constitution.

  10. avatar JeffG says:

    Once you start down this path then it would be one and soon after none. Not one gun law has ever been shown to reduce violence. It is time to repeal the gun laws that are in effect not to pass any new ones.

  11. avatar Smoke Jensen says:

    “Let me put that another way: Why shouldn’t we require someone who wants to own more than two computers, and who isn’t legally in the computer business, to file an application? Send some paperwork to the Bureau of News, Blogs, Vlogs, and Memes; submit fingerprints and a photo; and send in a $200 fee along with the make, model, and number of additional computers you’d like to purchase (and eventually their serial numbers). You would agree to undergo a thorough criminal, domestic violence, and mental health background check, knowing that if a permit to purchase additional computers were granted, such a background check would be performed every six months (to ensure the applicant hadn’t fallen into a prohibited category of computer owner). Finally, and most important, the reason for requesting additional computers would be stated on the application.” Smoke Jensen in “Words start wars and kill millions”

    1. avatar ORCON says:

      Stay away from our memes!

    2. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

      I’d just be happy with a test of the proper use of There, Their, They’re, its, and it’s.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        It’s their mistake if they’re going to use its there when it’s not correct.

      2. avatar MyName says:

        to too

  12. avatar Mario says:

    Than**

  13. avatar RandallOfLegend says:

    Just waiting for more TTAG circular arguments on background checks.

    1.) BCG Don’t work, they are woefully under-reported
    2.) A Bill is put forward to increase reporting on background check
    3.) Booo hisss, don’t add any Bills to support Medical agencies to ease or mandate their reporting.
    4.) See number 1

    I am fully aware people who were never committed/clean record can also do harm.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      A lot of #3 involves taking a dump all over HIPAA. Can’t effectively curtail one right without curtailing others. They all sort of go hand in hand like that.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      The question of if they work is irrelevant. My rights are not subject to your approval. Don’t like it? Well, that’s why I have guns.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Since background checks do not work as intended the only purpose they actually serve is as a legislative chink in the “…shall not be infringed.” portion of the Second Amendment.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Even if they did, there is no “prior felon” exception to the 2nd amendment.

  14. avatar Baldwin says:

    Only 2 guns? And Congress doesn’t need more than 2 Democrats either. See how that works?

    1. avatar Mark says:

      That would make passing laws a lot easier!

  15. avatar Mark says:

    There are a lot of places in the world where you can live like that, those place are Not Free, those place are Not America!

  16. avatar DaveL says:

    Why are they so hung up on the number of guns somebody owns? Sure, the Vegas shooter had tons of guns, the vast majority of which were completely superfluous to the shooting. He still only had two arms.

  17. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Gu ns are like insurance. Nobody needs insurance until you do and when you do it’s too late. Maybe we should limit people to two kinds of insurance. You can have health insurance and car insurance but no life or home insurance? If this moron knew anything at all about fir earms he’d realize how dumb he sounds.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      He doesn’t care. To him all those “gun guys” aren’t really people with rights he needs to respect.

    2. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Slate writers are arrogant in their position of proud ignorance, refuting their positions is time wasted. Write your Congressman and Senators instead, and if you already have then bless you.

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      If this guy knew anything about guns, the other denizens of Slate would burn him at the stake as a heretic.

  18. avatar Steve says:

    Many times I wish that I could have a conversation with the people that talk like this. I dont expect to change their way of thinking but at least they ahould hear the other side of the arguement. Most of the people on both sides of the arguement have surrounded themselves by people that think the same way.

  19. avatar vioshi says:

    So if “one is none” and “two is one,” I can have a shotgun too right?

    1. avatar Senior Gun Owner 1950 says:

      Yes! But not a double barrel shotgun. That counts as two guns in one.

  20. avatar H says:

    It’s a clip. The press is often wrong. This time, it’s a clip. Carried one in ROTC. Did a lot of laps with it over my head. 🙂

  21. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Well, as long as you’re requiring that the buyer indicate on the for the reason for the multiple gun purchase, that should be ok, right?

    Then again, is just a reason enough? Mass murderers and Islamic terrorists are well known for their honesty, but what if one should happen to lie? If we add in a requirement for a pinky swear, and a cross my heart and hope-to-die promise backing up that stated reason for the multiple purpose, then I’m on board. That’s common sense.

  22. avatar Von says:

    He is being nice to let us put tube extensions on our pump shotguns.

  23. avatar 2aguy says:

    Outside of technical manuals, why does anyone need to read more than two books….especially books? Just ask Ray Bradbury and his book “Fahrenheit 451.”

  24. avatar Hank says:

    So once you implement this, who’s going to come and take the ones already in circulation? You!? Ha!! 😂. Come get some!

  25. avatar Heartbreaker says:

    Bill of Rights, not Bill of Needs. Nuff said.

  26. avatar ActionPhysicalMan says:

    Right now, it is because this fellow and his kind do not have the power to make it so. That is the real answer to his question.

  27. avatar Andy says:

    The authoritarianism is strong with this one.

  28. avatar Senior Gun Owner 1950 says:

    Open Letter To Doug “Dumb Ass” Pennington:
    (Because Slate doesn’t let the unwashed rabble respond to their Elitist Wisdom)

    Doug “Dumb Ass” Pennington claims to be a communications professional in Washington D. C. It’s his First Amendment right to spew out Brady Campaign bulls**t. Doug “Dumb Ass” Pennington is just another Marxist liberal gun banner shrill who doesn’t understand, or deliberately confuses, the difference between a right and a need.

    Karl Marx and the notion of “need” sits at the heart of his left-wing ideology.
    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

    Under the Marxism espoused by Doug “Dumb Ass” Pennington, it’s the government that allocates power to individuals. The unspoken result of Pennington’s Marxist’s America is to tear the WE THE PEOPLE” clause, and all the freedoms it stands for, out of the United States Constitution

    In Pennington’s America, it’s government, not individuals, that shape what is and what is not freedom. It’s government, not individuals that determines what’s a right and what’s a privileged. And if it’s a privilege it’s the government’s right to allocate the amount place time and use of that privilege. And conversely, if it’s a privilege it’s the government’s right to revoke that privilege.

    So Doug “Dumb Ass” Pennington, if the day comes where that I need to show a need for more than two guns, that will be the same day tat you’ll need to show a need to publish more than two articles. Like the Second Amendment, the First Amendment doesn’t say anything about how many articles someone can publish in America.

  29. avatar Slippery Slope says:

    Nobody needs more than a day’s supply of medication. Makes it too easy to horde and sell of controlled substances. You can just line up at drug store every morning for your daily dose. We should probably require people with more than 2 prescriptions to pay the DEA $200 to manage the additional monitoring costs and paperwork load.

    Nobody needs more than $200,000. Makes it too easy to contribute money to political campaigns which disenfranchises poor voters. If you have more than $200,000, you should be required to pay the IRS $200 to seize and re-distribute your excess money to social programs.

    Nobody needs a home that’s more than 1,500 square feet. Makes it too easy to stockpile possessions that – let’s face it – you don’t actually need. If your home is over 1,500 square feet, you should be required to pay HUD $200 per additional square foot per year to fund housing development for people who can’t afford a home.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Nobody needs a home that’s more than 1,500 square feet….”

      Leftists packed like sardines in NYC, San Fran, ect are laughing *hysterically* at that shoe-horned into their $3,500 a month 400 sq ft. *Deluxe* apartments…

  30. avatar former water walker says:

    Because FOAD…even MY meager collection includes more than 2 “instruments of freedom”😡😡😡

  31. avatar Juice says:

    And yet, you can’t ask someone for ID if they want to vote?

  32. avatar Senior Gun Owner 1950 says:

    Please give the rest of us the link so we can all respond directly to Slate.
    They NEED to hear from all of us on the other side.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      It’s at the end of this very article, above (Slate). TTAG always includes the links to the Liberal Terrorists™.

      1. avatar Senior Gun Owner 1950 says:

        Thanks.
        I did see that link . But going to the Slate itself, there doesn’t seem to have a response or commenter section to Doug “Dumb Ass” Pennington’s gun grabbing article

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Theres an icon you press (it’s the red dialog looking button right below Doug’s name at the top left side of the article) that brings you to the comment section. Have fun.

  33. avatar Warlocc says:

    Every time someone says “We don’t want to take your guns!” or tries to extend an olive branch to gun owners, some maniac like this comes along and proves them wrong.

  34. avatar W says:

    There’s that “need” fallacy again. Do people “need” more than one television? A house of more than 2500 square feet? More than 1 car? More than 2 bottles of wine?

    How in the world does the concept of society determining what individuals “need” arise? Maybe this was ingrained among the thoughts of the American left during their flirtations with Mao, Stalin, and Castro. Individuals are free when they don’t have to ask society for permission all of the time.

    1. avatar BigDaveinVT says:

      That’s one thing that’s had me scratching my head for a long time. Way back when, when I was a wee lad, all the “hippies” were chanting about freedom – freedom from social norms; freedom from laws; freedom from an oppressive government. Now those hippies have grown old, gotten jobs in politics or media and want to impose restrictions on civil rights.

      What happened to their commitment to freedom?

    2. avatar DaveL says:

      Do people “need” more than one television? A house of more than 2500 square feet? More than 1 car? More than 2 bottles of wine?

      You seem to expect that gun control nuts would find those ideas shocking. However, consider the deeply urban gun control base in places like Manhattan. They will not ever own a house, would probably consider 2,500 square feet extravagant. They do not own a car and they never will. They eat out constantly and view cooking as a trendy novelty that requires a subscription to an online service; they would see no problem with never having more than two bottles of wine at home at any given time. And they see the fact they live this way as reason enough to use government force to make everyone else do likewise.

      1. avatar W says:

        Chelsea Clinton Manhattan condo: 5000 square feet.
        Elton John Atlanta condo: 6000 square feet.
        Barack Obama DC house: 8200 square feet.
        Bernie Sanders: 3 houses.
        Elizabeth Warren Boston house: 3728 square feet.
        Bill Clinton Chappaqua house: 5300 square feet.

  35. avatar Nanashi says:

    Let’s just pretend it’s a serious question worth answering (Ha!). Off the top of my head, someone needs…
    A 22 Rifle for rifle fundamentals and target practice
    A 22 Pistol for pistol fundamentals and target practice
    A compact for concealed carry
    A full size pistol for competition
    A MSR for home defense and competition
    A semi-shotgun for competition
    A shotgun for skeet and bird hunting
    A 308 for hunting large animals
    A suppressed 300 Blackout rifle for removing pack animals like boar and coyote
    A dedicated long range precision rifle
    A cheap rifle for their car
    And a full-auto belt-fed machine gun to ward off government goons who want to kidnap your family and steal your property because the (Democrat) president deemed them the wrong race.

    That’s 12. That’s not even counting something for the kids that Lyndon “In Your Guts You Know He’s Nuts” Johnson won’t let them buy themselves.

    1. avatar Makes Sense says:

      Uh-oh…
      I am waaay over.

      But to be fair, the reason I have two of every revolver in different calibers is, you know, cause I have two hands.
      And being ambidextrous, I have two of every rifle (L&R setups).
      I did cheat with the shotguns though. A SxS and an O/U.
      Hard to justify that one.
      At least that what my wifey tells me.

  36. avatar Senior Gun Owner 1950 says:

    At the risk of hijacking this thread, does anyone else have a modest list of needed guns?

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      See above you. At a minimum you should have the 22, a CC pistol and good flexible rifle.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Not too flexible – point of impact shifts too much.

    2. avatar joetast says:

      I would think a shotgun, a 22 rifle, a high power rifle, and a handgun. Then you gotta decide what gauge shotgun, what HP rifle, and same on handgun. OK 12 gauge, 30-06, and 357. It’d suck but that should do it.

  37. avatar zombietimeshare says:

    Great idea. Let’s do the same for the First Amendment.

  38. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    I guess you’d better think of something else.

  39. avatar joetast says:

    Spook now we’re back on the 20 gun 1994 arsenal thing again. Only two guns, yeh m1 and 1911 good choices. I was thinking 20 Mike Mike Vulcan and M 102 .

  40. avatar Paul53 says:

    Creating laws just for the sake of creating laws makes no sense to me. All of the above is based n the erroneous global statement that nobody needs more than 2 guns. Guns are tools and there are infinite purposes to own various guns.

  41. avatar Joe R. says:

    Q: Why wouldn’t the people just rise up and slaughter the MF anti-Constitutionalists that are attempting to tyrranize them.

    A: ONLY because we weren’t absolutely certain it was needed until now. (Thanks for flipping the coin for us).

  42. avatar Icabod says:

    Consider “First, the Constitution and its text are a starting point, not an end point.” He then talks about marriage and how the definition has expanded to race and gender. Unwittingly, he’s made a argurement in favor of the Second Amendment. That it is a beginning. As the race and gender restrictions on marriage are wrong, so are many of the gun control laws.

  43. avatar Pete says:

    No mention of the fact that such a law would have ZERO effect on shooters like the Vegas gunman, a millionaire with a clean background,
    But that is not the intent is it. We all know the end game and refuse to allow the camel’s nose under the tent.

  44. avatar MKV says:

    Why two? Why not just one? Why not zero? See what I did there?

  45. avatar Noishkel says:

    Well 2 guns person citizen would still put us at about 660 million guns here in America.

    Leave it to some disgusting leftist troglodyte to try to apply Marxist redistribution theory to the very thing that keeps Marxism really taking root here in the US.

  46. avatar Heartland Patriot says:

    The dipshit who wrote the original article in Slate used to work for the Brady Campaign to Disarm the American People…anyway, I think that was the name.

  47. avatar MGD says:

    I am all for this BUT ONLY under the following circumstances: The same applies to voting. You must undergo a political quiz, be able to clearly state why you’re voting for the candidate for whom you’re voting, will be prohibited from voting if you confuse your candidate’s position with the opposition, you will undergo a mental health check before voting, you must own property, you must pay taxes, you must have a criminal background check before you vote, you will have two forms of photo ID including a government issued ID, and it will cost you $500 to cast your vote. And this: The same goes for writing newspaper articles. You can only write X number of articles per month and they must be approved by a government official before you can publish them.

    1. avatar BierceAmbrose says:

      “I’m voting for ThisOne because he/she/it/they isn’t ThatOne.”

      I believe that covers the reason, political awareness, policy, and sanity requirements.

  48. avatar Jeff says:

    Ok, Someone has been in the sun too long. A firearm is an object used for many things; recreation, feeding your family, self defense, and some people called criminals use them for crime. Those same criminals also use bats, knives, pipe wrenches, cars, trucks, fists, feet…you get the point. Lets pretend you take all the guns away. You know who will still get guns? The criminals that don’t follow the laws. Items used to kill and commit crimes are not the problem, its the criminal mind that is the problem, as long as there are people intent on committing crime, I will keep all means of self defense I can, guns, cars, knives, bats, sticks, chains, whatever it takes to stop the threat.

  49. avatar Mercutio says:

    Ask a carpenter how many different hammers he has – same answer.

  50. avatar Gary says:

    It’s sad to see an American citizen write such things. He needs to turn in his Man card. If it was a requirement to serve in the armed forces at age 18 we wouldn’t have to worry with these contrite ass-holes with their heads in the clouds. Take a trip. See the world. Hell read a book. Every place where it’s subject to the same whims as he’s writing is a damn mess; where the wolves eat the sheep who beg to exist at the whim of the ruling class. I’m glad to be an old man if this is the mainstream view.

  51. avatar st381183 says:

    Whenever these stories come up I always click the link and read it the try to post an opposing point of view. The problem is 85% of the time the comments are turned off which tells me they know that they are not supported in their efforts to ban anything.

  52. avatar AFGus says:

    I’m a law abiding American citizen. I am retired from the USAF after 21 years of honorable service. Those are “the only” reasons that I need if I want to own more than two firearms. Period!

  53. avatar Mark N. says:

    I hope my wife doesn’t see this article. After Vegas, she told me I don’t need to buy any more guns, that I have enough. I didn’t tell her that I’ve got a list, and that I’ve barely gotten started. The short list has six rifles (mostly historic military) and four handguns on it.

    1. avatar What About Bob says:

      Don’t ask, don’t tell.

  54. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, really, what’s red fish, blue-fish’s rationale for restricting people to two guns?

    What do we get for this cost he wants to impose on other people? How do we know it’ll work?

    1. avatar Hank says:

      He basically just picked what he liked best from some of the EU member states…as is typical.

  55. avatar Hank says:

    To illustrate the error of his approach to liberty, just insert “social media app” into every mention of a firearm in his rant. See the youngins’ heads explode.

    (And considering that social media misuse has been a larger threat to security and liberty, it’s a very fair comparison)

  56. avatar strych9 says:

    Ignoring all the legal, ethical, moral and Constitutional arguments for a minute, let’s talk logistics.

    The FBI says it performed 27,538,673 NICS checks in 2016. Now, since you can buy multiple guns per NICS check we don’t really know what that means but let’s assume that it’s 1 gun per check and that 33% (1/3rd) of those checks represent someone who already owns two guns.

    That would mean that 9,087,762 of those checks just for 2016 represent one of the much feared “2+ purchasers”. Each would require an additional background check that, I would guess based on this suggestion, would be significantly longer than just a NICS check. That would boost the number of checks for those people by 2x to 18,175,524 per year based on 2016 data.

    So, let’s base our assumptions off of NFA data.

    The ATF says it completed 2,538,397 NFA requests in 2016 with an average wait time for a Form 4 of about 280 days. That means they processed 13.97% of the increase in the number of background checks we could expect to see under this proposal. If you figure the wait time is half of an NFA item then 100/14 = 7.14. 280/2 = 140. 140×7.14=999.6, 999.6/365=2.74. So, we could probably rationally expect that your third gun would take somewhere on the order of 2.74 years to be approved. BUT it would require a new check every six months which would also be 2.74 years meaning that the background checks would always be at least 2.24 years behind. So the concept that it would “prevent people from becoming a prohibited person in possession of a firearm” is laughable since, on average, from the time they became prohibited until this system caught them, would be in excess of two years.

    I’m going to stop there with the numbers and just say this: There is no agency within the government that could possibly handle this proposal. The amount of paperwork, and just plain work, that it would require is mind boggling. Simply from a realism perspective what this person is proposing isn’t possible.

    1. avatar Makes Sense says:

      Ugh!¡

      Math.

  57. avatar Sam I Am says:

    There is one case where the author’s question makes sense, and I like it (with a change in law/regulation).

    I looked into becoming an FFD/FFL, for the discounts. Was told that “mom and pop” dealer licenses were a thing of the past, and that an FFL is only for businesses (selling numerous guns per year out of a retail location. Well, rats.

    I would have done everything suggested.

  58. avatar Crabby old guy says:

    Honestly wondering, what is a “background check”? Who decides what is being checked? Who reviews the results? Who has access to the information gleamed and the results? How does one refute mistakes? Who has liability when it is misused? Are there private suppliers or is the US government hold the monopoly?

    Based on the way the antis put so much faith in it, it must be magical. And, I think I’d like to be in charge of it going forward. Then, we can start requiring checks before articles are allowed to be published on the internet. I’m sure there other uses that I could come up with.

  59. avatar Wayne says:

    Only if we can limit the number of people living on the tax payers to two kids. You KNOW that will never happen.

  60. avatar Barry Luke says:

    Lets see, uh 2 screwdrivers, 2 hammers, 2 knives, 2 forks, 2 cars, two women, oops I slipped.. Enough BS>

  61. avatar Carl up North says:

    Simply because its a “Bill of Rights” not a Bill of Needs!

  62. avatar TX223 says:

    Guns are like women’s shoes… need a set for each occasion.

  63. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Functionally this argument is idiotic from the get go because functionally wise it would be a bare minimum of 3 guns (shotgun, pistol rifle) and it also says nothing about maintaining compliance with game laws (so many rounds per mag, caliber minimums, single shot or pump vs semi auto.) It also takes into account humane hunting (My 9mm handgun in IL for handgun deer season is not only illegal but moronic) and has zero reflection on cost or practicality for extended range sessions (say 9mm or .22 vs .44 magnum.) From a carry standpoint its idiotic because I can’t carry an L or N frame everywhere I can carry a J frame.

    Certainly a person speaking of guns that has zero understanding.

    If he wanted to do something like this, I would say minimum 3 guns and then basically roll back ANY posession, “constructive intent/SBR,” carry or game laws. For it to be practical the one rifle would almost assuredly be of a modular design like an AR-15 too.

  64. avatar Eng says:

    Tell that to a guy who shoots trap, metallic silhouette, bullseye, and 3 gun. What a blaring idiot. He should be embarassed for being so fantastically ignorant of the fact that there are many different purposes for firearms, and probably 1000x that many firearms to fulfill those purposes.

  65. avatar Roymond says:

    I have a test for anyone who thinks only two guns is enough: he can go out and get a bear with his choice of my sidearm or bunny gun.

  66. avatar Wiregrass says:

    You just got to love this little skidmark at the end of his screed:

    One more thing

    The Trump administration poses a unique threat to the rule of law. That’s why Slate has stepped up our legal coverage—watchdogging Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department, the Supreme Court, the crackdown on voting rights, and more.

    So let me get this straight, these are the same people you want to have control over all the guns?

  67. avatar kenneth says:

    Because one needs a MINIMUM of FIVE firearms:
    1. rimfire pistol
    2. rimfire rifle
    3. centerfire pistol
    4. centerfire rifle
    5. shotgun
    Then, to add utility, specialist arms for whatever that one might want to specialize in. Modified race guns for matches, perhaps. Also bolt actions for long range SBRs for close encounters, shotguns with slug barrels, different chokes for different ranges, perhaps one for skeet, one for trap, one for the field, etc.
    Naturally, any anti would have no clue that there are different games, ranges, target sizes and toughnesses, etc. How could they, while they remain blissfully ignorant about EVERYTHING, including their own positions?

  68. avatar EJQ says:

    So, how is that “complete mental health” check gonna pass HIPAA laws?

    Also, the liberals are gonna have to realize that this discriminates against people who can’t afford the $200.00 fee. Is it two guns per household, or two guns per person? Will I not be allowed to buy my underage teenager a hand gun? Will buying my underage teenager any gun count as one of my two guns? If all four of us are charged $200.00 apiece to own guns (which we do, now) that’s $800.00.

    STUPID!

  69. avatar Sledgecrowbar says:

    If our government ever did inact this, it would be as flimsy as the feature bans are now, where we created binary triggers and bump stocks to get around the machine gun ban. You would see people with hundreds of trusts, each owning two guns a piece. If they found a way to ban that, there would be trusts owned by businesses owned by the same people. You can’t ban something people want, the war on drugs should have taught us that.

  70. avatar Docduracoat says:

    You need an AK 47 and an AR15
    Also an AK 74 and an AR 10
    A concealed carry pistol
    A full size pistol
    A pistol caliber carbine
    A shotgun
    That’s 8 guns right there
    And that does not count your “fun guns” like a bull pup rifle or a reproduction M 1 carbine
    And you should at least 2 concealed carry guns in case you ever use one and the police impound it
    Then you carry the backup

  71. avatar Cyrano says:

    Applying that logic to the first amendment… Nobody needs more than 2 words.

Write a Comment

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

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