TTAG Daily Digest: Will FedEx Rue the Day? Is an AWB Ban Constitutional? More Questions That Answers . . .

FedEx won’t drop the NRA so these companies are dropping FedEx – Companies? The social justice warriors dropping FedEx listed in’s article are all Hollywood talent agencies. No surprise there . . .

World of Wonder, the production company for such TV shows as RuPaul’s Drag Race, Million Dollar Listing, and Big Freedia, announced on Wednesday that it would no longer ship with FedEx.

“We support the call to boycott the NRA by no longer using FedEx for our company’s shipping needs. We salute the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. We are inspired by their leadership and are committed to their safety!” the co-founder Randy Barbato said in a statement.

ICM Partners, a major Hollywood talent agency, confirmed to Forbes on Thursday that it has stopped using FedEx for its shipping needs.

George Clooney (courtesy


Styles joins stars like Justin Bieber, Paramore’s Hayley Williams, St. Vincent, George and Amal Clooney, Scooter Braun, Lady Gaga, Fifth Harmony’s Lauren Jauregui, Amy Schumer, Jimmy Fallon, Oprah and more who have voiced support for the [March For Our Lives] event, or who have promised to participate.

“I stand with you guys,” Bieber tweeted on February 18, while Schumer implored people to “get involved.”

Podcast host: I bought my first gun because of CNN town hall – A different kind of post-Parkland backlash than the one the mainstream media’s been pimping. But should we be happy that liberals are tooling-up?

Second Amendment decal (courtesy

Banning assault rifles would be constitutionalOr not. . .

There is enough room under the 2nd Amendment to prevent people from possessing certain types of firearms. Even Justice Scalia recognized that laws restricting the possession of certain guns — machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, for example — would be constitutionally permissible. And Justice Scalia acknowledged that “weapons most useful in military service” may not be protected. Assault-style rifles may certainly fall into that category.

While banning semi-automatic assault rifles won’t end all gun violence, it may save a few lives without significantly interfering with the rights of gun owners to use other firearms for recreation and self-protection. And that’s something we can all live with.

White Knight Riders (courtesy

Condoleezza Rice stuns ‘The View’ audience with amazing story about 2nd Amendment rights – Gun control’s racist roots revealed . . .

“When White Knight Riders would come through our neighborhood,” she said, “my father and his friends would take their guns and they’d go to the head of the neighborhood, it’s a little cul-de-sac and they would fire in the air, if anybody came through.”

“I don’t think they actually ever hit anybody,” she continued. “But they protected the neighborhood. And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up.”

“And so, I don’t favor some things like gun registration,” she said to a suddenly silent crowd.

Cabela's Gun Library

Goldman Sachs’ investment in a gun retailer puts it in an awkward position – Repeated scandals — including a $5.1 billion fine for its mortgage-backed securities machinations — aren’t awkward. But a small stake in Bass Pro/Cabela’s is. Go figure.

In a statement provided to CNBC, Goldman Sachs said: “We are saddened by recent events, especially the tragedy in Florida last month. We are in touch with management at Bass Pro/Cabela’s and know they are deeply concerned and focused as well.”

Goldman Sachs’ ownership stake in Cabela’s is small, and the company does not have a board seat. Its equity is “preferred” which, in layman’s terms, means it is more akin to a financing tool than it is to ownership. It nonetheless forges a connection between Goldman and guns at a time at which scrutiny of the firearms industry is high. Goldman declined to disclose the size of the stake.

1967 Detroit race riot (courtesy

1960s Unrest Was The Impetus For The First Gun Age Limits – Not race riots. “Unrest.” Gun control’s racist roots ignored by an agenda-driven . . .

The 1960s brought the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr., as well as a feeling among some Americans that increased law and order was needed to quell unrest, especially among young people. In response to these factors, the Gun Control Act of 1968 established the first federal age limits for buying guns from licensed dealers: 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns.

The distinction was due to the fact that handguns were associated more with homicide (and today still account for most gun deaths) than long guns. However, it set no age limit for possession, and no age limit for purchasing guns from a private seller . . .

“So it leaves us in a funny situation under federal law,” [Jon Vernick, deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research] says. “There’s this weird gap where you have to be 18 to buy a handgun from a private person but 21 to buy it from a licensed dealer.” Like the 1968 law, this new act did not set any minimum age for long gun possession or purchase from a non-licensed vendor.

“You have to be 18 to buy a long gun from a licensed gun dealer,” Vernick explains. “But if instead of knocking on the door of my local gun store, I knock on my neighbor’s door, and that person wants to sell me a rifle or a shotgun, I can be 11.”

Stoneman Douglas High School

The Kind of Courage America Demands of Its Police – J-school grad and Californian Conor Friedersdorf is a deeply confused person with very little understanding of police use of force. Or the true meaning of courage.

Can it be that asking cops to face mass shooters without backup is reasonable but asking them to shoot a mentally ill man with a tiny knife in the leg rather than center mass or to eschew no-knock SWAT raids for nonviolent crimes is too much?

The courage required for cops to take the lead to reform current policy, against their interests, would be of a different sort than the courage needed to face an unexpected gunman. But even if one thinks classic valor is most laudable, encouraging the more calculated, premeditated sort of courage would likely save more innocents. Can we at least stop calling cops who choose not to shoot cowards?

Once Banned, Now Loved and Loathed: How the AR-15 Became ‘America’s Rifle’ The New York Times can’t help it. The girl can’t get help it. 

The number of assault weapons recovered by the police in crimes and reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped sharply after the ban was carried out, according to a Justice Department report.

But it stops short of directly tying the ban to a decrease in gun violence, and the ban’s broader effect remains in dispute. Gun rights advocates say loopholes allowed for the sale of slightly modified versions throughout the ban. Its defenders cite law enforcement statistics showing a drop in the criminal use of automatic and semiautomatic weapons during that time.


  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    If these clowns thing that Hollywood is more than a rounding error on FedEx’s balance sheets, they are in for a shock. Fun fact, I work with a company that spends literally millions of dollars shipping products via FedEx. I’d bet that they account for more of FedEx’s revenue than all the liberal pearl clutchers put together.

    1. avatar Rodd says:

      Fed ex just got all my shipping needs

      And I worked for UPS for eight years

  2. avatar Hank says:

    Stories like Condoleeza Rice’s are our best arguments against the Anti’s. The anti’s literally do not understand our factual, legal, statistical, or rights based arguments. They literally cannot understand those points. But when you start talking about a well armed black family defending its self from a Klan onslaught, they have very little to respond with.

    1. avatar Lost Down South says:

      Another good example would be the Deacons for Defense and Justice:

      The Deacons for Defense and Justice was an armed African-American self-defense group founded in November 1964, during the civil rights era in the United States, in the mill town of Jonesboro, Louisiana. On February 21, 1965–the day of Malcolm X’s assassination–the first affiliated chapter was founded in Bogalusa, Louisiana, followed by a total of 20 other chapters in this state, Mississippi and Alabama. It was intended to protect civil rights activists and their families. They were threatened both by white vigilantes and discriminatory treatment by police under Jim Crow laws. The Bogalusa chapter gained national attention during the summer of 1965 in its violent struggles with the Ku Klux Klan.

      There’s movie too (2003):

      1. avatar Felix says:

        Book too:

        The movie is a mishmash of lots of real events, such as when their kids boycotted school because they were only taught home ec instead of auto shop, and the local firemen threatened to hose them down in the middle of winter — the Deacons showed up and made it clear what the next action would be.

        Or, like Condaleeza Rice’s statement, when the local sheriff led the local KKK on a parade through their neighborhoods, throwing KKK literature out the windows, they fired back. The KKK were so embarrassed that they crossed two state lines to get to a hospital rather than let anybody local know they had been outgunned.

        The book is pretty detailed, lots of footnotes, but fairly readable. If the movie leaves you interested in more, get the book. There’s far more courage in that book than in JFKs Profile in Courage.

        1. avatar TexasGunGal says:


          Thanks for link to Amazon. Just ordered the book
          When choice is between movie and book, go with the book. Typically with movies too much ends up on cutting room floor

      2. avatar Pat says:

        When the gun ban nuts say you can’t deter any tyrannical action by government with your civilian guns, they ignore this fact people have in the US over and over.
        Deacons of Defense is a very good example. The data clearly show that the civil rights marches which include armed citizens where profoundly less likely to be subject to illegal arrest, attacks by LEO dogs, attacks by truncheon wielding law enforcement or attacked by white supremacists as cops stood by.

        I.e., much much less likely to be subject to tyrannical acts by local and state governments.

    2. avatar nanashi says:

      Never pass up a chance to remind Democrats of their hero’s role in putting a KKK leader on the Supreme Court so he could burn food during the dust bowl, ban guns and reintroduce slavery without the courts getting in his way.

  3. avatar Mike says:

    It would be extremely helpful to provide the source of the material/article quoted here on the blog. I about choked on the article “Banning Assault Rifles Would be Constitutional”, as it appears that TTAG would be in favor of the ban – no rebuttal, commentary, dialogue, or answer, except “or not”. One has to dive deeper to see it is lifted from a CNN report (surprise, surprise!).
    Just sayin’…

    1. avatar Texan Trapped in FL says:

      “One has to dive deeper…”

      Goal achieved

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      TTAG is not a liberal tool. You will not be spoon fed the kool-aid flavor of the month. Some work on your part is required.

      1. avatar Persnickety TTAG Reader says:

        Maybe so, but what Mike referenced is an example of poor editing/web page design. It would be childishly simple to make it very clear that bit is citing CNN and eliminate any possible confusion. The piece’s layout is lazily and poorly done.

        We covered that in the first hour or two of my first intro web developer class.

    3. avatar Anymouse says:

      The opinion piece is also misleading. The Supreme Court didn’t hear the recent AWB and waiting period cases, but that doesn’t mean they agree with them. The cases they let stand have no precedence or scope outside of their original Ciruit. The court hears only a handful of cases a year out of thousands submitted. Unless there are conflicting rulings is different Circuits, it’s unlikely a case will get heard. It takes 4 Justices to care enough to even hear a case. There’s rumors that the pro gun Justices won’t take a case until there’s a solid 5th vote.

  4. avatar strych9 says:

    I would point out that the NFA doesn’t ban anything. Rather, it imposes a tax (which was very, high for the time) on those items (and these days an obscene waiting period due to NFA incompetence).

    There’s a reason for that. The folks who drafted the NFA knew that banning things would run afoul of the 2A so they didn’t ban them but rather used Congress’ power to tax to place those items on a list of things you had to pay extra for.

    So, if we go with the logic of the people who created the NFA then an AWB is quite unconstitutional since it is a ban, in violation of the 2A, and not a side stepping of the 2A utilizing the power of Congress to levy a tax.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Strych, I fully expect the Leftists, if they can’t ban AR-type weapons outright, to get them added to the NFA the next time they are in power.

      As far as I’m concerned, that would be OK *only* as long as the full-auto registry is opened and stays open thereafter, by law, with no sunset…

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        That would work for me. I’d just throw lightning links all on my AR’s! Well… and upgrade to full-auto rated barrels in some cases.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Most modern barrels can handle limited full auto fire. Metallurgy has come a long way since the 1930s. A modern chrome-molly pencil barrel will heat up fast, true, but it won’t shoot itself out unless you do something stupid like dumping multiple beta mags in quick succession.

        2. avatar Rick says:

          I just inherited a 70’s era Colt full auto AR15 that my uncle swore that no more than 500 rounds were through it, cost me $3k in taxes, estimate of value X tax rate. For a part that shouldn’t have much wear, it looks so much worse than one of my Anderson lower with every bit of 15k rounds. So mils-pec 2010ish vs 1970’s has got to be very different. I think I’m going to sell the lower because its too much of PITA vs actual value. Unrelated, god I love my new 11″ CZ 805.

  5. avatar Geoff PR says:

    “Even Justice Scalia recognized that laws restricting the possession of certain guns — machine guns and short-barreled shotguns, for example — would be constitutionally permissible…”

    Didn’t Scalia say that the kinds of weapons *explicitly* protected by the 2A include weapons commonly used by a sheriff deputy and police officers on patrol?

    Because the most popular handguns used by cops are Glock-type pistols with a magazine capacity of up to 20 rounds or so, the most popular shotguns used are pump or semi-auto, and the most popular patrol rifle is an AR-pattern rifle.

    Or did I read ‘Heller v DC’ wrongly?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      “Didn’t Scalia say that the kinds of weapons *explicitly* protected by the 2A include weapons commonly used by a sheriff deputy and police officers on patrol?”

      I’d have to look it up and I’m lazy because I’m on my phone but I don’t believe that Scalia said anything about police use. IIRC the things he said that make a weapon for sure protected by the 2A are 1) single man portability and 2) common use. So an AR can’t be banned since it’s man portable and common.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      It has been a while since I read Heller, but I have a hard time believing he’d say that, since it contradicts the holding of Miller v. U.S., which held that a sawed off shotgun could be subject to the tax because it was NOT a weapon used in military service, suggesting that any weapon employable in war is protected by the 2A.

      1. avatar Ragnar says:

        Correct. +1 for you. Thank you for stating this.

      2. avatar 16V says:

        contradicts the holding of Miller v. U.S., …

        Which is a laughable case (in the sad, tragic, freedom ending way) on so many levels. If Miller had been alive, had a decent lawyer, etc. that lawyer would have entered WWI trench shotties into evidence and the Supremes would have had to make up some other nonsense.

        Miller really is a good read…

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Geoff PR,

      There are two GINORMOUSLY important points here:
      (1) Supreme Court Justice Scalia put the “reasonable limitations” and “military weapons are not protected” language in the Heller ruling to get Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s buy-in. Had Kennedy been a truly conservative justice, that language would not be there.
      (2) The Heller ruling’s exclusion of “military weapons” directly contradicts the 1939 Miller ruling which stated that the Second Amendment absolutely protects “military weapons”.

      Thus, if anyone wants to use the Heller decision as a basis for claiming that bans on military weapons are permissible has to admit that the U.S. Supreme Courts’ decisions are garbage since the Heller decision directly contradicts the Miller decision.

      1. avatar 16V says:


        I think you would find Miller an interesting read. There’s a lot to it, including the dismissal of the case by a circuit court, and the revesal by the Supremes (to support the NFA). Because Miller and Layton transported it across state lines without it being “registered” was the (imaginary) core issue.

        The Supremes ‘acknowledged’ the 2A was to enable State Militias…

        Like I said, very interesting reading. Everyone should have some idea what it actually says, because the prog judges twist it more than Fats Domino.

        1. avatar Dave in Fairfax says:

          US v Miller is an interesting read. Miller v US is something else.

  6. avatar Marty says:

    The new info out now is the sheriff’s deputies were ordered to stand down and not enter the school by the POS sheriff. If this turns out to be correct, I’d like to hear less about those deputies being cowards and more about the anti gun sheriff and what his motives were. It seems like the sheriff was more concerned about sparking a gun control issue than the lives of those inside the school.

    1. avatar john says:

      I think it may have been to give time for the murderer to commit suicide in hopes it would hide the illegal activities that the Sheriff’s department and School Superintendent had colluded in to cover up arrests of students. The School District was getting federal grant money for decreasing student-related crime the more it decreased the money that was received. This information was in another TTAG post.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        The School District was getting federal grant money for decreasing student-related REPORTED crime; the more it decreased the more money that was received.
        Promise Program: See something, say nothing.

        1. avatar anarchyst says:

          Trayvon Martin (remember him?) and his crimes were covered up by this “promise program”. Although found in possession of burglary tools and stolen jewelry he was never prosecuted. George Zimmerman did us all a favor by disposing of the trash.

      2. avatar Who me? says:

        This theory makes no sense. If they intend to cover up the crimes, early intervention, within a few shots, is necessary. One or two injuries could be an accident or suicide gone wrong. 17 fatalities pretty much guarantees national media coverage and Federal investigations of the department and its actions.

        Most likely it was just an order by personnel who didn’t have current active shooter training due to departmental training priorities. Incompetence rather than malice.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      There is no chance that such considerations were made in the moments taken for such a decision. It’s just not how shit works, or how humans process information. It’s wholly in the mind of conspiracy theorists to imagine that everyone thinks at that level of deception during an ongoing event.

      IF it is true, it speaks to the uncommon incompetence of the sheriff. Hanlon’s razor applies.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      We need to know exactly WHO gave the order to stand down. Once we know that, we can infer WHY they gave that order.

  7. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    Fuckin’ Canadian POS, quick take his car keys before he kills somebody!!!

    At least Vince Neil hasn’t come out with any hypocritical advice yet. Probably still too out of it from last month’s smasher. Speaking of loud mouth rockers: Where the hell is Uncle Ted these days?

  8. avatar Ret1SG says:

    No TTAG is not in favor of any weapons ban. You just have to understand how RF writes. If the cops can get the job done without shooting someone…great. The cowards are the ones who won’t engage or enter a building to save innocent lives. Bravo MS Rice, tell it like it is!

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Ms Rice supports the second ammendment and is against registration BUT still thinks assault weapons should be illegal….. or as she said on The View, “The time has come to have a national conversion on whether or not people should have these weapons.” …… sounds awefully FUDDish to me.

      1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

        Does one really support the 1st Amendment if they are in favor of free speech zones, prior restraint imposed upon public speaking without a permit or the government giving favored status to different majority religions based upon region?

        Likewise, can one really be in support of the 2nd Amendment when in favor of infringements against it?

        1. avatar binder says:

          “Does one really support the 1st Amendment”
          What percentage of tag readers think flag burning should be illegal?

        2. avatar Pat says:

          I would guess 99.9% of TTAG readers do not think flag burning should be illegal. Disgusted by it? yes. Illegal, no.
          The examples given of “limits” on the First Amendment are not the same as being proposed and pushed with gun control. Libel and defamation are not prior restraint. A person has to have proven in a court of law o have harmed someone, and then only that person is subject to sanction. Things like DND(Do Not Disclose), secrecy agreements, covering employees have to do with “at will” contracts between employees and emplyers.

          As far as “speaking without a permit” there is no such thing. There is an issue with assembly but the government must establish you have created an imminent danger, and it is explicitly not analogous to gun control since gun control is a prohibiting or rights rationing regime. With assembly a government MUST still allow it at some point. Assembly “limits” are not even analogous to gun free zones.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Ms. Rice,a friend of the Bushes,staunch defenders of the Constitution,Not. Almost as being a friend of the Clintons.,the exception to that is that the possibility of finding your self dead is perhaps lessened ,or Not.

  9. avatar Ret1SG says:

    Question gang. I dropped by Academy on the way home yesterday to replace a couple AR mags, and all the PMAGS were gone, ALL! Got a couple of MFT mags (hope they’re good). .223 and 5.56 ammo were all but sold out. Managed to find a couple hundred rounds but, that was it. Also noticed that this weeks ad had no ammo or guns in it. Anyone else run into this “panic” stuff yet?

    1. avatar Hank says:

      There’s a minor panic going on right now but, as I keep up with the daily average prices of guns and ammo, prices are remaining low, indicating it’s a pretty low level panic. Some people clearly got scared by Trumps retorhic but I see things starting to calm back down soon, hopefully.

    2. avatar M1Lou says:

      I went to some gun shops today to get some parts to finish my AR pistol project. I decided to just buy all of the parts I needed and not wait for the next payday after what I witnessed. The AR sections that were full a week ago have only 1-2 left, when one store had at least 20 guns on the wall last weekend. The stores were all busier than normal for a Saturday.

    3. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      I was on the verge of buying a bunch of stuff, because I thought prices had finally gotten reasonable. There is now no stock on anything. I’m betting that when new inventory arrives it will brig with it higher prices.

      I’m begging for a better comment system.

    4. avatar Occam's Laser says:

      Dropped by Cabela’s Sunday after work to get a bench bag: browsed the racks of (way overpriced) used long guns and instead of the usual 3 to 4 racks of used MSRs, there were a total of TWO used ARs. So, yes there is some panic buying going on.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        @ Occam’s Laser

        So will this boom be called the post Parkland boom or will it be called the Trump boom?

  10. avatar Cliff H says:

    “The 1960s brought the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr….”

    It should be pointed out as often as possible that JFK and Martin Luther King, jr. were both assassinated with bolt action rifles, not “assault weapons” and that RFK was killed with at least one, but possibly two .22 lr pistols; Reagan was shot with a .22 lr pistol, and the attempt on Gerald Ford was with a Colt 1911.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      “It should be pointed out as often as possible that JFK and Martin Luther King, jr. were both assassinated with bolt action rifles, not “assault weapons””

      Indeed, JFK by a commie optimist with a 6.5x52mm Carcano and MLK Jr. by a racist POS with a Remington model 700 in 30-06 IIRC.

      Bolt gun’s capabilities(cartridge chamberings, inherent accuracy and reliability) are highly underrated and misunderstood by those unfamiliar with firearms. For criminal purposes, they are mostly preferred by those with single target assassinations in mind. By all rights, most corrupt politicians should be far more afraid of an assasin armed with a bolt gun(In a capable caliber) than one with a so called “Assault Weapon”.

      Edit: MLK Jr. was actually shot with a Rem model 760 pump action 30-06 rifle.

      1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

        Dude, he was boning the hottest chicks, so he’s my hero.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          JFK or MLK?

          JFK was more (in)famous for the sheer numbers.

    2. avatar Bob999 says:

      Yep, which is why a ban on AR-15s makes no sense. It is like banning the Swiss Army Knife because it has the word “army” in the name.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        ok… but we’re not in 1960 talking about political assassinations. Shooting up a school is a hell of a lot easier with an AR than a bolt action rifle.

        Can you do the latter with proper planning and advantage? Sure. But it’s harder.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Given that the teacher is told to gather the kids in the middle of the room and all to huddle together in a big lump; a mass murderer in a school could probably use a Brown Bess Musket and get fantastic results.

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          Tom said: “Given that the teacher is told to gather the kids in the middle of the room and all to huddle together in a big lump…”

          Let me tell you a (not very) secret: Ban ARs, and murderers will find another way.
          The scenario Tom speaks of is very easily taken advantage of with a pipe bomb. Toss it into the room, shut the door. Pipe bombs are extremely easy to make; the component parts are very easily bought without restriction (are we going to require a plumber’s license to buy pipe? Really?).
          A Molotov cocktail would be even better; the horror of thinking of children burning to death would be an enormous emotional bonanza for the left, but what could they do? Ban selling gas, or bottles?
          The weapons used aren’t the problem, obviously. A big part of the problem is that the MSM works hard to make celebrities out of the murderers. Some people, unfortunately, think topping the last celebrity is his ticket to immortality,and the media encourages that mindset. (Obviously, this isn’t the only problem these murderers have.)

        3. avatar 16V says:

          Yup. If only we took away the guns, none of this would every happen….

          If only we didn’t have rental trucks and bicycle paths, Muslims would be peaceable…

    3. avatar Pat says:

      Are you really expecting CNN to be honest. They have over 500 pieces on gun control the past four years and exactly four even mention US gun murder has fallen more than 60% n the past 25 years. That is the core metric.

      As far as bans, a ban on all semi autos will fail politically and until the court changes, will fail on Heller. Even gun control lobby admits that. A ban on AR-15 is ridicules since the biggest shooting of students in the US have been Cho at Va tech with handgun; and bigger yet Breivik with ranch version of Mini-14 which is legal in Canada and Bloomberg’s 95% Democrat New York City.

      The biggest mass murder by a single person in all fully developed democracies in the past 10 years was Andreas Lubitz killing 150 people in one go in France in 2015. He did not use a gun at all.

      The issue is NOT about logic, facts, legal precedent. It is about emotion, public relations and politics. the main target is the NRA, which has 58% approvals among all Americans and those approval rates, being specifically targeted by the gun control lobby in a $300 million dollar campaign, all of it funded with “charitable” fully deductible donations from the left.

      What will decide gun rights over the next ten years is ONLY:
      1) the composition of the supreme court , which WILL turn on 2018 and 2010 the interim elections, and which looked good for the Second amendment 12 moths ago, and which now looks really bad.
      2) the composition of the Congress
      3) how much damage the insanely well funded gun control lobby industry can do to the NRA.

      Everything you are seeing is part of a well laid plan to exploit events by a gun control lobby industry which now employees over 350 full time professionals and growing with the sole job of trying to kill the NRA

    4. avatar Zeke says:

      “The 1960s brought the assassinations…”

      Clearly, someone should have banned the 1960s! 🙂

    5. avatar A Brit in TX says:

      Don’t worry, once the grabbers have banned semi-auto’s, they’ll be gunning (pun intended) for bolt, lever, pump & single shot firearms. They’ll call them super deadly sniper rifles (or something similar) and will then keep spouting off that ‘these deadly sniper weapons of war’ have far more powerful calibers than AR’s…..

      That’s why I believe that NO COMPROMISE should be made now.

  11. avatar ironicatbest says:

    The kind of courage America demands of its police. Uhhh what about the kind of courage America needs to stand up to the police? Wouldn’t it take a lot of guts to barricade yourself up then shoot it out against opponents with unlimited manpower and weaponry, no backup and no hope. But you keep on blazing until they take you down.

    1. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      Sounds like somebody’s been watching Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

    2. avatar anarchyst says:

      Police don’t have courage. They cite “officer safety” above all else. Look at the cowards crouching behind cars at the last school shooting.
      Almost all cops are pussies.

      1. avatar Marty says:

        You seem to be very anti police. I hope you remember this when you become a victim of a violent crime. Maybe then you could call a drug addict for help.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Ummm…let’s not annoint Condi Rice just yet! She’s also stated she’s against civilian AR15 ownership. Oh and she pushed for war in Iraq for no real reason. Thanks for creating modern Iran…by the way my son was in Iraq so I have some skin in the game. I’m all for black folks with guns- I bought my wife one.

  13. avatar 2aguy says:

    They keep saying that Scalia okayed banning weapons that might have a military purpose…they keep lying about that…From Heller…..
    We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


    Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    (Dangerous is not an AR-15 as they end up explaining in the follow up Caetano decision)

    From Caetano v. Massachusetts…..

    As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

    That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

    Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

    Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

    1. avatar 16V says:

      “2aguy”, You might want to re-read Miller, and what was happening with the players. The real story is in the details.

      Bottom line, Miller’s sawed-off was in common military use is WWI as a trench gun.

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      2A makes no mention of dangerous-er or ease of bearing. Just saying.

  14. avatar Joe R. says:

    AWB constitutional?

    The Question isn’t even Constitutional.

    1. avatar Ross says:


    2. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

      What was The Question again, 7×6?

    3. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

      That was the question, the answer was yes, it is constitutional.

      1. avatar Big Bill says:

        If this was a pop quiz, you’d have failed.
        ARs are arms, they can be borne and kept. Thus, “…shall not be infringed” applies.
        Is the 2A without limits? Of course not, no right is. But attempting to single one class of arms (not limited to ARs; sawed off shotguns, SBRs, etc) are not allowed to be infringed, as they fall under the umbrella of “arms.”
        Quoting SCOTUS decisions does not bear; SCOTUS has the distinction of deciding what the law of the land is, not of being right all the time. Several SCOTUS decisions have been reversed.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          “Is the 2A without limits? Of course not, no right is.”

          Do tell me about the prior restraint limitations placed against the 1A. Sure, ex post facto you screaming “FIRE!” in a movie theatre which in NOT ablaze will cause you potential liability if someone was hurt.

          The only limit to “rights” is when exercising them becomes physically/monetarily detrimental to other folks. Until you hit someone in the nose, it is your right to swing your arms…

        2. avatar Big Bill says:

          16V, you mistake me for someone who approves of prior restraint re: the 1A.
          You haven’t said anything to make me recant my writing, in fact you only agreed with me.

  15. avatar Felixd says:

    As to the constitutionality of banning replicas of military firearms the greater problem for the central government is compliance if enacted. Who will comply? How can government force compliance? What are the ramifications of forced compliance? What unintended consequences exist if compliance is forced?

    1. avatar Baldwin says:

      Refer to the Remedial Liberal Thought Process Handbook section on critical thinking…”Unintended consequences and enforcement of useless regulations shall in no way impede the progression of the extermination of American rights and liberties.”

  16. avatar Jared says:

    It will be constitutional when a future court upholds almost all gun bans. This is the direction we are going as the county is being overrun with foreign cultures who can give two craps about the constitution or the freedoms it protected.

    Once Texas and Florida get down to 50% white, it’s over.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      That and IMO the younger generation from the coastal States want Socialism to a degree that includes only the gov’t having access to guns. Many want to be thought for and taken care of by gov’t. Middle America not so much, but its a losing battle.

      Sad but thats what I see coming in next 30 years unless the course is changed.

    2. avatar B-Rad says:

      Look, the supreme court has weighed in, and stated that yes its fine to discriminate between X vs Y. Do I agree? nope, but I see why they did, you can look at it from both a constitutionally narrow, or more modern interpretation, and come up with either answer.

      I’m not sure what is the right answer, I can afford a different level of “defensive armament” than a typical citizen, so is that a problem? I can afford X AR’s, Y rounds, but in a non zombie apocalypse, what is the difference between my Kahr EDC, and your new Sig P365 or whatever, assume yours works. I don’t know. I could buy an FA Uzi, if I got rid of every safe queen, but why? I was an 0311 in the 1980s, and my DS thought FA was stupid. Then I went to college, and 2 months later was Desert Storm, so my running around the south and California, had, like, zero, actual knowledge benefit. Although, I was in Germany for 13 months, and that taught me about good beer, so yay marines.

      EDIT, geez, I’m 49, and that sounded kind of both…awwh get off my lawn, and HI! can a join you cool guys with your cans of BEERS.

  17. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    And I’m sure if Bull Connor had known where those guns were he would have rounded them up.”
    Yeah, and Condi would have helped him get and carry the AR-15s to the empty van..

  18. avatar Sprocket says:

    “While banning semi-automatic assault rifles won’t end all gun violence, it may save a few lives without significantly interfering with the rights of gun owners to use other firearms for recreation and self-protection. And that’s something we can all live with.”

    Let’s work with that concept a little…
    “African Americans compose 13% of the population, but commit nearly half of all murders. Restricting their Fourth Amendment rights won’t end all murders, but it may save a few lives without significantly interfering with their day to day activities. And that’s something we can all live with.”

    They only apply this standard to the Second Amendment because they don’t believe it is actually a right. They would never apply this reasoning too any other constitutionally protected right. Though they do seem to be rethinking the First Amendment a bit. These people are cancer.

  19. avatar Bob999 says:

    So, Hollywood talent agents won’t be having their new casting couches delivered via FedEx. How would anyone think that is a bad thing. Besides, progressives jump between boycotts as often as they change socks, but piss off gun owners, the retribution is for life. I used to be a regular customer of Dicks,but I haven’t set foot in their store since 2012, the first time they announced their ban on scary looking guns.

  20. avatar Scoutino says:

    “…semi-automatic assault rifle…” Is that something like a square circle?

  21. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    IIRC Justin Bieber is a Canadian so WTF should any American give two hoots what he has to say about Our country, Next.

  22. avatar Andy says:

    How about the gun makers tell Hollywood that they will no longer allow their guns, or facsimiles of them, to be used in their movies. Then file suit when they do. Vilify the actors/actresses if they are using guns in the movies. Worked for smoking in the movies.
    Citing Heller etc will only matter if and when these cases end up in front of SCOTUS and even then the left on the court has no problem with judicial activism. The rule of law is of less importance to them.

  23. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    BATT there couldn’t be more wrong, starting with no, “banning semi-automatic assault rifles” won’t “save a few lives.” It’ll get people killed.

    The DHS identified a medium power, AR-pattern, semi-auto carbine as the best commonly available choice for personal defense … or exactly what “Ban all the things!” wants to take away from people defending themselves. Apparently you aren’t supposed to have good options.

    I won’t rehash the DHS analysis. More interesting is BATT’s headcount: bad guys maybe doing less with lesser arms (unproven) counts as lives saved, but you able to do less protecting you and yours is no cost to BATT, and company. You’re expendible, or incapable, or both, really. They’re also.counting “violence” so scaring off the blitz attack when they sèe you are armed doesn’t count. You getting attacked with not a gun doesn’t count either.

    The rest is crafted propaganda on steroids…
    – There are no semi-auto “assault rifles”: no ban needed.

    – “Gun violence” is a non-sequitur. *Criminal* violence is a scourge. Peaceful people defending themselves if need be is not: firing a gun if they have to, showing a gun which is often enough, and against offered violence whatever the tool.

    – Banning semi-autos will indeed interfere with peaceful people’s ability to defend themselves. How else?

    – The features that BATT and company get so excited about make arms better for self-protection. Not so helpful for assault and surprise. It’s an interesting list.

    – No, it’s not something the dead people who couldn’t fight back can live with. They’re OK with less ability to protect yourself, because they think it’ll never happen to them. Besides, you probably had it coming.

    Every single phrase in this is crafted for propaganda value. Useful idiot BATT is just a mouthpiece. The nonsense becomes “true” through repetition, which the agenda-mongers have been crafting and pumping out for decades.

    “While banning semi-automatic assault rifles won’t end all gun violence, it may save a few lives without significantly interfering with the rights of gun owners to use other firearms for recreation and self-protection. And that’s something we can all live with.”

    In conversation, the only useful response goes something like: “OK, every single word of that is wrong. Where would you like me to start?”

  24. avatar Cam says:

    I didn’t know that my NRA membership got me a FedEx discount till this, so I would say it will help them because I’m going to start using them.

  25. avatar Sparty says:

    TTAG: the guy Tucker hosted that just bought his first gun is no liberal. He’s a smart guy that looked at both sides and went with liberty and the 2A all the way. He also has a complete plan to get fully trained and then move to concealed license, takes every aspect of gun ownership from the point of responsibility and duty: from shooting skill to proper handling/safety, including storage.

  26. avatar BeoBear says:

    “While banning semi-automatic assault rifles won’t end all gun violence, it may save a few lives without significantly interfering with the rights of gun owners to use other firearms for recreation and self-protection. And that’s something we can all live with.”

    Did I just read this correctly? Surely I must not be because it’s just too unbelievable, especially from a TTAG writer. First off, semi automatic rifles are NOT assault rifles for fricks sake. How can we expect the non gun savvy to use the correct terminology when our writers can’t even do it. Secondly, banning semi automatic rifles of any kind does nothing to stop bad people from doing bad things and to suggest otherwise is idiotic, ridiculous and completely without even the simplest thought process.

    I still think I may be reading this wrong despite reading it multiple times but if not…..WTF.

  27. avatar Clay says:

    FedEx is not our friend. They are our enemy. Go read FedEx’s press release. They support an assault weapons ban and a magazine bans. FedEx is happy to take our money but ACTIVELY is lobbying for the removal of our rights. NO gun owner should be using FedEx they ARE A THREAT to our liberty.

    I would post the link here but afraid it wouldn’t post. It should be easy to find the press release on FedEx website.

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