Where We Draw the Line on Guns – Quote of the Day

Maro Chermayeff, Shana Goodwin, Ashley Judd, Nicholas Kristof

“We all agree that there should be limits. No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun. So the question isn’t whether firearms should all be sacrosanct but simply where we draw the line. When more Americans have died from guns just since 1970 (1.4 million) than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million), maybe it’s worth rethinking where that line should be.” – Nicholas Kristof in How to Win an Argument About Guns [via nytimes.com]

comments

  1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Every living thing has the absolute natural right to self defense…. shall not be infringed. There’s the line.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      ^+a bazillion

    2. avatar LibertyToad says:

      I noticed there was no mention of the 500,000+ annual, legal defensive gun uses. It’s funny how they never look at both sides of the equation.

      1. avatar bob says:

        kristoff is a constantly hemmoraging bleeding heart ,who makes alan alda look like vlad the impaler

    3. avatar anonymoose says:

      Indiscriminate offensive weapons like bombs (nuclear or conventional) would not be covered by a civilian militia individual right to bear arms, but defensive weapons are certainly covered, to include targeted explosives like landmines, Surface-to-Air Missiles, salt waffles, real machineguns, handguns, hunting guns/”sniper rifles,” AA guns, tanks, armed warplanes, and everything restricted by the NFA and AWBs. All gun laws globally (except the ones mandating that normal people arm themselves for the common defense of society) are an affront to human rights.

      1. avatar Joleolsen says:

        Salt waffles?

        1. avatar Randolph says:

          If they ban our salt waffles, what’s next? Our waffles with butter and syrup? We can’t let that happen! I don’t like salt on my waffles but I will fight for your right to salt yours.

        2. avatar Scoutino says:

          Salt waffles. Kinda rhymes with assault rifles.

      2. avatar wyantry says:

        When reading the articles and comments I often wonder:
        Who is going to be the “Test Case” and is it possible to get the case before a non-leftist, non-liberal FEDERAL jurisdiction judge?

        I believe this sort of action is going to be required in order to sort out the federal jurisdiction and constitutional rights of citizens in ALL states and in Every town and city across the nation.

        Until these questions of ownership, weapons being classified as “assault weapons” (based solely on appearance), magazine restrictions, and yes, the misguided imposition of “daily fines” [or extortions], concealed versus constitutional carry, reciprocity, and all the other issues are addressed LEGALY, in a FEDERAL COURT, in favor of US CITIZENS, we are going to be plagued and harassed unmercifully by those of a mindset to deprive everyone of their rights.

        I confess I do NOT understand the concept of infringement or restriction of my rights as a citizen of this Republic as embodied and expressed clearly and succinctly in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  2. avatar nativeson says:

    No, we don’t all agree that there should be limits. That is a false premise upon which progressives build their argument. The Constitution is not ambiguous. It states, “shall not infringe”. The Fedralist Papers are clear. Civilians are entitled to military grade weapons. Don’t confuse the issue by throwing out ridiculous examples of nuclear bombs, fighter jets and the like. And stop infringing on my God-givenright to self-defense.

    1. avatar Helms Deep says:

      The Founders owned cannon , in various configurations , equal to those found on the British Man – O – War ships in Boston Harbor. General Gages order to SEIZE — arms – powder and stores at Lexington & Concord on April , 19 , 1775 was the start of The Revolution.

      Authors premise is invalid.

      1. avatar Bob in IN says:

        Agree /\

        Had an anti gunner argue back … what about nuclear weapons???

        Jaw drop. Can’t fix stupid.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          When They bring up atom bombs, ask them if there is an atom bomb store they can go to buy one at???? Also ask them how much money one might cost??? Then tell them they only accept cash payments!!!

          I have done this with liberals before. They all get red faced when they think about what they have said. They know they look and sound like fools.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      Nativeson……..I do not see the problem with someone owning an anti aircraft gun or a tank. It’s not what someone owns it’s what they do with it. Seems like a ” guilty until proven innocent ” thing. Infringe – to violate or encroach. Now where have I seen that happen.

      1. avatar nativeson says:

        Ed, I didn’t mean to imply that I agree with Kristoff. I was simply pointing out the fact he and other anti-2A proponents always use the most extreme and absurd examples when they argue for limitations on the 2A. From the writings of the Founders and others, it is clear that they defined ‘arms’ very broadly to include instruments of war necessary to defend the nation against foreign invasion or the rise of tyranny. In fact, some referred to them as the arms used by the military. I agree with this reading of the 2A which recognizes our right to any offensive and defensive instrument used by the military, including rifles and handguns (both semi and fully-automatic), hand-held launchers, mortars, cannon, body armor. etc. And as you said, it’s not the weapon that’s possessed that causes the problem – it’s the person possessing it. It always has been.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s more inclusive than that; shall not be infringed. The protection from government encroachment on our unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms is not limited to just what government has. We can have even better. It is unwise to hobble the constitutional protection and the exercise of the unalienable individual right. Nothing good is to be gained by ceding any ground; even this much.

    3. avatar anonymoose says:

      Fighter jets, tanks, battleships, and AA guns are totally covered by the RKBA. Indiscriminate weapons like bombs are not, and the governments of the world should be limited in the amount of nuclear weapons they are allowed to own.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Why should only government own them? If they are going to be owned at all, it is the individual that has rights whereas governments only have privilege. The slave cannot be greater than the master.

      2. avatar DesertDave says:

        Though a bit rough to bare it sure would be cool to have a battle ship.

        1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Sure… just try finding a local marina that can accommodate one. Not to mention the outrageous slip fees – whew, that’s gotta be steep! 🙂

        2. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Although now that you mention it… cruising Lake Michigan at the helm of ol’ BB-64 would be freakin’ AWESOME!

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I’d use it to run arms. That might offset the cost a little.

      3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Well since the government has used aircraft to bomb american civilian populations at least 3 times in the last 100 years, I would say it is a good thing for an american civilian to own a anti aircraft gun.

        And they are on the market.

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    They should really ban suicide, because that would really cut down on gundeaths.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Criminals, terrorists and psychopaths too.

    2. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

      Especially suicide by Tank! A little overboard for You Tube ” Demonetization scheme”! Lol!

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    The AAA is a terrorist organization. They have killed 5.8 million Americans since their reign of tyranny began.

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      The AARP is a pretty dastardly organization as well. Thousands of their members die every year.

  5. avatar Ldb80 says:

    And more people have also been killed by auto accidents than all wars combined……and more people have been killed by blunt force trauma to the head than all wars combined… blah blah blah. Same old argument and full of holes.

    1. avatar Just the Facts says:

      The US is damn lucky when it comes to wars. We have one hell of a moat.

  6. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Yet another anti-gun, anti-freedom, socialist mouthpiece makes up statistics off the top of his head and the NY Times publishes it like it was real fact checked data. Each of these progtards has to top the last in order to get any attention paid to themselves. Fortunately only the fools who have already joined the Church of Disarmament and who regularly tithe in service to that Church and it’s political god heads buy into the nonsense spewed by their high priests of the media.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      He’s a POS MFn communist (D) [I know, redundant].

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        However,Correct.

  7. avatar JD says:

    More kids die in a month texting while driving than in all the school shootings combined. Cell phones and driving are not enshrined in the Constitution. Maybe we should set some limits like no driving or cell phones until you are 21.

    1. avatar Mr. savage says:

      couldn’t agree more, drivers licences, phones, drinking, smoking (tobacco and alternative), military joining, and everything else should be age restrictive before 21. I’ve thought for years that it’s bullshit that an 18 year old can join our military and die for our country, but can’t have a beer for their efforts. just make everything 21+.

      1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

        I always find it interesting that 21 has become our go-to number, not just for us, but the antis as well. Seems kind of random to me. Why not 20? Then, you go from being a teenager at 19 to being a legal adult at 20.
        Granted, I still don’t buy into restricting someone’s constitutional rights based on age, but as far as the other things (drivers licenses, smoking…. is drinking a constitutional right since prohibition was overturned via constitutional amendment?) I don’t see as much issue.

        1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

          Considering one of my best friends earned his PhD in nuclear engineering at 23, I take issue at setting arbitrary limits on when people can be adults based on how many mouth breathers are the same age. Like every other form of group punishment, it only hurts the wrong people. Except in the case of age discrimination, I think it also rewards complacency and postpones maturity. Trying to coddle and protect young folks against the challenges of life is no way to help them learn to meet those challenges on their own.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          There is a right to travel. Driver’s licenses undermined the exercise of the unalienable individual right with a government privilege. The same thing is happening to the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms through concealed carry licenses and other permit schemes.

          Traveling is an an individual right. Travel for commercial purposes was erroded with government privilege. Keeping and bearing arms is an individual right. Keeping and bearing arms for commercial purposes was replaced with government privilege. Now, we have driver’s licenses for most and firearm licenses/permits for many. Allowing the exercise of an unalienable individual right to be undermined by begging government for permission is corrosive to liberty. It is often very difficult to reverse.

      2. avatar john nm says:

        There is some science behind setting the age limits to 25. On average the brains reason centers do not fully develop until about age 25. While the brain is still developing things like alcohol and drugs have a greater influence on how it develops. This is why we tend to be less inclined to do things like ride a bicycle of the roof of a house as we get older. If you watch AFV you will notice most of the stupid stunts are done by pre-20 somethings.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          And yet murder of liberty is being carried out by the older set. Jumping off of a roof harms the individual. Tyranny harms everybody. Government is not a god. It does not know best.

        2. avatar DesertDave says:

          I started shooting at 5 years old. I fully understood that you do not shoot people! That you do not put your finger on the trigger until you were ready to shoot, you never point any firearm at anything that you are not going to shoot and you made sure of what was behind what you were shooting at. I was trained into that. That was 60 years ago. Age has little to do with anything other than the physical ability handle the equipment.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Everything at 21— (wait for it!) — including VOTING! See how well that flies with liberals!

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      WHO spouts the distracted driving/cellphone texting = mass murder? The same usual suspects. Therefore to automatically be suspect. ANYTHING the NY Times/Barak Obumer believes is .

  8. avatar W says:

    “When more Americans have died from guns just since 1970 (1.4 million) than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million), maybe it’s worth rethinking where that line should be.”

    Know what, Nick? They were not killed with AR15s and high capacity magazines. How about putting that in your article? Or how about the part that most murderers are repeat offenders? Or would those little data points upset the deeply held shibboleths of your valued New York Times readership? Maybe it’s safer just to recommend something that they already want, so they’ll feel good about themselves and keep buying your newspaper.

    1. avatar burley says:

      Let’s not forget this one salient point: 60%(ish) of that number is suicide…

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Burley,

        Suicides account for almost exactly 2/3 rds (66%) of all untimely deaths with a firearm. (Murders with firearms only account for 1/3 rd — 33% — of untimely deaths with a firearm.)

        If the average murder rate in the U.S. (where the murder weapon was a firearm) since 1970 was around 15,000 murders a year, then criminals murdered about 720,000 victims over that time span.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Assuming suicides are precisely 2/3rds of “gun deaths,” then murders would be less than 1/3rd because a statistically significant number would be from other forms of homicide (manslaughter, self-defense, etc.).

  9. avatar AngryAZ says:

    No we do not agree!! Once upon a time Americans could have private navies and heavy artillery so FOAD With your limits !!

  10. avatar Brian says:

    For the record, I’d like to state that I would LOVE an antiaircraft gun.

    1. avatar ColoradoKid says:

      Me too!! And if I had room for a tank…

    2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      Damn straight, and I’ the “no one” that argues it’s my right to have one as well. Police and government use drones for surveillance on private citizens, we should have the ability to shoot them down.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Brian,

      An anti-aircraft gun (of some sort) is a necessity if fedzilla ever turns on us. It is also a necessity if a foreign aggressor attacks and fedzilla does not respond.

    4. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      A twin 40mm Bofors would be sweet!

    5. avatar prk543 says:

      If you had the money, you could own an anti-aircraft gun. It looks like there are quad 50 cal mg mounts out there for sale. Probably a 4 stamp purchase for 4 FA M2 mgs. Unless you bought 4 semi-auto M2s.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4we_mPDMeA

      Note: this video is a year and a half old. I do not know the seller, but I wish I did. That looks like fun.

  11. avatar Joe R. says:

    ““We all agree that there should be limits. ”

    There’s 18 Million too many Liberal (D) sucking air. You choose which ones.

    The RTKABA means “arms”. We don’t demand “anti-aircraft guns” we demand PARITY of ARMS with our government. Cause that’s what they’re for. If our government has found a way to need them, it would be awful convenient of our ahole neighbors in-government, to think that we didn’t also need them. Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence says we’re not going to let (D)1<kheads like you talk us into or out of any of our rights and they will continue infinitely longer than even the idea of America, and the most vocal against us get to go to the top of the list if we have to prove it capitally.

    1. avatar TrappedInCommiefornia says:

      Like when the courts rule that an anti-gun law is not unconstitutional: oh gee, the government says the government didndonuthin. Here’s my surprised face 😐

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        So you’re saying I need to work harder on this? Not devoting enough of my personal attention to it?

        It’s not a problem I created or let shit-itself up around me.

        Do I have to work harder on this than you? Cause that’s a problem in itself.

        Let me know.

  12. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    “Hey Kristof, we’ll rochambeau for the answer. You vs. Dana Loesch sounds appropriate.”

  13. avatar surlycmd says:

    There are people who own tanks and howitzers. I’m sure someone owns an anti-aircraft gun as well. Ammo may be another matter. I wonder how shocked this guy would be if he learned about the wealthy gentleman who owns a P51 Mustang and six .50 caliber machine guns for it. The FAA says he can’t fly the plane with the guns installed but that’s just a law on paper or something.

    1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      Kristof shows us that he can deftly defeat himself as an opponent in a debate. Bravo, well played sir;-)

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      sure they do. Here’s one. It’s even still on YT, at least for the moment. Soon to be censored into Google’s gigantic memory hole, I’m sure.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0aHnFo5CI8
      It’s not even in the US, but nicely socialist New Zealand. In the US the gun requires the 200 FRNs transfer tax, and so would each round of HE ammo. If there is less than a certain amount of HE in the round(If memory serves it’s 2 ounces), then no such paperwork is needed. That’s why the owners of registered destructive devices shoot mostly inert projectiles. Service ammo would serve little purpose, other than making shooting it more expensive and difficult.

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      ” The FAA says he can’t fly the plane with the guns installed but that’s just a law on paper or something.”

      So how is it that you can legally hunt hogs with full-auto from a Robinson helicopter in flight but that guy can’t strafe a ‘Million Mom March’ with six fifties from his vintage WW2 NAA Mustang?

      It just ain’t fair, I tell ya…

      *mutter* 😉

      1. avatar surlycmd says:

        A sad state of affairs, indeed. That P51 would be a helluva hog killing machine. The bacon kinda hog not the David Hogg kind.

  14. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    What is wrong with an AA gun? Gotta guard against flying drone attacks. It would be a nice addition to my home security system.

  15. avatar blunt truth says:

    “More people died of death than all deaths combined”
    See I can pull asinine statistics out of my azz too!

    1. avatar ironicatbest says:

      That made me laugh

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And, unlike being shot, death is almost always fatal!

  16. avatar 2aguy says:

    That number is a lie….and I get tired of people who let them get away with it….if you average 10,000 or so murders each year, which is where we are at, it doesn’t come close to 1.4 million…

    Then, on average, Americans use guns 1,500, 000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack, according to bill clinton’s Department of Justice study on gun self defense, you have close to 73 million times that Americans used their guns to save lives and stop live changing criminal attacks….

    This lie needs to be called out every time we see it….Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment…you guys better learn that between now and November…so if you don’t like Trump’s tweets…get over it….vote against every democrat you see….

    1. avatar JD says:

      Yeah I used to believe that as well. Then our Republican dominant legislature voted for and our Republican gov signed a bullshit law in Florida stripping the rights of those under 21 and demands people surrender or destroy property for zero compensation.

  17. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    “We all agree the democrat party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Comintern”, and as such should be added to the list of international terrorist organizations since they have the goal of overthrowing the US Government.

    All leaders of the party should be deported and, if a citizen, stripped of their citizenship with permanent reentry ban.

    All members of the party should be stripped of voting rights until re-educated in the history and culture of the United States of America, minimum four year course. Only after they pass comprehensive tests with 100% score can they be granted a 10 year probationary citizenship. Any violation of probation terms results in automatic revocation and deportation within seven days.

    Those who do not complete the course or do not pass tests are issued a green card, are not allowed to vote or hold any government or commercial office and must pay a residency tax and are not eligible for government assistance.

    Since they are drawing lines, that’s where the line should be.

  18. avatar Tom says:

    Why does everyone think you cannot own a battleship sized cannon or fighter jet?

    You can own them, just most of us can’t afford it or keep them fed.
    You also can’t just take or buy any piece of government property, you would have to build your own cannon or jet, and both are perfectly legal to own.

    So this bull crap about how dangerous weapons are restricted is complete nonsense.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      At least through the end of WWII, the government used to sell off surplus or obsolete military aircraft, although those aircraft would be stripped of weaponry and, as applicable, bomb sights prior to sale. There are some fifties vintage jet aircraft around, but the ones I’ve seen were of foreign manufacture. There used to be a British Vulcan bomber out at the airport here, but Homeland Security required him to weld the bomb bay doors shut. It was so difficult to fly in the current environment (to say nothing of expensive), he finally sold it.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        They still do, one of the main businesses of the Boneyard, in AZ. They will sell you a completely restored and fully functional military aircraft. I have a bud works for a firm which has three (3) -135 aircraft (near equivalent of Boing 707, 4-engine of airline size) being reconfigured by the Boneyard as WC-135s, weather research aircraft. But an individual could buy one as well. Great place to visit, BTW.

  19. avatar rt66paul says:

    I would think that the right to bear arms means weapons that can be carried by yourself.
    Of course I do not speak late 1700’s English – so what do I know?

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      Well, at the time of the writing of the BOR, individuals owned cannons.
      I don’t know about you, but I can’t even carry a six-pounder, much less an eighteen pounder.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bear

      Pretty much to carry, bring, push, pull, present…. etc..

      So to bear arms would be to “bring weapons”. The short sweet wording of the 2A basically covers everything, that was the point of it that keeps eluding the oh so wise ones of today.

      You can own and present and weapon you want.

      “will not be infringed” means don’t screw with this setup.
      Period.

      We’ve allowed this freedom to be cherry picked apart for far too long.
      It starts with nuclear weapons, then planes, bombs, explosives, large caliber weapons, high power weapons, weapons, knives,……..

      You can move a mountain a spoonful of dirt at a time, given enough time.

  20. avatar Cloud says:

    Lines already been drawn. NO MORE.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    “We” don’t agree with you leftard. Shall not be infringed. And all the RInos voting to screw us need to go…

  22. avatar Brasstard says:

    The government has used anti-aircraft guns against civilians in the forties and fifties in the Tularosa Valley of southern New Mexico they shelled the cattle herds and they shelled people’s homes to force them off their land after making a contract with them during World War II that the government broke. The one that stood up to them the most was John Prather but he was already 80-something years old by that time and used to tell the government agents to bring their guns and have a shootout with him but instead the army used to fire missiles over his house to intimidate him. He could have definitely used an anti-aircraft gun to shoot those missiles down as was his right. His family Homesteaded that property in a wagon. The day finally came when they were going to drag him off of his property and they caught him slipping without his gun while he was working cows in a pen but he had a knife in his hand and he told him the first man that touches him will die and so they eventually left after a tense standoff and they waited until he passed away and then took his house and land just a couple of years later.

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      But today when that same thing happens in Nevada, thousands of people show up armed to save the guy’s ranch. A rather large step in the correct direction, yes? People are waking up to the stupidity and incredible, blind arrogance of those in charge.
      Now if only they could figure out what to do about that long, winding chain of decades of ‘legal’, but unlawful, abuses.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/morgue/2011/05/1957-john-prather-loads-guns-awaits-next-move.html

        ‘Relatives Gather – Tom Prather, Anthony, N.M., farmer-rancher, presumably notified by his sister, also was expected to hasten to the ranch. “My brother, Owen, was down the other day when they were supposed to come and try to move me and didn’t come,” Prather said, “but he didn’t know to come today. There’d have been lots of folks around to back me up if they’d known the Army was lookin’ for a showdown.”

        The word for reinforcements went out Tuesday night. A mob of Prather’s closely-knit clansmen and other well-wishers was expected for Wednesday’s session, unless they are kept away by the cordon of Ft. Bliss troops rimming the ranch.’

  23. avatar The Rookie says:

    “No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun.”

    Guess Kristoff’s never heard of a “transferable destructive device”.

  24. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “We all agree that there should be limits. No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun.”

    No. Bite me.

  25. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    If it wasn’t for the Hughes Amendment I’d think that a WW-II style quad M2 setup wouldn’t be altogether rare.

    That said, 1.4 million pales in comparison to the amount of people killed by democide in the last couple hundred years. Yes even by the US.

  26. avatar Sid says:

    Which reminds me of one of my favorite military jokes. I served in an infantry unit. If an NCO ever saw you with your rifle pointed up or on your shoulder instead of held in the ready position, his question would be “are you in the air defense artillery unit now?”

  27. avatar CarlosT says:

    Funnily enough, in the Constitution, specifically in Art. I, § VII, cl. 11, Congress has the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal”. What that means is they can essentially issue a “license to pirate”. What it implies is private individuals owned fully armed ships capable of performing this task, which they did.

    That by itself doesn’t answer the question of whether individuals have the right to own cannons, but we know they certainly did and the Constitution recognizes that fact as a given.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Carlos, I knew about those, but never put that together with the current question. Excellent! Thanx for the perspective.

  28. avatar strych9 says:

    “No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun”

    Interestingly the BATFE does make this argument in a lot of cases. Many large AAA batteries are actually classified as MGs under the NFA. There are perfectly legal 88mm AAA cannon available too, if you can afford one, as well as a bunch of other more mundane anti air stuff like quad 50’s and whatnot.

    “I’ll take “He’s talking out his ass” for $500, Alex”.

  29. avatar Mad Max says:

    And why couldn’t someone own an anti-aircraft gun?

    When the Revolution started in 1775, most cannons on the American side were privately owned.

    Even if I got the anti-aircraft gun for free, I don’t think I could afford the ammo though. Definitely have to reload.😀

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Apparently Kristoff is unaware of some of the heavy weaponry legally owned by civilians, which includes tanks and artillery, in addition to old or new manufactured muzzle loading cannons, and the ammunition to go with them. [Interestingly enough, despite its extensive gun laws, there are no laws on the books in California regulating the possession of cannon.]

  30. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Gun control isn’t about saving lives. It’s about creating a monopoly on the use of force by a socialist government against its people.

    If progs cared about saving lives they’d be building a wall on our southern border to eliminate death by exposure and sexual assaults on minors, actively deporting criminally violent illegal aliens, and severely limiting abortions, and limiting government overreach to reduce police-citizen confrontations. Remember that guy killed by police bcz he was selling single cigarettes to avoid NYC taxes on cigarette packs? Instead they invite children to be injured transiting the border illegally, actively fight the deportation of murderers, rapists and gang members, and have accelerated abortions in black neighborhoods to reduce the black population (hmmmm racist much?).

    The Second ammendment supports our natural right to self defense by any modern military style weapon- yes I would include any weapon not including WMD. If you can afford it, you should be able to have it. That’s called freedom.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      People who own land at the border can tend their own fence lines. Government is there to stop invading armies. Calling people traveling armies is disingenuous. I have no desire to see the culture here diluted and have no leftist illusions about a kumbaya multi-cultural society. However, having government secure a border is suicidal for liberty. In the modern age, such borders have been touted as a way to keep the inhabitants safe, when, in reality, they have ultimately been used to keep people in. I want to be able to flee this Roman Empire when its inevitable collapse comes to pass. Giving government more power is definitely not a solution. Infringing upon the unalienable individual right to travel is a call for even more tyranny. Allow land owners to protect their fence lines. Stop funding them when they get here. Hell, stop all government socialism. That will greatly reduce the incentive to come here or even to stay here if one is not willing to work.

      As to military armament… It’s more inclusive than that; shall not be infringed. The protection from government encroachment on our unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms is not limited to just what government has. We can have even better. It is unwise to hobble the constitutional protection and the exercise of the unalienable individual right. Nothing good is to be gained by ceding any ground; even this much.

      1. avatar ironicatbest says:

        Flight or fight. My country tiss of thee, I’m not going to be like the “brave and courageous”(Time magazine) Syrians who fled their country.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          You are ignoring the whole point about the individual right to travel and the bad things governments end up doing with hermetically sealed borders. Many don’t want government to have a monopoly on armament but will beg government to have a monopoly on individual travel. This has been proven to be a bad, bad thing.

          Governments are not deities. In fact, when unchecked they are extremely dangerous.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Also, just because you want to stay in a burning house (your choice), why would I have to stay here with you (sealed borders)? How is that moral?

          Undoubtedly, many “undesirables” didn’t want to flee Germany because it was their Fatherland. The same was probably true for East Germans and North Koreans.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I can tend my own fence lines? So you’re giving me permission to feed trespassers to the vultures? Where did you get that authority? One of the very few rational reasons for a government is to protect the borders.

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      I agree that the line should be drawn at WMDs. Then again, most countries shouldn’t have them either, including some that have them now (such as Pakistan and North Korea; India is a maybe, considering it borders a country with territorial ambitions that possess them as well). Moreover, it can be quite rationally argued that no one should have them, but that horse has left the barn.

      1. avatar Bombs Away says:

        How big (destructive) does an explosive have to be to be considered a WMD. I presume hand grenades are not WMDs.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          NBC. Nuclear. Biological. Chemical. That is WMD.

  31. avatar H says:

    I own every US anti aircraft gun. If not I want my money back. If an enlisted fellow falls I will do my best with my anti aircraft gun. So yeah I let you use my money to pay for munitions and training for my fellows who wish to enlist. Don’t forget that. Your whole thing is on loan. You don’t tell me. I tell you. Read the Constitution. It explains our relationship.

  32. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    If a restriction isn’t okay for voting, it isn’t okay for guns. That’s where I draw the line in arguments where I’m trying to rile up whoever I’m arguing with.

    “Background checks, id, competency tests, licensing, that’s all racist. You said so yourself.”

  33. avatar Ralph says:

    “When more Americans have died from guns just since 1970 (1.4 million) than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million)”

    Not only is his math FOS (most gun homicides are suicides), but his logic has collapsed into a pile of dung. 1.3 million are dead as a result of one government or another, including ours which is responsible for more than half of that 1.3 million number.

    And this smug degenerate wants us to place our lives in the hands of government? Fork him. I’ll take my chances without government “protection.”

  34. avatar ironicatbest says:

    I want a Vulcan cannon mounted on an APC

  35. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…We all agree that there should be limits”

    Yes.

    Where we disagree is who gets to set those limits.

    I don’t think you should be involved in the process of setting those limits at all because I see no problem with someone owning antiaircraft guns.

  36. avatar Bill says:

    “No one argues that there is an individual right to own an antiaircraft gun.”

    Bullshit. I am in fact arguing that there is an individual right to own an anti-aircraft gun.

    In fact, you can own one (destructive device under NFA…just needs a Form 1 or 4), and the supreme court has never questioned that fact.

  37. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Nicholas Kristof is a proud homosexual white man who is socialist progressive in his political orientation. He only believes in good gay sex. As a “minority” he thinks the government should get into your private lives which includes how you protect yourself and your family.

    He is also a supporter of preventing heterosexuals from getting married by using the Welfare Industrial Complex to prosecute single women with children, who try and have a man/ father in the home.

    1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      I take solace in the fact that if society ever breaks down Nicholas Kristof, an elitist of the first order and resident of Scarsdale (NY), will see his nice Colonial home, which is set back from the curb, overrun and looted by “urbanites” fleeing Yonkers and the Bronx.

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Nicholas Kristof the proud white homosexual living in a lily white neighborhood is just as anti civil rights as Bull Connor, Strom Thurmond, Senator Eastland or Gov George Wallace.

        And like all of them he enjoys having a government deny people their gun civil rights.

  38. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

    Scarsdale N.Y.’s “Nicholas Kristof”, ‘nuf said.

  39. I want an anti-aircraft gun.

  40. avatar Sabre22 says:

    NO We will not agree to any restrctions. If I want an Anti-craft gun I should be able to gete one. If i want an Anti-tank gun I should be able to get one. If I want a bump stock I should be able to get one. Why do GUN OWNERS Always have to give something up to prevent for a little while further harrasment

    1. avatar Mark Kelly's Diapered Drooling Ventriloquist's Dummy says:

      LAWS rockets, everyone on our side should own at least one.

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