Revealing Gun Control Laws as the Sad, Ineffective Charade They Really Are

Defense Distributed Ghost Gunner Machine CNC

“Our current gun laws are a necessary compromise among pro- and anti-gun extremes, plus a large middle that wants some gun control but not an outright ban. The NRA zealot is placated by Democratic rhetoric around banning only “weapons of war” paired with the technical knowledge that they can tolerably dodge most Blue State gun laws via the modular technology described above. The pro-gun-control Blue Staters are placated because politicians are “doing something,” and thanks mostly to ignorance about how modern guns work, think their gun laws are actually stopping the distribution of firearms when they increasingly resemble security theater.

“Defense Distributed’s ultimate goal is to kick the final, weak leg out from under this tenuous political agreement, and force a reckoning with the state of firearms technology. When the last-mile problem of untraceable, unregistered guns has finally been “solved,” even politicians can’t maintain the charade of effective gun control.

“Whether Defense Distributed manages to spark the conflict now or advancing technology eventually sparks it later, this country will come to a total impasse on guns in which the existing compromise becomes untenable. What then?” – Antonio Garcia Martinez in How 3-D Printing Exposes the Fallacy of Federal Gun Control Laws [via wired.com]

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘The NRA zealot is placated by Democratic rhetoric around banning only “weapons of war”…’

    No I’m not.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Not …
      A zealot?
      Placated?
      A placated zelot?

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Not placated.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          I just now read the entire article, Gov.

          It’s well-worth the read. It’s straight-up and calls out the bullshit.

          Read the whole thing through and tell me what you think…

        2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘…it’ll never be more than a medium-frame, six-shot revolver.’

          That’s kind of like saying that being a billionaire just means you’ve got a billion dollars.

          Sounds like someone who has at least a minimum knowledge of firearms (enough to understand the concept of an 80% lower) trying to explain to completely ignorant techies how they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about without offending them. He probably should have pointed out that making your own unserialized firearm is perfectly legal so long as you don’t transfer the weapon and that the vast majority of people who do so are not doing it for illicit purposes. The ignorant left tends to think that no one would make a ‘ghost gun’ (or for that matter carry a weapon concealed on their person) without nefarious intentions.

    2. avatar RA-15re says:

      Nor am I !!!

    3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Those who could most credibly be called firearm freedom zealots are very critical of the the NRA for not being tough enough. The NRA is pretty moderate, at least if we define the term moderate as close to the middle of people who will tolerate some gun control. Though, within the bubble in which urban leftists live, the NRA would be extremists.

    4. avatar anonymoose says:

      It should be “the NRA fudd is placated by Democratic rhetoric about only banning ‘weapons of war'” not “NRA zealot.”

    5. avatar barnbwt says:

      There are no NRA zealots, just zealots who happen to also be members of the NRA. When’s the last time the NRA were adamant about anything?

      1. avatar pieslapper says:

        They’re definitely adamant about begging for money.

        1. avatar CC says:

          NRA is outspent by gun control lobby 20:1. Why would they not be asking for money?

    6. avatar Nanashi says:

      I’d assume by “NRA Zealot” they mean the kind of people who lead the NRA like Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox and Marrion Hammer. These “zealots” stand for nothing BUT compromise.

      1. avatar Howard A McClellan says:

        The NRA is all we have in Congress to lobby against gun control. And I agree the should be a lot more aggressive when they lobby in Congress. But that doesn’t mean we should not support their efforts in Congress there all we got. That’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And would also help the liberals a lot with there gun control agenda.

      2. avatar CC says:

        STFU already. We know you don’t support — and have never done anything yourself — to realistically push back against gun control. The NRA is imperfect but is the ONLY organization doing anything at a serious level.

        1. avatar PistoleroJesse says:

          lolwut?! Alan Gura does not work for the NRA.

      3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        According to my wife, Mr. LaPierre and his wife are super nice people.

        For what it’s worth.

    7. avatar Fudds Mckenzie says:

      You say that but do you vote or pay dues any differently than you would if you were eating it up?

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Funny how even when writing about the uselessness of prohibition they still can’t admit it’s useless. I guess, for them, the utility of it all is in the imaginary feels that come with pretending something is happening.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      For the useful idiots, yes. For those pulling the strings, the real goal is to have more laws on the books they can selectively enforce against those who oppose their continued acquisition of power.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Now THAT is the truth. Most all government loves them some selective enforcement. Like waving around a 30-rd mag on national TV immediately after they were declared contraband and worth a huge fine and prison time, with total impunity, because you know you are immune from prosecution due to being, yourself, a grabber.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      I’d say they had a very reasonable assessment, at least in this excerpt. Laziness & ignorance are the last justifications for gun control. Wilson is seeking to remedy that and force a reckoning, however it may turn out.

  3. avatar Timothy says:

    I want gun restrictions like I want speech restrictions. Does my shouting FIRE in a crowded theater cause someone to get trampled? I should get punished for improper use, not restricted from having a voice simply because I MIGHT shout fire.

    If a new medium for speech is invented “like the internet”, then I should be free to use that. Similarly, if a new means of firearms production comes along, like the ghost gunner, then I should have access to that.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      It’s funny how progressives try to say the 2nd amendment only covers muzzle loading muskets but disagree when it is countered by their logic the 1st amendment only covers town cryers and Guttenberg type printing presses.

      1. avatar Shire-man says:

        By the way they are shutting down payment processing, Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, Youtube, etc… accounts and trying their damnedest to bolster up dead tree rags it won’t be long before we see (D) campaign commercials where they are holding up laptops as “assault printers” and saying exactly that, that our 1st Amendement right to free speech and press only applies to the printing press and our right to Assembly only applies to designated and permitted “free speech zones” and our right to religion only applies to an approved faith and our right to petition is cute and all but fat lot of good it will do.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Yes, drawing parallels with free speech won’t have much effect on leftists. They oppose free speech too.

        2. avatar anonymoose says:

          Islam, Reform Judaism, or Atheism+. Make your pick.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Hadn’t you heard? They now want to ban the muzzle loader that has an integral silencer because someone could be killed and never hear the shot that killed him! Thousands could die! (I saw this on Tucker.)

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          So, murder is legal if you have one of those? Cool!

  4. avatar Felixd says:

    Mr.Garcia’s logic is so convoluted and biased that effective commentary is difficult. He appears to be just another liberal deeply entrenched in the muck of socialism in that he presumes government is the ultimate authority over the people. It’s unfortunate he’ll never understand what living in a democratic republic actually means.

    1. avatar Thomas J. says:

      “…It’s unfortunate he’ll never understand what living in a democratic republic actually means….”

      It’s unfortunate he’ll never understand what living in a… constitutional republic that has democratic representation… actually means.

      There…fixed that you ya. It’s kinda of an important distinction.

      1. avatar Felixd says:

        Actually, to be percise, it is a constitutionally limited democratic republic. It was not claimed to be a democracy, but rather a form of government were the people elect representatives by majority vote. We elect representatives so it is not a pure democracy, but we elect them by a majority of votes so it is democratic. The constitution limits what these elected representatives can do. These rules apply within all of the United States except Illinois which is a People’s Democratic Republic. You know, something like East Germany.

        1. avatar JR says:

          Yes and just like East Germany without the right funding and planning it’s very hard to get out of Hellinois.

        2. avatar Thomas J says:

          Sir, to site the word limited, in referring to the constitution, is superfluous, as that action is inherent in its operation. In other words, detailing that the constitution limits the federal government is as unnecessary as saying a “swimming” fish, it is its raison d’être. However, what is ofttimes omitted is the Federal equation to this mix, that being our federation of states, that will (often)(sic) include Illinois.

          Additionally, the act of electing representatives is not the limiting factor of “a pure democracy”, rather the constraints placed on them by the constitution, among other factors, that remove it from that form of governance. A “pure democracy” often results in the majority tyrannically ruling the minority, frequently referred to as The Tyranny Of The Majority.

          Finally, Article 4, Section 4 defines the United States as a Republic.

          Therefore good sir, to be precise, we are a Constitutional Federal Republic with Representative Democracy.

  5. avatar GS650G says:

    The failure to address socially unacceptable behavior makes gun ownership necessary and the political ideas we see today reinforces that requirement.

  6. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

    “…this country will come to a total impasse on guns in which the existing compromise becomes untenable. What then?”

    What then?

    Why, they will have an excellent opportunity to work on their coping skills!

    *snicker* 😉

  7. avatar MarkPA says:

    This sums it up nicely.

    Assuming one desires some form of gun-control there are, fundamentally, two approaches:
    1. – control imposed at the moment of “point-of-sale”; or,
    2. – control imposed throughout the period of possession.

    #1 is the NICS-check and 4473 form. The “gaping hole” is the “gun show loophole” AKA, private transfers between two non-FFLs. #2 is felon-in-posession.

    Why doesn’t the criminal justice system (CJS) simply rely on #2? A felon-in-posession is either in his home or on the street. If in his home he might enjoy 4A protection; but, if he is on parole that simply doesn’t exist. If any roommate is on parole, then no one in that home has 4A protection. If he is on-the-street he is vulnerable to stop-&-frisk (Terry stop). The cops know where most of the felons are; it’s a relatively straightforward matter to troll for the likely suspects and eventually find them in unlawful possession.

    Then what? The prosecutor has to prosecute. The judge/jury has to convict. The warden has to room and board the prisoner for many years. Yet, clearly, that works; at least in so far as it keeps a felon with a propensity to go armed away from potential victims.

    The problem is that the prisons are already filled to capacity with male young minorities. Our society has reached the saturation point; we will not have any more male young minorities in prison. We prefer to have them at liberty, killing one another.

    So, the delusion we harbor is that by #1 we can somehow stem the flow of guns to felons. That worked – to some extent – when guns were expensive and less plentiful. Alas, manufacturing has made guns cheap. Guns gradually became so plentiful that the volume of gun thefts rose to augment the supply of guns purchased at retail by felons and their straw buyers. Smuggling would become a problem even if guns (miraculously) disappeared from the legitimate market.

    Now, Cody is pushing the issue. 3D printing is still merely a concept; but, clearly, in a few years, it will compete with the 80% frame. Banning the sale of 80% frames will not have any effect. Today, the CNC mill is a more significant phenomena; but, it’s harder for the public to grasp. So, the 3D printed “gun” is the concept to promote. The public doesn’t have to understand the reality; it suffices that the public THINKS that a “gun” can be printed something like a document can be photocopied.

    Our task is to educate the public. All the effort at promoting new laws to control guns at point-of-sale with more NICS-checks and 4473 forms is a diversion of resources that would better be invested in controlling felons (and, treating depressed people who are vulnerable to suicide).

    Public education serves to groom the battlefield. After the public absorbs the message we take our case to legislators. We give friendly legislators talking points as to why gun-control at point-of-sale is a waste of money; resources need to be directed at felons, depressed people, and root causes. All the legislators need are sale-able talking points. They will cheerfully talk about spending even MORE money on police, courts and prisons. They will cheerfully talk about spending even MORE money on public health projects. Political power comes from the power to spend on contractors and professional organizations who will contribute to campaigns.

    How much can the union of ATF agents spend on buying politicians? How much can printers of 4473 forms spend on buying politicians? How much can the data-center contractor who runs NICS spend on buying politicians? Gun control at point-of-sale is NOT a GROWTH industry for political contributions.

    To be sure, Bloomberg has more money to spend buying legislators than do prison unions and industries. More than mental-health providers. So, seemingly, what I suggest should be a loosing proposition. But that’s not entirely the right calculus. Politicians ultimately care about votes, not contributions. A sizable minority of legislators opposing gun-control at point-of-sale can stop a bare majority of legislators taking Bloomberg’s money.

    Ultimately, the proposition is one of communicating to the public that: felons must be controlled; and, depressed people must be diagnosed and treated. Compelling felons to switch to cutlery & clubs isn’t a promising proposition. Waiting for suicides to present themselves in Emergency Rooms is not a promising proposition.

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      Shift the ‘control’ away from the object, and on to the possessor.

      Are you not legally allowed to posses a gun, and you posses one (or more)?

      The long arm of the law on you.

      As long as the gun isn’t reported stolen, it isn’t anyone’s business what guns you own…

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        “. . . what guns you own”. That remark is very thought-provoking; and along the lines of my thinking. Just as a gemologist examining a cut diamond, we can look at any object of interest according to its several facets.

        – mode of acquisition
        – possession
        – ownership
        – context of possession
        – composition of the artifact
        – likely many others.

        I urged de-emphasis of mode of acquisition. You call out “ownership”; a distinct facet.

        So, I own a gun that has been in my son’s possession for many years. I owned another gun which had been out of my possession for 40 years. I knew the family that had possession but not the particular family member; nor did I have any idea of where it was located physically. How is it that my ownership is material in either such case?

        I think you are correct in calling into question the public safety utility of knowing who “owns” what gun. Why go to the trouble of keeping track of such a facet if – in so doing – you can’t accomplish much to improve public safety.

        The most government could do – I think – is to attend to who possess an object that is dangerous. The next most useful thing might be to attend to whether the possession is in some context that isn’t appropriate.

        E.g., one may possess a hand grenade. That’s fine, assuming one isn’t a prohibited person. In what context is that hand grenade possessed? In a “magazine” suitable for its storage? At a range where one wishes to practice effective use of such a weapon? In transit from one to the other? Or, is the context of possession somehow unseemly? E.g., at a public gathering of the Boston Marathon.

        Who has legal title to the hand grenade doesn’t seem to have immediate utility for public safety concerns.

  8. avatar 2aguy says:

    The pump action shotgun is a current weapon of war. The lever action rifle was a weapon of war used, as the left will eventually point out, at “genocide” against native peoples….and the 6 shot revolver has also been a weapon of war. So when the left says they only want weapons of war….keep the above in mind. Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment. They want to ban the AR-15 rifle, a weapon that has not been used in war, because it is a semi auto rifle. If they can get us to ban that most common of semi auto rifles because it is “too dangerous” for normal people, then they can come back and say they can ban all other semi auto rifles, pistols and shotguns because they all operate the same as the “too dangerous” AR-15. That is why they are so hard on for banning the AR-15. You heard them say this at the CNN Town Hall when they screamed they want to ban all semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns.

    Remember, in November, vote Republican, because only a Republican Senate can confirm judges for Trump….the last line against gun grabbers. If they take the House, the democrats will impeach Trump, and leverage that impeachment agains Never Trump Republicans and Squish Republicans to get them to side with the democrats in not confirming any nominees at all…..because Trump is under going impeachment…and a chance of a lifetime to protect the 2nd Amendment will be lost…. Go and vote….vote Republican, at least for 2 more election cycles.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      This “weapon of war” distinction seems to be wholly lacking in merit. Just exactly what are the indicia that we can rely upon to distinguish arms suitable for civilized warfare from those that are not suitable for that function?

      Historically, there was one such case that WAS universally acknowledged. Prior to April 19, 1775, it was readily acknowledged that the rifle was suited only for hunting but entirely unsuited as an infantry weapon. It took far too long to reload. By the time a rank of riflemen tamped a new ball on a fresh charge they would be overrun by the enemy in a bayonet charge.

      And, then, came the retreat from Concord. Militiamen, simple farmers, neglected to read the memo. The rifle was perfectly suited to a long-distance shot at a mounted British officer. Admittedly, shooting an officer was simply beyond the pale of civilized warfare; nevertheless, as we are so often reminded, the doctrine of what is politically-correct is subject to evolution.

      And so it is today, that military doctrine changes as battlefield types and circumstances change. The sub-machinegun declined in use after WW-II; nevertheless, the US military is back in the market shopping for this type. Was it – for 50 years or so – a “non-military” weapon?

      How could we know if an Any-Other-Weapon (a “gadget gun”) was a “military” type of weapon or not? Would each of the Special Forces certify that they did/did-not employ any certain type of AOW?

      And, ultimately, how can we square the prejudice against “military” type arms from the “necessity” of a “well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state, . . . “? If – arguably – the prefatory clause of the 2A is controlling then the “arms” having the highest and most certain Constitutional protection would be those most consistently used by military units; arms used exclusively (or predominantly) for sports would seem to have the lowest level of protection.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      There is almost no category of modern civilian firearm that is not issued by an armed service:
      – pump action shotgun – yes
      – semi-auto shotgun – yes
      – bolt action rifle – yes
      – semi-auto rifle – yes
      – semi-auto handgun – yes

      I think at least 90% of firearms models available would have some analog that’s in current service as a “weapon of war”. I can’t think of a revolver that’s currently issued, but they obviously have been issued in the past.

  9. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    I have some better ideas….

    1.Ban the Democratic party.

    2. Prohibit Authoritarian behavior by our elected officials. Who attempt to infringe upon any part of the U.S. Constitutional/Bill of Rights…With severe penalties…Fines, Prison, or the Death penalty! For extreme circumstances.

    3. “Constitutional Purchase/ownership/carry…Unless adjudicated of a serious crime….

  10. avatar Michael says:

    A tall tree, a short rope, a steady horse and a shovel. It’s worked before and it will work just fine right now. We’re way past time to let traitors dance with Danny D.
    Foxtrot, Kilo, Alpha. 30

    1. avatar Howard A McClellan says:

      I have to agree with that and the Patriots can start with Nasty Plugugly and Chuckles Schumer and the rest of the socialists in the democratic party.

  11. avatar Sheep dog says:

    EVERY TIME! POTG thumb their nose at the law, things get banned or heavily regulated
    Bullet buttons
    “Featureless AR rifles”
    Bump stocks
    Trigger cranks
    Now ripe for the picking are 3D printing, 80% receivers, “so called ghost guns”
    Next will be the shock wave “ street sweeper”

    1. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      I can sum up your line of thinking as follows:

      “If we all turn in our guns, they’ll stop passing more gun control laws.” *taps head*

      1. avatar Sheep dog says:

        I was making an observation; when the progressive Marxist learn something new they use the rules for radicals, name it, isolate it, freeze it.
        We are NOT gaining any gun rights ground.
        The nra is a toothless dog; in the past the barking scared the progs so they would sneak around gun control ; now they know the nra is impotent; come out with a full on assault on the 2nd A.
        What we need is a 1775 event; no one has the cajones to do it (myself included)
        Because mah job, home, retirement, car, family, comfortable lifestyle, so-on and so-forth.
        The 2nd A isn’t more important than those thing I listed to most people.
        Only when events like the 92’ LA riots, Ferguson, and the aftermath of hurricane Katrina do people say “Oh S#!t, I need a gun because the rule of law has broken down and the police ain’t gonna protect me, I’m on my own. They then realize it’s too late, the guns they need have been banned and cant be leaglly bought.
        Nobody wants to be a martyr for the 2nd A, labeled a right wing extremist.
        So we come to TTAG and bitch about tyrants stealing our liberty.
        So for now we’re all waiting for that Historic Watershed moment before we act.
        There is a FINE LINE we must walk, let the Democratic process work, before the declaration of war against leftist aggression. But when the likes of Andrew Cuomo, bloomberg and open democrat Marxist control the show, “the fix is in” .

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      Keep on keepin’ yer head down then, “sheep dog” lol.

      We only have encryption tech as civilians (you know, only the entire web economy) because someone thumbed their nose at ITAR like Wilson is now.

      1. avatar Sheep dog says:

        Hey, at least I can truthfully admit it.
        I vote, support gun rights groups.
        You don’t get shot (metaphorically speaking)
        When you keep your head down. Its about tactics. No reason to James Yeager myself.

        1. avatar CarlosT says:

          You do if they storm the trench and machine gun everyone in it. They’re going to do everything they can to hose us, no matter our efforts to appear “reasonable”.

  12. avatar brian says:

    “The NRA zealot is placated by Democratic rhetoric around banning only “weapons of war” paired with the technical knowledge that they can tolerably dodge most Blue State gun laws via the modular technology described above.”

    There’s no way to “tolarable dodge” blue state guns laws where I live. you try that and you go to jail and lose your rights for life.

    1. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      Only if they catch you. If you’re an otherwise law abiding citizen, how the hell would they find out?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. You have no rights, and if you just ignore that and go about your business, and you get caught, you may lose the rights which you already gave away? I carried for 30 years before the first day I did so legally. In darn near every state in the union, barring AK, HI, and the Northeast, where you could not convince me to go. Since I finally got a license, I have also been in every state in the Northeast and yes, I was carrying a loaded gun through the middle of NYC, all over NJ. Ask yourselves, in NY or CA, how often are you searched, or is your home searched, for naughty guns? Once a week? Once a year? *EVER*?? And most times, you’ll get away with “I didn’t know” the first time.

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    If Cody is successful in his mission, the Left will have no choice but open revolution (which has already begun — or have you missed out on Antifa roaming the streets?) and a coup d’etat against the President (which has been going on since the day he was elected).

    At that point, the Left becomes fair game. Which is why the Left is working so hard to shut off Cody’s process now, while they are still winning.

    1. avatar Howard A McClellan says:

      Codys printed guns are no threat to anybody. You can’t fire more than a very few rounds before it blows up in your hand. And you might lose a finger or two in the bargain. The liberals are just using this as a way to keep attention on their gun control agenda. What or they going to fear next the water gun or cap gun you had as a child.

  14. avatar Jake says:

    “The pro-gun states will maintain their pro-gun stance, whatever the gun violence rates may be.”

    Too bad the opposite will be true. It should read : “The gun-ban states will maintain their gun-ban stance, whatever the gun violence rates may be.”

  15. avatar Eric O says:

    [It doesn’t take a lawyer to know that within the boundaries of the US, there is no such thing as a legal gun control law.]

    Article. I. Section. 1. All *legislative Powers herein granted* shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

    [No legislative power to regulate firearms has ever been delegated to Congress, and we know this from the very first sentence of the body of the constitution. If anyone is confused by this, the preamble to the bill of rights will clear it up:]

    The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, *in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers*, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

    [Such that]

    Article the fourth [Amendment II]

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, *the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*

    [In addition, as a result of the states having failed their citizens in protecting their rights:]

    Article. XIV.
    [Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]

    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    [Since Congress has no power to regulate firearms, it doesn’t matter what SCOTUS has to say about those illegal laws; nor does it matter whether POTUS is actively enforcing those laws: both would be acting outside the Rules of Law in upholding or enforcing any such law. Any argument to the contrary proves the need for the right in the first place. The NRA assisting with the violation of this right in any way shape or form (NICS, for example) every bit the enemy as any blue state.]

  16. avatar SurfGW says:

    Author misses the point that printed guns have a long way to go to be effective weapons that don’t blow up after a few shots. Defense Distributed’s Liberator pistol is more symbolic than practical.

  17. avatar Red in CO says:

    The source article is actually fairly well written and brings up some interesting points. The author is very clearly anti-gun, but he does lay bare a lot of the issues. It could also be a good primer for leftists who refuse to listen to us because we’re “right wing nuts” but would maybe be willing to learn from a left-leaning source

    1. avatar CC says:

      NRA has 58% approvals in the latest nationwide gallup on their approvals. It moves between 45%-to 64% historically.

      The Wired author setting up NRA supporters as “zealots” when the NRA is profoundly mainstream, shows a deep and counter-factual bias.

  18. avatar W says:

    This is just an illustration how a Wired writer (and his editor) can think that he knows the thoughts and intentions of an NRA member, but really he has no idea. But he thinks that he has more than an idea, he thinks that he has knowledge.

    And so it is with many experts. They know that they know something, when really they don’t know it at all.

  19. avatar RMS1911 says:

    Still waiting on them to figure out shall not be infringed precludes “gun control” laws.

  20. avatar RedRed says:

    Notice that the Second Amendment of the Constitution is ever breathed here. That’s because they don’t want to be called out on the “shall not be infringed” part!

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