Design Mom: It’s Inevitable…Guns WILL Be Banned

guns will be banned

Bigstock

At least they’re being honest:

People think guns will never be taken away. But there is a tipping point and I think we’ve reached it. The time for half measures is long gone. And now guns will be banned.

Apparently all gun owners are amoral ghouls:

Is it the 1% who are the bad guys? Gun owners in this country refuse to allow, or fight for, even the simplest most obvious regulations. Just because someone doesn’t pull the trigger doesn’t make them blameless.

And I think we have to ask: What is a responsible gun owner? It’s a term gun owners like to throw around, but it’s ultimately meaningless. I wish we would define it and then legally make that definition the minimum.

I have an idea. Let’s do this for journalism and First Amendment rights, too:

It’s not useful to claim you’re a responsible gun owner unless that term is defined and people are required to conform to it.

– Design Mom, It’s Too Late. You’ve Lost Your Guns.

 

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Oh she’s adorable. She going to go door to door to confiscate guns? Because if so, I’d estimate her expected survival time in seconds. If she’s expecting others to do so for her, she will be shocked that most of the people who know how to use guns effectively aren’t in a big hurry to obey worthless commie harridans.

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Regardless of opinions about what might happen, I wonder what she would say about the rates of non-compliance everywhere extensive bans are currently in effect?

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        ignoring laws and non-compliance seem to be the coming trend…shades of prohibition!

    2. avatar Tim U says:

      Unless they are California police officers. Then they obey the statist without hesitation or question.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Perhaps start the confiscations in areas that have the highest crime and murder rates?

      No. They’ll do a few “shock- and-awe” raids on octagenarian farmers with the media already in place the record the might of the state against the scourge of gun owners.

    4. avatar John Boch says:

      Does she need directions to my house? Let her start here.

      ETA: Jesus. I went to the site and started to read her LONG, LONG, extremely LONG post. It’s like she’s trying to convince herself that the earth is flat. When she knows it’s bee ess.

      1. avatar Frank white says:

        No to mention she deleted posts that don’t agree with her or are from people that aren’t regulars.

  2. avatar Disillusioned says:

    Who made her exalted queen since she has self important authority to ban guns? I couldn’t get through her rant.

      1. avatar Cpt. Obvious says:

        Liberal Logic: “Guns Are Too Evil / Dangerous To Be Allowed; … We’ll Compulse The Confiscation / Surrender of FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY MILLION of Them Because There’ll Be No Repercussions Whatsoever.”

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Well, to some extent WE gave her importance (far more than she deserves, probably) by paying attention to her rant.

    2. avatar napresto says:

      If she’s going to force her twisted world view on others, she’s going to need a lot of guns…

    3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Who made her exalted queen since she has self important authority to ban guns? I couldn’t get through her rant.”

      Well, I (unfortunately) read her rant. Know the enemy, etc.

      She’s a lawyer. She knows it’s gonna be a heavy lift. She thinks that her ‘feelings’ trump constitutional rights.

      I don’t think she has a clue as to the kind of push-back that she just signed herself up for…

      *snicker* 😉

      1. avatar Lost Down South says:

        > I don’t think she has a clue as to the kind of push-back that she just signed herself up for…

        I wonder how she’d react to a wrong-address no-knock on her house.

      2. avatar Cliff H says:

        How does one study law and pass the BAR exam and get to be a practicing lawyer in America and have totally missed that the Second Amendment does NOT say: “…the right of responsible people to keep and bear arms…” but it DOES say: “…shall not be infringed.”?

    4. avatar N64456 says:

      The dumb c**t is deleting all the comments that refute her shit…

  3. avatar No one of consequence says:

    The original article is a little over a year old.

    And places like California and New York are in fact in the process of banning guns. Just not quite all at once.

    1. avatar StLPro2A says:

      And, CA and NY have placed the “camel’s nose under the tent” of gun confiscation…….Red Flag Orders.

    2. avatar Nigel the expat says:

      They got smart to incrementalism years ago. Take a bite a time.

      They trot out ‘big change’ legislation every now and then to test the waters, the pull back, and offer up a ‘small bit’ law. Often as not your Red legislators trip over themselves to seem reasonable, and hoping gain points with their more left-leaning constituents, they agree. “See, we are reasonable. Keep us in office.”

      Rinse, repeat…over and over.

      Well, until you have a blue super-majority in your state, then they just shove it in without kissing you first.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Indoctrination, social engineering, and normalization; incrementalism favors tyranny.

      2. avatar Cpt. Obvious says:

        “then they just shove it in without kissing you first”

        Pro Tip: — Ironically, That’s Also How Bullets Work.

        13 Trillion of them.

        1. avatar cgray says:

          130 thousand rounds per gun owner, huh?
          No.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “130 thousand rounds per gun owner, huh?
          No.”

          Why not? Sounds like a reasonable number.

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          What, you don’t buy your 5.56 NATO in the 12,500-round drums from Brownells?

        4. avatar Cpt. Obvious says:

          Just a quick Cpt. Obvious note that cgray might not be the best source for mafimatiks; his figures are off by 100,000 .. each.

          If you look into it, a figure quickly into 300 Billion is on the low side for common storages, and doesn’t even begin to address private, state, and federal stockpiling. 13 trillion is the conservative end of a figure that runs in estimates from 13 to 20.

          Always a genuine pleasure getting jabbered-at, though. +1!

        5. avatar cgray says:

          13 trillion divided by 100 million gun owners is 130,000, champ.

          You’re as stupid as you are arrogant.

        6. avatar Cpt. Obvious says:

          “13 trillion divided by 100 million gun owners is 130,000, champ”

          Ugh, you’re the one that keeps saying ‘per owner’, which you Also get wrong. (it’s more like 86 million). But the standard used in the stats isn’t rounds per owner, it’s rounds, boxes, cases per gun, which 13 trill / 420 mil is 30,900-ish. Not “130,000”. You’re off by 100,000 per, just like I said.

          300 Billion is on the low side for common private storages. Start with the maffs on that one and you’ll begin to see that you’re up your butt. 300 billion / 420 million is only 714 per.

          THEN private, (and Commercial), THEN state, THEN federal stockpilings

          They’re not ‘my’ figures, putzy. Go learn up.

          (In foresight of some further wimpsauce, No .. I’m not your Free Googling Service. It’s not my fault or problem that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Go do it yourself.)

        7. avatar cgray says:

          How do you remember to breathe?

  4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Molon Labe. Come and take ’em, Gabby. If you think it’s time for a second Civil War…

    1. avatar possum says:

      Civil War? Won’t happen, can’t happen. To many variables, the one thing that a civil war needs to succeed is the support of the populace.T he populace thinks by eliminating gums that will fix the big picture, it wont, if they want a fix it “they” need to eliminate the drug use in America, it’s a mess that stripping a Constitutional Amendment will not fix At this point people are more worried about what’s posted on Facebook or Twitter. As I’ve said before for every gum confiscated someone loses their face book account, oh the uproar, NO that’s a violation of my rights. “They ” will get what they want until “they” have it. Ironicatbest

      1. avatar Henry Braud says:

        I don’t see how banning or confiscating “gums” will make society less violent except to possibly make it difficult to speak with clarity. Am I wrong?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I don’t see how banning or confiscating “gums” will make less violence except to make it difficult to speak with clarity. Am I wrong?”

          Let me saddle up one of my larger hobby horses….

          The question is not whether banning (removing entirely) guns will make less violence, but where that less violence will be resident. Gun grabbers do not care a whit about guns in “bad places” (inner city), do not care about violence in “bad places”. Gun grabbers care only that there be no guns, no “gun violence” in places “good people” like to go. Their fear is that they will be shot while mindlessly walking through their neighborhood, favorite shopping venues, favored restaurants, upscale schools, and wherever else “good people” congregate. “Good people” do not hang out in “bad places”, with “bad people. Ergo, “bad things (mass shootings) should not be allowed in “good places”. The only way to feel safe is to make sure gun owners can’t be in “good places”, and suddenly “snap”, and start shooting “good people”. Remove the guns.

        2. avatar UpInArms says:

          We can look to the UK for a good example. Guns have been pretty much banned, and now they have a horrendous knife problem. Its at the point that they are looking at doing knife control now.

          Take the guns out of “gun violence” and we’re still left with violence.

      2. avatar Gadsden says:

        I read this a lot on line, that no one will actually fight when the time comes. Or the time to fight was (insert time here.) I vehemently disagree with those statements. Throughout history, it always goes this way. No one ever seems like they’re going to fight, until they do. People are always seemingly lazy and submissive, until they aren’t. The American public has been accused of having no stomach for war multiple times by multiple foes, and they are proved wrong time and again.

        1. avatar napresto says:

          Everyone has a threshold, beyond which they’ll switch into “force is needed” mode. As a country we certainly haven’t reached that threshold yet, which is very good, but we do keep inching closer to it, which is very bad…

        2. avatar UsedtobePun says:

          Having “no stomach for war” and then putting boys on the front line in some foreign country by government diktat by way of false flag terrorism is a far cry from not having the cajones to water the tree of liberty as/when needed.

          Plus the gun confiscation crow knows it’s only a matter of time. They will politicize the heck out of every shooting scenario they can and then wait for the boomer generation to die off. That’s all they gotta do.

          As soon as dad who was a Vietnam vet and a “gun nut” is dead, his suburban living, Fortnite playing, liberal college educated son will donate all of his guns to the shredder and/or give them up when the inevitable “your piece of metal and plastic is now contraband” order comes down in his State or by Federal decree.

          I don’t want it to come to civil war mind you, I think we should just split up. It’s beyond obvious that we are not a “United States” any longer…if we ever were. I say bring back City States and/or just let the States go their own way as they want and form whatever new alliances/republics they want. I don’t go to New York or Cali now due to their laws and customs so why would it be any different if they were to become independent Californistans or the United Socialist Republic of New York?

          But it never will happen. The shooting is inevitable. It’s just a matter of when…but it is past time as to when it should’ve happened. Faith in government, police, etc along with hyper-patriotism is always a killer.

        3. avatar Gadsden says:

          The British didn’t think we’d have to stomach far either, but when they came to confiscate the militias guns, the war began, lasted 8 years, saw a number of embarrassing US defeats, and America managed to win. Both the north and south didn’t think either side would have the stomach for much fighting in the civil war, but 4 years and nearly a million dead later proved both were very wrong in assuming each other’s tenacity. The Germans thought America was too squeamish to fight on the western front in WW1. All but one Japanese leader thought America would fold after one massive attack, and one German leader thought Americans too inferior due to race mixing to make a formidable foe in WW2. A Russian leader figured America would retreat and collapse under the pressure of the Cold War, and more recently an Arab leader figured America would give up and go home after only a couple years of war. All of them have been proved wrong, even most recently, as it stands. Now we’re accused of being too lazy, too fat, too dependent to defend our rights, when the time comes for the final ultimatum. I believe when that time comes Americans once again will prove them wrong.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We had organized and experienced militia when we took on the British. The militia had visible and known leaders. We had visible and vocal political leaders who were respected in the colonies. We have nothing today that approximates “the militia” of those days.

          A loose, erratic mob of gun owners isn’t going to get it done.

        5. avatar Gadsden says:

          The militia and continental army started out piss poor, in both organization and training. It was lucky Washington was the leader. It took time and a lot of very hard lessons before they could effectively fight the British.

        6. avatar PistoleroJesse says:

          @ SamIAm who said:
          “We had organized and experienced militia when we took on the British. The militia had visible and known leaders. We had visible and vocal political leaders who were respected in the colonies. We have nothing today that approximates “the militia” of those days.”

          You haven’t been paying attention to the resurgence of shooting sports and training craze since the late ’00s.

          You also haven’t been paying attention to the proliferation of mass media indepent voices.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You also haven’t been paying attention to the proliferation of mass media indepent voices.”

          I also haven’t seen respected politicians meeting to discuss overthrowing the government. I also haven’t seen locally recognized militia of everyday citizens (gathering in the woods to shoot of fireworks is not the same type militia of the middle 1770s). Are we forgetting there was also an American Army in place? How many of the military leaders in the Revolution had also been military leaders against the French and Indians?

          In short, what we have is a random bunch of gun owners who are convinced that somehow, they can forge an effective fighting force without leadership. Even UTube flash mobs have drilled their presentation, and have a leader. Can a random bunch of gun owners be fashioned into effective militia? Of course. But….that requires organization and leadership. The militias of the day knew each other.

          Point is, the American Revolution (Civil War #1) did not spring up out of nowhere. There were years of preparation. It wasn’t begun by a random bunch of colonists who thought it intelligent to gather in a group to shoot Brits for an afternoon’s fun. In short, there has never been a successful revolution of “the people”. Every one of the revolts had leaders. Where is the leader for today?

  5. avatar MarkPA says:

    “Gun owners in this country refuse to allow, or fight for, even the simplest most obvious regulations.” Yes, this is where we’ve come to; or, the point to which we have been pushed. How has this come to be?

    The gun controllers insist upon maintaining existing regulation, and adopting new regulation, which are entirely nonsensical. One example will suffice: regulation of “silencers”. There is no mention in the Congressional records of 1934 why silencers were included; NONE. If there was a reason to include silencers in the NFA’34, it’s been lost. We know much more today than was known then; and, it’s objectively indisputable that silencers are a hearing safety device of virtually no use for any unlawful activity. Yet, the gun-controllers insist on maintaining onerous regulation.

    IF gun-controllers, and their sympathizers, were willing to debate and negotiate THEN we the PotG would make a good faith effort to discuss the few constructive and marginally effective gun regulations that might be worthy of consideration. (There aren’t many; but, we would debate them and support some such as felon-in-possession.)

    As it is, the gun-controllers have pushed the debate to the point where we are standing our ground. What choice are we left with?

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      I don’t think you should make the claim that they are “of virtually no use for any unlawful activity.”

      Because they obviously are. There is no doubt in my mind the DC snipers would have used one had it been more readily available – also the full-auto machine guns that were being manufactured in Australia several years back were being sold with suppressors – they have the same utility for the unlawful user, that they do for the lawful user – just as a car. I think we should make the argument though, that if they are not EXCLUSIVELY used for crime, then the Law abiding utility should take precedence. It just seems disingenuous, to me, to try to claim that they wouldn’t be used for unlawful activity. EVERYTHING is used for unlawful activity.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        @Chris: You make reasonable points. Nevertheless, on balance, I maintain my position.

        We know that on a relatively powerful gun a silencer muffles the sound to a marginally dangerous level. It’s still very loud. It doesn’t do a criminal much good to reduce the report from 160 Db to 140 Db if the latter will still be heard and recognized as a gunshot.

        Most gun crime is by handguns, not rifles. Silencers make handguns much harder to conceal. Given the still loud sound, it doesn’t make much sense to carry a silencer-equipped handgun if it’s harder to conceal.

        A silencer is nearly trivial to make. A criminal intent on committing a homicide/robbery will not be inhibited by the difficulty of legally acquiring a silencer; he will make one or buy one made illegally.

        Empirically, the case is well established. There have been very few crimes perpetrated by users of silencers. Perhaps a few; but these pale in comparison to the damage to hearing by millions of firearm users.

        Should we over-regulate an artifact/practice of great benefit to society because of a single evil incident? A few? Many? How many? Silencer regulation is – I think – the best example of over-regulation in the face of scant evidence of abuse.

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          You mean like banning automobiles because some people die in auto accidents?

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Mark, it is clear to me that if we all adopt your attitudes, there will be gunfights at the OK corral, everybody wearing 2-gun cowboy rigs, and rivers of blood in the streets. /s

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The Appeaser cries out, “Why, oh why?!? How can this be!”

      Well, Mr. Appeaser… When the People ought to have been fighting with their best and giving the enemy no quarter, you were speaking soothing words and condemning the “radicals.”

      Look in the mirror.

    3. avatar Sian says:

      The only reason that makes sense was that amid the depression poaching of game animals for food was up, and silencers made poaching without getting caught easier.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        That’s always been the speculation but I don’t know that it is documented as the reason. My guess is that, just like now, some anti-gun politician tried to ban everything they could and silencers stuck – they wanted handguns too they just couldn’t get them.

        Or, maybe, someone just had a grudge against Hiram P. Maxim.

      2. avatar Southern Cross says:

        The story I heard was ranchers were claiming during the depression their cattle were being poached by people using suppressed firearms because they never heard the shots.

        A low caliber firearm at close range will kill a cow and if far enough away from the ranch house the shot won’t be heard or mistaken for another noise.

    4. avatar frank speak says:

      blame silencers bad rep on hollywood….was never an issue in europe….

  6. avatar Bill says:

    This is just a feel-good piece for her like minded readers. If you go to her site, in the comments section she complains about having to remove comments from “men” who don’t read her blog and “shouldn’t be posting here”.

    1. avatar Done in Dallas says:

      It’s an echo chamber. I put a comment in basically saying they should not blame the tool and look into SSRI drugs handed out to teenagers creating rage monsters. It was quickly removed.

      1. avatar possum says:

        Why of course it was. It’s a listen to my propaganda, believe, and STFU

  7. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Even if the articles already a year old. Her lifespan would be pretty short if she tried going door to door collecting guns. Maybe at some point in the 22nd century guns might be gone. But also by then there might just be some sort of Star Trek hand held lazer thingamabob.

    1. Funny you should mention Star Trek weapons. I was at a Star Trek convention this month selling my novels, and there’s this one vendor who goes to every convention selling (among other things) working, functional laser guns and ion rifles, even though the convention is in an anti-gun state (Maryland). From talking to him, I learned that there are no laws (yet) against laser guns, ion cannons, and the like (not even against “phased plasma rifles in the 40-watt range”, made famous by Arnold Schwarzenegger’s performance in Terminator). Right now, this guy’s laser guns can only pop balloons and burn holes in paper, but he keeps improving them, and said his goal is to make a hand-held laser powerful enough to burn through steel.

      There are no laws (yet) limiting the power of hand-held lasers, merely regulations that require additional paperwork to build the more powerful lasers (and if you fail to have the proper paperwork to build a powerful laser gun, it’s not a crime, merely a small fine to pay). Let’s keep laser guns and other Star Trek / Star Wars / Terminator weapons unregulated, as right now they’re the last bastion of unregulated guns in America!

      Hmm, maybe someone should write a science fiction story about laser guns becoming prevalent because politicians ban actual guns. I’m an SF novelist, so that someone could be me!

  8. avatar Jon says:

    Comments are open on her site. Although they appear to be heavily regulated.

    1. avatar Jon says:

      It appears that if you post something contrary to what she says, she leaves your email address and IP address as publicly viewable.

      1. avatar Carrucan says:

        The left is all about doxing those they disagree with.

      2. avatar WaXman says:

        The VPN and a burner email are your friends.

  9. avatar Roh-Dog says:

    I was a responsible ‘gun’ operator whilst an Infantryman with two tours to Iraq.
    As a Retired Army guy and a Soldier:
    AD/NDs? – Zero
    Felonies/violent misdemeanors – Zero
    Guns stolen/sold to a prohibited person – Zero
    F*cks given about some turd trying to restrict my or my fellow citizens’ – (I wish there was a quantity less than) ZERO!
    Our ability to remain Free is predicated by the threat of violence upon a tyrannical government.

  10. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “People think guns will never be taken away. But there is a tipping point and I think we’ve reached it. The time for half measures is long gone. And now guns will be banned.”

    Ah yes the wisdom of yet another Demanding Commie Mommy,my reply.

    Not without the Revolution 2.0

    “Apparently all gun owners are amoral ghouls:”

    More ghoulish than say those who would kill a baby post birth,think again.

  11. avatar Victoriaillinois says:

    It’s not about guns. It’s about control. As a group, we are law abiding. If she came to our door, we would not hurt her. Likewise she would never do that to an antifa group. They would beat her with a bat, like they did to kids at Berkley. She would never do that to a biker group. These people never bully bullies. (They bully Catholic school kids waiting for a bus.)

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      If, as a part of a national force, she came to my door and attempted to confiscate my firearms by force, I would welcome her inside, shoot her to death, and go looking for her husband and children. You be polite. At that point, the time for courtesy is long over.

  12. avatar possum says:

    I haven’t noticed Geoff the pr on here lately, hope he’s alright.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Never mind, I caught his post on the SCAR thing. My data is slower then I am

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “I haven’t noticed Geoff the pr on here lately, hope he’s alright.”

      I’m around, healing up from a broken leg.

      (Gives Possum a scratch behind the ears)

      You’re a nice Possum and don’t have Rabies, do you? 😉

  13. avatar Victoriaillinois says:

    I just went to her twitter page. It’s the stupidest collection of gibberish I’ve read in a long time. Why did TTAG give this person free publicity? She’s a mormon with 6 kids ranting about abortion/women’s issues who hates Trump. So what?

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Her rant and the comments section have been making the rounds of gun sites such as ‘Ammoland’, ‘The firearm blog’ and ‘the Gun feed’ over the last several days. It’s over a year old, but gives a view into how certain people believe, I won’t use the word ‘think’, because her and her followers are incapable of that.

    2. avatar Todd says:

      How many kids do you NEED?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “How many kids do you need?”

        Interesting you should ask.

        The current US birth rate cannot sustain the population, nor lead to growth. Not only is this situation not good for the prosperity of the nation, it is one of the reasons so many politicians want open borders….fast breeders to create an endless supply of contributors to the federal treasury, and guaranteed voters to secure a permanent dependency on government.

        Not certain, but this may be how the Romans, empire builders, became Italians (army loses war with primitive tribes in Ethiopia, 1935). Americans become Ameriagua, Amerizuela, Amerihaiti.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I lived in America when the population reached 200 million, seemed about right. Wonder when the climate change nuts will begin advocating for fewer births.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Wonder when the climate change nuts will begin advocating for fewer births.”

          Read somewhere last year, or before, some egghead declared that the planet was optimized for only about 500,000 people. Plans needed to be developed to reduce the population accordingly.

          These argue for a larger optimal population, but limits are the idea:
          https://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

          http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Hey. My wife and I have 7 kids and 9 grandkids. We saw our patriotic duty and we did it. Its up to the rest of you under performers to catch up.

      2. avatar possum says:

        According to China,One .

      3. How many guns do you NEED?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          ” in response to Todd:”

          “How many kids do you NEED?”

          “How many guns do you NEED?” ”

          Zuhzziiiinnnnngggggg !

        2. avatar KMc says:

          Dan, you have a few to sell?

        3. avatar Some dude says:

          So, it’s really all about WANTS… but, anyone who WANTS as many kids as I WANT guns is f’in NUTS!

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          How many guns do you need?

          I dunno, how many are there?

        5. avatar MyName says:

          One more, always, one more.

  14. avatar FortWorthColtGuy says:

    She reminds me of the mentality of the women behind the temperance movement to ban alcohol in the U.S.. What did that get us? Organized crime, bootlegging, violence and the like. Think banning guns will be any different?

    Luckily the Constitution and Bill of Rights is not up for a vote.

    Does this mean that if she believes that if a simple majority of Americans (50% plus 1) voted to reinstate slavery, it would be ok? After all, it was voted on and she loves democracy!

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Government is already violating the Constitution and has been for a very long time. What does a Constitution matter when it is rationalized away or outright ignored? It is as useless as a restraining order if there is no physical force behind it.

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Wish these sorts of people were required, by government regulation (enforced with heavy fines and jail times), to post their pictures, and home addresses. I want to know if there are any of these types in any places I might go because I want to be sure to never come to their aid if they are assaulted. Especially if they are assaulted by a person with an illegal handgun. As they lay dying, I want to kneel down, look right into their eyes as the light slowly dims, and shout, “Shudda been a DGU !”

    1. avatar Henry Braud says:

      DGU?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “DGU?”

        Defensive Gun Use

  16. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

    Leftists want physical control over their subjects. Europeans don’t mind socialism, because they are used to being serfs, while their governments are the lords of the manor.

    The US was founded to remove this form of slavery. Ask a leftist about it, though, and he’ll look at you like you are crazy.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      always like to paraphrase that quote of burhoyne before he was beaten at the battle of saratoga….”They’re peasants…with guns…how can peasants have guns?”…..

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        where’s that damn edit button?…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “where’s that damn edit button?…”

          Been using it for about two weeks.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “where’s that damn edit button?…”

          If you see three checkboxes below the “website” box”, which is under the “email” box, check all three, every time.

          EDIT: This comment was uploaded with all three checkboxes selected, and the Edit function appeared, whereas with my first reply the checkboxes remained unselected, and the edit funciton was not available.

  17. avatar BrowningWept says:

    TTAG, this article was written February 18, 2018 (according to the site). Collectively, are we really going to start digging into this schlock – something written by an incompetent – to keep the outrage fueled? We know they’re dumb. It’s not going to change. There’s got to be a better quote.

  18. avatar MyName says:

    “Is it the 1% who are the bad guys? Gun owners in this country refuse to allow, or fight for, even the simplest most obvious regulations. Just because someone doesn’t pull the trigger doesn’t make them blameless.”

    No, it is less than 1%, much less. 1% of the population is 3.3 million people, 0.1% is 330,000. Even of just gun owners, 1% is more than a million people. There are no where near this many violent crimes with guns in the U.S. in a given year. What “obvious” regulations are going to meaningfully impact a fraction of the population that small without massively disproportionately impacting those who are not bad guys? And, yes, by the way, not pulling the trigger does make one blameless – If I don’t shoot someone you cannot punish me for it.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      looks like [very] “well- regulated ” is going to take precedence over “shall not be infringed”

  19. avatar Carrucan says:

    Someone “Jussie Smolletted” a response to her article with foul language that gave her the perfect opportunity to paint all gun owners with a broad brush. The response is just too perfectly bad. If it’s real, and it may be because it has yesterday’s date on it, what an embarrassment.

  20. avatar Transvaluation says:

    WOW, really a year article being commented on from Feb 2018

    Guess the wacko left hasn’t started the confiscation effort yet.

    Good to know that just a simple group of votes can repeal the 2nd /s

    These people are delusional, yet call the law abiding mentally ill

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Good to know that just a simple group of votes can repeal the 2nd /s”

      We have ample evidence of simple legislation amending the constitution. All gun laws are due to a “simple group of votes”. All restrictions on the First Amendment likewise. And so it goes. “Compelling Government Interest” is the single justification for permitting legislation to neuter the constitution when it is convenient for government.

      Where, in the US constitution is there a provision for applying a “balance” of interests when it comes to deciding if an act of government is a permissible violation of natural, civil, human rights? The constitution itself is the standard of balance.

      1. avatar possum says:

        Constitution ? What’s that?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s a restraining order against government and just about as useless on its own.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “It’s a restraining order against government and just about as useless on its own.”

          Thanx, Jon. Gonna capture this and publish it here and there as my own.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          It’s all yours, my good man.

  21. avatar SurfGW says:

    She’s right, just not now. Kids grow up and cannot do anything gun related at school (even bringing a Nerf gun to school gets the kid sent home). These kids will grow up not to care about gun ownership and no one will resist when politicians ban guns.
    All of the guns from old generations will be turned in when people die.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Indoctrination and normalization. The march to tyranny.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      They are not going to be pleased with the reception my sons give them.

  22. avatar Pg2 says:

    Reading through the articles on that site, my guess this is professionally done, sophisticated AstroTurf pushing all the buttons the globalists want pushed, trying to mold public opinion.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Social engineering. Rubbish today, common thought tomorrow.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        John, the best example of that is NFA 1934. Why do you suppose that law did not simply outlaw machine guns, etc, instead putting a prohibitively high tax on their transfer? It was because 85 years ago the ENTIRE NATION understood that such an action was clearly unconstitutional and would be stomped by all segments, its authors sent home in disgrace, without a job while the Great Depression raged for another 11 years. They believed (apparently correctly) that the voter was so stupid he would not notice the effect was the same and take the case to the SC. After 85 years of constant encroachment, many apparently believe there is no more cause for caution, the Constitution is dead. There was some insignificant foreign monarch who similarly underestimated the American citizen around 1775, and learned to regret it.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          probably because no one but the bad guys…and later the cops ….had machine guns…when they tried to include handguns that was a bridge too far…

  23. avatar S says:

    Mommy blogging should be banned

  24. avatar Tim says:

    “The time for half measures is long gone.”

    Uh-oh. Fat, gender-confused, vegan makin’ real threats.

    Prolly should take a nap & rest-up for the coming battle. Kzzzzzznnngghhhhzzz…….

  25. avatar John in Ohio says:

    There’s one thing correct about that gun control piece; if liberty loving individuals don’t change how they fight then it is only a matter of time.

    Don’t y’all get it yet? No matter what you say, how you say it, or how much you “behave”, they will continue to push the same lies. They will make up new lies on top of it. They will continue to indoctrinate your children, your grand-children, and your great-grandchildren. After so many renditions, it doesn’t have to be reinforced as the victims will reinforce it themselves. It becomes normalized. Look at how many of US don’t actually support all that “shall not be infringed” entails! They will keep shoveling until they bury you. If you continue to lie there, as you have for generations, you might as well be in your grave because that’s what they will make it.

    Statues of you will be torn down. Your name will be stricken from any record of good.The thought of you will be repugnant. Everything you believed in and fought for will be desecrated. That, my friend, is our future.

    Tick-tock.

    1. avatar possum says:

      Tick tock, yes indeed. America as we once knew it and the America that will be.

    2. avatar Pg2 says:

      Well put John. In the meantime we post pictures of the pistols, knives, flashlights we never actually carry…….

  26. avatar fteter says:

    Here is the thing that has always disturbed me about the gun ban crowd. My right to own a firearm is based on the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. Key word there being “Amendment”. We have a process that could lead to elimination of the right to own firearms – simply pass a new amendment. I’ve never understood why the gun ban crowd doesn’t take that route… unless they realize they don’t have the votes to get it done 😉

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “…unless they realize they don’t have the votes to get it done.”

      Amendments take too long, even if “they” have the votes. Simple legislation is faster, thus more effective and faster.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “My right to own a firearm is based on the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment.”

      You right to own a firearm is BASED upon a natural right to self-defense expressed as an unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. Your right is PROTECTED by however much force YOU are willing to use to protect it. (As the courts declared, “Only belligerents have rights.”) The Second Amendment merely REMINDS government and future generations that it doesn’t have the authority to infringe upon that right.

      Hopefully you now realize that your right to own a firearm is absolutely NOT based upon the “U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment”.

      1. avatar possum says:

        Actually I think the right to own a firegum is based on the revenue the Govarmint receives from the firegum industry.

      2. avatar Victoriaillinois says:

        If I remember my grade school constitution lessons, the first 10 are called “the bill of rights”, and cannot me eliminated. Can anyone confirm this?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If I remember my grade school constitution lessons, the first 10 are called “the bill of rights”, and cannot me eliminated. Can anyone confirm this?”

          The text of the constitution states only one absolute, immutable, unamendable provsion: all states will have two senators, unless a state agrees to have less.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          IANAL, but I don’t think that’s correct, although your instructor might have thought so, and taught so, nobody was looking.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I actually don’t know for sure. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-does-it-take-to-repeal-a-constitutional-amendment

          However, the reality is that all are words. Without action, the exercise of any right is in jeopardy. As I wrote above; your rights are protected by however much force you are willing to use in their defense. As the courts declared, “Only belligerents have rights.” If we aren’t willing to use at least the amount of force required to retain the exercise of our rights, we will eventually lose the ability to exercise those rights. In practice, it might not directly effect us but it certainly will come back to bite future generations. The foundations of so much of the liberty crisis we suffer today were laid by generations before us. They opted not to exercise at least the amount of force required to retain their liberty or ours.

          Each generation must renew its dedication to individual liberty and prove its resolve. That is how government is reminded of who is sovereign and the People are invigorated. We have become stale and our government has grown rabid.


          Thomas Jefferson to William Smith

          Paris Nov. 13. 1787.

          persevering lying. the British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure. our Convention has been too much impressed by. . .
          —-
          https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/105.html

    3. avatar GS650G says:

      “unless they realize they don’t have the votes to get it done ”

      They are not even close to what it would take to repeal or pass an amendment like that. It’s easier to go around the back.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Same reason there has never been an effort to pass an Amendment prohibiting abortion. There is no support.

      1. The strategy wad to get five justices on the Supreme Court to simply refuse to uphold those rights.

  27. avatar NORDNEG says:

    :To, Design Mom; Unrespectivley, YOU’V LOST YOUR MIND…!!!🤪

  28. avatar Aaron says:

    what’s a “design mom?”

    oh wait, I don’t actually care.

  29. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    That means she is un-American. If she ever achieves public office or a judgeship and takes the oath required, (Article 6, clause 3 of the Constitution) and then tries in some way to confiscate firearms it would mean she lied when she took office and if she doesn’t take the oath she cannot take the office or post. And if she doesn’t believe in the UNALIENABLE right of self-defense against miscreants or a despotic government she is very dangerous. And anyone in favor of confiscation who tells you despotism cannot happen in this country ask them what the hell forcibly disarming a population actually is.

  30. avatar Herb Allen says:

    Went to designmom’s gun ban site. Lots of kvetching about the need for a complete ban on guns and Neanderthal gun owners who refuse to hand them in.

    But not one word about operational concepts, manpower, logistics, search techniques (still no national gun registry), reeducation camps, snitch hotlines, confiscation legislation, chain of command, etc.

    This just in: CA reports a huge backlog of Red Flag confiscation orders not being carried out. Are those targeted aware of their names being on the backlog list?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, one problem is that the police realize these people are armed. You go take his guns, I’m busy with this donut.

      1. Why are the police afriad to disarm gang members?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Why are the police afriad to disarm gang members?”

          Uuuuhhhh, uuummmm, like, you know, that would be like, uuuhhmm, totally hard?

      2. avatar Ted Nugent says:

        Law Enforcement Officers have been kicking in the doors of people known to be armed and dangerous and hauling them off to prison for lengthy sentences for nearly a hundred years everyday all across the country. This notion many of you have that there will be some trepidation on their part is simply demonstrably false.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          …..except there are a lot more of us than them…and they know it…..

  31. avatar GS650G says:

    I think “Design Mom” should take a look at the SCOTUS makeup, the Senate, and the WH resident and rethink her opinions.

    Better yet stick to whatever useless hobbies she blogs about.

  32. avatar M1Lou says:

    Off topic: Looks like an actual mass shooter loser was stopped before he carried out his stupidity. Too bad this didn’t happen with a few of the other crazies. I’m not sure how this guy made Lieutenant if he can barely spell and strings words together into a coherent sentence and also planned things on his government computer. Yeah, they monitor that stuff.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/20/coast-guard-officer-white-nationalist-terror-attack/2933311002/

  33. avatar Pg2 says:

    Blatant AstroTurf site. Anyone really believe designMom is a legitimate, grassroots blogger? Asleep at the wheel if you do.

  34. avatar LarryinTX says:

    Marines for 5 years, Army for some period, Coast Guard OFFICER, apparently nutty as a fruitcake! But I have as many guns and ammo as he has, tht is evidence of nothing. Plus, he stated he wanted to kill almost everyone on the freaking planet, but he was going to need many billions more rounds of ammo for that, I think he’s just crazy.

  35. avatar Swarf says:

    BREAKING: Extra fancy house mother thinks guns are icky. Details at 11.

    1. avatar balais says:

      Bourgeois, privileged, white american woman thinks guns are icky…

      LOL…

  36. avatar Shwiggie says:

    She’d better be prepared to take some bullet-first.

  37. avatar Sian says:

    She’s deleted any civil disagreement.

    So aside from the 2nd amendment, she’s no fan of the 1st, 4th, 10th and 14th, from what I’ve read.

    1. avatar MLee says:

      It’s time she’s deleted, meaning I hate giving morons a platform. I despise seeing Hogg boys face here and furthering the dweebs platform.

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      It’s mor than that. She is editing comments to sound pro-gun control. I posted a very short comment about the immorality of gun control and if you read it now I am not only pro-gun-control I am also ranting about that dude in California who was amassing an arsenal with over a thousand bullets!

      Don’t click the link, don’t give her any more traffic, if she gets ignored she and the voices in her head can go play somewhere else.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Wow yeah. What a winner.

        What kind of crap blog system allows you to CHANGE SOMEONE ELSE’S POST other than redact or delete?

  38. avatar Ralph says:

    No matter how peaceful we may be, we all have a breaking point beyond which all bets are off and all options are on the table.

    When the agents of the state break into peoples’ homes, people fight back with extreme violence. See post entitled “Houston Police to End No-Knock Warrant Raids After Four Officers Shot.”

    The b!tch known as “Design Mom” wants an answer to the following question:

    “What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?”

    — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    When she gets her answer, will she like it?

  39. avatar strych9 says:

    Wow, that article contains A LOT of fail.

    I particularly like how she claims all counter arguments are “circular logic” but then presents every single one of her arguments sans any logic.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It’s not about logic. It’s not even about “hearts and minds.” They have a captive audience in the schools, on social media, and in other media. They only need repeat the lies often enough and introduce new ones to further their cause. The mechanisms of tyranny roll in their favor, not ours. That’s why they can sling whatever bullshit they want and a lot of it seems to stick over time. They hope that we will try to reason with them. They hope for a conversation; many conversations. It’s all delay until the scales have tipped far enough to stab you in the back.

    2. avatar MyName says:

      Wow, I went and (tried) to read through it too. Epic fail. In her “Q&A” (in quotes because she is mostly talking to herself) she fails, among other things, to admit that violent crime is going *down* and instead claims that the impetus for an inevitable outright ban is because of ever-increasing carnage. She also fails spectacularly in her “how” segment. She touches on legal and legislative issues but never even approaches the big HOW. That being, just how do you get 120 million well armed people to hand over their weapons without millions of citizens dying?

  40. avatar Mad says:

    The killing of tyrants is not murder.its self defense.a tyrant is anyone who tries to disarm me.when they come we might as well all go together

    1. avatar 22winmag says:

      Nothing to worry about.

      The Tyrant’s underlings in the no knock raid business and the Tyrant’s underlings attempting baby steps in the gun seizure/ERPO business are folding up like cheap lawn chairs as we speak.

      They’re gonna need to deploy android officers to carry out the no knock warrants and gun seizure visits at this point. Wait, maybe they’ve been doing that all along.

  41. avatar balais says:

    So much cancer.

    I find it wonderful that dirtbags like this are no longer hiding behind “common sense laws”, “reasonable restrictions” and “lets have a honest conversation” bullshit empty platitudes. Just saying “we want total disarmament” means the pullback will be all the worse and you will be unable to rally behind those that really do want reasonable restrictions, but no disarmament.

    But gun owners were the paranoid and crazy ones… LOL…It looks to me like we’ve been proven correct. Any of the statements quoted above were lies and a lot of us saw right through it.

    Anyways, anti-gunners, you wont get a single fucking thing.

  42. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    they have banned illegal drugs here for 50 years…how has THAT worked out?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “they have banned illegal drugs here for 50 years…how has THAT worked out?”

      Not actually comparable.

      Drugs do not suddenly “go off” right in the middle of a nice, upscale school, and kill a dozen children. People doing drugs are “bad people” who don’t obey laws (which is why drug laws don’t work). But gun owners are law abiding, we claim that ourselves. So, whereas drug addicts and dealers are “bad people” who don’t obey laws, banning guns for law abiding gun owners means they will remain law abiding, and surrender their firearms. Gun bans would keep law abiding gun owners from suddenly snapping, and becoming “bad people” who kill people with their guns.

  43. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

    Better think of something else toots.

  44. avatar Desert Ranger Tycho says:

    Post is over a year old and was written just after Parkland. That said everything on her page is leftist horsemanure.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      the democrats are full of themselves right now….and think gun control is a winning issue…we’ll see….

      1. I wonder how the Democratic establishment got addicted to gun control.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          The word “control” sucked them in.

  45. avatar Armed Partisan says:

    Be careful what you wish for when you start calling for the abolishment of amendments; we’ll repeal the 19th long before the 2nd.

  46. avatar enuf says:

    Odds are good that eventually gun rights will be lost. It will take a long time and the root cause of the failure will be the Second Amendment’s protectors continuing to ignore the very events that fuel the misplaced anti-gun outrage. Worse, the bloviators on the pro-gun side love to embrace conspiracy theories, distracting from the real problems.

    Our side should be doing the studies on every mass shooter and proposing legislation that would have detected and prevented each one. While at the same time facing up to the challenge of protecting the rights of all us law abiding folk.

    Not doing so only permits the problems to fester, the sentiments to continue to shift. Especially among youngsters, who will one day be voting against gun rights because they have heard nothing else but this “common sense gun reform” crap all their lives.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Offering different opinions/observations, especially ones that challenge the mindset are not evidence of a “Troll”. Echo chambers provide nothing of value.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Stating the obvious on these these forums has little or no value either.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Stating the obvious on these these forums has little or no value either.”

          Unless….

          One considers that the audience here is not static; new people read, or read and comment, for the first time, and don’t have the advantage of “seen it all before”.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          I’ll bite, enuf has stated our side should be doing studies…..and ignore the blatant truth that they want our guns and have no interest in truth, facts, or science. He wants us to be like the band on the Titanic, playing tunes to make ourselves feel better as our rights slide to a watery grave.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Yes, “enuf” has posted opinions. Consider the statements, look for something that can be an interesting exercise in challenging your own mindset, accept, reject, ignore. There’s always the delete button.

          We aren’t the Taliban here.

    1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “….the failure will be the Second Amendment’s protectors continuing to ignore the very events that fuel the misplaced anti-gun outrage. ”

      No.

      The very premise of that statement buys into the anti-gun idea that bad things can be prevented by limiting the freedoms of good people.

      No Second Amendment protector is ‘ignoring’ any events anywhere. The innocent people killed by bad guys everywhere is a tragedy no matter where it happened. Focusing on the tool used by the bad guys is, to put it very bluntly, the highest form of stupidity. The hammer doesn’t build the house, spoons don’t make you fat, and guns don’t kill people.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “No Second Amendment protector is ‘ignoring’ any events anywhere. The innocent people killed by bad guys everywhere is a tragedy no matter where it happened.”

        Wondering if the long comment from “enuf” is completely understood. My take on “Second Amendment’s protectors continuing to ignore the very events that fuel the misplaced anti-gun outrage.” is that gun owners are so tunnel-visioned about politics related directly to guns, we do not see all the other events in society that are bolstering the anti-gun movement, and we have no interest in addressing those issues. Taken to an extreme, one implication is we (POTG) would vote for a pro-gun fanatic who votes for fourth trimester abortion. In other words, POTG are single issue voters who are helping to create a society where all the other “norms” are destroyed, but we are satisfied because we shepard-in national reciprocity to the exclusion of every other value.

        1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “.. we do not see all the other events in society that are bolstering the anti-gun movement”

          Something getting a lot of media coverage doesn’t make it a big thing or important thing.

          And I would make the case that we are MORE aware of all the other events in society because we understand the fundamental freedoms that make all those other events even possible.

          I have heard people tell me that we (the US) outlawed Kinder Eggs because a kid choked to death on the little toy that was inside. That one example proved that a kid dying trumps everything else (I am paraphrasing their argument, but only a bit) and that the pro-gun crowd should just go ahead and turn them in. To that I replied that one government over-reach on an unrelated item does not make a different government over-reach acceptable. That reply was not based on a single-issue principal as a gun owner, it was based on a broad understanding of the limits We the People placed on our Government. I understand those limits are pretty widely ignored these days but the limits are there and if we worked just a bit harder on enforcing those limits a lot of the other problems we are experiencing as a society would self-solve.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      It’s the urban vs rural mindset….and their numbers are increasing…..

  47. avatar Joe says:

    Design Mom made “her” first, very important, critical mistake: Underestimating ones opponent.

  48. avatar drunkEODguy says:

    “Just because someone doesn’t pull the trigger doesn’t make them blameless.”

    Too right friend, too right
    wonder if the people who voted for ERPO laws are feeling remorse for those people who got whacked by the popo for not peaceably having their property seized

  49. avatar Pg2 says:

    Sad how many here seem to believe this site/blog is written by some real leftist mom. This is professional AstroTurf. Professional social engineering. This is why we will lose.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      the pattern has already been set…with urban centers dictating legislation…and the rural areas not complying…expect to see more of that…..

      1. avatar pg2 says:

        The plan is to relocate rural populations into these urban centers. We’re well on the way. Much easier to watch, monitor, and control urban centers.

  50. avatar Jeremy Henry says:

    I actually don’t think that she is wrong. If an election tips the balance of party power to a place where Republicans only had control of the senate, or a majority in both house and senate of only a vote or 3 then I could totally see this happening. Won’t happen all at once but it will effectively occur before the mandate does. So many Republicans are capitulating on the gun policy talks and almost all Democrats are on board with extreme restrictions. The only hope we would have would be a staunch pro 2A president who would use his greatest power, the one of veto. But… Yeah, I think it is possible. The question is what happens next. There are a lot of arms and ammo that at least currently are legally owned by citizens who in their majority don’t align with the policy actions.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The question is what happens next.”

      Heller/McDonald declared gun ownership and possession an individual right, at home. Neither decision prohibits regulation of time, place and means of transport. So, expect more localities to make gun free zones (wherever posted) a matter of law regarding the presence of firearms. Where now possession of a gun in a posted business may only a citation for “trespassing”, such would become a felony.

      One might expect new law that determines that every traffic stop is considered probable cause to search for guns being moved out of the home. Another possibility is a state registry of ammunition purchases, accompanied by a limit of no more than 100 (or fewer) rounds permitted for purchase in a single year.

      And I could go on (and have many times in the past). Point being that until the SC rules that all gun laws must be directly related to a measurable increase in safety (or reduction in “gun violence/crime”), and that only “strict scrutiny” may be applied to gun regulations, tighter regulations on sales of guns, parts, accessories, ammo will become “normal”.

      1. One might expect new law that determines that every traffic stop is considered probable cause to search for guns being moved out of the home.

        so they want to do away with the 4th Amendment as well?

        Why not the 14th, since we all know who will be stopped.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “so they want to do away with the 4th Amendment as well?”

          “Probable cause” doesn’t necessarily need a signed warrant. With 100 million gun owners, one of three people in public is “probably armed, or transporting arms”; one third. Therefore, it is probable that someone stopped for a traffic violation, or a random drug checkpoint is illegally moving a gun outside the home. Besides, a traffic violation is proof on its face that the driver is not law abiding, and a non-law abiding person who probably has a gun is someone who needs to be taken off the street.

  51. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Her article is a lesson in the thought and logic of the left.

    Nothing anyone can say, no facts, nothing will alter what they think. Their minds are made up and they will plow forward.

    There MAY be a difference in motivation between the “progressive” leaders and their well indoctrinated followers but that goal is the same, no guns for citizens.

    The leaders next goal is to overthrow the Constitution, the followers like her get their feeling of “safety”.

    Reality may provide a rude awakening for all.

    Be Prepared !

  52. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    When Empress KAMALA seizes power, she will declare an Emergency Declaration To End Gun Violence, forcing the white devils to line up and turn in their Implements Of Death, whereupon they will be redistributed to BLM/Antifa Warriours and become Implements Of Peace to right the wrongs done to Indigenous Peoples.

  53. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    How will the world have to inevitably develop, for guns to inevitably be banned?

  54. avatar Derfel Cadarn says:

    When guns are banned the real killing will only have just begun !

  55. avatar Anonymous says:

    Just because someone doesn’t pull the trigger doesn’t make them blameless.

    Socialist. She’s for socialism for responsibility. Condemning the “enablers.” Like selling a shovel at a garage sale enables serial killers, selling guns to the unvetted enables murder. It’s anti-freedom and it assumes the worst of your fellow man. And it has the flavor of socialism.

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