Busse: Too Many Guns are Legal and They Should All Be Regulated Like Cars…Or Something

89
Previous Post
Next Post

 

Addressing the media favorite gun owner who supports gun control, Ryan Busse, Velshi led not with a question, but a statement:

Ryan, you come from an industry, and I’m an avid consumer of the publications that come out from the industry, because they are so interesting to understand how the psyche comes around, that has built the psyche over years, that has caused demand for guns that, in most cases, people don’t need. This is not a Second Amendment thing. This is people owning a lot of guns, and the paraphernalia that goes along with it because it does attempt to normalize that sort of behavior.

Referencing a recent incident in Atlanta. [Ryan] Busse lamented, “the tragedy isn’t what’s illegal, the tragedy here is what is legal. And as you note, this guy didn’t need six loaded guns, including an AR and a tactical shotgun to go grocery shopping, right?”

He then sought out an analogy:

But yet, Georgia is one of the states that [Brady President] Kris [Brown] mentioned that has recently rolled back concealed carry permitting. I mean, I think Americans really need to think about it this way. We have about 270 million registered vehicles in the United States, and you don’t have to travel on many of our roads to know it seems pretty crowded. We have a lot of traffic laws, right? We’ve got lines on the road, we’ve got bumpers, we’ve got speed limits, we’ve got police that are patrolling everything.

We do have a lot of traffic laws and despite them, people still speed, run red lights, and conduct unsafe lane changes resulting in nasty collisions. Still, Busse declared that a main reason for gun violence is “the NRA and the NSSF and an irresponsible slice of the American gun consumers, of which I’m not one of those, I’m a proud gun owner, I hunted yesterday with my boys.”

Shortly after Busse concluded, [Ali] Velshi turned to Brown and wondered, “But how do we get folks to understand this, that when people say it’s about the Second Amendment, and the right to self-defense, people in war don’t carry the weapons that the average American has?”

— Alex Christy in Gun Control Is Like Traffic Laws, War Is More Controlled

Previous Post
Next Post

89 COMMENTS

    • Well let’s all be stupid and take millions of motor vehicles of the streets…

      A motor vehicle is far more dangerous in the hands of a criminal than a firearm. A firearm projectile does not weigh 3 tons or does it make 90 degree turns, etc. The comparison between firearms and vehicles is intended for useful idiots who are incapable of owning firearms therefore based on personal shortcomings they believe no one else should own firearms which of course means useful idiots can go pound sand.

  1. “… that has caused demand for guns that, in most cases, people don’t need.”

    According to whom??

    “… We have a lot of traffic laws, right? We’ve got lines on the road, we’ve got bumpers, we’ve got speed limits, we’ve got police that are patrolling everything.”

    Driving is not a Constitutional right. It is a privilege.

    The same old arguments, recycled and vomited forth again and again. If you want to do something about it, revoke the Second and replace it with something to your liking, as the Founders intended. Otherwise, keep quiet.

    • LOL they really wouldn’t like guns to be regulated like cars. But it will hopefully be irrelevant so long as they don’t have the numbers for a constitutional convention or a real insurrection instead of the mostly peaceful protest they constantly bitch about.

      • A gun used on private property that goes as fast as I want, no limits on capacity, no registration. No, regulated like vehicles would not pacify them.

        • Muffler/suppressor mandatory and overwhelmingly automatic over manual operation. Oh and private sales just require a signature on a pink slip and any purchase can be delivered to your door license or no.

    • “Driving is not a Constitutional right. It is a privilege.”

      I DOUBT this sharp-line distinction really does us any good.

      There is a SCOTUS-acknowledged implicit right to travel. (I admit I don’t understand the details, but it’s clear that travel is a part of liberty). Is walking a right or privilege? Is riding a horse a right or privilege? Is it a violation of rights to prohibit horses on some bridges and highways? Such questions trouble me.

      The founding generation held a consensus that rights were innumerable while government powers were limited and enumerated. We release our grip on this principle at our peril.

      There are aspects of driving that simply make sense and impinge negligibly on rights. E.g., one jurisdiction knows that Gaya ordained that we drive on the right side of the road, not the wrong side. Yet infidels in other jurisdictions insist on driving on the wrong side of the road.

      Some rule as to side of the road to drive SEEMS to make sense. However arbitrary, even wrong, the choice taken might be, a rule here little damages the right to travel. How much does it matter to you that you insist on driving on your preferred side of the road?

      The right to arms rests on the underlying right to self-preservation. Most of our gun-control laws IMPINGE on the right to arms, therefore indirectly on the right to self-preservation.

      Yes, it’s true that when the right to arms is respected there will inevitably be someone who uses an arm (gun, cutlery, club) to violate the rights of another. Yet it is obvious that the solution does NOT lie in forbidding the presumptively innocent from using arms. She does not forfeit or alienate her right to self-preservation because society decides that disarming her aids in a campaign to reduce the lethality of HE who would respect NO law and won’t be disabled before harming another.

      Traffic laws are a different matter. Suppose you insisted on exercising the liberty to drive on the wrong side of the road. And you insist that this liberty is inviolable. Can you get a consensus from among those who travel in your jurisdiction that your liberty to drive on the wrong side of the road is paramount to their right to safety from a head-on collision?

      I suppose that a consensus will form around the idea that YOU should FORFEIT so little of your liberty as to chose which side of the road you will drive on.

      I suppose that a consensus will form around the idea that no woman should forfeit her right of self-preservation – and the means to that end – to protect the right of a larger male predator to a public trial by his peers, after indictment by a grand jury. Gaya wrote noting about grand juries in nature’s legend. Gaya disparages the rights to a grand jury or trial of peers and underscores the right to self-preservation.

      Would it not serve our purposes better to speak of a hierarchy of rights? If we fail to do so, won’t we fall into a trap?

      Suppose a green-grocer who asserts his “inviolable” proprietary right to his grocery. He forbids anyone he chooses at his own whim from bearing arms while shopping. He permits his drinking buddies, but forbids battered women who make poor choices in mates.

      Now comes a petite woman of color with a CCW in one hand and an order of protection in her other. Bearing openly, she is forbidden to trespass against the will of the green grocer. She can not feed either herself or her children if she can not shop groceries, and this green grocer is the only one in town. She can not protect herself from her ex who successfully defies society’s disarming him.

      Let’s choose sides. Some of the PotG will defend her right to carry. Others of we PotG will defend the green grocer’s right to exclude from his property anyone on any pretext and a whim.

      The gun controllers will cheer on this divisiveness of viewpoint of the PotG. They will assert that the choice between the woman’s right and the grocer’s right is merely a matter of public policy. The public can choose the side of the road to drive on. So can they decide whether to place priority on the woman’s right to arms vs the grocer’s proprietary right to exclude at whim.

      Will the gun-controllers, or gun rights advocates, prevail in the debate before a public audience? If the audience is convinced that they can choose the side of the road then they can choose whose right – woman’s or grocer’s – right takes priority.

      Might the audience decide that they would all be better off if this woman did not bear arms? That the grocer’s right to exclude serves their interest in keeping bitter women from bearing arms – whether in the grocery or the street outside?

      I hold that we would be better off arguing to this audience that reason dictates that some rights must take precedence over others. The woman, no matter how disagreeable she seems to be – has a right to self-preservation that ought to trump the grocer’s right to exclude from his grocery, a place of public accommodation.

      The grocer remains at liberty to choose a vocation not involving a place of public accommodation. He doesn’t really need to make his living as the operator of a place of public accommodation. let him run a casino and bar entry at whim.

      Gaya insists on respect for the woman’s rights to forage to feed her children just as her right to self-preservation. These have high priorities. Gaya insists on the survival of the species. Gaya is not nearly so interested in the proprietary rights of the grocer.

      Which line of reasoning do you think might persuade (wo)men-of-good-will? Blind parity of all rights with the choice between them determined by whim of the mob? Vs. The self-evidence of reason as to which rights intrinsically must trump others toward some rational goal? Might be survival of the species? Or some greater-good-for-all.

      Flame away!!!

      • or can we persuade them to create laws that private companies that accommodate the public which wish to restrict their right to arms, are saying explicitly they are providing a safe environment in which they can intervene immediately to a criminal assault, and secure the safer of all innocents?

    • … and then he goes on to say people still speed, run red lights, cause collisions, etc. I’ll bet there are fewer traffic laws than gun laws, so lets compare what happens to a DUI arrest with a Chicongo gang-banger arrest… which one do you suppose let’s the perp out to walk the streets before the cop is done with his or her paperwork?
      All violaters are equal but some are more equal than others.

  2. “People in war don’t have the weapons soldiers have”. What’s next in regards to his car analogy? “Who needs a 600hp Camaro/Vette/Mustang/hellcat, thats for race car drivers. All you need is a 100hp 4 cylinder. We don’t need racecars on our public roads, THINK OF THE CHILDREN”

    Or, “Your new car is going to have a kill switch in case you are perceived to be doing something wrong but the all so intelligent po-po”. Whoops, thats now a thing on forthcoming new cars. Happening already.

    Anyway, whatever. I hate these types people. The lovers of the taste of boot leather.

    Sorry for the Morning ramble, have not had the coffee yet.

    • No edit button? I meant to quote “people in war don’t carry the weapons that the average American has?”

        • It would be more accurate to say that soldiers are limited to what the logistics chain can provide for. Many soldiers, even US soldiers, have carried weapons not provided for, or “allowed” by the government. And, a soldier never forgets that anything extra only adds weight to his field pack. Ten boxes of .45 ACP ammo doesn’t seem like much, until you add them to a load that already exceeds 80 pounds.

      • people in war don’t carry the weapons that the average American has

        Average Americans don’t carry the weapons that people in war carry.

      • No, except for handguns and instead of semiautomatic rifles, they get full auto AKs and ARs, etc., medium and heavy machine guns, tanks, armored personnel carriers, bullet resistant vests, artillery, bombs and bombers, landmines, hand grenades, mortars, and ammunition limited only by the supply train. So in fact, people in war carry far more powerful weapons than the average American.

  3. “But how do we get folks to understand this, that when people say it’s about the Second Amendment, and the right to self-defense, people in war don’t carry the weapons that the average American has?”

    And that needs to change. The average American should have ready access to the the exact same weapons people who fight our wars carry. The 2nd isn’t about hunting. It IS about presenting an armed defense against an oppressive government. Creepy Joe is right, that average American doesn’t have F-15s or nukes. But the average American doesn’t need a multi-million dollar fighter aircraft and the many millions of dollars worth of support, supplies, maintenance, and armament, if that private citizen is carrying a man portable air defense weapon that can keep Biden’s oppressive attacks at a distance.

    And keep in mind, any government leader who threatens his own citizens with nuclear weapons is NOT representing those people! Repeal the unconstitutional NFA.

  4. only criminals need regulated not law abiding citizens. if you want gun regulations why don’t you move to North Korea or China.

    • Yeah, the SOB used to belong to a local range I frequented. Popped off to me once about how awesome Kimbers are…just as the one he was shooting jammed…couldn’t help myself, I started laughing LOUDLY. He got all butthurt for some reason. Guy is a shill for Bloomberg et al. He is under the impression that his previous employment with Kimber in their Marketing Dept provides him with unassailable credentials to trash talk guns and the Second Amendment. Ryan Buzzard is just another Shannon Watts prostituting himself for personal ego and $$$.

      • Maybe not prostituting himself as literally as Shannon Watts but Bloomberg’s tastes may be flexible.

  5. “But how do we get folks to understand this, that when people say it’s about the Second Amendment, and the right to self-defense, people in war don’t carry the weapons that the average American has?”

    That’s a stupid thing to say.

    1. “people” in war, meaning the military which he so blatantly omitted. Its not an equal, intelligent, or reasonable comparison to say that. The military has a completely different context and they use weapons that are, considered, in law and context application to be “usually destructive/dangerous” thus are outside the 2A context of ‘common use’ and self-defense for the non-military ordinary law abiding “people” and those are (in terms of small arms) forbidden for the non-military ordinary law abiding “people”.

    2. Yes its about the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense for the ordinary law abiding “people”

    So yes, people in war don’t carry the weapons that the average American has. The average American has ‘weapons’ that are far less “usually destructive/dangerous” in their lawful uses overall than what “people in war” (meaning the military) have. There has been exactly zero cases where the lawful ownership/possession/use of a firearm by the average law abiding citizen has been “usually destructive/dangerous” and historically such lawful ownership/possession/use of a firearm by the average law abiding citizen has never been “usually destructive/dangerous”. There have been literally millions of cases where the ‘people in war’ (meaning the military) weapons are and have been literally and historically “usually destructive/dangerous” and remain so simply by their existence (according to government by their use and possession).

    Unless you plan to provide to every “average American” citizen their own personal protective detail of “people in war” (the military) so that we may have that self-defense capability by their presence; STFU about your ‘gun ownership’ and your personal views on the rights of the “average American” citizen especially trying to equate us on a military level for firearms as another way to say ‘assault rifle’ indirectly and imply we are somehow a danger to society simply because we exercise our rights and need to be ‘controlled’. I shudder to think what you are actually teaching your kids, that they should roll over and just give up their rights because some liberal comes along and says “hey, I own a gun but ya know what others shouldn’t”.

  6. These folks are particularly ignorant and their analogies are not relevant. We are not allowed to fly planes to bomb people, nor can the average gun owner own a fully auto machine gun, mini gun etc that shoots hundreds of around a minute, nor do we have cannons, tanks, mines, and a host of other things that kill people in war.
    Additonallly, comparing cars to gun is ludicrous because the Second Amendment has to do with protecting oneself and our nation as well as from our own Government from doing many of the things they are trying to do now. There are no restrictions on the number of cars or vehicles you can own so why should there be those things on guns. Motor Vehicles were not even in existence in the time the Constitution was created and they probably kill and injure far more people than firearms.
    The 2nd Amendment was included for clear purposes and there is no comparison whatsoever that justifies changing its intent. When you have the attacks on freedom today that we have from the Left in particular it makes it clear why you need a Second Amendment and its protections as stated in Bruen most recently. These people simply want power and control and it their policies which have created the uptick in violence.

  7. We used to have 3 TV networks and a newspaper or two in most cities. With the sheer number of media outlets, we need to control misinformation. This isn’t about the First Amendment. All media needs to be sent, along with a nominal fee, to a government office prior to publication or broadcast. We can have person, let’s call her a Cop Enforcing Not Sensible Or Realistic, who will evaluate it for falsehoods or icky ideas. After waiting a few weeks to get approval, the submitter can now freely exercise their First Amendment rights.

    • The Chiraq “news” is on board with people er gun control. I refuse to travel in the city because of thousands of mostly gang shootings. Thank the Dimscum© for that not legal,moral & ethical gun owner’s!

    • Are you serious?
      What you are proposing sounds a lot like government controlled media and censorship.

      Based off what we are seeing coming out of the Twitter Files, it is beginning to look like exactly that. Just the government is the ones sending, flagging so-called misinformation.

      • Think you missed the invisible sarcasm tag.
        “We can have person, let’s call her a Cop Enforcing Not Sensible Or Realistic (CENSOR), who will evaluate it for falsehoods or icky ideas.”

  8. President Clinton made a statement I never forgot, he looked directly at the camera with a genuine look of horror on his face and exclaimed ” For God sakes stop the madness”. He was talking about the gun madness in Capitalvania.

    The U.S. is rather a unique country it is a nation of immigrants. The Japanese have called the U.S. “The Mongrel Race”. Unfortunately the U.S. is not Mongrel enough yet. It is surprising how people seem to automatically know if the person they marry is of their “white ethnic tribe”. And therein lies America’s problem. We often criticize the Europeans for being constantly at each others throats with their moronic warfare but in the U.S. the various ethic white tribes still mistrust and hate each other with a passion and woe betide a person if he is a minority like an Asian, Latino or Black person because the whites (read that white cops) will gun them down like dogs in the street.

    The result of all this mistrust and hatred is a plethora of extreme violence. If there is any nation on earth that should ban all guns it is the immigrant nation of the U.S. simply because tribal instincts date back to the dawn of man when the Neanderthals were wiped out by Homo Sapiens. Put a gun in the hand of a naked ape in Capitalvania and he will use it on other naked apes and his wife is usually the first victim to be slaughtered.

    Paranoia permeates and dominates the twisted mind of the Far Right, they even go armed into the bathroom or to the mail box so reasoning with their twisted minds is impossible. In reality the overall death rate is far lower from firearms in countries with strict gun laws and lower even in Blue U.S. states (even though the “large cities” do have higher death rates from firearms in Blue and Red States).

    Every civilized nation on earth vets all gun purchases and has safe storage laws which result in “astronomically lower” death rates from firearms but the U.S. has been plagued by the disingenuous Second Amendment which has given the false impression to the Far Right that they even have the right to own machine guns, silencers, poison gas and atomic bombs. In reality 2A has never given them any gun rights rather it is the disingenuous courts and the legislatures that determine what gun rights they have.

    Sadly with the breakdown of family life where divorce is now the norm, not the exception, (as it actually was not when I grew up in the 50’s) and the destruction of the standard of living and workers rights, the violence has now gone completely out of control. Children no longer see any hope for a prosperous life that their great grandparents once had and they realized they probably will never have a permanent spouse and normal family life because they as children did not have one themselves. Children often result to taking drugs, and engaging in excess amounts of sex and violence. Even the very late Elvis Presley, a Conservative, sang a mournful song about an “Angry young man who lay down in the street with a gun in his hand”, that should have alarmed even most Conservatives back in the day.

    Even young adults realize that with Global Warming destroying the earth beneath their feet that they had better “get it all right now” because they will never live to see old age as impending famine and war are surely on the horizon and it will come much sooner than even the Scientists have predicted. Recently there has been an extreme “acceleration” of abnormal weather which has alarmed anyone and everyone with even the most miniscule amount of grey matter between their ears.

    What is even more sad and very surprising is that the young people who are part of the “upper elite” and well educated are now leaving the U.S. in large numbers permanently and usually for their country of “origin” in Europe. They are everywhere in Europe and many Asian born Americans are now leaving for their country of origin in the Far East. They are finding better paying jobs and a safer country to live in and more affordable health care. The are fed up with the violence in Capitalvania and the lack of a stable future. Tribalism is also a factor as more than one expat I have talked to has told me “I know where I came from originally and I know where I really belong”.

    Yes Capitalvania has already gone the way of the fall of the Roman Empire and we have gone down that same road as it is true “History does indeed repeat itself”. The blind greed, graft and corruption of Capitalvania has mirrored what happened in the Roman Empire, wild sex parties and orgies were not the cause of its downfall but only the result of the deterioration of its society and remember Rome also banned immigration as a scapegoat to cover up for Government sins and incompetence. Its ironic that immigration was the driving engine of Rome’s prosperity just as it once was in Capitalvania when millions of European immigrants flooded into the U.S. to work in its thriving industrial heartland. No more, all gone forever.

    The America I knew as a boy is now “Gone with the wind” for an eternity.

    • I would say your loxism is showing but we both know you are no where near relevant enough for that to apply properly. Stay mad we will keep buying guns with money from the jobs we work.

      • To Void in the head

        “Loxism”? Now you are showing your rabid racism by fantasizing that I am Jewish with zero evidence to support your cockeyed assumptions.

        You are so ignorant you do not realize that even though you were wrong in
        your racist assumptions you were indeed giving me a compliment by assuming that I am Jewish.

        Congratulations you may now sit at the head of the class of the Far Right Racists.

        • dacian the demented dips***,

          Wow. You respond to an ARGUABLY “racist” comment (being Jewish is NOT a race, you uneducated f***tard, it is a religion and POSSIBLY an ethnicity, but it is not a race), with . . . one of the most racist comments i’ve seen on this forum.

          Congratulations, you ignorant, uneducated f***tard, you just shat yourself.

        • LOL reading comprehension fail. Well good luck with your rants but damn guy you are easy to troll.

        • To the demented Lamp that went out in his head.

          Technically Jews are not a race but you are using deflection to mask the fact that Void has a rabid hatred for a religious group which in the U.S. is a minority religion. This is par for the course for the Far Right Fanatics.

          Your attempt at one upmanship was pathetic and ludicrous.

        • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, “Technically Jews are not a race…? Real Americans don’t “hate” people just because of their faith. The fanatics are you Leftist radicals trying to impose your controls over the people.
          Most of your posts are pathetic and ludicrious. But then you are like a one note song.

        • LEL bro it was a joke not a dick don’t take it so hard. But I guess you need to latch on to something to fill the emptiness in you that exceeds my screen name so screech on with your self righteous fascism. Also loxism doesn’t actually exist didn’t you read past the urban dictionary entry?

        • To Void in the head

          Do not try and squirm out of it. You were not joking and you fool no one but yourself.

          /ˈläckˌsizəm/
          noun
          a semi ironic ideology, that holds hatred for non-jewish (goyische) white people, and believes in jewish supremacy.

          -many white supremacists believe that all jews are loxists.

          And Void in the Head since you are a white supremacist it isn’t any wonder you accused me of Loxism.

        • Ooh yo caught me hail hortler. And hilariously I am still not even half as racist as you Jerry from Canton Ohio.

        • dacian, the DUNDERHEAD, There you go again. It seems that anti-semitism has been a hallmark of the you Leftists for sometime. It also seems that racism has also been a hallmark of the Left. I remind you of Margret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson? Two flaming racists and both Leftists.

        • dacian the demented dipshit,

          So, using PROPER words, in accordance with their ACTUAL meanings, is now “deflection” and “one upmanship” (child, my freakin’ DOG could one up you, and she’s not very smart)? Whatever it takes to make you think you are adequate (you’re not).

          Go back to Prince Albert and MinorLiar and your afternoon circle jerk; the adults are having a conversation.

    • … “America – the Mongrel Race”
      And then goes on with a perfect example of the pitfall of inbreeding.

    • ?the Neanderthals were not wiped out by Homo Sapiens.
      They were pro choice, they pro choiced their way right to extinction.

      • How do you know that Homo Sapiens did not wipe out the Neanderthal? There are a lot of questions about how and why they disappeared, but I believe that whatever else killed them off, Homo Sapiens contributed.

        The history of Homo Sapien contact with descendants of the Denisovans isn’t very encouraging. They are routinely crapped on, very much like any other aboriginal groups around the world.

    • Now I see you now have second stream of “PAY”, now that you all in on the “MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX”!!!!

  9. So we have 270 million cars and 40,000 annual traffic deaths. We have over 400 million guns and 12-14,000 annual firearms related deaths (ignoring suicide because it is obviously something else). So, guns are already safer than cars.

  10. Yawn…again.

    So many words making such little sense. These people are like Captain Ahab in their obsession, and their views are formed by their elitist bigotry.

    And, remind me again, how many people watch the show of that Kenyan born, Canadian raised Muslim of Indian descent, Velshi? He’s another in a long line of unassimilated immigrants who don’t share my values and come here to turn this Country into the same sort of crap hole they came from.

    F him, his “guests”, and everyone like him – control freak fascist tyrants, one and all.

  11. After all the gun-grabber rhetoric about “weapons of war”; guy clearly isn’t reading the memo correctly.

  12. Meanwhile approximately 700 people in the US died yesterday and everyday from medical malpractice but it wasnt on the news yesterday and it wont be on the news or Velshie today.

  13. We need more people with more gunms shooting more cars.
    Instead of bucks hunt Buicks, fair chase Chevy’s, Found On Road Deads, Dodge that mutha f’er, we’re not Toyota around anymore.

  14. The sad thing here, kids, is that by posting the MSNBC clip TTAG probably doubled the number of people who actually saw this BS in the first place… We don’t need to help them boost their ratings. 🙂

  15. All these long winded replies, I will make it simple. This FLZ on my chest stands for Frog Landing Zone, come and take it! Dacian, miner goes for you too. You gonna get me with a F15, let’s go. I’ll be as close to your assets as I can get. Missiles don’t have names on them either. When you can take it you can have it, I really don’t care if I die.

    • “Missiles don’t have names on them either“

      It’s not the one with your name on it you should be concerned about, it’s the one labeled ‘To Whom It May Concern’.

      • MINOR Miner49er. It might concern you that if you try taking my firearms without due process, you will find that I am no easy mark.

  16. Traffic laws, training, insurance, registration, licenses, etc… mean absolute fuck all if I decide to plow into a parade, craft fair, street dance, park, concert venue or anywhere else people are gathered.

    So what’s the point?

  17. Brain-dead anti-Second Amendment cultists. They probably hate the Bill of Rights altogether.

    • Probably?????

      I think their hatred for the BoR is obvious to even the most casual observer.

  18. “…people in war don’t carry the weapons that the average American has?”

    The speaker obviously knows nothing about the military, but strictly speaking, this statement is correct. When I served in a Marine rifle company, we carried rifles capable of firing full auto, belt-fed machine guns, mortars, grenade launchers, and disposable rockets with HE warheads. The only weapons we had that were in common civilian use were M1911 pistols issued as sidearms.

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

  20. Yes! Guns should be regulated like cars! Because laws and licensing requirements only apply to vehicles used on roads made by the government. There are absolutely no restrictions on the types or number of cars I can buy, sell, or own, and also no restrictions on who can drive them on private property. Also, like cars, most guns should be automatics and come equipped with mufflers.

  21. “…Still, Busse declared that a main reason for gun violence is ‘the NRA and the NSSF and an irresponsible slice of the American gun consumers…”

    And here I thought it was criminals committing “gun violence,” not NRA members.

    “Stupid” and “ignorant” doesn’t even begin to adequately describe these people.

  22. I want to see a list of things Busse owns so I can regulate them and determine the ones he don’t “need”. Maybe he’ll get the idea?

  23. Well i managed to wade thru the comments (except for the ones from miner and dacian and some of the replies to them) and didn’t see anyone mentioning that there are some 20,000+ ‘gun control’ laws in existence, hardly unregulated as busse intimates.
    I’ll ask (again) that when someone makes a reply they indicate to whom that reply is directed. That makes it clear and avoids some of the confusion that results. Oh and it makes it easier to follow the conversation.

Comments are closed.